US 6 West / SH 139 Access Control Plan Final Report - City of Fruita

US 6 West / SH 139Access Control PlanFinal ReportJune 2010Prepared for:Colorado Department ofTransportation Region 3222 South 6th Street, Room 100Grand Junction, CO 81501City of Grand Junction250 North 5 th StreetGrand Junction, CO 81501Mesa CountyPO Box 20,000-5093Grand Junction, CO 81502City of Fruita325 E. Aspen AvenueFruita, CO 81521

US 6 West/SH 139 Access Control Plan Final ReportJune 2010Table of Contents1.0 Introduction ............................................................................................................................................................................ 11.1 What is an Access? ............................................................................................................................................................. 11.2 What is an Access Control Plan?......................................................................................................................................... 11.3 Access Control Plan Benefits ............................................................................................................................................... 21.4 Study Location ..................................................................................................................................................................... 21.5 Access Control Plan Process ............................................................................................................................................... 31.6 Plan Implementation ............................................................................................................................................................ 42.0 General Access Requirements .............................................................................................................................................. 72.1 Functional Characteristics of Study Limits ........................................................................................................................... 72.2 Specific Access Requirements for Study Limits ................................................................................................................... 83.0 Existing Conditions ................................................................................................................................................................ 103.1 Property Owner Information ................................................................................................................................................. 103.2 Access Locations and Allowable Movements ...................................................................................................................... 103.3 Existing Traffic Volumes ...................................................................................................................................................... 113.4 Existing Level of Service ...................................................................................................................................................... 113.5 Accident Analysis ................................................................................................................................................................. 133.6 Accident History and Problem Analysis ............................................................................................................................... 134.0 Projected Conditions for the Year 2035 ................................................................................................................................ 184.1 Year 2035 Traffic Volumes .................................................................................................................................................. 184.2 Year 2035 No Access Control Plan Level of Service ........................................................................................................... 185.0 Access Control Techniques ................................................................................................................................................... 205.1 Applications of Access Control Techniques on US 6 and SH 139 ....................................................................................... 206.0 Public Involvement Process .................................................................................................................................................. 236.1 First Open Houses ............................................................................................................................................................... 236.2 Property Owner Meetings/Workshops ................................................................................................................................. 236.3 Second Open Houses .......................................................................................................................................................... 256.4 Website Postings ................................................................................................................................................................. 266.5 Presentations to Elected Officials ........................................................................................................................................ 267.0 Access Control Plan Recommendations .............................................................................................................................. 277.1 Future Traffic Conditions with Access Control Plan Implementation ................................................................................... 277.2 Year 2035 With Access Control Plan Level of Service ........................................................................................................ 278.0 Next Steps ............................................................................................................................................................................... 298.1 Approval Process ................................................................................................................................................................. 298.2 Plan Implementation ............................................................................................................................................................ 309.0 References ............................................................................................................................................................................... 31Appendix A: Access Control Plan FiguresAppendix B: Access Control PlanAppendix C: Inter-Governmental AgreementAppendix D: Existing, 2035 No Access Control Plan, 2035 With Access Control Plan LOS ResultsAppendix E: Existing, 2035 No Access Control Plan, 2035 With Access Control Plan AM & PM Peak Hour Traffic VolumesAppendix F: Existing Intersection Capacity Analysis AM & PMAppendix G: 2035 No Access Control Plan Intersection Capacity Analysis AM & PMAppendix H: 2035 With Access Control Plan Intersection Capacity Analysis AM & PMAppendix I: Accident DataAppendix J: Turn Movement Counts (TMC)Appendix K: First Open House MaterialAppendix L: Second Open House MaterialAppendix M: Average Daily Traffic (ADT)Appendix N: One-on-One CorrespondenceAppendix O: Property Mailing ListColorado Department of Transportation – Mesa County – City of Grand Junction – City of Fruita

