Two public meetings were held by the Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT) on December 12 & 17, 2002 regarding the Valley Highway - Logan to 6th Project. Both meetings were held from 5:30 p.m. to 8:30 p.m. at the Lighting Services, Inc. building at 241 South Cherokee in Denver, Colorado.

Following is a summary of CDOT’s responses to public comments received at these meetings.

If you have questions or comments regarding these responses, or would like a Spanish version of this text, please do not hesitate to call Tony Gross @ 303.972.9112, Dean Bradley @ 303.721.1440, or the project hotline @ 720.489.7923. Additional project information is located on the project website at www.valleyhighway.com.

I-25 Mainline:

  1. Comment: Will I-25 encroach on the Platte River Trail System if I-25 is widened?
    Response: The trail system will be replaced in-kind if I-25 widening encroaches on the current trail system.

Sixth Avenue/Federal Interchange:

  1. Comment: Traffic congestion on Federal is a problem and should be considered in 6th Avenue/Federal interchange design.
    Response: Interchange design will take into consideration resulting traffic impacts to Federal Boulevard.
  2. Comment: Visual impact of the Federal structure over 6th Avenue should be considered.
    Response: An Urban Design/Aesthetics Citizen Working Group is being developed, to volunteer for this working group call one of the project contacts listed above.
  3. Comment: Maintain the functionality of the ball fields at 6th and Federal.
    Response: Ball fields potentially affected by the final preferred interchange design will be modified or reconstructed to maintain their functionality.

Sixth Avenue/Bryant Street Interchange:

  1. Comment: Fix short weave distances for 6th Avenue/Bryant ramps.
    Response: Safety and design standards are being considered in the various 6th Avenue/Bryant interchange alternatives.
  2. Comment: Access to/and from Bryant Street Industrial Zone is important to the businesses in this area – access to businesses should be considered during the study.
    Response: Each of the proposed interchange alternatives considers access to and from the businesses located north and south of 6th Avenue along Bryant.
  3. Comment: If the Bryant Street access is closed from 6th Avenue, access to the Bryant Street Industrial Zone via Decatur is favored over access via Federal.
    Response: For alternatives that eliminate direct access between 6th Avenue and Bryant, traffic studies as well as safety and design standards will be used to evaluate the best access to/from this industrial zone.

Second Avenue Connector:

  1. Comment: To relieve traffic congestion on Alameda, add additional crossings of I-25 north of Alameda.
    Response: This project is currently studying a non-interchange crossing of I-25 at 2nd Avenue.
  2. Comment: A bicycle/pedestrian crossing of I-25 at 2nd Avenue should be separated from a vehicular crossing.
    Response: Requirements for separation of bike/ped traffic and vehicular traffic will be analyzed per current roadway design specifications.
  3. Comment: What is CDOT’s position on the 2nd Avenue crossing of I-25 – is it likely to happen?
    Response: See response to Comment No. 1. The likelihood of completion of this type of connection will be dependent upon future planning efforts by the Denver Public Works Transportation Division.
  4. Comment: Consider Alameda and 6th Avenue in concert with 2nd Avenue crossing of I-25 – how will the additional crossing relieve traffic congestion on Alameda and 6th?
    Response: Individual screened interchange alternatives will be combined into system alternatives. Traffic analysis of these system alternatives will determine the impact an additional crossing of I-25 will have on 6th Avenue and Alameda traffic congestion.

I-25/Alameda Interchange:

  1. Comment: Local businesses and area residents depend on access to and from I-25 via Alameda – do not close access.
    Response: Closure of I-25 access at Alameda is still an alternative being considered. Further traffic analysis will help determine if closing this access will have an adverse affect on the local traffic system.
  2. Comment: Speed of traffic exiting I-25 onto Alameda is a problem with area residents – are there traffic calming measures that can be incorporated into the interchange design?
    Response: This issue will be considered during future detailed safety analysis and design.
  3. Comment: Area residents want improvements to bicycle/pedestrian movement on Alameda with regard to number of signalized intersections on Alameda near I-25, and with regard to separating bicycle/pedestrian traffic and vehicular traffic.
    Response: Bicycle/pedestrian safety will be included in the design of the Alameda crossing of I-25. It is undecided if a separate structure will carry bicyclists/pedestrians across I-25, or if safety will be enhanced through signalized intersections on Alameda.
  4. Comment: Improvements to Alameda should be coordinated with the City and County of Denver’s plans.
    Response: CDOT is working closely with the City to ensure that portions of Alameda, affected by the project, will incorporate the City’s short and long range plans.
  5. Comment: Improve the Alameda depression under the railroad tracks east of I-25.
    Response: Currently the City and County of Denver has plans to improve this length of Alameda. However, as a project cumulative impact (i.e. if the preferred alternative impacts this portion of Alameda) this project will make safety improvements to this section of Alameda as well as bring the roadway design up to current standards.

