TRAFFIC ANALYSIS REPORT - Home | Town of Eaton · Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan -----31 Figure 15....

EATON

CozzensLake

UPRR

UPRR

EatonPark

CR 70

CR 72

CR 74

CR 76

CR 78

CR 33

CR 35

CR 37

CR 39

CR 41

Collins St.

1st St.

3rd St.

5th St.

Chey

enne

Ave.

Oak A

ve.

Junip

er Av

e.

Elm Av

e.Ma

ple Av

e.

Waln

ut Av

e. Factory Rd.

10th St.Eagle Dr.

Black H

awk R

d.

Bluegrass St.

Harsh

Rd.

4th St. Rd.

Colorado Pkwy.Plains Dr.

Pione

er Place

Industrial Dr.

Settl

ers Dr.

7th St.

85

85

FELSBURGH O L T &U L L E V I Gprepared by:

Transportation PlanEATON

Adopted 11.21.2013

Preparedfor:

Town of Eaton 223 1st Street

Eaton, CO 80615

Adopted November 21st, 2013 by the Eaton Town Board

Preparedby:

Felsburg Holt & Ullevig 6300 South Syracuse Way, Suite 600

Centennial, CO 80111 303‐721‐1440

Project Manager: Jenny A. Young, PE, PTP Project Planner: Shea M. Suski

FHU Reference No. 10‐045‐09

FELSBURG HOLT & ULLEVIG

Page i

TABLE OF CONTENTS Page

Introduction -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1 Purpose ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1 Study Area ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1 Approach ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1 Planning Efforts in Study Area --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2 Transportation Goals and Policies ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 3

Inventory of Existing Conditions ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 5 Road Network ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 5 Railroad System ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 14 Transit ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 14 Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 16

Forecasted Growth ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 19 Land Use Forecasts --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 19 Future Traffic Forecasts --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 22

Long Range Transportation Plan --------------------------------------------------------------------------- 24 Roadway Plan ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 24 Transit Plan ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 28 Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 28 Street Standards ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 32 Access Control Policies ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 32

Plan Implementation -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 37 Identification of Projects -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 37 Project Prioritization ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 43 Funding ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 50

Recommendations ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 52

LIST OF APPENDICES Appendix A Public Comments Appendix B Land Use Forecast Assumptions Appendix C Opinions of Probable Costs


Page ii

LIST OF FIGURES Page

Figure 1. Existing Roadway System (Study Area) ----------------------------------------------------------------- 6 Figure 2. Existing Roadway System (In Town) --------------------------------------------------------------------- 7 Figure 3. Existing Traffic Control Devices (Study Area) ---------------------------------------------------------- 9 Figure 4. Existing Traffic Control Devices (In Town) ----------------------------------------------------------- 10 Figure 5. Existing Speed Limits -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 11 Figure 6. Current Daily Traffic Volumes --------------------------------------------------------------------------- 13 Figure 7. Railroad Inventory ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 15 Figure 8. Existing Pedestrian Facilities ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 17 Figure 9. Existing Shared Use Paths -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 18 Figure 10. Traffic Analysis Zones (TAZs) ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 20 Figure 11. 2035 Daily Traffic Forecasts on Existing Network -------------------------------------------------- 23 Figure 12. Roadway Plan ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 26 Figure 13. Potential Signalized Intersections ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 29 Figure 14. Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- 31 Figure 15. Arterial Typical Cross-Sections -------------------------------------------------------------------------- 33 Figure 16. Collector Typical Cross-Sections ------------------------------------------------------------------------ 34 Figure 17. Local Street Typical Cross-Sections -------------------------------------------------------------------- 35 Figure 18. Short Term Multi-Modal Improvement Projects --------------------------------------------------- 44 Figure 19. Mid Term Multi-Modal Improvement Projects ----------------------------------------------------- 45 Figure 20. Long Term Multi-Modal Improvement Projects ---------------------------------------------------- 46

LIST OF TABLES Table 1. 2035 Land Use Forecasts-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 21 Table 2. Planning Level Roadway Capacities ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 27 Table 3. Functional Classification Criteria and Design Characteristics ---------------------------------------------- 36 Table 4. Transportation Improvement Projects and Opinions of Probable Construction Costs -------------- 47


Page 1

INTRODUCTIONThe Town of Eaton is a community of approximately 4,400 residents located eight miles north of Greeley on US 85. The Town was incorporated in 1892 and is named after former Colorado governor Benjamin Harrison Eaton. Anticipating continued growth, the Town crafted a comprehensive plan in 2006 that defined future land use types and locations within the Town’s growth boundaries.

Purpose

Transportation is a major component of community planning, and the Town of Eaton has chosen to develop its first long range Transportation Plan. It contains a multimodal network plan that is intended to accommodate projected growth through 2035, and it includes a list of projects that would be necessary to realize this plan. Right‐of‐way requirements to accommodate build‐out of the community are also identified. This plan contains guidelines to assist staff and policy makers in reviewing development proposals and implementing transportation improvements. It is intended that this plan be flexible enough to accommodate future revisions and adjustments as conditions dictate.

StudyArea

The Eaton Comprehensive Plan (2006) defines two planning boundaries for the Eaton area: 1) the Urban Growth Area, where the Town defines future land use, and 2) a more expansive Comprehensive Plan Area. The study area for the Eaton Transportation Plan incorporates the Urban Growth Area plus additional adjacent land from the Comprehensive Plan Area. The boundaries of the study area include WCR 78 to the north, WCR 41 to the east, WCR 70 to the south, and WCR 31 to the west.

Approach

The development of the Transportation Plan involved a number of specific tasks, coordination, and feedback from the public, elected officials, and staff involved in the study. Using the transportation goals, policies, and objectives established in Eaton’s Comprehensive Plan (2006) as a starting point, the first task was the development of the policy framework for the plan. At the same time, an inventory of the existing transportation system and areas of deficiencies were documented so that immediate needs could be identified. Current and projected socio‐economic data were obtained and used to update the travel demand model that was used to project future traffic and identify future needs. A list of short term, mid term, and long term needs was developed that serves as the basis for the Capital Improvement Plan, and street standards were established. A Transportation Impact Fee has been evaluated as a part of the overall process and is documented in a separate report. The diagram on the following page depicts the sequence of the major work items comprising the transportation planning approach.

Benjamin Harrison Eaton statue


Page 2

An essential part of the transportation planning process has been public participation. The community outreach program solicited public input at two key phases in the process. The project team conducted an open house at Town Hall on March 19th, 2013 where citizens were given an opportunity to see existing conditions maps and provide their input on transportation needs and concerns by drawing on an aerial map and filling out a survey, either on-site or online. Approximately 20 citizens attended the open house event. While only five surveys were filled out at the event, another 34 were submitted online. A summary of the comments is included in the Appendix A.

Near the end of the planning process, the project team manned a Transportation Plan booth at Eaton Days on July 13th, 2013. The team presented the preliminary list of transportation improvements and asked for the public’s input on the improvements and what they felt should be the highest priority improvements for the Town. Approximately 35 citizens stopped at the Transportation Plan booth, most of whom provided verbal commentary on what improvements they would like to see implemented. A summary of the verbal and written comments is included in Appendix A.

A workshop to discuss the policy framework was held on January 17th, 2013 with the Town Board, and preliminary transportation improvements were presented at a Town Board meeting on June 20th, 2013.

Planning Efforts in Study Area There have been several planning efforts and studies completed in the Eaton area in recent years that have been prepared by both regional and local agencies. Each of these efforts, as listed below, has been used to varying degrees in the development of the Transportation Plan.

Eaton Comprehensive Plan, 2006

US 85 Access Control Plan, 1999

Town of Eaton Traffic and Safety Study, 2005

Weld County 2035 Transportation Plan, 2011

North Front Range 2035 Regional Transportation Plan Update, 2011

North Front Range MPO Regional Bike Plan, 2013


Page 3

Transportation Goals and Policies A workshop with Town Board members and staff was held to establish the policy framework for the Transportation Plan. Based on input received at the workshop, the following Goals and Objectives have been established to guide in the development of this plan and to provide direction for future transportation improvements.

Goal 1: Provide and maintain a transportation network that guarantees an adequate level of service to existing and future residents and businesses.

Policy 1-1: Extend and improve the transportation network to accommodate new growth while maintaining acceptable levels of service. Policy 1-2: Establish level of service standards and require traffic impact studies for proposed developments that identify needed improvements to mitigate traffic impacts. Policy 1-3: Ensure the transportation system efficiently accommodates freight movement within, to, and from the Town.

Goal 2: Implement, review, and update periodically, the long range transportation plan that will, using existing and proposed roads, accommodate motor vehicle users, bicyclists, and pedestrians.

Policy 2-1: Preserve right of way consistent with the long range needs identified in the Transportation Plan. Policy 2-2: Maintain and administer multimodal cross-sections and street construction standards that meet minimum Town requirements, while allowing for some flexibility in the design of planned developments. Policy 2-3: Cooperate with the Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT), the North Front Range Metropolitan Planning Organization (NFRMPO), Weld County, and adjacent communities to coordinate improvements to the area’s transportation system. Policy 2-4: Work with the CDOT to implement the recommendations of the US 85 Access Control Plan. Policy 2-5: Work with planning partners at the municipal, county, regional, state, and federal levels to pursue transportation funding. Policy 2-6: Explore alternative mechanisms for funding transportation improvements such as transportation impact fees or special improvement districts. Policy 2-7: Measure and document progress toward implementation of the transportation plan on a regular basis.


Page 4

Goal 3: Support the development of alternative transportation modes in the Town of Eaton to address the needs of citizens of all ages and abilities and to contribute to residents’ health and quality of life.

Policy 3-1: Explore the possibility of providing van service on a regular, but limited basis, to and from surrounding communities. As an alternative or in addition, assist in establishing a ride-share program to provide transportation for those in the community who cannot or do not desire to drive and encourage carpooling for those who commute daily to surrounding communities. Policy 3-2: Work with the Weld County Mobility Council and Human Services to ensure accessible transportation options and communicate transit options to the community. Policy 3-3: Assure that safe and convenient pedestrian/bicycle corridors, that connect different neighborhoods and community facilities (parks, recreation facilities and schools), are preserved and improved. Policy 3-4: Enhance pedestrian/bicycle accommodation, through the better use of sidewalks, bike lanes or other on-street accommodation, and shared use paths along natural features and in new developments. Policy 3-5: Work with the Great Western Trail Authority to fully implement the bicycle/pedestrian trail along the rail corridor, cooperate with the towns of Windsor and Severance to develop the remainder of the rail line as part of the regional trail system, and implement local connections to the trail corridor.

Policy 3-6: Increase the community members’ awareness of transportation options and resources through educational programs and community events.


Page 5

INVENTORY OF EXISTING CONDITIONS In order to understand how transportation is provided to Eaton residents, an inventory of the existing transportation system within the study area was conducted. This is an important part of the planning process since it becomes the starting point in identifying areas in need of improvement.

The roadway inventory includes a collection of data associated with the existing street system (e.g., laneage, paving, traffic control devices, posted speed limits, etc.) and the compilation of recent traffic counts recorded by All Traffic Data, Weld County, and the Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT). In addition to the roadway system, the inventory includes a multimodal inventory including railroad, bicycle, and pedestrian facilities.

Road Network

Roadway Conditions The principal component of Eaton’s transportation system is the roadway network, with major streets primarily located along mile-spaced section lines. Figures 1 & 2 illustrate the existing street system and surface types (paved versus gravel) of the roadway segments. Figures 1 & 2 also document lane and paved shoulder widths of the paved roadways. All of the roadways in the study area have two through lanes, with the exception of US 85 which has four through lanes (two in each direction). The paved roadways have lane widths generally ranging from 12 to 13 feet. US 85 and roadways within the Eaton Town Limits frequently have wide paved shoulders for pull-offs or on-street parking (typically 10 to 12 feet on each side), while the country roads outside of the Town Limits have no paved shoulders.

Regionally Significant Corridors The North Front Range Metropolitan Planning Organization (NFRMPO) has identified Regionally Significant Corridors throughout the region. These corridors serve as regional connections between North Front Range communities; within the Eaton area there are two such corridors: US 85 and WCR 74 / Collins Street.

US 85 is a major north-south expressway through northern Colorado. US 85 has four through lanes with a wide median. The US 85 Access Control Plan (1999) established future access improvements along the corridor including consolidation of accesses and intersection reconfigurations and improvements. US 85 is an important corridor for access to existing and future development in the Eaton study area, and provides a key connection south to Greeley and north to towns such as Ault, Pierce, and Nunn.

WCR 74 / Collins Street is an east-west roadway that bisects the Town of Eaton (known as Collins Street within Town Limits). It is a two-lane facility with some on-street parking within Eaton, but has no paved shoulders outside of Town Limits. To the west, WCR 74 provides Eaton a direct connection to the Town of Severance, I-25, and Ft. Collins. WCR 74 to the east provides access for rural areas.

US 85 through Eaton

Existing Roadway System (Study Area)Figure 1

Eaton Transportation Plan 10-045-09 08/14/13 NORTHFelsburg Holt & Ullevig


EATON

CozzensLake

UPRR

UPRR

EatonPark

Legend

Paved Roads

Gravel Roads NB/WB PavedShoulders/Parking

NB/WBLane Width

SB/EBLane Width

SB/EB PavedShoulders/Parking

0 | 12 | 12 | 0 0 | 12 | 12 | 0

0 | 12 | 12 | 0

0 | 12 | 12 | 0

0 | 12 | 12 | 0

0 | 13 | 13 | 0

0 | 12 | 12 | 0

0 | 12 | 12 | 0

0 | 12 | 12 | 0 0 | 12 | 12 | 0

0 | 12 | 12 | 0

0 | 12 | 12 | 00 | 12 | 12 | 0

0 | 12 | 12 | 0

0 | 12 | 12 | 0

0 | 12 | 12 | 0

0 | 13 | 13 | 0 0 | 13 | 13 | 0 0 | 12 | 12 | 0 0 | 12 | 12 | 0

0 | 12 | 12 | 00 | 13 | 13 | 0

0 | 10 | 13 | 0

0 | 12 | 12 | 0

CR 70

CR 72

CR 74

CR 76

CR 78

CR 33

CR 35

CR 37

CR 39

CR 41

Collins St.

1st St.

3rd St.

5th St.

Chey

enne

Ave.

Oak A

ve.

Junip

er Av

e.

Elm Av

e.Ma

ple Av

e.

Waln

ut Av

e. Factory Rd.10th St.

Eagle Dr.

Black H

awk R

d.

Bluegrass St.

Harsh

Rd.

4th St. Rd.


Pione

er Place

Industrial Dr.

Settl

ers Dr.

7th St.

85

85

Page 6

Existing Roadway System (In Town)Figure 2



EATON

UPRR

UPRR

EatonPark

Legend

Paved Roads

Gravel Roads NB/WB PavedShoulders/Parking

NB/WBLane Width

SB/EBLane Width

SB/EB PavedShoulders/Parking

CR 72

CR 74

CR 76

CR 78

CR 39

CR 35

CR 37

Collins St.

1st St.

3rd St.

5th St.

Chey

enne

Ave.

Oak A

ve.

Junip

er Av

e.

Elm Av

e.

Maple

Ave.

Park

Ave.

4th St.

Waln

ut Av

e.

Cherry A

ve.

Carriage Dr.

Plains Dr.

Pio

neer Place

Ridge

Rd.

Moun

ntai

n View Dr

.

Colorado Pkwy.Buck

eye A

ve.

Ceda

r Ave

.

Factory Rd.

Industrial Dr.

Oak Dr.

4th St. Rd.

3rd St.Sy

cam

ore A

ve.

Hick

ory A

ve.

Laur

el Av

e.

Willo

w A

ve.

5th St.

6th St.

7th St.

10th St.

Eagle Dr.

Black Haw

k Rd.

Red Tail R d.

CR 37

Settl

ers Dr.

Bluegrass St.

Elm St. Harsh

Rd.

CR 39

CR 35

0 | 13 | 13 | 9

0 | 12 | 12 | 0

11 | 13 | 13 | 9

9 | 13 | 13 | 0

20 | 13 | 13 | 0

12 | 13 | 13 | 0

12 | 13 | 13 | 2

0 | 12 | 12 | 0

0 | 12 | 12 | 0

10 | 12 | 12 | 10

10 | 12 | 12 | 10

0 | 12 | 12 | 0

10 | 12 | 12 | 10

Page 7


Page 8

Traffic Control Devices Figures 3 & 4 illustrate the existing traffic control devices in the Eaton study area, with most rural intersections and important intersections within Eaton documented. The purpose of intersection traffic control is to ensure safe and efficient traffic operation by assigning right-of-way between conflicting traffic streams. This assignment of right-of-way provides uniform and predictable movements of vehicles and pedestrians. Typical intersection traffic control may consist of a traffic signal or a STOP sign on the minor street approaches. There is currently one signalized intersection in the planning area; this signal is located at the intersection of US 85 & Collins Street. All four-way intersections of section-line roads have stop sign control on the minor street approach, and several “T” intersections have no control. Several intersections within Town Limits have all-way stop sign control, while a few intersections with dead-end roadways have no control (noted by purple dots in Figure 4).

An inventory of existing speed limits was performed and is shown on Figure 5. County roads which are currently unpaved have no posted speed limits. Posted speed limits on paved roads outside of Town Limits are also somewhat sparse. WCR 33 north of WCR 72, WCR 37 north and south of Eaton, and WCR 76 west of US 85 are all unsigned. In general, posted speed limits on paved roads outside of Town Limits are 55 miles per hour (mph), with the exception of 45 mph on WCR 74 and WCR 76 east of Eaton. US 85 is 65 mph outside of the Town Limits.

