Two public meetings were held by the Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT) on January 22^nd and 28^th, 2004, regarding the Valley Highway – Logan to 6th Avenue Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). Both meetings were held from 5:30 pm to 8:30 pm at the Lighting Services, Inc. building at 241 South Cherokee Street in Denver, Colorado.

The following is a summary of the public comments received at those meetings and CDOT’s responses. If you have any questions or comments regarding these responses or would like a Spanish version of this text, please contact:

• Valley Highway Project phone hotline at (720) 489-7923,
  
• Mr. Tony Gross, CDOT Region 6 Senior Project Manager at (303) 972-9112, or
  
• Mr. Dean Bradley, Project Manager at (303) 721-1440.

Additional project information is also available on the project website at www.valleyhighway.com

January 22^nd Public Meeting Comments

1.   Comment:	U.S. Welding prefers System Alternatives 1 and 3 because of the collector/distributor roads.
Response:	These systems alternatives are currently being evaluated in detail and will likely be carried forward in the Draft EIS.
2.   Comment:	A tunnel from southbound Broadway to southbound Interstate 25 (I-25) was included in one of the previous system alternatives. A tunnel option should be kept for impact analysis.
Response:	The possible tunnel carrying traffic from southbound Broadway to southbound I-25 is still under consideration and is currently included in System Alternative 2. The tunnel is being evaluated in more detail to decide whether it should be carried through the Draft EIS.
3.   Comment:	Pedestrian access from West Washington Park to the Regional Transportation District (RTD) Park-N-Ride at Broadway and I-25 should be improved.
Response:	Each of the System Alternatives include improvements to pedestrian access to the Broadway Light-Rail (LRT) Station. The improvements are being discussed with the Bicycle/Pedestrian Mobility Citizen Working Group, and more detail will be available at future meetings.
4.   Comment:	A noise barrier along the east side of the Alameda underpass should be constructed to reduce traffic noise.
Response:	Noise impact evaluation is being considered as part of the EIS, and this area has been examined. It is unlikely that this barrier will be recommended because it provides little benefit to sensitive noise areas, such as residential areas and parks.
5.   Comment:	Crime due to decreased visibility from noise barriers near the 800 block of south Lincoln is a concern.
Response:	Traffic noise barriers are being considered for this area because of the proximity to I-25. The wishes of the affected residents are an important consideration in this process, and barriers would generally not be recommended in the residents do not want them.
6.   Comment:	The highway and local street needs should be met for a balanced system.
Response:	CDOT and the City and County of Denver are actively working together to evaluate the needs of the system and develop solutions that can be met within the framework of the Valley Highway Project Environmental Impact Statement (EIS).
7.   Comment:	Who oversees the design and placement of riprap along the South Platte River?
Response:	Several agencies, including the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Urban Drainage and Flood Control District, and City and County of Denver have responsibilities related to the South Platte River. The Urban Drainage and Flood Control District would likely oversee riprap used for erosion control.
8.   Comment:	How will the Bicycle/Pedestrian Bridge at Bayaud Avenue be accessed?
Response:	The details of the bicycle/pedestrian bridge at Bayaud are still being developed. Discussions with the Bicycle/Pedestrian Mobility Citizen Working Group on-going, and additional details will be available at future meetings.
9.   Comment:	The Alameda underpass at the railroad tracks between Santa Fe Drive and Cherokee Street was constructed in 1910 and the I-25 underpass at Alameda Avenue was constructed in 1958. Both are historic structures. Has a Cultural Resources Inventory been conducted for the area? Can this report be reviewed by the public? This structure should be preserved because of its historic value.
Response:	A Cultural Resources Inventory has been conducted and is currently being reviewed by the appropriate historic preservation agencies. The report will be made available when completed. As part of the EIS, preservation alternatives will be evaluated for structures identified as eligible for the National Register of Historic Places.
10.   Comment:	Are the green areas in the renderings of the Santa Fe Drive/Kalamath and Alameda Grade Separations (Alternatives 2 and 3) representational of future land use in the area?
Response:	Possible future land use is currently being evaluated. The renderings were prepared to give a general idea of the areas that would be affected by the alternatives, but do not yet indicate what land uses may be possible or desirable.
11.   Comment:	Noise is a concern to Athmar Park residents with the northbound Santa Fe Drive to northbound I-25 flyover.
Response:	A noise meeting will be conducted with Athmar Park Neighborhood Association representatives in March/April 2004 to discuss noise issues.
12.   Comment:	TREX improvements for urban design/aesthetics were eliminated during design – concerned the same will happen this project.
Response:	The Urban Design/Aesthetics Citizen Working Group provided valuable information regarding desirable urban design and aesthetics considerations for this project. CDOT is currently working with the City and County of Denver and other agencies to develop the appropriate means of implementing and maintaining such features.
13.   Comment:	What will be the height of the sound wall at the I-25 northbound off-ramp to Lincoln as it passes Kentucky? What will the view of the highway be as West Washington Park residents look down Kentucky? If the viaduct increases in height, the sound wall should as well.
Response:	The replacement sound wall to be constructed by TREX will be 12 feet high, approximately 2 feet higher than the existing wall. The sound wall has been designed for more noise abatement. However, the view from West Washington Park is not expected to be substantially altered.
14.   Comment:	How will the project be funded?
Response:	The funding stream for construction of the Valley Highway Project, as well as for many other transportation projects in the State, is currently uncertain. The CDOT website contains information regarding transportation funding, and further information will be provided as available.
15.   Comment:	How will graffiti on the sound walls be treated? A special coating is recommended to facilitate graffiti removal, and plantings along the walls could be a deterrent to graffiti.
Response:	CDOT recognizes graffiti as an important problem in maintaining the visual appearance of facilities. Graffiti removal is conducted by CDOT maintenance crews and the City and County of Denver – usually involving water or sand blasting and painting over. Appropriate coating, finishes, and landscaping will be considered during project design.
16.   Comment:	The height of the viaduct is a concern because it impacts the view from West Washington Park.
Response:	The replacement viaduct is approximately 6 ft higher than the existing structure. This difference in height is not expected to substantially alter the view from West Washington Park.
17.   Comment:	The alternatives are difficult to find on the project website.
Response:	If you have questions or concerns related to the website, please contact the Valley Highway Project hotline at (720) 489-7923.