US 6 West/SH 139 Access Control Plan Final ReportJune 20101.0 INTRODUCTIONThe Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT) Region 3, Mesa County, the City of Grand Junction, the City ofFruita (the agencies), and the Mesa County Regional Transportation Planning Office have identified the need for anAccess Control Plan along designated portions of United States Highway 6 (US 6) and State Highway 139 (SH 139).To the extent feasible, given existing conditions, this comprehensive access plan will bring these portions of highwayinto conformance with their respective access category and functional needs. The plan seeks to achieve the optimumbalance between state and local transportation objectives, and preserve and support the current and future functionalintegrity of the highway.This Access Control Plan will become a binding document to guide the agencies’ decisions regarding the futureaccess conditions along US 6 and SH 139. The State Highway Access Code, Volume 2, Code of Regulations 601-1,March 2002 was followed in preparing this plan. This report provides the requirements, the objectives, and theprocess for the Access Control Plan.1.1 What is an Access?Generally defined, an “access” is a way or means of connecting properties to the roadway, thereby allowing vehiclesto move from one destination to another. Accesses come in all shapes and sizes; ranging from a residential drivewayconnecting to a local street to an arterial roadway connecting to a freeway. Accesses are key components to asuccessful transportation system. Without clearly defined accesses, vehicles are unable to efficiently move people orgoods between destinations, thereby impeding day-to-day life and business transactions. Managing access providesa means of systematic control of the location, spacing, design, and operation of driveways, median openings,interchanges, and street connections to a roadway.1.2 What is an Access Control Plan?A comprehensive access management program supports safe and efficient operations for all modes oftransportation. An access control plan is an organized and deliberate strategy that regulates the number and types ofexisting and future accesses allowed along a section of roadway. An access control plan makes recommendationsfor appropriate modifications regarding the location and distance between accesses as well as the lane configurationand spacing of traffic signals.Managing access points along a corridor helps to maintain operations for different roadway classifications. Forinstance, a major highway should have less access points than a neighborhood street. Generally, major highwaysmaintain a higher speed limit to accommodate a larger volume of traffic. If a highway has too many access points, theoverall speed could decrease and accidents may increase. However, a neighborhood street generally has a slowerspeed limit and accommodates a smaller number of vehicles. Therefore, it is appropriate for a neighborhood street tohave more access points than a highway.An access control plan takes into consideration the traffic characteristics of a roadway, the use and character ofadjacent public or private property, and future planning goals. Because regulating access points can positively ornegatively alter the actual or perceived value of adjacent properties, those who are creating the access control planmust actively work with property owners and city planners to create the best possible solution.1Colorado Department of Transportation – Mesa CountyCity of Grand Junction – City of Fruita

US 6 West/SH 139 Access Control Plan Final ReportJune 20101.3 Access Control Plan BenefitsAccording to national studies 1 , an effective access control plan can reduce the number of crashes by as much as50%. When a motorist is presented with a complex driving situation due to an excessive number of accesses that aretoo close together, more collisions occur. Accidents generally occur either during a disruption in flow (meaning thevehicle ahead is decelerating due to a turn or other cause) or at a conflict point (where two vehicles’ paths cross). Forexample, restricting allowable movements from a full movement access to a ¾ access (right-in, right-out with left-turnmovement) or to a right-in and right-out access, potentially reduces the severity of an accident by reducing thenumber of left-turning vehicles. These vehicles can be redirected to adjacent signalized intersections, where underthe protections of additional auxiliary lanes and a traffic signal, the vehicles can either turn left or make a U-turn toreach their desired destination. In order to create a safer but still efficient corridor, a balance must be made indetermining the location, spacing, and allowable movements of each access, without compromising access to theadjacent properties. A less complex and therefore safer driving situation is accomplished when the number ofconflicts between vehicles is reduced.When the number of accesses along a roadway is condensed, desired speeds are maintained and motorists canarrive more quickly at their destinations. Studies 1 have shown that location of driveways can reduce average travelspeeds by up to 5 to 10 mph. Additionally, travel time on a segment is increased when the number of traffic signals isminimized and the spacing between the signals is more uniform. As vehicular speeds along a roadway become morestable, motorists can see an added benefit of maximum fuel efficiency. Additionally, improved traffic flow translatesinto better air quality due to a decrease in vehicle emissions.Roads are important public resources that are costly to build and to improve or replace. Implementing an accesscontrol plan reduces the cost of maintaining the corridor. When access management principles are set aside,property owners experience an unpredictable development environment. Roadways that are overused will bewidened and later widened again, creating an ever-changing landscape and recurring road construction. In arevenue-constrained environment, effective management of the transportation system is essential.1.4 Study LocationThe Access Control Plan evaluates US 6 from 12 Road west of Loma, to 24 Road (approximately at RedlandsParkway) in the City of Grand Junction, as well as SH 139 from N ¼ Road north of Loma, to I-70 south of Loma. Thisstudy covers approximately 14 ½ miles along US 6 and 2 ¼ miles along SH 139. The study areas are shown inFigure 1.1 Access Management Manual: Committee on Access Management. Washington D.C.: Transportation Research Board of theNational Academies, 2003.2Colorado Department of Transportation – Mesa CountyCity of Grand Junction – City of Fruita