Posted speed limits within Eaton vary significantly depending on land use, density, and road purpose. Local roads without connectivity outside of Eaton are generally 20-25 mph. Regional County roads such as Cheyenne Avenue (WCR 37) and Collins Street (WCR 74) are signed anywhere from 25 mph up to 45 mph, with lower speeds through the more developed central sections of Eaton and higher speeds near the Town boundaries. US 85 is 35 mph through the middle of Eaton, 50 mph just south of Collins Street to the southern Town boundary, and 55 mph north of 5th Street to the northern Town boundary. In general, speeds are lower west of US 85 and north of Collins Street as there is more development and a number of schools. Speed limits and traffic observations should be monitored in the future as growth occurs to make sure that vehicular speeds remain within appropriate and safe ranges.

Intersection of US 85 & WCR 74 / Collins Street

Existing Traffic Control Devices (Study Area)Figure 3



EATON

CozzensLake

UPRR

UPRR

EatonPark

Legend

Traffic Signal

Stop Sign

No Traffic Control

CR 70

CR 72

CR 74

CR 76

CR 78

CR 33

CR 35

CR 37

CR 39

CR 41

Collins St.

1st St.

3rd St.

5th St.

Chey

enne

Ave.

Oak A

ve.

Junip

er Av

e.

Elm Av

e.Ma

ple Av

e.

Waln

ut Av


Eagle Dr.

Black H

awk R

d.

Bluegrass St.

Harsh

Rd.

4th St. Rd.


Pione

er Place

Industrial Dr.

Settl

ers Dr.

7th St.

85

85

Oak A

eer PlPP all cecc

Page 9

Existing Traffic Control Devices (In Town)Figure 4



EATON

UPRR

UPRR

EatonPark

Legend

Traffic Signal

Stop Sign

No Traffic Control

CR 72

CR 74

CR 76

CR 78

CR 39

CR 35

CR 37

Collins St.

1st St.

3rd St.

5th St.

Chey

enne

Ave.

Oak A

ve.

Junip

er Av

e.

Elm Av

e.

Maple

Ave.

Park

Ave.

4th St.

Waln

ut Av

e.

Cherry A

ve.

Carriage Dr.

Plains Dr.

Pioneer Place

Ridge

Rd.

Moun

ntai

n View Dr

.

Colorado Pkwy.Buck

eye A

ve.

Ceda

r Ave

.

Factory Rd.

Industrial Dr.

Oak Dr.

4th St. Rd.

3rd St.Sy

cam

ore A

ve.

Hick

ory A

ve.

Laur

el Av

e.

Willo

w A

ve.

5th St.

6th St.

7th St.

10th St.

Eagle Dr.

Black Haw

k Rd.

Red Tail R d.

CR 37

Settl

ers Dr.

Bluegrass St.

Elm St. Harsh

Rd.

CR 39

CR 35

St.

85

85

Oa

ve.

Ju

CCCherry

CChCChCCCCCCChC

unipe

r Arp

unpp

ak Av

e.vakap

leM

kEaEaEaEatoEatoEatonnn

Avee

mAvv

aple

aplee e eeve

.rk

AAArk

AAArk

AAA

Vnt

attin

VVVi VVeiww

Vi VVin

VVV

w

arriagri

M

ve.

Page 10

Existing Speed LimitsFigure 5



EATON

CozzensLake

UPRR

UPRR

EatonPark

LegendPosted Speed Limit

No Posted Speed

20 mph

25 mph

30 mph

35 mph

45 mph

50 mph

55 mph

65 mph

CR 70

CR 72

CR 74

CR 76

CR 78

CR 33

CR 35

CR 37

CR 39

CR 41

Collins St.

1st St.

3rd St.

5th St.

Chey

enne

Ave.

Oak A

ve.

Junip

er Av

e.

Elm Av

e.Ma

ple Av

e.

Waln

ut Av


Eagle Dr.

Black H

awk R

d.

Bluegrass St.

Harsh

Rd.

4th St. Rd.


Pione

er Place

Industrial Dr.

Settl

ers Dr.

7th St.

85

85

Page 11


Page 12

Traffic Volumes Weld County and CDOT collect traffic volume information on a regular basis. In the Eaton study area, Weld County traffic counts were conducted at different locations from 2006 through 2009, with most east-west counts occurring in 2006 and most north-south counts occurring in 2009. Figure 6 shows these counts and the year they were taken, along with supplemental counts conducted in 2013 as part of this planning study. Higher traffic volumes are experienced on US 85 and on Collins Street (the major regional east-west highway in Eaton). Through downtown Eaton, US 85 carries 11,700 vehicles per day (vpd), while Collins Street carries 4,800-5,300 vpd through town. The rest of the paved county roads in the study area carry fewer than 2,000 vpd and gravel roads carry less than 150 vpd.

A level of service (LOS) analysis was performed for the intersection of US 85 and Collins Street to determine how well the intersection operates. Level of service takes into account traffic volumes during the morning and evening peak hours and characteristics of an intersection to assign a letter grade (A-F), acting like a report card grade as to how much delay drivers experience at an intersection. Typically a LOS of D or better is considered to represent acceptable conditions during peak hour traffic, while LOS E and F represent a breakdown in operations resulting in congestion. Currently the US 85 and Collins Street intersection operates at a LOS B in the morning and LOS A in the evening.

Crash History Crash data were collected over the three year period from June 2009 through June 2012 within the Town Limits and on US 85 for the whole study area. There were a total of 75 crashes that occurred on US 85 between SH 14 and SH 392 during that time span, of which 8 occurred within Town Limits and another 5 occurring near the Town’s boundaries. Overturns, colliding with fixed objects, and rear ends were the predominant crash types recorded. Of the eight crashes within Town Limits, all occurred between Collins Street and the southern boundary. Intersections of US 85 with Collins Street and with WCR 70 experienced the greatest number of crashes in the study area.

Crash data from the Eaton Police Department verified that the US 85 and Collins Street intersection has the greatest number of crashes within Town Limits. The only other intersections within Town Limits that had more than two crashes during the three-year analysis period are Collins Street / WCR 35 and Collins Street / WCR 39.

Current Daily Traffic VolumesFigure 6



EATON

CozzensLake

UPRR

UPRR

EatonPark

Legend

XXXX

XXXX

XXXX

XXXX

2006 Counts

2007 Counts

2008 Counts XXXX 2012 Counts

XXXX 2013 Counts XXXX % Trucks2009 Counts

= AM(PM) Peak Hour Traffic Volumes

= AM/PM Peak Hour Signalized Intersection Level of Service

XXX(XXX)

X/X

CR 70

CR 72

CR 74

CR 76

CR 78

CR 33

CR 35

CR 37

CR 39

CR 41

Collins St.

1st St.

3rd St.

5th St.

Chey

enne

Ave.

Oak A

ve.

Junip

er Av

e.

Elm Av

e.Ma

ple Av

e.

Waln

ut Av


Eagle Dr.

Black H

awk R

d.

Bluegrass St.

Harsh

Rd.

4th St. Rd.


Pione

er Place

Industrial Dr.

Settl

ers Dr.

7th St.

B/A

86(59)131(118)68(95)

47(94)86(129)91(23)

48(5

2)44

2(32

7)82

(54)

76(1

03)

249(

368)

44(4

9)35

459 4591662

64 54 24 87 75

112 111 101 60111

970

1064 13

03

108

156

1094

101

144

130

117

3116

351

834 11

3712

86

1146

1916

1764

1756

1926

9400

10%

9800

10%1052 896

5046 4806 52703%

2606

85

85

B

US 85 and Collins St. (WCR 74)Turning Movement Countsand Level of Service

Page 13


Page 14

Railroad System The Union Pacific Railroad (UPRR) is a Class One Railroad serving the Eaton area. A Class One railroad is one with gross operating revenues of $50 million or more annually for railroad operations. The UPRR runs through the eastern portion of Eaton along the east side of US 85, as shown on Figure 7. There is also a parallel spur to the east off the UPRR main line that runs for approximately ½ mile from just south of Collins Street to near the intersection of US 85 and 4th Street. The main line has a single track outside of Eaton and up to four tracks within Town Limits, while the spur has two tracks. Approximately 16 trains per day pass through Eaton on the main line traveling 60-80 mph, and about 8 trains per day use the spur traveling up to 5 mph.

All railroad crossings in the study area are at-grade crossings. Three of the railroad crossings in the study area have both signage and gates, six have only stop signs, and two have only yield signs. Figure 7 also displays each crossing with their respective control type. Within Town Limits, there are three railroad crossings: two at Collins Street and one at 10th Street. Five crossings occur in unincorporated pockets within Eaton: one each at WCR 72, 1st Street, 2nd Street, 5th Street, and Factory Road.

The crossings within and near Town Limits are primarily in the industrial area bordering the eastern side of US 85 through Eaton. The exception is the crossing at 5th Street, which serves residential areas east of downtown Eaton.

Discussions are underway to build a new freight trans-load facility on the site of the former sugar factory (1st Street and Factory Road) next to the UPRR tracks. This facility would allow for the transfer of such goods as oil and gas materials and agricultural products between trucks and railcars. It is estimated that as many as 50 trucks per day could be accessing the facility.

Transit Presently there is very little transit service in the Eaton area. The only existing service is the Non-Emergent Medical Transportation (NEWT) program operated by First Transit that serves a number of counties, including Weld County. This service is only available to Medicaid clients with no other means of transportation and need transport to a Medicaid medical appointment.

Railroad crossing of Collins Street, east of US 85

Railroad InventoryFigure 7



EATON

CozzensLake

UPRR

UPRR

EatonPark

LegendRailroad Crossing with Signs, Stop Sign Controlled

Railroad Crossing with Signs, Yield Sign Controlled

Railroad Crossing with Gates and Signs

Average Number of Trains per DayX

16

8

16

CR 70

CR 72

CR 74

CR 76

CR 78

CR 33

CR 35

CR 37

CR 39

CR 41

Collins St.

1st St.

3rd St.

5th St.

Chey

enne

Ave.

Oak A

ve.

Junip

er Av

e.

Elm Av

e.Ma

ple Av

e.

Waln

ut Av


Eagle Dr.

Black H

awk R

d.

Bluegrass St.

Harsh

Rd.

4th St. Rd.


Pione

er Place

Industrial Dr.

Settl

ers Dr.

7th St.

85

85

Page 15


Page 16

Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities

Pedestrian Facilities Sidewalks and shared use trails generally serve the purpose of providing pedestrian access between neighborhoods, to commercial areas, and for recreational purposes. Streets within the Town Limits generally have continuous attached sidewalks that are typically 4 feet in width. Detached sidewalks are prevalent within the central residential portion of Eaton, generally between the area bounded by 5th Street to the north, Collins Street to the south, Elm Avenue to the east, and Park Avenue to the west. Most areas missing sidewalks have no development on that side of the roadway and would not provide any additional connectivity at this time. Exceptions include the north side of Collins Street between Juniper Street and Ash Avenue, portions of 5th Street east of Birch Avenue, US 85 from the northern boundary to roughly 3rd Street, and some small areas near the Heritage Market. The Hawkstone development also has some cul-de-sacs that are missing sidewalks on all sides, and the main loop (Eagle Drive / Hawkstone Drive) has a shared use trail only on one side at any given time. No pedestrian connectivity exists between the main portion of Town to either the Hawkstone development or the Eaton Commons neighborhood. Figure 8 maps existing attached and detached sidewalks.

Four shared use paths currently exist within Eaton. The Great Western Bike & Pedestrian Trail, which is an unpaved regional trail utilizing former railroad right of way, enters the study area from the west and runs parallel to 5th Street on the north side until it ends just before US 85. The Hawkstone development has a paved shared use trail that runs along Eagle Drive and Hawkstone Drive. A paved trail exists on the west side of Elm Street from Collins Street to Colorado Parkway. The last shared use trail is a paved trail that runs along the north and east sides of the Governor’s Ranch development. Figure 9 maps each of these shared use paths.

Bicycle Facilities Bikeways principally serve two purposes: recreation and transportation (often for commuting). The design of bikeways differs considerably for each of these purposes. Commuting bicyclists often want to ride the most direct route from their origin to their destination. Recreational cyclists, on the other hand, prefer to ride on either detached shared use trails or streets with low traffic volumes. To date, the Town of Eaton does not have any dedicated bicycle facilities. The paved shared use trails described above provide localized access for bicyclists, while the Great Western Bike & Pedestrian Trail can be used by recreational cyclists for travel to the east of Eaton.

Shared use path in the Hawkstone development

Existing Pedestrian FacilitiesFigure 8



EATON

UPRR

UPRR

EatonPark

Legend

Detached Shared Use Trail

Attached Sidewalk

Detached Sidewalk

No Sidewalk or Trail

CR 72

CR 74

CR 76

CR 78

CR 39

CR 35

CR 37

Collins St.

1st St.

3rd St.

5th St.

Chey

enne

Ave.

Oak A

ve.

Junip

er Av

e.

Elm Av

e.

Maple

Ave.

Park

Ave.

4th St.

Waln

ut Av

e.

Cherry A

ve.

Carriage Dr.

Plains Dr.

Pio

neer Place

Ridge

Rd.

Moun

ntai

n View Dr

.

Colorado Pkwy.Buck

eye A

ve.

Ceda

r Ave

.

Factory Rd.

Industrial Dr.

Oak Dr.

4th St. Rd.

3rd St.Sy

cam

ore A

ve.

Hick

ory A

ve.

Laur

el Av

e.

Willo

w A

ve.

5th St.

6th St.

7th St.

10th St.

Eagle Dr.

Black Haw

k Rd.

Red Tail R d.

CR 37

Settl

ers Dr.

Bluegrass St.

Elm St. Harsh

Rd.

CR 39

CR 35

Page 17

Existing Shared Use PathsFigure 9



EATON

CozzensLake

UPRR

UPRR

EatonPark

Legend

Existing Shared Use Path

CR 70

CR 72

CR 74

CR 76

CR 78

CR 33

CR 35

CR 37

CR 39

CR 41

Collins St.

1st St.

3rd St.

5th St.

Chey

enne

Ave.

Oak A

ve.

Junip

er Av

e.

Elm Av

e.Ma

ple Av

e.

Waln

ut Av


Eagle Dr.

Black H

awk R

d.

Bluegrass St.

Harsh

Rd.

4th St. Rd.


Pione

er Place

Industrial Dr.

Settl

ers Dr.

7th St.

85

85

Page 18


Page 19

FORECASTED GROWTH In order to properly identify potential improvement projects for Eaton’s transportation system, it is important to first understand the nature and volume of traffic in the planning area in the future. It is also useful to understand existing traffic flow patterns, as presented in the previous chapter. To help facilitate these analyses, the NFR Fiscally Constrained transportation model was used. The model gives the ability to not only analyze the study area, but also provides a regional context of traffic flows.

Two basic inputs to the NFR computer model are the land use estimates and the transportation network. The amount of traffic which different types of land uses (residential, retail, office, industrial, etc.) generate has been measured for the North Front Range and around the country. The amount of development (number of households or square feet of businesses) can then be used to determine the volume of traffic that will be generated from any specified area. In order to develop these specific allocations of residential and commercial development throughout the North Front Range, the NFRMPO has subdivided its planning area into traffic analysis zones (TAZs). In order to more accurately forecast future traffic volumes and patterns in the Eaton planning area, the original 9 TAZs representing the area were further subdivided into 34 zones. Figure 10 shows the 23 TAZs within the project study area where land use was adjusted to match the Eaton Comprehensive Plan.

The current NFR 2035 Fiscally Constrained transportation network was used as the starting point for the modeling effort in Eaton, with locally-significant roadways added to assist in analysis for this plan. This network includes those improvement projects which are committed over the next six years plus the projects which are included in the Fiscally Constrained list of the North Front Range 2035 Regional Transportation Plan. In the Eaton planning area, there are no improvement projects included in the Fiscally Constrained Plan.

Land Use Forecasts The NFR base year model includes estimates of the number of households and employees for the year 2009. These estimates have been adjusted based on input from Town staff and the Existing Land Use map from Eaton’s Comprehensive Plan to reflect current conditions within the Urban Growth Area. Within this planning area (which is significantly larger in area than the Town), there are an estimated 2,070 households and 1,533 employees. The model assumes that the average household population in Eaton is 2.77 persons; therefore the estimated population within the planning area is 5,737. The State Demographer’s Office estimates that the Town itself has a population of 4,449 (in 2011); the land surrounding Eaton is primarily agricultural with some small groupings of single-family homes.

Eaton’s Comprehensive Plan (2006) identifies future land uses (zoning) within the Town Limits and indicates the desired or prescribed use of the land outside the Town Limits but within the Urban Growth Area. The areas of each TAZ that are being used for existing development, are planned for a specific development, or are un-developable (reservoirs, flood plain, or future parks, wetlands and roadways) were discounted from the total acreage of each TAZ. The future land uses and densities on remaining “developable” land were estimated for full build-out of the planning area and were programmed into the NFR 2035 base model, replacing the base land use developed by the MPO in order to more closely represent the Town’s build-out plans. Documentation of all land use forecasting assumptions is included in Appendix B.

Traffic Analysis Zones (TAZs)Figure 10



EATON

CozzensLake

UPRR

UPRR

EatonPark

Legend

TAZ Boundary and NumberXXX

EAT

EatonEatonParkPark

TON

UPRR

EAAAAAAAA

CR 70

CR 72

CR 74

CR 76

CR 78

CR 33

CR 35

CR 37

CR 39

CR 41

Collins St.

1st St.

3rd St.

5th St.

Chey

enne

Ave.

Oak A

ve.

Junip

er Av

e.

Elm Av

e.Maple

Ave.

Waln

ut Av


Eagle Dr.