January 28^th Public Meeting Comments

1.   Comment:	RMD Signs prefers System Alternatives 1 and 3.
Response:	These systems alternatives are currently being evaluated in detail and will likely be carried forward in the Draft EIS.
2.   Comment:	Recommend moving the truck route from Lipan Street to Navajo Street at Alameda.
Response:	Truck routes are currently being evaluated in detail and through on-going discussions with the City and County of Denver. The change suggested will be evaluated as part of that process.
3.   Comment:	Is the one-way couplet extension for Lincoln and Broadway included in the Valley Highway Project?
Response:	The Valley Highway EIS is not currently considering alternatives for major changes to Broadway and/or Lincoln. CDOT is continuing work with the City and County of Denver, RTD, and other parties to coordinate planning to address the transportation needs of the area.
4.   Comment:	Flyovers are visual and noise pollution. All Alternatives have flyovers. They cut in to views of light-rail (LRT).
Response:	The elevation of the flyovers in comparison to the LRT line, Baker Neighborhood, and West Washington Park will be provided. Due to the decrease in elevation from the neighborhoods to I-25 in the South Platte River valley, the flyover elevations are not expected to intrude into the neighborhood viewshed.
5.   Comment:	Can the preferred Alternative be a Hybrid of all three Alternatives?
Response:	Yes, The Preferred Alternative can be a combination of all elements of one or more of the System Alternatives.
6.   Comment:	Alternatives 2 & 3 relocate a large number of businesses.
Response:	The benefits and impacts of Alternatives 2 & 3 are being evaluated. Once the evaluation is complete, the preferred alternative will be chosen. For impacted businesses, relocation assistance will be provided, according to Federal and State statutes.
7.   Comment:	What is the elevation of roadway and lighting?
Response:	I-25 adjacent to the South Platte River is at an elevation of approximately 5,200 ft. The elevation of the western edge of the Baker neighborhood is 5,250 ft and near Broadway is 5,265 ft. There is an approximately 50 to 60 ft decrease in elevation toward I-25 from the Baker neighborhood. The three tradition types of lighting systems for highways are: high-mast, mid-mast, and low mast. High-mast: 100 to 130 ft tall spaced at 600 ft apart (typically used at interchanges such as 6th Avenue and I-25) Mid-Mast: 56 to 70 ft tall spaced at 350 ft apart (these are the TREX lights in the highway median) Low-Mast: 40 ft tall at 200 ft apart (Older style used along the edge of the highway)
8.   Comment:	What is the timeline for resolving Cherokee/Gates traffic issues?
Response:	The City and County of Denver is currently involved in planning for the Gates/Cherokee Redevelopment. According to the City and County of Denver, additional information will be available in March/April 2004.