US 6 West/SH 139 Access Control Plan Final ReportJune 2010Figure 1: Mesa County Access Control Plan Study Area1.5 Access Control Plan ProcessThe first step to creating the Access Control Plan for the study corridor was the collection of data. This included turnmovement counts, daily traffic volumes, accident reports, and other information pertaining to the study corridors. Afterthe data was collected, a safety and operational analysis was performed. With this information, while meeting theState Highway Access Code, alternatives for the accesses along the corridors were developed. These alternativeswere then reviewed and revised by the agencies’ participating representatives and later presented at the first publicOpen Houses. Afterwards, additional meetings were conducted with property owners (individuals and groups) whohad specific concerns and/or unique design conditions. The information and feedback received from the public wasthen incorporated into the Access Control Plan and presented at the second and final Open Houses. Based on inputreceived at the final Open Houses, further refinements were incorporated into the Access Control Plan to bring thecorridor into conformance with its future and functional purposes and to improve safety. For more information onpublic involvement, refer to Volume 2, Section 6.0.The completion of this report indicates the beginning of the Inter-Governmental Agreement (IGA) and adoption process which consists of the following steps:• Present the final draft to the public and local elected officials.• Formally adopt the plan by:o An agreement between CDOT, Mesa County, the City of Fruita, and the City of Grand Junction.o Approval by the Colorado Transportation Commission and the CDOT Chief Engineer.3Colorado Department of Transportation – Mesa CountyCity of Grand Junction – City of Fruita

US 6 West/SH 139 Access Control Plan Final ReportJune 20101.6 Plan ImplementationIt is important to remember that the Access Control Plan is intended to represent a long range plan for the studyroadways. Implementation of the full plan can occur as a single project, or over the long term in smaller incrementsas a phased approach. Figure 2 provides details about how the Access Control Plan may be implemented as aphased approach.Implementation of the full plan at a single time is unlikely and would only occur as part of a transportationimprovement project that included all of the study roadways. This would be a publicly funded project by anycombination of local and CDOT funding. A future public project would include the access changes described in theAccess Control Plan, which could be implemented at the time. There are currently no projects planned for theportions of US 6, except for intersection improvements at SH 139. There are also no other improvements currentlyplanned on SH 139, except for the intersection improvements at SH 139 and US 6. This means there is not a projecton the Long Range Transportation Plan, the Fiscally Constrained Plan, or the currently funded StatewideTransportation Improvement Plan. A corridor wide project in the near future is unlikely. Highway projects take manyyears to identify, fund, and construct. Under this scenario, it would be the government’s responsibility to make theaccess changes to the highway. Even with a public corridor project, it would be unlikely that the entire plan could beimplemented at one time because access must still be provided to each property on the corridor. For example, if aproperty has not redeveloped, it might not be feasible to relocate the driveway; or if the local street network has notbeen completed, alternative access may not be available. In cases like this, an interim access to the property wouldbe maintained until such time as the ultimate access configuration could be achieved.As traffic grows along the study roadways, the agencies will be faced with deciding how to implement the AccessControl Plan. One approach may be to implement interim roadway improvements that would delay the need toimplement the ultimate recommendations of the Access Control Plan.Once traffic volumes and/or safety issues indicate changes to access conditions are needed, the next phase of theimplementation would be to identify locations where raised medians, traffic signals or other forms of traffic control arewarranted. When intersections or access points have operational or safety concerns CDOT will look for ways toaddress these issues. These projects would most likely incorporate portions of the Access Control Plan, such asimplementing turn restrictions or improving intersections in order to improve operations or increase safety along thecorridor.It is recognized by all the parties involved that high quality economic development is critical to local communities andthe State and that economic development must play a significant role in this plan. Because land use developmentand the associated access control is a key component of economic development, this plan will work tosimultaneously improve access safety and planning and provide for orderly, effective, and economically prudentdevelopment goals.CDOT, with consultation of the local agencies, will consider the economic impacts associated with planimplementation. In conjunction with the engineering and traffic analysis, these economic impacts will assist indetermining the extent of the highway improvements required through the access permit process and implementationof the access control plan. Implementation will take into consideration that some development will likely occur beforethe traffic volumes require the ultimate configuration shown on the access control plan. The highway improvementsmay be phased before implementing the full access restrictions shown. Access modifications and restrictions maynot be fully implemented until safety or operational issues develop if CDOT, in conjunction with its local partners,determines through an engineering analysis that the improvements are not required at the time of the development.4Colorado Department of Transportation – Mesa CountyCity of Grand Junction – City of Fruita