Black H

awk R

d.

Bluegrass St.

Harsh

Rd.

4th St. Rd.


Pione

er Place

Industrial Dr.

Settl

ers Dr.

7th St.

621 623 1034

1028

1046

1036

1044

1033

1030

torryy y y RdRdRdRd..t

yyyy1031Ha

rshhRd1032

6361042

grasss St

olool rarr ddodd PPkkPP wyyw .yy

634

ATTON1039

aini s Drr.rr

632

10261st S

10273rd Stt.3 d

kakkak AvAvAvAv

eeeeAvAvAvAv

e.eeeAAA

v.e.apMap

Mapappppppp

le le le leAAAA

pppplleleleleAAA

ppppAvAAvAA

ppp622

10241023 1029

85

85

Page 20


Page 21

2035 Forecasts The resulting 2035 land use forecasts by TAZ are provided in Table 1. By 2035, over 8,600 households are projected in the planning area (12% growth annually), which corresponds to a population of approximately 24,500 (13% growth annually). An estimated 4,900 jobs are projected in the Eaton planning area by 2035 (8% growth annually).

Table 1. 2035 Land Use Forecasts

TAZ Households Retail

Employment Service

Employment Production

Employment Total

Employment 621 476 4 133 70 207 622 197 97 186 0 283 623 917 0 0 15 15 624 87 0 1 3 4 632 681 0 85 0 85 633 11 0 0 0 0 634 179 190 308 153 651 636 7 0 0 534 534 637 13 0 0 2 2

1022 4 0 0 53 53 1023 646 0 0 10 10 1024 661 0 136 71 207 1025 46 41 49 198 288 1026 267 0 81 0 81 1027 451 0 220 0 220 1028 312 0 15 0 15 1029 825 0 0 304 304 1030 429 0 0 0 0 1031 3 20 71 266 357 1032 0 50 21 509 580 1033 0 30 10 242 282 1034 526 0 0 2 2 1035 9 0 0 3 3 1036 337 0 0 3 3 1037 8 0 0 3 3 1038 10 0 0 3 3 1039 770 0 5 0 5 1040 2 0 0 0 0 1041 12 0 0 1 1 1042 364 113 284 142 539 1043 2 0 0 15 15 1044 346 0 1 100 101 1045 20 0 0 2 2 1046 5 6 20 0 26 Total 8,623 551 1,626 2,704 4,881


Page 22

Future Traffic Forecasts The future travel demand patterns in the Eaton area and the North Front Range region are primarily a function of the population and employment opportunities in the area. The household and employment data outlined in the previous sections were used as input to the NFR travel demand model. The model provided traffic forecasts on the various street networks that were used to assess improvement needs. These forecasted volumes could then be used to identify deficiencies in the roadway network and to evaluate the effectiveness of alternatives. The forecasted 2035 traffic volumes on the existing network are shown on Figure 11.

An LOS analysis was again performed for the US 85 and Collins Street intersection but using peak hour traffic volumes derived from the growth forecasted for 2035. The morning peak hour declined from an LOS B today to an LOS D in 2035. This noticeable decrease in level of service is predominantly due to increased delay for westbound right turns since there is no dedicated turn lane, and due to an increased volume of northbound left turn movements. In contrast, the evening peak hour declined slightly from an LOS A today to an LOS B in 2035.

US 85 and Collins Street

2035 Daily Traffic Forecastson Existing Network

Figure 11



EATON

CozzensLake

UPRR

UPRR

EatonPark

Legend

XXXX 2035 Forecasts

= AM(PM) Peak Hour Traffic Volumes

= AM/PM Peak Hour Signalized Intersection Level of Service

XXX(XXX)

X/X

CR 70

CR 72

CR 74

CR 76

CR 78

CR 33

CR 35

CR 37

CR 39

CR 41

Collins St.

1st St.

3rd St.

5th St.

Chey

enne

Ave.

Oak A

ve.

Junip

er Av

e.

Elm Av

e.Ma

ple Av

e.

Waln

ut Av


Eagle Dr.

Black H

awk R

d.

Bluegrass St.

Harsh

Rd.

4th St. Rd.


Pione

er Place

Industrial Dr.

Settl

ers Dr.

7th St.

D/B

200(150)230(200)180(230)

80(160)150(230)

160(40)

80(9

0)10

90(7

90)

190(

140)

140(

180)

620(

930)

120(

130)

1500

2400 70006800

1100 600 2700 3200 100

800 400 400 700200

2800

3400 43

00

700

700

3000

200

200

300

200

9200

1800

2300 43

0031

00

4200

6200

8500

5800

5700

20,2

0021

,300

1700 5700

8500 7700 8000 2700

85

85

D

US 85 and Collins St. (WCR 74)Turning Movement Forecastsand Level of Service

Page 23


Page 24

LONG RANGE TRANSPORTATION PLAN The long range transportation plan was developed from a number of elements including existing conditions, projected growth, public input, and the transportation goals and objectives. This multimodal plan provides an outline of recommended projects as well as their timing and an order of magnitude cost. The plans for each mode of transportation should not be considered a static document but should be reviewed and updated as conditions and basic assumptions change, such as the adoption of a new Comprehensive Plan, changes in forecasted growth, and different goals and objectives expressed by residents.

Roadway Plan Existing streets in Eaton generally operate well, with minimum congestion except as a result of school drop-off/pick-up traffic and occasional blockage caused by trains crossing at-grade crossings or large freight trucks turning through the US 85 and Collins Street intersection. The Roadway Plan focuses on providing a well planned system of streets for the future. The Roadway Plan shown in Figure 12 was developed to accommodate future traffic demands as well as to provide continuity and access to developing lands.

Functional Classification The Roadway Plan illustrates the functional classification of each road, which defines the relative functional levels of mobility and access assigned to the roadway. The primary function of a roadway is to provide either a high level of mobility (where higher speeds occur and direct land access is restricted) or to provide a high level of accessibility (where speeds are lower and direct land access is emphasized). These two functions, mobility and access, are in conflict; the more access is allowed by a facility, the greater its capacity for mobility is reduced. Freeways, expressways, and arterials have the highest levels of mobility but have the greatest restrictions on access. Local streets serve greater access needs but have reduced capacity for traffic movement. Collectors typically provide a balance of accessibility and mobility. The primary determinates of functional classification are length of trip, average travel speed, frequency of access points, and continuity. Traffic volumes, while often higher on mobility facilities, do not by themselves determine roadway function.

To further clarify the distinction between the mobility and the accessibility function, the following descriptions of roadway types and Table 2 present general characteristics for various types of roadway functions:

Expressways have limited access, typically via a combination of at-grade intersections and grade-separated interchanges, typically spaced approximately one mile apart. Expressways provide high speed, unimpeded regional connections.

Major Arterials generally have limited access, typically via signalized or unsignalized at-grade intersections at one-half to one mile spacing. Major arterials provide relatively high speed, unimpeded, town-wide and regional connections. There may be direct access where they pass by existing homes, but future development should provide internal street systems and limit or prohibit individual direct access to the major arterial.


Page 25

Minor Arterials also generally have limited access, typically via signalized or unsignalized at-grade intersections at one-half to one mile spacing. Minor arterials provide relatively high speed (though often slightly lower than major arterials), unimpeded, town-wide connections. There may be direct access where they pass by existing homes, but future development should provide internal street systems and limit or prohibit individual direct access to the minor arterial.

Collectors may provide direct access to abutting properties, but this is not encouraged in residential areas. Intersections are at-grade and typically have some form of traffic control (stop signs). They provide connections between local streets and arterials and usually retain continuity through neighborhoods. Collector streets are typically identified through development plans and thus are not specifically identified in the Roadway Plan other than those that already exist. The Town should work with developers to identify these future road alignments and to encourage developers to provide a system of collectors that enhance the grid network and minimizes discontinuous, curvilinear alignments. Collectors within developing areas should be located opposite each other at arterial intersections, to minimize the number of offset T-intersections along an arterial corridor.

Local Streets serve the highest level of access, providing direct driveway access to adjacent properties and carrying traffic to the collectors. Local streets can be of limited continuity and may be designed to discourage through traffic.

The Roadway Plan shown in Figure 12 includes US 85 as the only expressway within the planning area. This facility is controlled by CDOT, and any future development along it which requires access will be governed by the State Highway Access Code. Collins Street (WCR 74) and Cheyenne Avenue (WCR 37) through Eaton, along with most of the other section-line county roads in the planning area have been identified as major arterials. The remaining section-line county roads in the planning area, most of which are currently gravel roads, have been identified as minor arterials. Colorado Parkway (both existing and proposed segments), 5th Street, Juniper Avenue, and access roads into the Governor’s Ranch and Hawkstone developments have been identified as collectors. Roadways that are built to provide access onto arterials for other future developments are recommended to be classified as collectors as well. Because these roads primarily serve traffic internal to future development, their alignments will be located as development plans for specific areas are initiated.

Based on the forecasted traffic volumes for 2035, future travel demands can be accommodated on 2-lane arterials, collectors, and local roads. The only new roadway connections that have been identified are those that have been identified previously by the Town and other plans. Some roads may require widening to adhere to their respective cross-section design standards, which are described in detail later in this chapter. In these instances, right-of-way should be preserved for future widening. Details about the improvements needed to realize the Roadway Plan are included in the Plan Implementation chapter.

Roadway PlanFigure 12



EATON

CozzensLake

UPRR

UPRR

EatonPark

Legend

US Highway

Major Arterial (2 lanes)

Minor Arterial (2 lanes)

Collector (2 lanes)

Local Street (2 lanes)

Future Collector

CR 70

CR 72

CR 74

CR 76

CR 78

CR 33

CR 35

CR 37

CR 39

CR 41

Collins St.

1st St.

3rd St.

5th St.

Chey

enne

Ave.

Oak A

ve.

Junip

er Av

e.

Elm Av

e.Ma

ple Av

e.

Waln

ut Av


Eagle Dr.

Black H

awk R

d.

Bluegrass St.

Harsh

Rd.

4th St. Rd.


Pione

er Place

Industrial Dr.

Settl

ers Dr.

7th St.

85

85

Page 26


Page 27

Table 2. Planning Level Roadway Capacities

Characteristics

Functional Priority

Expressways Major

Arterials Minor

Arterials Collectors Local Streets

Priority

Mobility only Mobility primary, accessibility secondary

Mobility primary, accessibility secondary

Accessibility primary, mobility secondary

Accessibility only

Service Performed

Traffic movement, highest speed, no direct land use

Traffic movement, relatively high speeds, minimal land access

Traffic movement, moderately high speeds, minimal land access

More frequent land access, relatively low speeds

Direct land access, lowest speeds

Typical Trip Lengths

Interstate and between major regions of metro area

Within major regions of metro area and between communities

Between and within communities

Within communities

Within neighborhoods and business centers

Continuity

Totally interconnected and continuous over an entire metro area

Interconnected and continuous

Interconnected and continuous within communities and immediately surrounding area

Interconnected and continuous within communities

No continuity required

Access Type and Spacing

Interchanges at 1 to 1 ½ mile spacing and at-grade intersections at ½ to 1 mile spacing. No private access

At-grade intersections at ½ mile spacing. Private access usually restricted

At-grade intersections at ½ mile spacing. Private access often restricted

Signalized and stop controlled intersections at 1/8 mile spacing. Some restrictions on private access

Stop sign controlled or uncontrolled intersections. Unrestricted private access

Facility Spacing Urban: Rural:

1 to 3 Miles 5± Miles

1 Mile 1 to 2 Miles

½ Mile 1± Mile

¼ to ½ Mile 1± Mile

As needed As needed

% System Mileage* 5-10% 5-20% 5-20% 5-10% 65-80%

% Vehicle Miles of Travel Carried*

40-55% 20-35% 20-35% 5-10% 15-30%

* National averages


Page 28

Intersection Signalization A companion to the Roadway Plan is Figure 13, which shows the location of intersections that may require signalization in the future to address anticipated congestion issues and/or provide safer crossings for all modes.

Transit Plan Some interest in public transit for Eaton was expressed by citizens at the public engagement events. Most of these residents understand the difficulty and costs of having regular, fixed-route service. Interest primarily centered around vanpool services to Greeley, Fort Collins, and perhaps other Front Range municipalities with major medical and employment centers.

Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan The accommodation of bicycle and pedestrian travel is integral to the community’s vitality and quality of life. Planning for the interaction of bicyclists/pedestrians with other modes of travel is essential not only for safety, but also for the convenience of these active travel modes.

Bicyclists and pedestrian can vary greatly in their abilities and their level of comfort in using various types of facilities. Ideally, all types of bicyclists and pedestrians should be accommodated by the transportation system.

Type A Bicyclists are advanced or experienced riders who generally use their bicycles as they would a motor vehicle, often for commuting. They are riding for convenience and speed and want direct access to destinations with minimum detour and delay. They are typically comfortable riding with motor vehicle traffic; however, they need sufficient operating space on the travel way or shoulder to eliminate the need for either themselves or a passing motor vehicle to shift positions.

Type B Bicyclists are basic or less confident adult riders who may also use their bicycles for transportation purposes (e.g., commuting) or for recreational purposes. They may prefer to avoid roads with fast and busy motor vehicle traffic unless there is ample roadway width to allow easy overtaking by faster motor vehicles. Thus, basic riders are comfortable riding on neighborhood streets and shared use paths and prefer designated facilities such as bike lanes or wide shoulder lanes on busier streets.

Type C Bicyclists include children, riding on their own or with their parents, who may not travel as fast as their adult counterparts but still require access to key destinations in their community, such as schools, convenience stores, and recreational facilities. Residential streets with low motor vehicle speeds linked with shared use paths and busier streets with well defined pavement markings between bicycles and motor vehicles can accommodate children without encouraging them to ride in the travel lane of major arterials.

Pedestrians can range in a multitude of characteristics including age (e.g., children, adults, and the elderly), speed, ability (e.g., ambulatory or visual impairments), and purpose (e.g., recreational walking, running, commuting). These characteristics often dictate the type of facility a pedestrian is comfortable using. Wider, detached sidewalks generally serve the greatest number of pedestrians by providing a buffer between the pedestrian and vehicular traffic and adequate space to accommodate passing and wheelchair use. Shared-use trails primarily serve recreational pedestrians.

Potential Signalized IntersectionsFigure 13



EATON

CozzensLake

UPRR

UPRR

EatonPark

Legend

US Highway

Major Arterial

Minor Arterial

Existing Traffic Signal

Potential Future Traffic Signal

Collector

Local Street

Future Collector

CR 70

CR 72

CR 74

CR 76

CR 78

CR 33

CR 35

CR 37

CR 39

CR 41

Collins St.

1st St.

3rd St.

5th St.

Chey

enne

Ave.

Oak A

ve.

Junip

er Av

e.

Elm Av

e.Maple

Ave.

Waln

ut Av


Eagle Dr.

Black H

awk R

d.

Bluegrass St.

Harsh

Rd.

4th St. Rd.


Pione

er Place

Industrial Dr.

Settl

ers Dr.

7th St.

85

85

O

d Sd

eer P e.

yy.yy

Page 29


Page 30

Eaton’s Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan, shown in Figure 14, is intended to provide a comprehensive, well connected system of bicycle and pedestrian facilities to be constructed over time as needs arise and as development occurs.

The proposed Street Standards, depicted in the subsequent section of this chapter, were developed to include six foot attached or detached sidewalks along urban major and minor arterials, collectors, and local streets. For bicyclists, the major arterial street standard includes six foot on-street bike lanes, while the urban minor arterial and collector street standards include four foot on-street bike lanes. The rural minor arterial street standard includes six foot shoulders that, along with providing pull-off space for vehicles, can be used by bicyclists. These facilities are depicted on the collector and major and minor arterial streets in the Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan. Pedestrian walkways connecting residential developments to the arterial and collector street system should be provided to ensure that pedestrians have quick and direct access between neighborhoods and to commercial areas.

In addition to the construction of sidewalks and bike lanes along roadways, the Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan identifies future shared use trails connecting Hawkstone and Eaton Commons on the east side of US 85, and along the ditch that runs parallel to Cheyenne Avenue to the west. Shared use trails are also programmed to run along Industrial Drive, along the east side of WCR 35 between Collins Street and Colorado Parkway, and between the Great Western Trail and Collins Street along the plot of land that will be home to the recreational center and new high school.

Pedestrian volumes in Eaton are highest around schools, especially Eaton Elementary. There is also demand for pedestrian and bicycle crossings of US 85, including the intersection of US 85 and Collins Street. These locations happen to be along the busiest streets in Eaton. Sidewalk, streetscape, and traffic control improvements along these corridors are described in the Implementation Plan chapter of this report.

Shared use path in the Governor’s Ranch development

Bicycle and Pedestrian PlanFigure 14



EATON

CozzensLake

UPRR

UPRR

EatonPark

Legend

Existing Unpaved Multi-Use Trail

Existing Paved Multi-Use Trail

Proposed Paved Multi-Use Trail

Proposed Shoulders/Bike Lanes

CR 70

CR 72

CR 74

CR 76

CR 78

CR 33

CR 35

CR 37

CR 39

CR 41

Collins St.

1st St.

3rd St.

5th St.

Chey

enne

Ave.

Oak A

ve.

Junip

er Av

e.

Elm Av

e.Ma

ple Av

e.

Waln

ut Av


Eagle Dr.

Black H

awk R

d.

Bluegrass St.

Harsh

Rd.

4th St. Rd.


Pione

er Place

Industrial Dr.

Settl

ers Dr.

7th St.