I-25/Santa Fe Interchange:

  1. Comment: Improve the safety of I-25 entrance ramps with regard to the current left-ons, acceleration length and capacity.
    Response: All Santa Fe alternatives change the I-25 entrance ramps to right-ons; ramps will be designed per design current standards, these standards give guidance on appropriate accel/decel lengths.
  2. Comment: The I-25 bridge over Santa Fe does not look safe.
    Response: All Santa Fe alternatives replace this structure. CDOT inspects and rates the safety of this bridge on a regular basis.
  3. Comment: With the traffic numbers/patterns shown, why are the Santa Fe and Alameda interchanges being considered separately?
    Response: These interchanges will be analyzed as a system in a future phase of alternative analysis in the EIS process.

I-25/Broadway Interchange:

  1. Comment: SB Broadway to SB I-25 grade separation is favorable via a tunnel or ramp.
    Response: A grade separated alternative is being carried forward into the next phase of alternative analysis. It is uncertain if a grade separation will be included in the final system alternative.
  2. Comment: Include anticipated growth in traffic volumes from Gates/Cherokee Development in design of interchange.
    Response: Anticipated traffic generated by the Gates/Cherokee Development will be included in this project’s traffic analysis.
  3. Comment: Bicycle, pedestrian and bus access to/from Broadway LRT Station should be considered in the design of the interchange.
    Response: Access to the station is being considered in all of the Broadway interchange alternatives.
  4. Comment: Avoid adjacent residential neighborhoods when designing the Broadway interchange.
    Response: The amount of required ROW is one of the measures in the alternative analysis process.
    Comment: Look at a Cherokee connection with Broadway, which would serve the RTD LRT Station at Alameda.
    Response: A Cherokee connection is being considered with the Broadway Alternatives in conjunction with the planning efforts by the City and County of Denver.

Santa Fe/Kalamath/Railroad Grade Separation:

  1. Comment: A grade separation will have an adverse impact on the access to/from businesses adjacent to the grade separation.
    Response: Local access is one of the measures in the alternative analysis process.
  2. Comment: How will a railroad grade separation affect the City and County’s plan for a bicycle/pedestrian crossing of I-25 at Bayaud?
    Response: The railroad grade separation is a proposed City and County project. CDOT is studying the railroad grade separation in their EIS because of the close proximity to the corridor study.
  3. Comment: The branch railroad crossing west of I-25 blocks Alameda with switching movements for ten minutes at a time – this is a problem.
    Response: CDOT recognizes this is an issue, however, Alameda is a City of Denver street and this crossing is not included for study in this EIS.

Bicycles/Pedestrians:

  1. Comment: Are alternatives for bicycle/pedestrian facilities being developed?
    Response: Yes. The public is invited to take part in a Pedestrian/Bicycle Mobility Citizen Working Group. To volunteer, call one of the public contacts listed above.
  2. Comment: How are commitments honored with respect to bicycle/pedestrian facilities when construction budgets are tight?
    Response: If a bicycle/pedestrian facility is included as part of the preferred alternative in the Environmental Impact Statement, then CDOT will be obligated to complete the facility in compliance with the Record of Decision.
  3. Comment: An additional bicycle/pedestrian (east/west) crossing of I-25 is needed both north and south of Alameda.
    Response: Currently Alameda is the only City and County of Denver designated bicycle route across I-25 within the project limits. At a minimum this project will enhance bicycle movements at Alameda.
  4. Comment: Bicycle/pedestrian crossing of I-25 at Alameda should be separated from vehicular traffic - moved to a Bayaud crossing.
    Response: This option will be studied as part of the system analysis.
  5. Comment: East/west bicycle/pedestrian access to Broadway LRT Station across the Platte River, Santa Fe and Broadway is needed.
    Response: See response to Comment No. 3 above. One of the goals of this EIS is to improve the access to the LRT station form the neighborhoods.
  6. Comment: A grade separated bicycle/pedestrian crossing of Broadway should include stairs as well as ramps, the ramp access should be inviting so bicycles/pedestrians will use the facility.
    Response: An at-grade and grade separated bicycle/pedestrian crossing of Broadway is part of the Broadway alternative analysis. Stairs and an inviting ramp access will be analyzed with the grade separated alternative.
  7. Comment: Bicycle/pedestrian crossing at Broadway to/from the Broadway LRT Station should be at grade with a signalized crossing.
    Response: See response to Comment No. 6 above.
  8. Comment: The South Platte bike trail is sandwiched between the highway and the river in one stretch between Alameda and 6th Avenue. This is dirty and noisy. This part of the trail should be relocated to the west side of the river.
    Response: CDOT will consider both access to the South Platte bike trail and impacts to the trail as part of the Valley Highway EIS.
  9. Comment: Routing bicycle/pedestrian traffic through an industrial/business area is perceived to be a graffiti risk to the businesses. Is this correct?
    Response: Graffiti risks are not specific to business areas; residential buildings/property is also at risk.