US 6 West/SH 139 Access Control Plan Final ReportJune 2010When any level of implementation of the access control plan is delayed, the access permit for the property willinclude notification to the owner that full implementation of the plan will be required at a later date. The intent is toprovide property owners with the information needed to successfully develop properties while working towards thelong term access plan, local planning objectives, and economic development efforts for the corridor.The most common trigger for the phased approach relates to when a property along US 6 or SH 139 develops,redevelops, or if a driveway experiences a traffic volume increase of 20 percent or more (per the State HighwayAccess Code). Under this scenario, a new CDOT access permit is required and CDOT would work with the propertyowner or the developer to make the access changes and highway improvements in the area directly impacted by thedevelopment/redevelopment. Coordination through the development process is critical to the ultimate success of theplan. If the ultimate Access Control Plan cannot be implemented when a property redevelops, the property shoulddevelop in such a way as to not prohibit the plan implementation. For example, buildings should be constructed insuch a manner as to utilize a future access location shown on the plan. Even if project related traffic volumes do notwarrant the full implementation of the plan, the local entities should develop a method to collect funds from theowner/developer with the understanding that the changes will be necessary in the future. This may encourage somedevelopment to occur now, but the local entity will have collected funds to help offset the cost of the futureimprovements. This is especially important in the case where a property simply redevelops, but does not increase thetraffic generated by 20% or more. If the local entity does not implement the plan at the same time or collect funds forfuture implementation, it is unlikely the same property would redevelop again before the changes are necessary,creating a missed opportunity to implement the plan or collect contributions toward the improvements.Another important aspect of the implementation process is how access is granted to new developments. Eachproperty along the study roadways must be provided reasonable access. CDOT should work with theowner/developer to ensure projects are designed with consideration to where access will be permitted in the ultimateAccess Control Plan. Access will be provided to the property as shown on the Access Control Plan unless it is notfeasible to implement at the time of the development. Then, an interim access will be permitted, which will changeonce the ultimate access conditions can be achieved. Coordinating with the owner/developer throughout the projectdevelopment process will ensure the final design of the property does not preclude the implementation of the finalAccess Control Plan configuration on the study roadways.The outcome of this study is the US 6/SH 139 Access Control Plan, which identifies the number, location, and type ofaccess points that will be allowed on the study roadways within the study limits. However, future changes to the planare allowed based upon the guidelines of the State Highway Access Code, according to Section 2.12, “AccessControl Plans” (p. 30, paragraph 3): The plan must receive the approval of both the Department and the appropriatelocal authority to become effective. This approval shall be in the form of a formal written agreement signed by thelocal authority and the Chief Engineer of the Department. After an access control plan is in effect, modifications to theplan must receive the approval of the local authority and the Department. Where an access control plan is in effect,all action taken in regard to access shall be in conformance with the plan and current Code design standards unlessboth the Department and the local authority approve a geometric design waiver under the waiver subsection of theCode.5Colorado Department of Transportation – Mesa CountyCity of Grand Junction – City of Fruita

US 6 West/SH 139 Access Control Plan Final ReportJune 2010Figure 2: Access Control Plan Implementation Process6Colorado Department of Transportation – Mesa CountyCity of Grand Junction – City of Fruita