85

85

Page 31


Page 32

Street Standards While the Roadway Plan designates the functional classification of streets in the Eaton planning area, the Street Standards depict such details as the right of way requirements, travel lane widths, median width, and bike lane and sidewalk dimensions. As shown in Figures 15 through 17, the Town has established typical cross-sections that ensure safe, attractive, and comfortable access and travel for all users within the public right of way (often referred to as “complete streets”).

The arterial cross-sections in Figure 15 show three options: urban major and minor arterials with curb and gutter, two-way left turn median, six foot detached sidewalks, landscape buffer, and on-street bike lanes; and a rural minor arterial with six foot paved shoulders. Generally, the Town would prefer the urban minor arterial section. However, on a case-by-case basis, the Town may allow the construction of a rural two-lane minor arterial. The major arterial cross-section requires 100 feet of right of way, while both minor arterial cross-sections require 80 feet. Preserving 100 feet of right of way for major arterials will allow the flexibility to expand the roadway to four lanes if such an improvement is necessary beyond the planning horizon of this plan

Three cross-sections have been recommended for collector streets (two urban, one rural), as shown in Figure 16. The collector with bike lanes standard is the primary urban collector form and is only different from the urban minor arterial standard in that sidewalks are attached, thus no buffer is necessary and less right of way is needed (60 feet). The collector with on-street parking standard requires the same amount of right of way, but has one sidewalk as detached, no two-way median, and six feet for parking on each side. This cross-section is recommended for denser or commercial areas where on-street parking is needed. The third collector cross-section is for rural areas, having a narrower paved width and containing four foot valley gutters on each side. This section is intended for sparsely populated areas where drainage needs can be accommodated by a valley gutter. The same right of way is required as other collectors to ensure easier upgrading to urban collector cross-sections should development warrant the improvements.

Two local street cross-sections are shown on Figure 17, both of which requires a 50 foot right of way. The standard local street section has attached sidewalks, curb and gutter, and four feet on each side for parking. The rural local street is for rural areas, having a narrower paved width and containing four foot valley gutters on each side. This section is intended for sparsely populated areas. The appropriate section should be selected depending upon the character of the adjacent land use.

Access Control Policies In order to preserve the functional integrity, safety, and capacity of roadways in Eaton, it is necessary to establish general access control policy guidelines as part of the Transportation Plan. As previously mentioned, each classification of roadway represents a compromise between the level of mobility (use by through traffic) and access. Access management minimizes interruptions to traffic flow on major roadways while providing appropriate levels of access for adjacent existing and future development. A proliferation of driveways and residential street intersections decreases the speed and capacity of major roadways while increasing hazards to motorists. The purpose of these policy guidelines is to encourage, to the maximum extent possible, the provision of direct access to the roadways with lower functional classifications and to a limited degree, the minor arterial network. For major arterials, the priority function is mobility, which means that the access to these roads (either interchanges or at-grade signalized intersections) should be limited.

Arterial Typical Cross SectionsFigure 15



FHU

Major Arterial

FHU

12'Lane

100' ROW

52'

12'Lane

6'BikeLane

18'Landscape Area

18'Landscape Area

12'Two-Way

Left Turn Lane

80' ROW

6' Sidewalk(Detached)

48'

4'BikeLane

12'Lane

10'Land-scapearea

12'Two-WayLeft Turn

Lane

12'Lane

14' 14'

2'

6'BikeLane

4'BikeLane

2'

Minor Arterial

6' Sidewalk(Detached) 10'

Land-scapearea



12'Lane

12'Lane

Rural Minor Arterial

6' Shldr.

6' Shldr.

80' ROW

36'

2' 2'

Page 33

Collector Typical Cross SectionsFigure 16



60' ROW

48'

4'BikeLane

12'Lane

12'Two-WayLeft Turn

Lane

12'Lane

2'

4'BikeLane

2'

Collector with Bike Lanes

6' Sidewalk(Attached)


2' 2'

12'Lane

60' ROW

6'Parking

40'

12'Lane

Collector with On-Street Parking

6'Parking


4' Landscape Area4' Landscape

Area


12'Lane

14'

60' ROW

24'

12'Lane

Rural Collector(to be used only as drainage permits)

14'

4'

ValleyGutter

4'

ValleyGutter

Page 34

Local Street Typical Cross SectionsFigure 17



2' 2'

12'Lane

50' ROW

40'

12'Lane

Local Street

4'Prkng

4'Prkng

6' Sidewalk(Attached) 6' Sidewalk

(Attached)

12'Lane

9'

50' ROW

24'

12'Lane

Rural Local Street(to be used only as drainage permits)

9'

4'

ValleyGutter

4'

ValleyGutter

Page 35


Page 36

Table 3 summarizes the recommended access control policy guidelines for Eaton in the future. Arterials should be considered to be classified as non-rural arterials (NR-B) according to State Highway Access Code guidelines. Collectors would be considered to have an NR-C classification. Eaton should implement these basic access control guidelines through a formal review and approval process which is based on preparation of a traffic impact study for each development by a qualified traffic engineer. This formal process should give Eaton staff the ability to control access along the Town’s arterials during the development review and approval process. Developers will be required to coordinate their access with that of nearby properties so that capacity and safety are maximized while still accommodating growth.

Table 3. Functional Classification Criteria and Design Characteristics

Functional Classification Access Type Access Spacing Traffic Controls

Arterials (Category NR-B) At-Grade Intersections ¼ Mile Minimum

Signal – typical; Stop signs in some circumstances

Collectors (Category NR-C) At-Grade Intersections 1/8 Mile Typical

Stop signs – typical; Signals in special

circumstances Locals At-Grade Intersections Variable Stop signs

The purpose of access control is to limit the number of driveways and conflict points, separate conflict points, and separate turning traffic from through traffic. No more than two access points on adjacent streets should be allowed per property, and access should be to collector streets wherever possible. Techniques to limit the number of conflict points include decreasing the number of left turns, using right-in/right-out, restricting movements at median openings, implementation of spacing standards, corner clearance requirements, signal spacing guidelines, and requirements related to the separation of access points.

Turning and through traffic can be separated through the use of left and right turn lanes and two-way left turn lanes. Turning lanes should include adequate provision for acceleration or deceleration to minimize friction to through traffic from turning vehicles which are traveling at slower speeds. The State Highway Access Code provides guidance about requirements for turning lanes including the necessary volume warrants and associated geometrics. Eaton should follow these guidelines until such time as the Town has the need to develop more specific local guidelines.


Page 37

PLANIMPLEMENTATION

IdentificationofProjects

The transportation improvement projects that will be required to realize the Roadway Plan, the Transit Plan and Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan come from a variety of sources. Some are from previous efforts in the planning area like the US 85 Access Control Plan and previous Town trail planning maps. Other improvement projects were identified as a result of the travel demand modeling, and others came from citizen input through the public outreach process. The following sections provide an overview of the transportation improvement projects.

NewRoadwayConnectionsAlthough Eaton's existing roadway network capacity is expected to accommodate forecasted future traffic growth, a few new roadway connections are planned to help provide improved connectivity for existing and future development.

3rd Street Connection to New High School / Recreational Center (Project ID #1) The Town is planning to build a community recreational center west of town within the undeveloped portion of land on the northeast corner of Collins Street and WCR 35. The Town also plans to build a new high school in this area. A new road connection from 3rd Street to WCR 35 has been identified as the preferred access to/from the recreational center / high school complex.

Realignment of WCR 37 to WCR 76 (Project ID #2) The US 85 Access Control Plan lists the realignment of WCR 37 north of US 85 to WCR 76 in the long term. This project would involve closing the US 85 / WCR 37 intersection and extending WCR 37 along the east side of the railroad tracks to WCR 76. This project aims to reduce the number of railroad crossings and intersections with US 85.

Colorado Parkway Connection Between Governor's Ranch and Maplewood Estates (Project ID #3) Colorado Parkway currently exists as a local roadway within the Governor's Ranch development and as an access point to/from US 85 for the Maplewood Estates development. Future growth is expected to occur between these two neighborhoods, creating an opportunity to connect the two ends of Colorado Parkway to create an east‐west collector. It is recommended to provide bike lanes along this new segment in order to facilitate east‐west bicycle connectivity, a request made by numerous citizens during the public involvement process.

RoadwayPavingProjectsAs Eaton grows, traffic volumes are expected to increase on the many gravel roads in the rural areas surrounding the town. When volumes reach or exceed 200 vehicles per day on gravel facilities, additional grading and dust suppression measures are required to maintain the roadway. In addition to providing air quality benefits, it usually becomes more cost effective at this point to pave the facility rather than increase maintenance measures. This also presents the opportunity to incorporate the design elements illustrated in the cross‐sections adopted by the Town.


Page 38

It is anticipated that all gravel roads within the study area will require paving, with a few segments identified for paving to complete a cohesive network. The following is a comprehensive list of roadways to be paved:

WCR 70 from WCR 33 to WCR 41 to Rural Minor Arterial standard (Project ID #4)



WCR 41 from WCR 70 to WCR 78 to Rural Minor Arterial Standard (Project ID #7)

CorridorImprovementProjectsArea growth also presents the opportunity to improve roads that are currently paved but lack such things as bicycle facilities (shoulders and bike lanes), consistent lane widths, and sidewalks.

The following is a comprehensive list of roadways to be upgraded to match the cross‐sections shown in Figures 15 through 17.

WCR 74 / Collins Street from WCR 33 to WCR 41 to Major Arterial standard (Project ID #8)

WCR 76 (10th Street) from WCR 33 to WCR 39 to Major Arterial standard (Project ID #9)

WCR 37 (Cheyenne Avenue) from WCR 70 to WCR 76 (10th Street) to Major Arterial standard (Project ID #10)

5th Street from US 85 to WCR 39 to Collector with Bike Lanes standard (Project ID #11) ‐ Upgrading this segment of 5th Street provides an important east‐west connection for bicycles to/from the Eaton Commons neighborhood and planned north‐south multi‐use paths connecting the Hawkstone development. Bike lanes along this segment would tie in with a crossing of US 85 and the end of the Great Western Trail just west of US 85. An upgrade would also help with sight lines along 5th street and create a straighter connection from US 85 to the east.

WCR 76 (10th Street) from WCR 39 to WCR 41 to Rural Minor Arterial standard (Project ID #12)

WCR 33 from WCR 70 and to the north to Major Arterial standard (Project ID #13)

WCR 35 from WCR 70 to WCR 78 to Major Arterial standard (Project ID #14)

WCR 37 (Cheyenne Avenue) from WCR 76 (10th Street) to WCR 78 to Major Arterial standard (Project ID #15)

WCR 39 from WCR 70 to WCR 78 to Major Arterial standard (Project ID #16)

Colorado Parkway from WCR 35 to just east of Settlers Drive and from Cheyenne Avenue to US 85 to Collector with Bike Lanes (Project ID #17 and #18) ‐ These two projects would upgrade the two existing segments of Colorado Parkway to meet the same standards as the new connection of Colorado Parkway would be built to (Project ID #3). This would create consistency across the entire length of Colorado Parkway, including bike lanes that would provide a complete east‐west connection from the western edge of town to US 85 and tie into planned multi‐use trails in the area.


Page 39

Intersection Improvement Projects Intersection improvements involve geometric design improvements to an intersection to help improve the flow of vehicles, pedestrians, and bicyclists. The following intersections are identified within the US 85 Access Control Plan to have traffic flows reconfigured to assist the flow of traffic on US 85:

Convert US 85 / Oak Street (northern intersection) to a ¾ movement (Project ID #20)

Convert US 85 / 2nd Street to a right-in/right-out (Project ID #21)

Convert US 85 / 3rd Street to a right-in/right-out (Project ID #22)

Convert US 85 / 7th Street to a ¾ movement (Project ID #23)

Two other intersections were identified by the public to need a variety of intersection design improvements.

US 85 / 5th Street Intersection Improvements (Project ID #19) The public noted the existence of an old median within this intersection that presents a hazard to traffic traveling eastbound on 5th Street and turning left onto northbound US 85. It is recommended that the Town work with CDOT to remove this obstacle.

There also exists a need to provide a pedestrian/bicycle crossing of US 85 in the northern portion of the town. This intersection was identified to have a pedestrian/bicycle refuge built within the large median on the northern leg of US 85 to provide such a crossing. Creating this refuge would also assist in connecting the Great Western Trail west of US 85 with planned bike lanes to be built on 5th Street east of US 85 (Project ID #11). The crossing would be in conjunction with the installation of rectangular rapid flash beacons (RRFBs) on US 85, which is described in Project ID #38.

US 85 / Collins Street intersection improvements (Project ID #24) Public input and traffic analysis showed a need to address operational issues and better facilitate pedestrian crossings at this intersection. Currently large trucks have difficulty making right turns onto Collins Street from both northbound and southbound US 85 due to the tight turning radius and traffic within the left turn lanes of Collins Street. Installing channelized right-turn lanes would allow large trucks to make these movements more easily, which consequently improves the overall flow of the intersection. This improvement in flow translates into a better level of service for the intersection, which otherwise would deteriorate due to the increase volumes that are forecasted along both US 85 and Collins Street. Channelized right turn lanes also provide pedestrian refuges for people moving east-west across US 85.

The extension of all turn lanes to meet State High Access Control Standards would also help improve operations by allowing additional queuing to occur. This helps prevent turn lane queues from backing into through lanes.


Page 40

TrafficControlandSignageProjectsA number of traffic control measures and signage improvements could help improve the flow and safety of travel in Eaton. The following is a list of projects that can be implemented in the short term:

Install a stop sign for northbound Park Avenue at 5th Street (Project ID #25)

Alternate directions stopped along 1st Street between US 85 and Park Avenue (Project ID #26) Input from the public indicated a number of intersections along 1st Street as being difficult to cross by all modes due to the uninterrupted flow of traffic on 1st Street. Alternating which directions must stop along a corridor helps to break up the stream of traffic, making crossings easier. It also slows traffic speeds, further assisting crossings.

Work with CDOT to assess appropriate posted speed along US 85 south of Collins Street through Colorado Parkway (Project ID #27)

Work with CDOT to assess appropriate posted speed along US 85 north of 5th Street through 10th Street (Project ID #28)

Install a two‐way stop for the intersection of 4th Street and Park Avenue (Project ID #29)

The Town is currently working with CDOT, the Colorado Public Utilities Commission (PUC) and UPRR on improvements to 10th Street railroad crossing and the intersection of US 85/10th Street. The following two projects are short term priorities to address safety and traffic flow concerns in that area:

Install railroad crossing arms and lights at crossing of 10th Street (Project ID #30)

Signalization of US85 & 10th Street (Project ID #31) (as identified in the US 85 Access Control Plan)

It is also recommended that the Town work with the PUC and UPRR in the mid term to install railroad crossing arms and lights at the crossing of 5th Street (Project ID #32) to improve safety given increased traffic volumes that are expected along 5th Street.

The final intersection identified within the US 85 Access Control Plan to become signalized once traffic volumes reach levels to meet signal warrants as outlined in the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) is the US 85 & Colorado Parkway intersection (Project ID #34). Given projected traffic forecasts, this project has been placed in the long term.

Preliminary analysis of forecasted traffic volumes also suggests that other intersections in town may warrant signalization in the future. It is recommended that these intersections be monitored, along with those listed above, to determine if and when signalization may be warranted.

Signalization of US 85 & 5th Street (Project ID #33) Traffic volumes along 5th Street may warrant signalization at this intersection in the future. This would also help better facilitate the crossing of US 85 for pedestrians and bicyclists, making the connection between the Great Western Trail and proposed bike lanes along 5th Street (Project ID #11) easier to manage. This improvement would require an amendment to the US 85 Access Control Plan.

Signalization of Collins Street & Cheyenne Avenue (Project ID #35) Traffic volumes along these two roadways may warrant signalization in the future. This would also help better facilitate pedestrian crossings of Collins Street, especially to the elementary school to/from the Maplewood Estates development and future development southwest of the intersection.


Page 41

Signalization of Collins Street & WCR 35 (Project ID #36) Traffic volumes along these two roadways may warrant signalization in the future. Collins Street is already an important regional east‐west roadway, and WCR 35 may become a more attractive alternative to US 85 for regional north‐south travel as the area grows. The addition of the community recreational center and planned high school to the northeast of this intersection may also increase the need to provide signalization.

BicycleandPedestrianFacilitiesBike lanes and sidewalks will be constructed along many of the arterial and collector roadways within the study area as part of roadway improvement projects since they are included in Eaton’s standard cross‐sections. Other projects are recommended to supplement or accelerate these improvements.

US 85 / Collins Street pedestrian crossing improvements (Project ID #37) Public input noted safety concerns for pedestrians crossing US 85 at this major intersection, even with the crossing controlled by a signal. Improvements include adding pedestrian crossing warning signs at the intersection. The signal could also be programmed to give pedestrians the signal to walk during an all‐red phase before changing the light to green, giving the pedestrian a head start to crossing and making them more visible to vehicles turning across the crosswalk. Any improvement to this intersection requires coordination with CDOT.

Install RRFBs on US 85 at 5th Street (Project ID #38) RRFBs are flashing beacons that flash at an irregular interval when a pedestrian pushes a button. Studies have shown that this improvement increases the likelihood of vehicles slowing down or yielding to crossing pedestrians. It is recommended that the Town work with CDOT to install RRFBs along US 85 on each approach to 5th Street as a short term solution to help facilitate the making of 5th Street as an important crossing of US 85 for pedestrians and bicyclists.

Cheyenne Avenue / 1st Street pedestrian improvements (Project ID #39), and 1st Street / Park Avenue pedestrian improvements (Project ID #40) Public input noted the difficulty of crossing this intersection as a pedestrian due to sight lines. Installing bulb‐outs on each end of each crossing would allow pedestrians more protected space further into the intersection, making it easier to see approaching vehicles.

It is also recommended that parking be prohibited over a larger distance from the intersection to further increase sight distance.