Environment:

  1. Comment: Resulting traffic noise, from the various interchange alternatives, should be considered during the study process.
    Response: Noise is one of the measures in the alternative analysis process.
  2. Comment: Even if reclamation of the South Platte River is not part of this project, the chosen alternatives should not preclude reclamation of the river.
    Response: CDOT will mitigate any potential impacts to the South Platte River as a result of the selected alternative. CDOT is not aware of any current or planned river restoration project in the project area. A Citizen Working Group will be developed to discuss the South Platte River corridor impacts. Please contact one of the project contacts listed above to volunteer for this Citizen Working Group.
  3. Comment: Why are the measured noise levels (as shown on the figure shown at the meeting) higher at Alameda than at Broadway?
    Response: Noise levels at specific locations are affected by many factors such as traffic volume and speed, distance from the noise source to the measurement location, features that reduce noise levels by blocking the “line of sight” (noise walls, building, etc.), and weather conditions. In the case of the measurements shown at the meeting, the noise level measured at one location on the west side of the South Platte north of Alameda (72 dBA) was higher that the range of noise levels measured at several locations in the vicinity of I-25 and Broadway (53 to 69 dBA). This is due to the presence of a noise wall, traffic barriers and other features that block the “line of sight” between the highway and measurement locations in the vicinity of I-25 and Broadway. Additional noise measurements and a complete noise analysis will be performed for the Valley Highway EIS.
  4. Comment: One participant commented that Valverde residents can hear the highway.
    Response: The Valley Highway EIS will evaluate traffic noise impacts to residents in the area. Being able to hear the highway does not necessarily indicate a noise impact. Possible measures to reduce traffic noise impacts will be considered, where appropriate, in accordance with CDOT and FHWA guidelines.
  5. Comment: How far from the highway will the noise study area extend?
    Response: The noise study will extend at least 500 feet either side of the highway. The study may be extended further if the initial results indicate that noise impacts extend beyond the initial study area.
  6. Comment: How are noise levels measured? Are they hourly or 24 hour?
    Response: Long-term (24-hour) noise measurements are taken to identify the period of the day when the noise levels are highest. Short-term (typically 20-minute) noise measurements are taken during peak noise periods to assess noise impacts. The evaluation criteria used by CDOT and FHWA are the hourly equivalent sound levels. The hourly equivalent sound levels can be estimated using either long-term noise measurements or short-term measurements collected during peak noise periods.
  7. Comment: What type of material is available for noise walls?
    Response: Noise barriers must be massive or absorptive enough that they do not readily transmit sound. CDOT typically constructs noise walls of masonry block or concrete. Earth berms are also used in some situations.
  8. Comment: Why don’t noise walls in the Denver area include attractive designs?
    Response: CDOT had constructed noise walls with decorative design features at several locations in the State. If noise walls are required for the Valley Highway Project, design features will be considered in light of the desirability to residents, maintenance requirements, cost and other factors. Thus, if noise walls are required for this project, decorative design features will be considered as part of project aesthetics.
  9. Comment: Residents along Broadway and Lincoln experience noise and also dust.
    Response: Impacts to residents caused by the project will be considered in the Valley Highway EIS.
  10. Comment: What is going to happen to the noise wall behind the 800 block of South Sherman, and what additional monitoring and assessment are planned for this area?
    Response: The current wooden noise wall at this location will be replaced by a new noise wall as part of the T-REX Project. The noise wall to be built will be 1-2 ft higher than the existing wall. As part of the Valley Highway Project, a full noise assessment of the project area will be conducted. This additional work will be used to evaluate the impact of possible ramp and lane changes being considered for the Valley Highway.
  11. Comment: CDOT should use the Valley Highway Project as a demonstration project for highway noise reduction.
    Response: CDOT believes that there may be opportunities to use portions of the I-25 Valley Highway as a demonstration project for noise reduction. New noise reduction technologies involving noise wall construction, pavement surfaces and other technologies may be considered for testing and evaluation at appropriate locations within the I-25 Valley Highway Corridor. The location and type of technologies will be based upon the selected highway and interchange designs that comes out of the NEPA alternative selection process. A Public Working Group will be established to discuss this potential noise demonstration project and other noise related issues.

Environmental Justice:

  1. Comment: The project should consider the needs and input of minority and low-income population. The RTD West Corridor Study is a good example of this.
    Response: CDOT and FHWA have a strong commitment to considering the needs of the minority and low-income populations during project planning. The Valley Highway Project team has initiated a series of outreach efforts and these will continue. CDOT appreciates hearing of successful approaches on other projects, and welcomes any other comments or suggestions.

General:

  1. Comment: Please provide project information in Spanish.
    Response: Spanish versions of project documents/information can be acquired by calling Tony Gross @ 303.972.9112, Dean Bradley @ 303.721.1440, or the project hotline @ 720.489.7923.
  2. Comment: Enhance exhibits so it is easier to distinguish where the existing roadway is with relationship to the alternative being presented.
    Response: This will be considered for future public meeting exhibits. (A light outline of existing roadway topography can be superimposed on the exhibits to help envision what an alternative changes.)
  3. Comment: What funding is committed to the project?
    Response: At this time funding has not been identified.