US 6 West/SH 139 Access Control Plan Final ReportJune 20102.0 GENERAL ACCESS REQUIREMENTSState highways are classified in accordance with the State Highway Access Category Assignment Schedule whichwas revised and adopted by the Transportation Commission of Colorado on October 30, 2007. According to theschedule, US 6 and SH 139 are classified as noted below.2.1 Functional Characteristics of Study LimitsR-A (Regional Highway) –US 6: 12 Road (MP 13.9) through K Road (MP 19.2), Pine Street (MP 21.3) through Valley Court (MP25.6)SH 139: 137 feet north of N Road (MP 2.0) through N ¼ Road (MP 2.3)This category is for use on highways that have the capacity for medium to high speeds and relatively medium tohigh traffic volumes over medium and long distances in an efficient and safe manner. They provide forinterregional, intra-regional, and intercity travel needs. Direct access service to abutting land is subordinate toproviding service to through traffic movements. This category is normally assigned to National Highway Systemroutes, significant regional routes in rural areas, and other routes of regional or state significance.R-B (Rural Highway) – SH 139: I-70 through 137 feet north of N RoadThis category is appropriate for use on highways that have the capacity for moderate to high travel speeds andlow traffic volumes providing for local rural travel needs. Speed limits vary based on roadway design, location,and travel speeds. There is a reasonable balance between safety, direct access, and mobility needs within thiscategory. This category may be assigned to low volume minor arterials, secondary collectors, and local highwaysections that do not normally provide for significant regional, state, or interstate travel demands. These highwaystypically provide for rural transportation needs including, farm to market, farm to farm, and may include highspeedrural frontage roads.NR-A (Non-Rural Principal Highway) – US 6: Valley Court (MP 25.6) to F Road (MP 2.1) (Grand Junction)This category is appropriate for use on non-rural highways that have the capacity for medium to high speeds andprovide for medium to high traffic volumes over medium and long distances in an efficient and safe manner.They provide for interregional, intra-regional, intercity, and intra-city travel needs in suburban and urban areas,as well as serving as important major arterials in smaller cities and towns. Direct access service to abutting landis subordinate to providing service to through traffic movements. This category is normally assigned to NationalHighway System routes, and other routes of regional or state significance.NR-B (Non-Rural Arterial) – US 6: K Road (MP 19.2) through Pine Street (MP 21.3) (Fruita)This category is appropriate for use on non-rural highways that have the capacity for moderate travel speedsand relatively moderate to high traffic volumes over medium and short travel distances providing for intercity,intra-city and intercommunity travel needs. These routes are generally not of regional, state, or nationalsignificance. This category is generally assigned within developed portions of cities and towns where there isestablished roadside development making the assignment of a higher functional category unrealistic. Thiscategory is also appropriate for short sections of regional highway passing through rural communities that maybe located along routes of regional, state, and national significance where assignment to a higher category isunrealistic. While this category provides service to through traffic movements, it allows more direct access tooccur.7Colorado Department of TransportationMesa County – City of Grand Junction – City of Fruita

US 6 West/SH 139 Access Control Plan Final ReportJune 20102.2 Specific Access Requirements for Study LimitsThe number, location, and type of access to adjacent properties are also controlled by the State Highway AccessCode depending on the type of highway. The access requirements for the corresponding type of highway are:R-A (Regional Highway) –US 6: 12 Road (MP 13.9) through K Road (MP 19.2), Pine Street (MP 21.3) through Valley Court (MP25.6)SH 139: 137 feet north of N Road (MP 2.0) through N ¼ Road (MP 2.3)• One access shall be granted per parcel of land if reasonable access cannot be obtained from the localstreet or road system.• The standard for the spacing of all intersecting public ways and other accesses that will be full movement, orare or may become signalized, is one-half mile intervals.• No additional access rights shall accrue upon the splitting or dividing of existing parcels of land orcontiguous parcels under or previously under the same ownership or controlling interest. All accesses tonewly created properties shall be provided internally from any existing access or a new access determinedby State Highway Access Code design standards or by permit application consistent with the State HighwayAccess Code.R-B (Rural Highway) – SH 139: I-70 through 137 feet north of N Road• One access shall be granted to each parcel.• Turning movements shall not be restricted if the access meets sight distance requirements.• Additional access may be granted if the size or trip generation potential of the parcel requires additionalaccess to maintain good roadway traffic operations and land use design.• The recommended spacing of all intersecting public ways and other significant accesses that will be fullmovement is one-half mile intervals, and based upon section lines where feasible.NR-A (Non-Rural Principal Highway) – US 6: Valley Court (MP 25.6) to F Road (MP 2.1) (Grand Junction)• One access shall be granted per parcel of land if reasonable access cannot be obtained from the localstreet or road system.• The desirable standard for the spacing of all intersecting public ways and other accesses that will be fullmovement, or are or may become signalized, is one-half mile intervals.• Where topography or other existing conditions make one-half mile intervals inappropriate or not feasible,location of the access shall be determined with consideration given to topography, established propertyownerships, unique physical limitations, and/or unavoidable or pre-existing historical land use patterns andphysical design constraints. The final location should serve as many properties and interests as possible toreduce the need for additional direct access to the state highway.• Left-turns in (¾ movement) may be allowed at accesses if the addition of left-turns will improve operation atan adjacent full-movement intersection, while meeting appropriate design criteria, and significant operationalor safety problems would not occur.• Additional right-turn only access shall be allowed where required acceleration and deceleration lanes can beprovided, it would relieve an identified congestion condition on the local street or road system, and it wouldnot be detrimental to the safety and operation of the highway.• No additional access rights shall accrue upon the splitting or dividing of existing parcels of land orcontiguous parcels under or previously under the same ownership or controlling interest. All accesses tonewly created properties shall be provided internally from any existing access or a new access determined8Colorado Department of TransportationMesa County – City of Grand Junction – City of Fruita