Install bulb‐outs at Collins Street / Maple Avenue (Project ID #41) Although this intersection is an all‐way stop, public input noted that children still have difficulty crossing this intersection. Installing bulb‐outs for the crossings of Collins Street would help make pedestrians more visible to drivers, which may reduce occurrences of rolling stops and other violations that could impact pedestrians.

Elm Street / Orchard Street pedestrian improvements (Project ID #42) This intersection is an all‐way stop that facilitates traffic to/from US 85, a grocery store, and the Maplewood Estates neighborhood. Other than an aesthetic painted crosswalk across the northern leg, the intersection lacks pedestrian programming. It is recommended to add crosswalk striping to the other three legs.


Page 42

Eaton’s sidewalk network is generally well connected and complete. Only a few segments are missing:

Install a detached sidewalk along west side of US 85 from midblock south of 4th Street to 3rd Street (Project ID #43)

Install a detached sidewalk along west side of US 85 from 4th Street to 5th Street (Project ID #44)

Install an attached sidewalk along the north side of Collins Street from Juniper Street to Ash Avenue (Project ID #45)

Install an attached sidewalk along the north side of Collins Street from Elm Street to US 85 (Project ID #46)

Install sidewalks along 5th Street where missing from Birch Street to US 85 (Project ID #47)

Install an attached sidewalk along the east side of Maple Avenue north of 6th Street (Project ID #48)

Install an attached sidewalk at missing link along the south side of 4th Street between Cottonwood Avenue and Park Avenue (Project ID #49)

School‐zone improvements along Collins Street near the elementary school (Project ID #50) Concern over the safety of pedestrians, primarily school children, near Eaton Elementary School was expressed by the public. It is recommended that the existing school zone signs be updated to use new neon‐yellow school zone signs with “School Zone” labeled on it and, and digital real‐time speed display signs be installed to alert drivers to their speed. It is also recommended that the 25 mph speed limit sign in front of the school facing westbound Collins Street be moved onto the school zone sign between Maple Avenue and Elm Avenue.

Other pedestrian and bicycle improvements are needed to create multi‐use trail connections:

Pave the Great Western Trail (Project ID #51)

Install a paved multi‐use trail between the Hawkstone and Eaton Commons neighborhoods running along the irrigation ditch that starts just west of the Hawkstone entrance, and down to Collins Street along the creek bed (Project ID #52)

Install a paved multi‐use trail connecting the Great Western Trail, new recreational center and high school, and the Governor’s Ranch neighborhood (Project ID #53)

Install a detached sidewalk along west side of US 85 from Collins Street to Colorado Parkway (Project ID #54)

Collins Street / Cheyenne Avenue pedestrian improvements (Project ID #55) Increased pedestrian crossings are anticipated at this intersection as development occurs to the south and west. As this development occurs and additional sidewalks are built in the area, crosswalks should be added to this intersection.

Extend the paved multi‐use trail along the south side of Collins Street just east of WCR 35 to WCR 35 and south to Colorado Parkway (Project ID #56)


Page 43

Install a paved multi-use trail along the irrigation ditch through town from the Great Western Trail (near the intersection of 5th Street and Birch Avenue) to the Colorado Parkway extension (Project ID #57)

Install a paved multi-use trail between along Industrial Drive from Collins Street (Project ID #58)

Transit Service Eaton currently does not have any transit service, but it is recommended that the Town explore the possibility of vanpool service between Eaton and Greeley (Project ID #59).

Project Prioritization The multimodal transportation improvement projects indentified in the previous section have been divided into short term, mid term, and long term time periods based on input from the public, Town staff and Board members, and on projected travel demand. The projects are listed in Table 4 in terms of general time frames and are not prioritized within each time frame. Short term projects (0-5 years) are depicted in Figure 18, mid term projects (5-15 years) in Figure 19, and long term projects (15+ years) in Figure 20.

Although funding sources for these projects will vary, opinions of probable costs for construction of each project are also presented in Table 4. Contributions to these projects may come from the Town, developers, adjacent jurisdictions, state or federal funding, or other funding sources. Much of the needed right of way will be obtained from adjacent future development. The need for certain projects, such as the paving of county roads, will probably be created by specific developments, and these developers should be held responsible for funding such projects. Additionally, in the absence of a street impact fee program, developers should be made responsible for improving the arterial roadway(s) adjacent to their development to the Town’s standard cross-sections. It should be noted that the probable costs for all collector and arterial roads are based on the urban cross-sections which include curb and gutter, and are tailored to the specific existing characteristics of the location where the improvement is recommended. Detailed cost opinions based on 2013 unit costs are available in Appendix C.

Short TermMulti-Modal Improvement Projects

Figure 18



EATON

EatonPark

Legend

Project ID Number

Bicycle/Pedestrian Improvement

Traffic Control/Signage Improvement

Intersection Improvement

UPRR

UPRR

48

47

38

44

4349

45 50 46637

441

40 3926

28

27

19

X

25

42

4929

300 31

CR 72

CR 74

CR 76

CR 78

CR 39

CR 35

CR 37

Collins St.

1st St.

3rd St.

5th St.

Chey

enne

Ave.

Oak A

ve.

Junip

er Av

e. Elm Av

e.

Maple

Ave.

Park

Ave.

4th St.

Waln

ut Av

e.

Cherry A

ve.

Carriage Dr.

Plains Dr.

Pio

neer Place

Ridge

Rd.

Moun

ntai

n View Dr

.

Colorado Pkwy.Buck

eye A

ve.

Ceda

r Ave

.

Factory Rd.

Industrial Dr.

Oak Dr.

4th St. Rd.

3rd St.Sy

cam

ore A

ve.

Hick

ory A

ve.

Laur

el Av

e.

Willo

w A

ve.

5th St.

6th St.

7th St.

10th St.

Eagle Dr.

Black Haw

k Rd.

Red Tail R d.

CR 37

Settl

ers Dr.

Bluegrass St.

Elm St. Harsh

Rd.

CR 39

CR 35

Page 44

Mid-Term TermMulti-Modal Improvement Projects

Figure 19



EATON

UPRR

UPRR

EatonPark

LegendProject ID Number




Future Roadway Connection

Transit Service

Corridor Improvement to Eaton Roadway Standards

X

CR 72

CR 74

CR 76

CR 78

CR 39

CR 35

CR 37

5th St.

Waln

ut Av

e.

Cherry A

ve.

Carriage Dr.

Plains Dr.

Pio

neer Place

Ridge

Rd.

Moun

ntai

n View Dr

.

Industrial Dr.

4th St. Rd.

3rd St.Sy

cam

ore A

ve.

Hick

ory A

ve.

Laur

el Av

e.

Willo

w A

ve.

5th St.

Eagle Dr.

Red Tail R d.

CR 37

Settl

ers Dr.

Bluegrass St.

Harsh

Rd.

CR 39

CR 35

To CR 33

To CR 33 To CR 41

To CR 70

3rd St.

1st St.

Collins St.

Chey

enne

Ave.

Oak A

ve.

Junip

er Av

e.

Elm Av

e.

Maple

Ave.

Park

Ave.

4th St.

Colorado Pkwy.Buck

eye A

ve.

6th St.

7th St.

Elm St.

53

1

St.23

9

11

8

10

51

52

PkkPP

t.

54

32

22

21

59

2024

Page 45

Long-Term TermMulti-Modal Improvement Projects

Figure 20



EATON

CozzensLake

UPRR

UPRR

EatonPark

LegendProject ID Number




Future Roadway Connection

Transit Service

X Corridor Improvement to Eaton Roadway Standards

Pave to Eaton Road Standards

xxxx

TO3

13 14 16

15

12

33

36 35

34

2

6

7

5

4

58

57

5 55

56

17 18

CR 70

CR 72

CR 74

CR 76

CR 78

CR 33

CR 35

CR 37

CR 39

CR 41

Collins St.

1st St.

3rd St.

5th St.

Chey

enne

Ave.

Oak A

ve.

Junip

er Av

e.

Elm Av

e.Ma

ple Av

e.

Waln

ut Av


Eagle Dr.

Black H

awk R

d.

Bluegrass St.

Harsh

Rd.

4th St. Rd.


Pione

er Place

Industrial Dr.

Settl

ers Dr.

7th St.

85

85

Page 46


Page 47

Table 4. Transportation Improvement Projects and Opinions of Probable Construction Costs

ID # Improvement Type Location and Description Cost Opinion Short Term (0-5 years)

19 Intersection US 85 / 5th Street intersection improvements $36,200 25 Traffic Control/Signage Install a stop sign for Park Avenue at 5th Street $700

26 Traffic Control/Signage Alternate directions stopped along 1st Street between US 85 and Park Avenue $6,800

27 Traffic Control/Signage Assess appropriate posted speed along US 85 south of Collins Street $600

28 Traffic Control/Signage Assess appropriate posted speed along US 85 north of 5th Street through 10th Street $600

29 Traffic Control/Signage Install a two-way stop at 4th Street and Park Avenue $1,500

30 Traffic Control/Signage Install railroad crossing arms and lights at crossing of 10th Street $500,000

31 Traffic Control/Signage US 85 / 10th Street signalization $310,000

37 Bicycle/Pedestrian US 85 / Collins Street pedestrian crossing improvements $1,500

38 Bicycle/Pedestrian Install Rectangular Rapid Flash Beacons (RRFBs) on US 85 at 5th Street $15,000

39 Bicycle/Pedestrian Cheyenne Avenue / 1st Street pedestrian improvements $40,000

40 Bicycle/Pedestrian 1st Street / Park Avenue pedestrian improvements $40,000 41 Bicycle/Pedestrian Install bulb-outs at Collins Street / Maple Avenue $40,000

42 Bicycle/Pedestrian Elm Street / Orchard Street pedestrian improvements $8,400

43 Bicycle/Pedestrian Install sidewalk along west side of US 85 from just south of 4th Street to 3rd Street $12,000

44 Bicycle/Pedestrian Install sidewalk along west side of US 85 from 4th Street to 5th Street $17,000

45 Bicycle/Pedestrian Install sidewalk along the north side of Collins Street from Juniper Street to Ash Avenue $111,000

46 Bicycle/Pedestrian Install sidewalk along the north side of Collins Street from Elm Street to US 85 $23,000

47 Bicycle/Pedestrian Install sidewalks along 5th Street where missing from Birch Street to US 85 $90,000

48 Bicycle/Pedestrian Install sidewalk along the east side of Maple Avenue north of 6th Street $8,500

49 Bicycle/Pedestrian Install sidewalk at missing link along the south side of 4th Street between Cottonwood Avenue and Park Avenue

$5,400

50 Bicycle/Pedestrian School-zone improvements along Collins Street near the elementary school $15,000

Short Term Subtotal $473,200


Page 48

ID # Improvement Type Location and Description Cost Opinion Mid Term (5-15 years)

1 New Road Connect 3rd Street with WCR 35, with access to the new recreational center and high school $1,530,000

8 Corridor Improve WCR 74 (Collins Street) from WCR 33 to WCR 41 to Major Arterial standard $17,930,000

9 Corridor Improve WCR 76 (10th Street) from WCR 33 to WCR 39 to Major Arterial standard $13,450,000

10 Corridor Improve WCR 37 (Cheyenne Avenue) from WCR 70 to WCR 76 (10th Street) to Major Arterial standard $11,160,000

11 Corridor Improve 5th Street from US 85 to WCR 39 to Collector with Bike Lanes standard $2,290,000

20 Intersection Convert US 85 / Oak Street (northern intersection) to a ¾ movement $40,000

21 Intersection Convert US 85 / 2nd Street to a right-in/right-out $116,000 22 Intersection Convert US 85 / 3rd Street to a right-in/right-out $100,000 23 Intersection Convert US 85 / 7th Street to a ¾ movement $24,000 24 Intersection US 85 / Collins Street intersection improvements $260,000

32 Traffic Control/Signage Install railroad crossing arms and lights at crossing of 5th Street $500,000

51 Bicycle/Pedestrian Pave the Great Western Trail $485,000

52 Bicycle/Pedestrian Install a paved multi-use trail between the Hawkstone and Eaton Commons neighborhoods, and down to Collins Street

$475,000

53 Bicycle/Pedestrian Install a paved multi-use trail connecting the Great Western Trail, new recreational center and high school, and the Governor’s Ranch neighborhood

$200,000

54 Bicycle/Pedestrian Install sidewalk along west side of US 85 from Collins Street to Colorado Parkway $120,000

59 Transit Explore vanpool service to/from Greeley $15,000 Mid Term Subtotal $49,180,000


Page 49

ID # Improvement Type Location and Description Cost Opinion Long Term (15+ years)

2 New Road Close US 85 / WCR 37 intersection and connect WCR 37 with WCR 76 $2,050,000

3 New Road Connect Colorado Parkway from Governor’s Ranch to Maplewood Estates as a Collector with Bike Lanes $3,300,000

4 Paving Improve WCR 70 from WCR 33 to WCR 41 to Rural Minor Arterial standard $10,500,000



7 Paving Improve WCR 41 from WCR 70 to WCR 78 to Rural Minor Arterial Standard $10,810,000

12 Corridor Improve WCR 76 (10th Street) from WCR 39 to WCR 41 to Rural Minor Arterial standard $1,880,000

13 Corridor Improve WCR 33 from WCR 70 and to the north to Major Arterial standard $17,790,000

14 Corridor Improve WCR 35 from WCR 70 to WCR 78 to Major Arterial standard $17,790,000

15 Corridor Improve WCR 37 (Cheyenne Avenue) from WCR 76 (10th Street) to WCR 78 to Major Arterial standard $3,130,000

16 Corridor Improve WCR 39 from WCR 70 to WCR 78 to Major Arterial standard $17,790,000

17 Corridor Improve Colorado Parkway from WCR 35 to just east of Settlers Drive to Collector with Bike Lanes $770,000

18 Corridor Improve Colorado Parkway from Cheyenne Avenue to US 85 to Collector with Bike Lanes $1,300,000

33 Traffic Control/Signage US 85 / 5th Street signalization (NOTE: requires amendment to the US 85 Access Control Plan)

$310,000

34 Traffic Control/Signage US 85 / Colorado Parkway signalization $300,000 35 Traffic Control/Signage Collins Street / Cheyenne Avenue signalization $275,000 36 Traffic Control/Signage Collins Street / WCR 35 signalization $275,000

55 Bicycle/Pedestrian Collins Street / Cheyenne Avenue pedestrian improvements $13,000

56 Bicycle/Pedestrian Extend the paved multi-use trail along the south side of Collins Street just east of WCR 35 to WCR 35 and south to Colorado Parkway

$350,000

57 Bicycle/Pedestrian Install a paved multi-use trail along the irrigation ditch through town from the Great Western Trail to the Colorado Parkway extension

$330,000

58 Bicycle/Pedestrian Install a paved multi-use trail from Collins Street southward along Industrial Drive $550,000

Long Term Subtotal $110,223,000


Page 50

Funding Like most other municipalities along Colorado’s Front Range, Eaton faces a challenge of how to fund transportation improvements. Not only are future needs significant in monetary terms, but the Town must consider resident concerns that new development pay for the transportation infrastructure demands it imposes on the community. New development in the Town will generate new vehicle trips and associated new demands on the Town’s road system. The impacts of different developments vary from a small number of trips for a single new home to a large number of trips for a major residential subdivision or commercial development. Major developments should submit a traffic impact study, estimating the number of trips expected to be generated, the expected distribution of those trips onto the surrounding road network, and identifying major road improvements needed to accommodate the traffic. In general, new development has the following responsibilities for roadway improvements:

Local Roads – Construction of local streets accessing single development is generally the responsibility of private developers who create the need for those streets and driveways.

Major Roads Adjacent to New Development – New developments are generally required to construct or improve arterial and collector roads that are adjacent to the development. Roads would be constructed to the applicable road classification type and typical cross-section documented in this plan.

Other Major Road System Improvements – Since new development does not necessarily occur contiguous to existing development, development-provided improvements often leave gaps in the road system. There are several different approaches that can be considered by counties or municipalities to fund new roads or improvements to the major road system that are not immediately adjacent to a particular development.

Following is a summary of financing options that can be considered, individually or in combination, by the Town of Eaton to fund these improvements to the major road system to address existing deficiencies or needs created by new development.

Eaton Capital Improvement Program – Much of the funding for improvements to existing roads is currently funded using general Town funds through a capital improvement program. These funds are limited by the size of the anticipated Town revenues through the annual budgeting process.

Street Impact Fees – Impact fees are development exactions that are a common device used by many local governments to impose charges on new development to generate revenues for funding of off-site road expansion necessitated by new development. These fees allow developer contributions to be pooled so that road improvements can be implemented on a community-wide basis. Impact fees are typically pro-rated based upon the estimated traffic that would be generated by a new development. These fees cannot legally be applied to existing deficiencies or to improvements that would be a result of traffic passing through Eaton. The Town is currently in the process of evaluating the enactment of a street impact fee.


Page 51

Federal/State Funding – State highways are the primary responsibility of CDOT, in coordination with the NFRMPO. The decision to improve these facilities will be based on state and region‐wide funding considerations. Eaton should monitor this process closely and may need to be prepared to provide local matching funds in order to leverage money on regionally significant corridors. It should be noted that the availability of federal and state funding for transportation projects in the NFRMPO is currently very limited. Funding sources that might be applicable to some of Eaton’s projects include Transportation Alternatives Program (TAP), Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement Program (CMAQ), Surface Transportation Program (STP‐Metro), and Safe Routes to School.

Regional Transportation District – The Town may join with neighboring communities to develop a transportation funding and implementation district, similar to the Pikes Peak Rural Transportation Authority in the Colorado Springs area.

Bond Programs – Eaton can use long term financing programs to allow capital improvements to proceed sooner than would be possible with a “pay‐as‐you‐go” approach. This approach is most common for capital improvements in entities with an expanding tax base. Again, voter approval would be required.

Special Service Districts – Special districts are another option to link specific transportation improvements to funding generated from the development associated with the demand for, or benefitting from, the improvements. Under Colorado law, there are several forms of special service districts. One form, a tax increment district, can be applicable for a commercial development. The incremental tax revenues generated by the development are either dedicated to fund public costs to serve the area or to rebate developer‐incurred costs expended on public improvements for the project.


Page 52

RECOMMENDATIONS The intent of this Transportation Plan is to ensure that the Town of Eaton has a plan in place to effectively upgrade the transportation system. Eaton’s Roadway Plan includes intersection improvements and roadway improvement projects, paving of county roads, and completing new roadway links. The Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan includes shared use trails bike lane facilities. Some of these projects will be the responsibility of the Town (often in conjunction with private development), while others are more regional in nature and will require coordination with CDOT, the North Front Range MPO and/or surrounding jurisdictions. The following list provides a summary of actions the Town of Eaton should consider taking to ensure that the needed transportation improvements are funded:

Begin to plan and budget for completion of the improvements that have been identified for the short term.

Require traffic impact studies from all proposed developments so that the requirements for internal roadways and impacts to the surrounding roadway system can be evaluated. In the absence of a street impact fee program, developers should be responsible for improving the arterials adjacent to their developments to Eaton’s standard cross-sections.

Work with CDOT to implement the proposed projects along US 85, including bicycle/pedestrian crossing improvements, speed limit analysis studies, and other intersection improvements.

Work with the Union Pacific Railroad and the Public Utilities Commission to implement upgraded railroad crossings.

Consider the adoption of a street impact fee program that allows developer contributions for major road improvements to be pooled so that road improvements can be implemented on a community-wide basis.

Continue to participate in the North Front Range MPO regional transportation planning process and other regional planning initiatives, such as the US 85 Planning and Environmental Linkages Study (PEL), to ensure the consideration of Eaton’s vision for regional roadways.

Adopt CDOT’s State Highway Access Code guidelines as part of the adoption of the Eaton Transportation Plan.

Prepare and update street design standards that include geometric design information by street classification that is tied to design and posted speed limits.


Appendix A

APPENDIX A PUBLIC COMMENTS

1

PublicMeetingNotes&SurveyResultsEaton Transportation Plan Public Open House – March 19, 2013 – 4:00pm to 6:00pm MST FHU Project No. 10‐045‐09 Meeting & Survey Overview: An open house public meeting was held on March 19th, 2013 from 4‐6pm at the Eaton Town Hall to introduce the Eaton Transportation Plan project to the community and solicit responses and concerns about transportation in and around the Town of Eaton. A total of eighteen attendees signed in at the front table, and a few others attended without signing in. The Eaton Town Board also attended the open house. The meeting was advertised through flyers in the Town water bills, on the Town’s website and Facebook page, through the Chamber of Commerce, and in the newspaper. A copy of the flyer is attached to the end of this document. Information presented at the meeting included:

The transportation planning process and project schedule

Transportation goals and policies

Existing speed limits

Existing traffic control devices

Current daily traffic volumes

Existing multi‐use trails

Pedestrian facilities inventory

Railroad crossing inventory

Town of Eaton Comprehensive Plan future land use map Attendees were provided two ways to provide feedback and concerns. The first was a survey to acquire general opinions on transportation in Eaton. This survey was also conducted online to obtain information from people who could not attend the open house. A copy of the survey is attached to the end of this document. A total of 39 survey responses were received: 34 from the online survey and 5 from the open house. Attendees were also provided the opportunity to place comments on a large map of the Eaton planning area in order to give feedback in a geographical manner.

2

Survey Results: The following is a summary of the survey conducted online and at the open house. A total of 39 survey responses were received: 34 from the online survey and 5 from the open house (many attendees stated they did the online survey before the open house).

1. On a typical day, how do you travel to work (or school)? The vast majority of respondents stated that they commute by driving alone. About 18% noted that they do not work outside of the home, and one respondent utilizes carpooling at times during a typical week.

2. On a scale of 1 to 5 with 1 being best, how would you rate the ease of traveling in and around

Eaton? Opinions on the ease of travel by bike in Eaton were evenly mixed, while opinions on the ease of walking were generally more positive (54% positive, 27% neutral, and 19% negative). The vast majority of respondents felt positively about the ease of travel by motorized vehicle (80%).

0.0%10.0%20.0%30.0%40.0%50.0%60.0%70.0%80.0%90.0%

100.0%

Walk Bike Drive alone Carpool Don't work outside the home

Per

cent

of R

espo

nden

ts

22.2% 21.6%

45.0%

19.4%32.4%

35.0%

22.2%

27.0%

10.0%

22.2%

13.5%5.0%

5.6%

5.4% 5.0%8.3%

0.0%

100.0%

On bike By foot By car

1 - Very High 2 - High 3 - Neutral 4 - Low 5 - Very Low Don't know

3

A number of respondents provided additional information pertaining to the ease of travel via the three modes. Six comments involved bicycle and pedestrian travel, primarily focused on safety. Specific concerns included:

A trail connection is needed between Governor’s Ranch and Maplewood (do not want children crossing WCR 74)

Need better bike trails, thorns and other items cause too many flat tires

Crossing of US 85 in general (also noted in Question #3)

Safety of bicycling on Collins Street east of Eaton

Sidewalk conditions (2 comments)

Residents respecting bicyclists Two respondents discussed driving issues. Sight lines were the primary concern related to vehicular travel, specifically at intersections along Collins Street and at 1st and Park Avenue near the high school (cannot see vehicles traveling east or west, mainly due to parked cars). One respondent noted frequent driver confusion at the uncontrolled intersection of 5th and Park Avenue.

3. If you have children, how would you rate the ease of traveling in and around Eaton for your children?

Respondents with children felt slightly more negative about the ease of their children traveling around Eaton on a bicycle (36% positive, 44% negative), while slightly more positive about walking (44% positive, 36% negative). Most people with children of driving age felt it was easy or neutral for their children to get around Eaton in a vehicle (48% positive, 17% neutral, 9% negative).

One respondent noted sidewalk conditions and the crossing at Collins Street and Maple Avenue as hazardous for young children, while another respondent noted that many intersections are in need of more signage to protect crossing children. It was also noted that the areas around schools get very congested when there are children present.

8.0% 8.0%

26.1%

28.0%36.0%

21.7%8.0%

8.0%

17.4%24.0%

24.0%8.7%

20.0%12.0%

8.7%

12.0% 12.0% 17.4%

0.0%

100.0%

On bike By foot By car

1 - Very High 2 - High 3 - Neutral 4 - Low 5 - Very Low Don't know

4

4. On a scale of 1 to 5 with 1 being the highest priority, how would you prioritize transportation improvements needed in Eaton?

When prioritizing transportation improvements, most respondents gave a higher priority to improved crossings of US 85, improved railroad crossings, and new or improved sidewalks/trails. Safety improvements and new or improved biking facilities also received relatively higher ratings. Prioritization of additional traffic signals was mixed, while road widening was not seen as a major priority for the most part. Adding vanpool service or bus service mostly received the lowest rating, but did receive some positive prioritization (9% and 15% respectively).

Only a few respondents provided additional comments on transportation improvements, which are included in the analysis of Question # 5 below. A respondent also noted that vanpool/bus service could be provided by a private company.

13.5%

34.2% 35.1%

52.6%

40.5%

2.9%8.6%

29.7%

17.1%

5.4%

15.8%21.6%

21.1%

24.3%

5.9%

5.7%

43.2%

34.3%27.0%

5.3%

18.9%

15.8%

16.2%

2.9%

2.9%

8.1%

20.0%

16.2%

13.2%

5.4%

8.1%

20.6%20.0%

8.1%

8.6%

37.8%31.6%

18.9%10.5% 10.8%

67.6%62.9%

10.8%20.0%

0.0%

100.0%

Roadwidening

Additionaltraffic

signals

Improvesafety

Improvedcrossingsof US 85

Improvedrailroad

crossings

Addvanpoolservice

Addbus

service

New orimprovedsidewalks/

trails

New orimproved

bikingfacilities

1 - High Priority 2 3 4 5 - Low Priority

5

5. What specific transportation improvements would you like to see in Eaton? Responses, which were also take from Question # 4, included:

Re‐evaluate speed limits – too slow on Collins Street and WCR 37

Clear sidewalks within 24 hours of a snow storm for the safety of children, adults, and seniors

Install sidewalks where they’re missing, including working with the County to install sidewalks in unincorporated areas near Eaton

Concerns about plant growth blocking sidewalks for pedestrians and sight lines for motorists

A few people noted the railroad crossing at WCR 76 could be improved, such as adding crossing arms

Safer crossings/traffic lights of US 85, including at 5th Street (perhaps flashing ped signs)

Crosswalk and signage in Maplewood Estates, especially around the market and McDonalds

Raised crosswalks around all schools, as neighbors feel speeds are too high and that 4‐way stops aren’t always an option

More stop signs and traffic lights

Better route around the elementary schools

Traffic light at US 85 and 10th Street

Lower speeds on northbound US 85 until north of 10th Street

Safer bike travel routes or paths, and general improvements to make Eaton more bike friendly including trails to better connect neighborhoods and Eaton to other nearby communities

Fix potholes

New, wider, and improved sidewalks (sidewalks in North Eaton were noted to be in poor condition)

Legalize golf cart use on Town streets

Rearranging the stop signs on Collins street, the stop signs on Maple Avenue make trying to cross at Cheyenne Avenue difficult

Travel on Cheyenne Avenue is difficult around the school at drop‐off/pick‐up time

Bus and vanpool services to connect to nearby communities and Denver, especially for seniors

Improve connections between Hawkstone and Eaton Commons to the western portion of Eaton across US 85

Improve US 85 (paving, median revamp, landscaping)

6. Overall, how satisfied are you with Eaton’s existing transportation network? Opinions were generally positive or neutral (38% and 39% respectively), with no one very unsatisfied.

10%

28%

39%

23%

Very satisfied

Satisfied

Neutral

Somewhat unsatisfied

Very unsatisfied

6

7. Do you have any other comments or suggestions for consideration in the Eaton Transportation Plan?

Other comments included:

Prefer updates through the water bill, newspaper, and mail

Restrict bushes/hedges and large shrubbery on corner lots that restricts/obstructs sight lines for turning motorists

No more trails

Crosswalks near schools need better marking on the pavement

Interest in making the old railroad tracks into a better bike path versus trail

Trail connections to outlying developments (Hawkstone, Maplewood Estates, Governor’s Ranch, Eaton Commons)

Flashing lights on Collins and perhaps other locations to slow traffic in the morning and after school rather than having speed limits constant

Work with CDOT to fix drainage issues around US 85 and 5th Street, which can be a hazard after heavy rainfall; could incorporate a ped crossing as well

8. How did you hear about this transportation planning process?

A vast majority heard about the meeting and process through the water bill flyer, although one respondent noted that renters may not receive such flyers because the landlord receives the bill. Word of mouth and the Town’s website were also popular mediums.

0

5

10

15

20

25

From friend/family

Flyer in my water bill

Facebook Town's website

Newspaper Chamber of Commerce

7

Summary of the Open House Comment Map: Many of the attendees of the open house placed comments via sticky notes on a large aerial map of the Eaton planning area. Many comments were similar to those received in the surveys, such as improved railroad crossings (especially of 10th Street), better trail connectivity, and buses to nearby communities. Other comments included:

Drivers hit a bollard when going from eastbound 5th Street to northbound US 85

The curve of 5th Street just east of US 85 can be difficult to see around

Bike paths between schools

Provide access from the east to the future recreational center (perhaps 3rd or 5th Streets)

Install a traffic light at Collins Street and Cheyenne Avenue

Put in a 4‐way stop at 1st Street and Cheyenne Avenue

Some stop signs in town could be yield signs instead

As growth occurs in the western portion of the area, a light at WCR 35 and 74 might be necessary

Put in a 4‐way stop at Elm Avenue and 1st Street (cannot see traffic around corner)

Large trucks park on the street to go to McDonalds/gas station

Move the speed increase on southbound US 85 further south, past access points for Maplewood

Colorado Parkway sees a lot of truck activity

Parents park in the bus‐only area on Collins Street

Sidewalks on Cheyenne Avenue south of Collins Street

The Oak Avenue and Collins Street intersection is not friendly to large vehicles – hard to see and poor turning radiuses for large trucks turning right off US 85, both northbound and southbound, that results in going over a curb or waiting for traffic to clear (possibly blocking traffic on US 85)

1

EatonDaysTransportationPlanBoothSummaryofInputEaton Transportation Plan Eaton Days Booth – July 13, 2013 – 12:00pm to 2:30pm MST FHU Project No. 10‐045‐09 Overview: A booth was set up at Eaton Days on July 13th, 2013 from 12‐2:30pm at Eaton Park to display proposed improvements for the Eaton Transportation Plan to the community and solicit feedback. Over thirty people stopped by the booth to review the improvements, with two visitors providing written feedback and numerous others providing verbal feedback. Information presented at the booth included maps of short, mid, and long term improvements along with project descriptions. Visitors were asked to provide any comments on the listed improvements, including changes in prioritization, or if any additional improvements should be added. A one‐page questionnaire was available to provide written feedback. A copy of this questionnaire is attached to the end of this document. Summary of Comments Received: Most visitors to the booth did not provide much feedback beyond appreciation for undertaking planning of transportation in Eaton. Numerous people also stated their appreciation for the number of bicycle‐related improvements and trails. Most comments provided were related to intersections. Two commenters expressed the desire to accelerate the implementation of a traffic signal at US 85 and WCR 76. One commenter stated in writing that wait times of 5‐10 minutes can be experienced at this intersection when trying to turn left onto US 85 from WCR 76 from roughly 8:00am to 9:00am in the morning and 4:30pm to 6:00pm in the evening. Additional comments received include:

Convert the uncontrolled intersection of 4th Street and Park Avenue to a two‐way stop

Install a traffic signal at the intersection of Collins Street and Cheyenne Avenue

Plant overgrowth blocking sight lines at Collins Street and Park Avenue

Accelerate the need for pedestrian improvements at Collins Street and Cheyenne Avenue, as children currently get dropped off by the bus here and have to walk to Maple Avenue to get into the Maplewood neighborhood

Children have difficulty crossing US 85 at Collins Street to access the McDonalds

Sidewalk conditions need to be improved

Avoid more traffic (including trucks) on WCR 74


Appendix B

APPENDIX B LAND USE FORECAST ASSUMPTIONS

TAZ Acres Households

Retail

Employment

Service

Employment

Production

Employment

Total

Employment

621 544 4 4 0 10 14622 64 190 86 183 0 269623 493 4 0 0 15 15624 2,662 87 0 1 3 4632 211 136 0 85 0 85633 640 11 0 0 0 0634 102 117 90 57 28 175636 166 7 0 0 5 5637 672 13 0 0 2 21022 634 4 0 0 53 531023 186 34 0 0 10 101024 173 44 0 0 10 101025 32 46 25 10 178 2131026 166 267 0 10 0 101027 154 451 0 220 0 2201028 147 279 0 15 0 151029 307 1 0 0 5 51030 166 276 0 0 0 01031 70 3 20 71 96 1871032 134 0 50 21 65 1361033 70 0 30 10 0 401034 282 1 0 0 2 21035 352 9 0 0 3 31036 192 19 0 0 3 31037 448 8 0 0 3 31038 640 10 0 0 3 31039 160 3 0 5 0 51040 307 2 0 0 0 01041 646 12 0 0 1 11042 166 1 0 0 0 01043 237 2 0 0 15 151044 224 4 0 1 1 21045 422 20 0 0 2 21046 109 5 6 20 0 26

Total 11,978 2,070 311 709 513 1,533

ExistingLandUses(2009NFRMPOModelwithZoneSplits)

Appendix B

Remaining Land (Less

Existing

and

Eaton Draw)

Land for

Road

ways,

Parks, W

etlan

ds

(25%)

Remaining

Developab

le Lan

dLand Use

Use M

ixAcres

Households

Retail

Employm

ent

Service

Employm

ent

Production

Employm

ent

Total Employm

ent

Residen

tial

SR173

434

00

00

Mixed

Use

Mix 3

31

38

0133

60

193

472

0133

60

193

1023

181

45

136

Residen

tial

NT

Total:

612

00

00

Residen

tial

NT

31

141

00

00

Residen

tial

OT

63

406

00

00

Mixed

Use

Mix 4

31

70

0136

61

197

617

0136

61

197

1025

82

6Mixed

Use

Mix 2

Total:

016

39

20

75

1026

75

19

56

Service

*To

tal:

00

71

071

622

20

2Mixed

Use

Mix 5

Total:

711

30

14

623

487

122

365

Residen

tial

SRTo

tal:

913

00

00

1028

17

413

Residen

tial

SRTo

tal:

33

00

00

Residen

tial

NT

183

824

00

00

Industrial

Mix 1

46

00

0299

299

824

00

299

299

1030

45

11

34

Residen

tial

NT

Total:

153

00

00

FutureNew

Development(from

EatonCom

prehensivePlan)

272

68

166

41

305

76

Total:

1029

229

Future Development

TAZ

621

Total:

204

1024

Total:

125

1030

45

11

34

Residen

tial

NT

Total:

153

00

00

1031

35

926

Industrial

Mix 1

Total:

00

0170

170

1032

90

22

68

Industrial

Mix 1

Total:

00

0444

444

1032

49

12

37

Industrial

Mix 1

Total:

00

0242

242

1034

280

70

210

Residen

tial

SRTo

tal:

525

00

00

1036

169

42

127

Residen

tial

SRTo

tal:

318

00

00

632

161

40

121

Residen

tial

NT

Total:

545

00

00

1039

157

39

118

Residen

tial

OT

Total:

767

00

00

Residen

tial

OT

10

62

00

00

Mixed

Use

Mix 2

38

0100

251

125

476

62

100

251

125

476

Residen

tial

NT

81

363

00

00

Mixed

Use

Mix 2

43

0113

284

142

539

363

113

284

142

539

636

108

27

81

Industrial

Mix 1

Total:

00

0529

529

Residen

tial

SR137

342

00

00

Industrial

Mix 1

15

00

099

99

342

00

99

99

Total

2,836

706

2,282

2,282

6,553

240

917

2,191

3,348

* Estimate for new

high school and community center

64

16

41

165

1044

202

50

152

Total:

1042

Total:

634

Total:

48

124

Appendix B

FutureLandUseCalculations

Employment Calcuations

Square Feet (SF) / Acre = 43,560

Floor Area Ratio (FAR) = 0.15

Mix 1 Mix % SF/Employee

Production 100% 1,000

Mix 2 Mix % SF/Employee

Retail 20% 500

Service 30% 300


Mix 3 Mix % SF/Employee Households/Acre

SR 50% 2.5

Service 20% 300



NT 50% 4.5

Service 20% 300



OT 50% 6 5OT 50% 6.5

Retail 25% 300

Service 25% 1,000

Household Calculations

(from Eaton Comprehensive Plan)

Households/Acre

Suburban Residential (SR) 2.5

New Town Residential (NT) 4.5

Original Town Residential (OT) 6.5

Appendix B


Appendix C

APPENDIX C OPINIONS OF PROBABLE COSTS

Project ID Project Description Cost Estimate Data Estimated Cost

19 US 85/5th Street Intersection Improvements

‐ Fix median; add refuge; better crossing C&G Removal = 120lf@$10/lf = 1,200.00$

Asphalt removal = 75sy@$50/sy = 3,750.00$

New C&G = 139lf@$30/lf = 4,170.00$

New Asphalt = 783sf@$100/ton (57 tons)= 5,700.00$

Med. Cover = 557sf@$10/sf = 5,570.00$

Curb Ramps = 16sy@$125/sy = 2,000.00$

Crosswalks = 176sf@$15/sf = 2,640.00$

Sign Panel = 44sf@$30/sf = 1,320.00$ Post (2"x2" tubing) = 60lf@$25/lf = 1,500.00$

Subtotal = 27,850.00$ Contingencies (30%) = 8,355.00$

TOTAL = 36,205.00$

USE = $36,200

25 Install stop sign on Park Avenue at 5th Street Stop sign (30"x30") = 6.25sf @ $30/sf = 187.50$ Post (2"x2" tubing) = 14lf @$25/lf = 350.00$

Subtotal = 537.50$ Contingencies (30%) = 161.25$

TOTAL = 698.75$

USE = 700.00$

26 Alternate stop signs along 1st St. from US 85 to Park Ave. Reset stop sign = 4@$250 each = 1,000.00$

‐ Reset stop signs from N/S orientation to E/W orientation Advance warning sign =48sf@$30/sf = 1,440.00$

at Park and Maple Streets Post (2"x2" tubing) = 112lf @$25/lf = 2,800.00$


TOTAL = 6,812.00$

USE = 6,800.00$

27 Assess posted speed on US 85 South of Collins St. Estimate from All Traffic Data = 600.00$

28 Assess posted speed on US 85 North of 5th St. thru 10th St. Estimate from All Traffic Data = 600.00$

Short‐Term Projects

EatonTransportationPlanCostEstimatesforImprovementRecommendations

29 Add stop signs at 4th Street/Park Street intersection Stop sign (2)(30"x30") = 12.5sf @ $30/sf = 375.00$ Post (2"x2" tubing) = 28lf @$25/lf = 700.00$

Subtotal = 1,075.00$ Contingencies (30%) = 322.50$

TOTAL = 1,397.50$

USE = 1,500.00$

30 Install RR Crossing Equipment at WCR 76 500,000.00$

31 US 85/WCR 76 Signalization 310,000.00$

‐ Based on experience (needs RR interconnect)

37 US 85/WCR 74 pedestrian crossing improvements Pedestrian sign = 4@9sf each @$30/sf = 1,080.00$


TOTAL = 1,404.00$

USE = 1,500.00$

38 Install Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacon at US 85/5th St. From FHWA website; cost for two RRFB (one per

travel direction) 15,000.00$

39 WCR 37/1st St. pedestrian improvements C&G Removal = 66lf@$10/lf = 660.00$

New C&G = 57lf@$30/lf = 1,710.00$

New Sidewalk= 38sy@$50/sy = 1,900.00$ Curb Ramp = 16sy@$150/sy = 2,200.00$

TOTAL (each corner) = 6,470.00$

4 corners = 25,880.00$

Drainage = 5,000.00$ Contingencies (30%) = 7,764.00$

TOTAL = 38,644.00$

USE = 40,000.00$

Appendix C


40 1st St./Park Ave. pedestrian improvements C&G Removal = 66lf@$10/lf = 660.00$

New C&G = 57lf@$30/lf = 1,710.00$



4 corners = 25,880.00$


TOTAL = 38,644.00$

USE = 40,000.00$

41 Install bulb‐outs at WCR 74/Maple Avenue C&G Removal = 66lf@$10/lf = 660.00$

New C&G (2‐B)= 57lf@$30/lf = 1,710.00$



4 corners = 25,880.00$


TOTAL = 38,644.00$

USE = 40,000.00$

42 Elm Street/Orchard Street Pedestrian Improvements Crosswalks = 432sf@$15/sf = 6,450.00$

(Assumed 9 [@2'x8'] on 3 approaches)


TOTAL = 8,385.00$

USE = 8,400.00$

43 Install sidewalk along west side of US 85 from just south Tree removal = 2@$1000 = 2,000.00$

of 4th Street to 3rd Street Clearing & grubbing = 2,000.00$

‐ 165lf @ 4' wide Concrete sidewalk = 74sy@$50/sy = 3,700.00$ Curb ramp (1) = 8sy@$150/sy= 1,200.00$


TOTAL = 11,570.00$

USE = 12,000.00$

44 Install sidewalk along west side of US 85 from 4th Street Clearing & grubbing = 3,000.00$

to 5th Street Concrete sidewalk = 151sy@$50/sy = 7,550.00$ ‐ 340 lf@ 4' wide Curb ramps (2) = 16sy@$150/sy= 2,400.00$


TOTAL = 16,835.00$

USE = 17,000.00$

45 Install sidewalk along the north side of WCR 74 from Clearing & grubbing = 3,000.00$

Juniper Street to Ash Avenue Concrete sidewalk = 365sy@$50/sy = 18,250.00$

‐ 820 lf@ 4' wide Reset Fence = 315lf@$10/lf = 3,150.00$

New C&G (2‐M) = 460lf@$30/lf = 12,900.00$

Extend 8' box culvert = 25lf@$1,500/lf = 37,500.00$

Reset mailbox = 2@$300 = 600.00$

Reset stop sign = 1@$250 = 250.00$

Landscaping Restoration = 5,000.00$ Curb ramps (4) = 32sy@$150/sy= 4,800.00$


TOTAL = 111,085.00$

USE = 111,000.00$

Appendix C


46 Install sidewalk along the north side of WCR 74 from Reset ground sign = 1@$250 = 250.00$

Elm Street to US 85 Concrete sidewalk = 147sy@$50/sy = 7,350.00$

‐ 330 lf @ 4' wide Landscaping Restoration = 3,000.00$

Reset Storm Inlet = 3,000.00$ Curb ramps (3) = 24sy@$150/sy= 3,600.00$


TOTAL = 22,360.00$

USE = 23,000.00$

47 Install sidewalks along 5th Street where missing Clearing & grubbing = 5,000.00$

form Birch Street to US 85 Concrete sidewalk = 1,230sy@$50/sy = 61,500.00$ Does not account for utility relocations, ROW purchase, etc. Reset Fence = 250lf@$10/lf = 2,500.00$

‐ 2765 lf @ 4' wide Subtotal = 69,000.00$ Contingencies (30%) = 20,700.00$

TOTAL = 89,700.00$

USE = 90,000.00$

48 Install sidewalk along the east side of Maple Avenue Clearing & grubbing = 1,000.00$ north of 6th Street Concrete sidewalk = 107sy@$50/sy = 5,350.00$

‐ 240 lf @ 4' wide Subtotal = 6,350.00$ Contingencies (30%) = 1,905.00$

TOTAL = 8,255.00$

USE = 8,500.00$

49 Install sidewalk at missing link along the south side of Clearing & grubbing = 1,000.00$ 4th Street between Cottonwood Ave. and Park Ave. Concrete sidewalk = 63sy@$50/sy = 3,150.00$

‐ 140lf @ 4' wide Subtotal = 4,150.00$ Contingencies (30%) = 1,245.00$

TOTAL = 5,395.00$

USE = 5,400.00$

50 School zone improvements along WCR 74 near the Replace SZ signs (2)= 18sf @ $30/sf = 540.00$

elementary school S4‐3P "School" signs (2)= 6sf@ $30/sf = 180.00$

Reset Speed Limit sign= 1@$200 = 200.00$

Speed Feedback Sign = $7,895 & 20% markup = $9,500 New Speed Warning signs (2)= 9,500.00$

Post (2"x2" tubing) = 30lf @$25/lf = 750.00$


TOTAL = 14,521.00$

USE = 15,000.00$

1 Connect 3rd St. to WCR 35 1,530,000$

‐ See Cross‐Section Cost Estimates

8 Improve WCR 74 to Major Arterial, WCR 33 to WCR 41 17,930,000$






11 Improve 5th St. to Collector with Bike Lanes, US 85‐WCR 39 2,290,000$


20 Convert US 85/Oak Dr. to 3/4 movement Clearing & grubbing = 2,000.00$

Reset ground sign= 1@$200 = 200.00$

Rem. of concrete = 53sy@$25 = 1,325.00$

New C&G (I‐B)= 255lf@$25/lf = 6,375.00$ Med. Cover = 2070sf@$10/sf = 20,700.00$


TOTAL = 39,780.00$

USE = 40,000.00$

Mid‐Term Projects

Appendix C


21 Convert US 85/2nd St. to RIRO Rem. of ground sign = 2 @$100 = 200.00$

Rem. of C&G = 450lf@10 = 4,500.00$




TOTAL = 116,057.50$

USE = $116,000

22 Convert US 85/3rd St. to RIRO Rem. of ground sign = 1 @$100 = 100.00$

Rem. of C&G = 370lf@10 = 3,700.00$




TOTAL = 98,670.00$

USE = 100,000.00$

23 Convert US 85/7th St. to 3/4 movement Rem. of asphalt mat = 7sy@$50/sy = 350.00$

Rem. of C&G= 32lf@$10 = 320.00$

Rem. of concrete = 20sy@$25 = 500.00$



TOTAL = 22,516.00$

USE = 24,000.00$

32 Install RR Crossing Equipment at 5th Street 500,000.00$

51 Pave Great Western Trail Clearing & grubbing = 10,000.00$ ‐ US 85 to WCR 35 Concrete Trail = 7,225sy @ $50/sy = 361,250.00$

‐ 6,500lf @ assumed 10' wide Subtotal = 371,250.00$ Contingencies (30%) = 111,375.00$

TOTAL = 482,625.00$

USE = 485,000.00$

52 Construct Multi‐Use trail between Hawkstone & Eaton Clearing & grubbing = 10,000.00$ Commons neighborhoods; down to WCR 74 Concrete Trail = 7,110sy @ $50/sy = 355,500.00$


TOTAL = 475,150.00$

USE = 475,000.00$

53 Construct Multi‐Use trail connecting the Great West Trail, Clearing & grubbing = 5,000.00$ Rec Center & High School, & Governor's Ranch 'hood Concrete Trail = 2,845sy @ $50/sy = 142,250.00$


TOTAL = 191,425.00$

USE = 200,000.00$

54 New sidewalk on west side of US 85, WCR 74 to CO Pkwy. Clearing & grubbing = 5,000.00$

‐ 1,900lf @ assumed 6' wide Concrete sidewalk = 1,270sy@$50/sy = 63,500.00$

‐ Detached ‐ no C&G Curb ramps (3) = 24sy@$150/sy= 3,600.00$

Landscape Restoration = 3,000.00$ Reset ground sign= 2@$200 = 400.00$

Subtotal = 75,500.00$

Drainage (30%) = 22,650.00$ Contingencies (30%) = 22,650.00$

120,800.00$

USE = 120,000.00$

Appendix C


2 Close US 85/WCR 37 intersection; construct new Rural New Rural Collector Construction= 1,185,000.00$

Collector from WCR 76 to WCR 37 Clearing & grubbing = 50,000.00$

‐ New Rural Collector = 1,800lf Asphalt removal = 435sy@$50/sy = 21,750.00$

‐ Asphalt Rem = 150lfx26' wide RR Gating Rem. = ‐$ Rem. ground sign = 100.00$

Subtotal = 1,256,850.00$ Contingencies (30%) = 377,055.00$

TOTAL = 1,633,905.00$

USE = 2,050,000.00$

3 Connect CO Pkwy. Between Gov. Ranch and Maplewood 3,300,000$

Estates


4 Improve WCR 70 to Rural Min. Art., WCR 33 to WCR 41 10,500,000$


5 Improve WCR 72 fo Rural Min. Art., WCR 33 to WCR 41 11,500,000$
















17 Improve CO Pkwy. To Collector w/ Bike Lane, WCR 35 770,000$

to just east of Setter's Drive

Long‐Range Projects

to just east of Setter s Drive


18 Improve CO Pkwy. To Collector w/ Bike Lane, WCR 37 1,300,000$

to US 85


24 US 85/WCR 74 intesection improvements Channelized Right Turn

C&G Removal = 200lf@$10/lf = 2,000.00$

Asphalt removal = 92sy@$50/sy = 4,600.00$

Reset Fire Hydrant = 1 ea.@ 6,000.00$

New C&G = 380lf@$30/lf = 11,400.00$

New Asphalt =2113sf@$100/ton(78 tons)= 1,500.00$

Med. Cover = 393sf@$10/sf = 3,930.00$

Curb Ramps = 48sy@$125/sy = 6,000.00$

48each @ 16sf Each = 768sf Crosswalks = 768sf@$15/sf = 11,520.00$

Traffic Signalization = 150,000.00$


TOTAL = 256,035.00$

Left Turn Lanes

Restriping EB/WB Approaches = 1,500.00$

Can't lengthen NB re: back‐to‐back ‐$

LT lanes; SB doesn't require it


TOTAL = 1,950.00$

Right Turns = 256,035.00$

Left Turns = 1,950.00$

TOTAL = 257,985.00$

USE = $260,000

Appendix C


33 US 85/5th Street Signalization 310,000.00$

‐ Based on experience (needs RR interconnect)

34 US 85/CO Parkway Signalization 300,000.00$

‐ Based on experience

35 WCR 74/WCR 37 Signalization 275,000.00$


36 WCR 74/WCR 35 Signalization 275,000.00$


55 WCR 74/WCR 37 Pedestrian Improvements Crosswalks = 320sf@$15/sf = 4,800.00$

(Assumed 20 [@2'x8'] on 4 approaches)

Curb ramps (2) = 16sy@$150/sy= 2,400.00$

Ped. Signs = 36sf@$30/sf = 1,080.00$

W16‐7P = 24"x12" Ped. Arrow Signs = 8sf@$30/sf = 240.00$ 14lf each post Post (2"x2" tubing) = 56lf @$25/lf = 1,400.00$


TOTAL = 12,896.00$

USE = 13,000.00$

56 Extend trail along WCR 74 from WCR 35 to CO Parkway Clearing & grubbing = 5,000.00$

‐ 2,000 lf @ 6' wide (to match meandering trail on WCR 74) Concrete Trail = 1,335sy @ $50/sy = 66,750.00$ Assumes 20lf of ROW required ROW=40,000sf@$5/sf = 200,000.00$


TOTAL = 353,275.00$

USE = 350,000.00$

57 Install Multi‐Use trail from Great Western Trail to Clearing & grubbing = 10,000.00$ Co Parkway extension Concrete Trail = 4,890sy @ $50/sy = 244,500.00$

Assumes Ditchrider road is paved Subtotal = 254,500.00$ ‐ 4,400 lf @ 10' wide Contingencies (30%) = 76,350.00$

TOTAL = 330,850.00$

USE = 330,000.00$

58 Install Multi‐Use trail along RR tracks and Industrial Drive Clearing & grubbing = 15,000.00$

Concrete Trail = 2,890sy @ $50/sy = 144,500.00$ Assumes 20lf of ROW required ROW=52,000sf@$5/sf = 260,000.00$

‐ 2,600 lf @ 10' wide Subtotal = 419,500.00$ Contingencies (30%) = 125,850.00$

TOTAL = 545,350.00$

USE = 550,000.00$

Appendix C

Date Prepared: August 6, 2013 #1

Unit Cost Quantity Extended Cost

1 Earthwork CY $12.50 7,556 $94,4442 Aggregate Base Course (Class 6) TON $15.50 4,522 $70,091 12-Inch Depth

3 Hot Mix Asphalt (Grade S)(100)(PG 64-22) TON $61.50 3,324 $204,453 8" Depth - Widening / 2" Overlay - Existing

4 Curb and Gutter LF $21.50 3,380 $72,670 Includes Outside Edge C&G

5 Concrete Sidewalk SY $30.00 2,253 $67,590 6-Foot Attached (Two Sides)

6 Traffic Signal Each $250,000.00 0 $07 Railroad Crossing Upgrades Each $500,000.00 0 $08 Landscaping SF $2.00 0 $09 $0

10 $0$510,000

% of Major Item Cost$510,000 A

8.0% $41,000 B-1

5.0% $26,000 B-2

1.5% $8,000 B-3

9.3% $48,000 B-4

3.7% $19,000 B-5

0.4% $3,000 B-6

2.1% $11,000 B-7

3.0% $16,000 B-8

9.6% $49,000 B-9

1.0% $6,000 B-10

1.4% $8,000 B-11

Total of Bid Construction Items $745,000 B

2.6% $20,000 C-1

4.0% $30,000 C-2

Total of Bid Construction Items & Force Account Items $795,000 C

8.0% $64,000 D-1

17.0% $136,000 D-2

Total Design & Construction Cost $995,000 DRight-of-Way 102,000 SF $5 $510,000 E-1

Utilities % of D 1.0% $10,000 E-2

Total Project, Design & Construction Cost $1,515,000 E

Contingency (Engineering, ROW & Utilities Only) 2.0% $15,000 F

Total Project Cost Estimate $1,530,000 G

Construction Engineering % of C

% of D1, D2, E1, E2

Traffic / Lighting / ITS % of A

Force Account - Misc.