US 6 West/SH 139 Access Control Plan Final ReportJune 2010by State Highway Access Code design standards or by permit application consistent with the State HighwayAccess Code.NR-B (Non-Rural Arterial) – US 6: K Road (MP 19.2) through Pine Street (MP 21.3) (Fruita)• One access shall be granted to each parcel if it does not create safety or operational problems. The accesswill provide, as a minimum, for right-turns only.• The access may have left-turns (¾ movement) if the addition of left-turns will improve operation at anadjacent full-movement intersection and meet appropriate design criteria, and significant operational orsafety problems would not occur.• Where it is shown that the location will be able to meet appropriate design criteria, full-movement accessshall be granted at one-half mile spacing.• Additional right-turn only access shall be allowed where required auxiliary lanes can be provided.9Colorado Department of TransportationMesa County – City of Grand Junction – City of Fruita

US 6 West/SH 139 Access Control Plan Final ReportJune 20103.0 EXISTING CONDITIONSDetermining the existing conditions along the study corridors was the initial step in developing this plan. Thenecessary data needed to analyze existing conditions included adjacent property information, location andmovements at existing accesses, traffic volumes including turn movement counts at critical accesses, and availableaccident information along the corridors. This data was analyzed regarding the operation and safety of the corridors.3.1 Property Owner InformationMesa County provided all of the contact information for the properties that will potentially be affected by this AccessControl Plan. This contact information was used to create a mailing list to inform property owners of any open housesor other public meetings relative to this Access Control Plan. The contact information for property owners may befound in the Appendix.3.2 Access Locations and Allowable MovementsExisting conditions represent approximately 198 accesses along the US 6 corridors within the study area. Of thoseaccesses, approximately 168 are located on the north side of US 6, while the remaining accesses are located on thesouth side. A total of approximately 72 accesses are public accesses, with 59 located on the north side of US 6 and13 on the south side. A total of approximately 126 accesses are private accesses (driveways), with 109 located onthe north side of US 6 and 30 on the south side. Along SH 139, approximately 73 accesses currently exist, with 39located on the west side of SH 139, and the remaining 34 located on the east side of SH 139. Approximately 18accesses are public way accesses, with 9 located on the west side of SH 139 and 9 located on the east side.Approximately 55 accesses are private accesses (driveways), with 39 located on the west side of SH 139 and 34located on the east side. Table 1 illustrates the inventory of existing accesses along both study corridors. Only twoaccesses along US 6 are signalized, while all of the remaining intersections on both corridors are un-signalized. Allaccesses along both corridors are currently full movement accesses.Table 1: Summary of Approximate Existing AccessesLocation Driveway Public Way TotalWest of SH 139 30 9 39East of SH 139 25 9 34North of US 6 109 59 168South of US 6 17 13 30Total 181 90 271According to the State Highway Access Code the definitions of public and private (driveway) accesses are:“Public Way” means a highway, street or road, open for use by the general public and under the control orjurisdiction of the appropriate local authority or Department and includes private roads open to the public.“Driveway” means an access that is not a public street, road, or highway.The existing configurations of all the accesses along the US 6 corridor and the SH 139 corridor can be found in theAppendix.10Colorado Department of TransportationMesa County – City of Grand Junction – City of Fruita