% of ATraffic Control / DetourStructural - Minor Structures / Walls % of ABid Force Accounts % of A

% of BMinor Contract Revisions % of B

Design Engineering % of C

Removals / Resets % of ARoadway % of ASigning and Striping % of A

Environmental % of AMiscellaneous % of AMobilization % of A

Drainage / Utilities % of A

Eaton Transportation Plan

Estimate of Conceptual CostsCollector Width (Likely No Bike Lanes)-Connect 3rd Street to WCR 35 (±

0.32 Miles)

Item Notes

Total Major Items

Total Major Items

Appendix C





4 Valley Gutter LF $21.50 3,590 $77,1855 Concrete Sidewalk SY $30.00 0 $06 Traffic Signal Each $250,000.00 0 $07 Railroad Crossing Upgrades Each $500,000.00 0 $08 Landscaping SF $2.00 0 $09 $0

10 $0$319,000


8.0% $26,000 B-1

5.0% $16,000 B-2

1.5% $5,000 B-3

9.3% $30,000 B-4

3.7% $12,000 B-5

0.4% $2,000 B-6

2.1% $7,000 B-7

3.0% $10,000 B-8

9.6% $31,000 B-9

1.0% $4,000 B-10

1.4% $5,000 B-11


2.6% $13,000 C-1

4.0% $19,000 C-2


8.0% $40,000 D-1

17.0% $85,000 D-2

Total Design & Construction Cost $624,000 DRight-of-Way 108,000 SF $5 $540,000 E-1

Utilities % of D 1.0% $7,000 E-2






Estimate of Conceptual Costs

Rural Collector - WCR 37 to WCR 76 (± 0.34 Mile)

Item Notes

Total Major Items

Total Major Items


% of C



% of D1, D2, E1, E2





Design Engineering

Appendix C








10 $0$1,021,000

% of Major Item Cost$1,021,000 A

8.0% $82,000 B-1

5.0% $52,000 B-2

1.5% $16,000 B-3

9.3% $95,000 B-4

3.7% $38,000 B-5

0.4% $5,000 B-6

2.1% $22,000 B-7

3.0% $31,000 B-8

9.6% $99,000 B-9

1.0% $11,000 B-10

1.4% $15,000 B-11

Total of Bid Construction Items $1,487,000 B

2.6% $39,000 C-1

4.0% $60,000 C-2

Total of Bid Construction Items & Force Account Items $1,586,000 C

8.0% $127,000 D-1

17.0% $270,000 D-2

Total Design & Construction Cost $1,983,000 DRight-of-Way 184,500 SF $5 $923,000 E-1

Utilities % of D 1.0% $20,000 E-2





% of D1, D2, E1, E2










Estimate of Conceptual CostsCollector with Bike Lanes - CO Parkway, Governor's Ranch to Maplewood

Estates (± 0.58 Miles)

Item Notes

Total Major Items

Total Major Items

Appendix C



1 Earthwork CY $12.50 94,111 $1,176,3892 Aggregate Base Course (Class 6) TON $15.50 50,693 $785,741 12-Inch Depth

3 Hot Mix Asphalt (Grade S)(100)(PG 64-22) TON $61.50 37,268 $2,291,982 8" Depth - Widening / 2" Overlay - Existing

4 Curb and Gutter LF $21.50 0 $0 No C&G, only Shoulder

5 Concrete Sidewalk SY $30.00 0 $0 No Sidewalks


10 $0$4,255,000


8.0% $341,000 B-1

5.0% $213,000 B-2

1.5% $64,000 B-3

9.3% $396,000 B-4

3.7% $158,000 B-5

0.4% $18,000 B-6

2.1% $90,000 B-7

3.0% $128,000 B-8

9.6% $409,000 B-9

1.0% $43,000 B-10

1.4% $60,000 B-11


2.6% $161,000 C-1

4.0% $247,000 C-2


8.0% $527,000 D-1

17.0% $1,120,000 D-2

Total Design & Construction Cost $8,230,000 DRight-of-Way 423,500 SF $5 $2,118,000 E-1

Utilities % of D 1.0% $83,000 E-2






Estimate of Conceptual CostsRural Minor Arterial Cross-Section - WCR 70, WCR 33 to WCR 41 (± 4

Miles)

Item Notes

Total Major Items

Total Major Items


% of C



% of D1, D2, E1, E2





Design Engineering

Appendix C







6 Traffic Signal Each $250,000.00 0 $07 Railroad Crossing Upgrades Each $500,000.00 1 $500,0008 Landscaping LF $2.00 0 $09 $0

10 $0$4,765,000


8.0% $382,000 B-1

5.0% $239,000 B-2

1.5% $72,000 B-3

9.3% $444,000 B-4

3.7% $177,000 B-5

0.4% $20,000 B-6

2.1% $101,000 B-7

3.0% $143,000 B-8

9.6% $458,000 B-9

1.0% $48,000 B-10

1.4% $67,000 B-11


2.6% $180,000 C-1

4.0% $277,000 C-2


8.0% $590,000 D-1

17.0% $1,254,000 D-2


Utilities % of D 1.0% $93,000 E-2





% of D1, D2, E1, E2











Miles)

Item Notes

Total Major Items

Total Major Items

Appendix C







6 Traffic Signal Each $250,000.00 0 $07 Railroad Crossing Upgrades Each $500,000.00 1 $500,0008 Landscaping LF $2.00 0 $09 $0

10 $0$3,705,000


8.0% $297,000 B-1

5.0% $186,000 B-2

1.5% $56,000 B-3

9.3% $345,000 B-4

3.7% $138,000 B-5

0.4% $15,000 B-6

2.1% $78,000 B-7

3.0% $112,000 B-8

9.6% $356,000 B-9

1.0% $38,000 B-10

1.4% $52,000 B-11


2.6% $140,000 C-1

4.0% $216,000 C-2


8.0% $459,000 D-1

17.0% $975,000 D-2


Utilities % of D 1.0% $72,000 E-2







Miles)

Item Notes

Total Major Items

Total Major Items


% of C



% of D1, D2, E1, E2





Design Engineering

Appendix C







6 Traffic Signal Each $250,000.00 0 $07 Railroad Crossing Upgrades Each $500,000.00 0 $08 Landscaping LF $2.00 0 $09 $0

10 $0$4,377,000


8.0% $351,000 B-1

5.0% $219,000 B-2

1.5% $66,000 B-3

9.3% $408,000 B-4

3.7% $162,000 B-5

0.4% $18,000 B-6

2.1% $92,000 B-7

3.0% $132,000 B-8

9.6% $421,000 B-9

1.0% $44,000 B-10

1.4% $62,000 B-11


2.6% $166,000 C-1

4.0% $255,000 C-2


8.0% $542,000 D-1

17.0% $1,152,000 D-2


Utilities % of D 1.0% $85,000 E-2







Miles)

Item Notes

Total Major Items

Total Major Items


% of C



% of D1, D2, E1, E2





Design Engineering

Appendix C






5 Concrete Sidewalk SY $30.00 28,160 $844,800 6-Foot Detached (Two Sides)

6 Traffic Signal Each $250,000.00 0 $07 Railroad Crossing Upgrades Each $500,000.00 1 $500,0008 Landscaping LF $2.00 780,300 $1,560,6009 $0

10 $0$6,887,000


8.0% $551,000 B-1

5.0% $345,000 B-2

1.5% $104,000 B-3

9.3% $641,000 B-4

3.7% $255,000 B-5

0.4% $28,000 B-6

2.1% $145,000 B-7

3.0% $207,000 B-8

9.6% $662,000 B-9

1.0% $69,000 B-10

1.4% $97,000 B-11


2.6% $260,000 C-1

4.0% $400,000 C-2


8.0% $853,000 D-1

17.0% $1,811,000 D-2


Utilities % of D 1.0% $134,000 E-2







Major Arterial Cross-Section - WCR 74, WCR 33 to WCR 41 (± 4 Miles)

Item Notes

Total Major Items

Total Major Items


% of C



% of D1, D2, E1, E2





Design Engineering

Appendix C







6 Traffic Signal Each $250,000.00 0 $07 Railroad Crossing Upgrades Each $500,000.00 0 $08 Landscaping LF $2.00 576,000 $1,152,0009 $0

10 $0$5,195,000


8.0% $416,000 B-1

5.0% $260,000 B-2

1.5% $78,000 B-3

9.3% $484,000 B-4

3.7% $193,000 B-5

0.4% $21,000 B-6

2.1% $110,000 B-7

3.0% $156,000 B-8

9.6% $499,000 B-9

1.0% $52,000 B-10

1.4% $73,000 B-11


2.6% $196,000 C-1

4.0% $302,000 C-2


8.0% $643,000 D-1

17.0% $1,366,000 D-2


Utilities % of D 1.0% $101,000 E-2





% of D1, D2, E1, E2












Item Notes

Total Major Items

Total Major Items

Appendix C







6 Traffic Signal Each $250,000.00 0 $07 Railroad Crossing Upgrades Each $500,000.00 0 $08 Landscaping SF $2.00 477,000 $954,0009 $0

10 $0$4,309,000


8.0% $345,000 B-1

5.0% $216,000 B-2

1.5% $65,000 B-3

9.3% $401,000 B-4

3.7% $160,000 B-5

0.4% $18,000 B-6

2.1% $91,000 B-7

3.0% $130,000 B-8

9.6% $414,000 B-9

1.0% $44,000 B-10

1.4% $61,000 B-11


2.6% $163,000 C-1

4.0% $251,000 C-2


8.0% $534,000 D-1

17.0% $1,134,000 D-2


Utilities % of D 1.0% $84,000 E-2






Estimate of Conceptual CostsMajor Arterial Cross-Section - WCR 37, WCR 70 to WCR 76 (± 3 Miles), No

Improvements From WCR 74 to WCR 75 (in Town)(1/2 Mile)

Item Notes

Total Major Items

Total Major Items


% of C



% of D1, D2, E1, E2





Design Engineering

Appendix C








10 $0$937,000


8.0% $75,000 B-1

5.0% $47,000 B-2

1.5% $15,000 B-3

9.3% $88,000 B-4

3.7% $35,000 B-5

0.4% $4,000 B-6

2.1% $20,000 B-7

3.0% $29,000 B-8

9.6% $90,000 B-9

1.0% $10,000 B-10

1.4% $14,000 B-11


2.6% $36,000 C-1

4.0% $55,000 C-2


8.0% $117,000 D-1

17.0% $248,000 D-2


Utilities % of D 1.0% $19,000 E-2







Collector with Bike Lanes - 5th Street, US 85 to WCR 39 (± 0.8 Miles)

Item Notes

Total Major Items

Total Major Items


% of C



% of D1, D2, E1, E2





Design Engineering

Appendix C








10 $0$678,000


8.0% $55,000 B-1

5.0% $34,000 B-2

1.5% $11,000 B-3

9.3% $64,000 B-4

3.7% $26,000 B-5

0.4% $3,000 B-6

2.1% $15,000 B-7

3.0% $21,000 B-8

9.6% $66,000 B-9

1.0% $7,000 B-10

1.4% $10,000 B-11


2.6% $26,000 C-1

4.0% $40,000 C-2


8.0% $85,000 D-1

17.0% $180,000 D-2


Utilities % of D 1.0% $14,000 E-2





% of D1, D2, E1, E2











Mile)

Item Notes

Total Major Items

Total Major Items

Appendix C








10 $0$6,875,000


8.0% $550,000 B-1

5.0% $344,000 B-2

1.5% $104,000 B-3

9.3% $640,000 B-4

3.7% $255,000 B-5

0.4% $28,000 B-6

2.1% $145,000 B-7

3.0% $207,000 B-8

9.6% $660,000 B-9

1.0% $69,000 B-10

1.4% $97,000 B-11


2.6% $260,000 C-1

4.0% $399,000 C-2


8.0% $851,000 D-1

17.0% $1,808,000 D-2


Utilities % of D 1.0% $133,000 E-2








Item Notes

Total Major Items

Total Major Items


% of C



% of D1, D2, E1, E2





Design Engineering

Appendix C







6 Traffic Signal Each $250,000.00 0 $07 Railroad Crossing Upgrades Each $500,000.00 0 $08 Landscaping LF $2.00 133,200 $266,4009 $0

10 $0$1,204,000


8.0% $97,000 B-1

5.0% $61,000 B-2

1.5% $19,000 B-3

9.3% $112,000 B-4

3.7% $45,000 B-5

0.4% $5,000 B-6

2.1% $26,000 B-7

3.0% $37,000 B-8

9.6% $116,000 B-9

1.0% $13,000 B-10

1.4% $17,000 B-11


2.6% $46,000 C-1

4.0% $71,000 C-2


8.0% $150,000 D-1

17.0% $318,000 D-2


Utilities % of D 1.0% $24,000 E-2







Major Arterial Cross-Section - WCR 37, WCR 76 to WCR 78 (± 0.7 Mile)

Item Notes

Total Major Items

Total Major Items


% of C



% of D1, D2, E1, E2





Design Engineering

Appendix C








10 $0$6,875,000


8.0% $550,000 B-1

5.0% $344,000 B-2

1.5% $104,000 B-3

9.3% $640,000 B-4

3.7% $255,000 B-5

0.4% $28,000 B-6

2.1% $145,000 B-7

3.0% $207,000 B-8

9.6% $660,000 B-9

1.0% $69,000 B-10

1.4% $97,000 B-11


2.6% $260,000 C-1

4.0% $399,000 C-2


8.0% $851,000 D-1

17.0% $1,808,000 D-2


Utilities % of D 1.0% $133,000 E-2





% of D1, D2, E1, E2












Item Notes

Total Major Items

Total Major Items

Appendix C



1 Earthwork CY $12.50 10,560 $132,0002 Aggregate Base Course (Class 6) TON $15.50 948 $14,694 12-Inch Depth

3 Hot Mix Asphalt (Grade S)(100)(PG 64-22) TON $61.50 697 $42,863 8" Depth - Widening / 2" Overlay - Existing




10 $0$387,000


8.0% $31,000 B-1

5.0% $20,000 B-2

1.5% $6,000 B-3

9.3% $36,000 B-4

3.7% $15,000 B-5

0.4% $2,000 B-6

2.1% $9,000 B-7

3.0% $12,000 B-8

9.6% $38,000 B-9

1.0% $4,000 B-10

1.4% $6,000 B-11


2.6% $15,000 C-1

4.0% $23,000 C-2


8.0% $49,000 D-1

17.0% $103,000 D-2

Total Design & Construction Cost $756,000 DRight-of-Way 0 SF $5 $0 E-1


Total Project, Design & Construction Cost $764,000 E


Total Project Cost Estimate $768,000 G



Estimate of Conceptual CostsCollector with Bike Lanes - CO Parkway, WCR 35 to Settler's Drive (±

0.45 Mile)

Item Notes

Total Major Items

Total Major Items


% of C



% of D1, D2, E1, E2





Design Engineering

Appendix C




3 Hot Mix Asphalt (Grade S)(100)(PG 64-22) TON $61.50 821 $50,512 8" Depth - Widening / 2" Overlay - Existing




10 $0$273,000


8.0% $22,000 B-1

5.0% $14,000 B-2

1.5% $5,000 B-3

9.3% $26,000 B-4

3.7% $11,000 B-5

0.4% $2,000 B-6

2.1% $6,000 B-7

3.0% $9,000 B-8

9.6% $27,000 B-9

1.0% $3,000 B-10

1.4% $4,000 B-11


2.6% $11,000 C-1

4.0% $17,000 C-2


8.0% $35,000 D-1

17.0% $74,000 D-2

Total Design & Construction Cost $539,000 DRight-of-Way 0 SF $5 $0 E-1


Total Project, Design & Construction Cost $545,000 E


Total Project Cost Estimate $548,000 G




Collector with Bike Lanes - CO Parkway, WCR 37 to US 85 (± 0.4 Mile)

Item Notes

Total Major Items

Total Major Items


% of C



% of D1, D2, E1, E2





Design Engineering

Appendix C

FELSBURGH O L T &U L L E V I G

6300 S. Syracuse Way, Suite 600 • Centennial, CO 80111 • tel 303.721.1440 • fax 303.721.0832

www.fhueng.com

TRAFFIC ANALYSIS REPORT - Home | Town of Eaton · Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan -----31 Figure 15....

Documents

Transcript of TRAFFIC ANALYSIS REPORT - Home | Town of Eaton · Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan -----31 Figure 15....