US 6 West/SH 139 Access Control Plan Final ReportJune 20103.3 Existing Traffic VolumesAn analysis of the traffic volumes and lane geometry for each major existing access (as specifically defined in thisreport) was performed. Turn movement counts at critical accesses and daily traffic counts at four locations within thestudy area were collected in late January and early April 2009.The provided turn movement counts were the basis for determining distribution along the study corridors. Thisprovided the percentage of vehicles entering and exiting the study corridor at certain intersections. According to thedata, the morning (AM) peak hour occurred between 7:00 and 8:00 AM and the evening (PM) peak hour occurredbetween 4:45 and 5:45 PM. The raw turn movement counts can be found in the Appendix.Average Daily Traffic counts were used as the basis for determining the number of vehicles traveling through arepresentative segment on the study corridor for an entire day. The raw Average Daily Traffic count data can befound in the Appendix.3.4 Existing Level of ServiceAlong each study corridor, certain representative intersections were analyzed using the methods described in theTransportation Research Board’s 2000 Highway Capacity Manual. In keeping with the Highway Capacity Manual, theperformance of each intersection was determined by the level of delay experienced by motorists at that intersection.Each evaluated intersection was then scored a Level of Service grade ranging from “A” through “F,” with “A”representing free flow conditions and “F” representing excessive delays. Signalized intersections were analyzed toreport Level of Service for each turn movement and an overall intersection Level of Service, while un-signalizedintersections were analyzed to report Level of Service for each minor approach, with the lowest Level of Servicerepresenting the overall intersection. Table 2 shows the criteria in determining the proper Level of Service.Table 2: Level of Service CriteriaLOSDelay (second/vehicle)Un-signalized SignalizedA 0-10 ≤10B >10-15 >10-20C >15-25 >20-35D >25-35 >35-55E >35-50 >55-80F >50 >802000 Highway Capacity Manual (HCM)Of the 41 intersections evaluated for Levels of Service, 37 have all approaches/movements with a Level of Service A,B, C, or D, due to minor approaches generally having low volumes. Four intersections were recorded as having anapproach/movement with a Level of Service E or F. The intersections with low Levels of Service and therefore higherdelays are consecutive, un-signalized major accesses. These intersections are located on the west end of the City ofGrand Junction and directly west of the I-70/US 6 interchange. This portion of US 6 is predominantly a two-laneroadway with a speed limit of 55 mph. A combination of higher speed and relatively high volumes, along with theabsence of additional through and auxiliary lanes, may be contributing factors to the increase in delays resulting inlower Levels of Service. Detailed Level of Service (Synchro) output may be found in the Appendix. A summary of theresults of the Level of Service analysis may be found in the Appendix as well as in Table 3.11Colorado Department of TransportationMesa County – City of Grand Junction – City of Fruita

US 6 West/SH 139 Access Control Plan Final ReportJune 2010Table 3: Existing Level of Service ResultsIntersection Traffic Control AM LOS PM LOSUS 6 12 Road Un-Signalized A A12 1/2 Road Un-Signalized A A13 Road (SH 139) Un-Signalized B B13 3/10 Road Un-Signalized A AM Road Un-Signalized A A13 1/2 Road Un-Signalized A A14 Road Un-Signalized A A15 Road Un-Signalized B B15 1/2 Road Un-Signalized B B16 Road Un-Signalized B BK Road Un-Signalized B B16 1/2 Road Un-Signalized B BCoulson Road Un-Signalized B BWillow Road Un-Signalized A BPlum Road Un-Signalized B BMesa Road Un-Signalized A B18 Road Signalized B AWest H.S. Un-Signalized B BEast H.S. Un-Signalized A A19 Road Signalized B A19 1/2 Road Un-Signalized C D20 Road Un-Signalized F F21 Road Un-Signalized F D21 1/2 Road Un-Signalized E FValley Court Un-Signalized C FSanford Road Un-Signalized B BScarlet Road Un-Signalized B CG Road Un-Signalized C C23 Road Signalized A AF Road Un-Signalized C CSH 139 N Road Un-Signalized A AN. Parking Un-Signalized A AS. Parking Un-Signalized A AM 1/2 Road Un-Signalized B BMiller Road Un-Signalized B BM 1/3 Road Un-Signalized A BHottes Road Un-Signalized A ACoronado Road Un-Signalized A AM Road Un-Signalized A AL 7/10 Road Un-Signalized A BL 1/2 Road Un-Signalized A A3.5 Accident Analysis12Colorado Department of TransportationMesa County – City of Grand Junction – City of Fruita

US 6 West/SH 139 Access Control Plan Final ReportJune 2010An accident assessment was prepared by the CDOT Headquarters Safety and Traffic Engineering Branch’s Safetyand Traffic Engineering Analysis Group. The raw accident data can be found in the Appendix. The primary intent ofthe information reported was to analyze US 6 with respect to access. In addition, the report also identified locationsthat should be modified based on safety concerns and accident experience.The scope of the report was as follows:• Assess the magnitude and nature of the safety problems within the project limits.• Relate accident casualty to roadway geometrics, roadside features, traffic control devices, traffic operation,driver behavior, and vehicle type.• Suggest counter measures to address identified problems with regards to access.• Provide guidance on how to maximize accident reduction within the scope of the Access Control Plan.The report was based on the comprehensive analysis of five years of accident history and a VisiData review. TheAccess Control Plan was completed in consideration of the information included in this assessment.The 2004 Average Daily Traffic (ADT) used for the analysis varies throughout the study section and is shown belowin Figure 1:Figure 1Highway MP Range ADT Percent Trucks06A 14.75-15.12 1300 8.106A 15.13-16.32 2100 12.006A 16.33-18.69 3300 6.106A 18.70-19.78 6900 5.906A 19.79-20.23 4200 7.706A 20.24-21.25 7600 4.506A 21.26-22.45 10500 1.906A 22.46-23.65 13600 5.306A 23.66-24.86 12800 5.706A 24.87-25.85 14000 3.106A 25.86-26.08 18900 3.170B 0.00-2.41 27600 6.870B 2.41-2.50 25100 7.13.6 Accident History and Problem AnalysisThe accident history from January 1, 2000 through December 31, 2004 was examined for the corridor to locateaccident clusters and to identify accident causes. During the five-year period, 225 accidents were reported with four(4) accidents resulting in fatalities.During the five-year study, 62% (141 accidents) of the accidents resulted in property damage only, 36% (80accidents) resulted in injuries, and 2% (4 accidents) resulted in fatalities. The fatal accidents were analyzed and nopatterns exist. See Figure 2.Figure 213Colorado Department of TransportationMesa County – City of Grand Junction – City of Fruita

US 6 West/SH 139 Access Control Plan Final ReportJune 2010SH 6A/70B also known as US 6Figure 3 indicates that broadside accidents represent the largest group of accidents in the study section, accountingfor 30% (69 accidents) of all accidents. Rear end and approach turn accidents are the second and third mostcommon, accounting for 24% (53 accidents) and 10% (22 accidents), respectively.Figure 3SH 6A/70B also known as US 6There were 19 (13 property damage only, 6 injury, 0 fatalities) driveway-related accidents reported during the fiveyearstudy period. Accident reporting analysis showed no patterns or areas of concern.Figure 4 is a graphical representation of the weighted hazard index and accident rates throughout the study sectionshowing where accidents have occurred. Peaks in the graph represent locations where accidents are moreconcentrated relative to the traffic volume or where the accident severity is higher.14Colorado Department of TransportationMesa County – City of Grand Junction – City of Fruita

US 6 West/SH 139 Access Control Plan Final ReportJune 2010Figure 4Area 1 (US 6 - MP 15.13, JCT 139) US 6 accident data reflects that twenty-one (21) accidents occurred at thisintersection (11 property damage only, 10 injury, and 0 fatalities), between January 1, 2000 and December 31, 200515Colorado Department of TransportationMesa County – City of Grand Junction – City of Fruita

US 6 West/SH 139 Access Control Plan Final ReportJune 2010(six years). Accident analysis showed that all accidents were broadsides. There were 10 accidents that involvedvehicles traveling southbound on SH 139 and eastbound on US 6. In order to cross US 6, southbound SH 139travelers must look approximately 135+ degrees to the right to see oncoming traffic from the west. This skewed viewis likely a contributing factor causing the accidents. M 1/4 Road is in close proximity to the intersection; therefore it isrecommended to close the intersection and turn the road into a cul-de-sac. CDOT is currently implementingsignalization at this intersection.Area 2 (US 6 - MP 15.54, M Road) accident data reflects that the high-weighted hazard index is from the one fatalaccident that occurred at this intersection. The accident was due to careless driving. No specific action is suggested.Area 3 (US 6 - MP 17.52, 15 Road) accident data reflects the high-weighted hazard index is from the one fatalaccident that occurred at this intersection. The accident was due to careless driving. No specific action is suggested.Area 4 (US 6 - MP 22.44-22.50, 19 Road) accident data reflects there were 13 accidents in this area (6 propertydamage only, 7 injury, 0 fatalities), during the five-year study. The predominant accident type was broadside (7 total).All broadside accidents involved collisions with westbound US 6 travelers and vehicles from 19 Road intending toturn left (east). The intersection is currently signalized. Accident data for 2005 reflects four accidents occurred (nobroadside accidents). The 2005 data also showed no patterns. It is likely the signals were installed in early 2005.CDOT will continue to monitor this intersection and ensure the adequacy of the current signalization.Area 5 (US 6 - MP 0.00 to 2.50, Redlands Parkway) accident data reflects that there were 27 accidents (17 propertydamage only, 10 injury, 0 fatalities) that occurred specifically at the I-70 Westbound on-ramp. There were 14accidents (52%) that involved US 6 westbound travelers intending to turn left onto the I-70 ramp. Furtherconsideration of improvements will be determined through CDOT’s Interchange Modification Process, independent ofthe Access Control Plan. There were 16 accidents (13 property damage only, 3 injury, 0 fatalities) that occurred atthe intersection of US 6 and G Road. Nine (9) accidents involved pickup trucks or utility vans. VisiData and aerialmaps also show that this is an intersection characterized by a high volume of trucks (a commercial concretecompany is nearby).There were 17 accidents (12 property damage only, 4 injury, 1 fatality) that occurred at the intersection of US 6 and23 Road. The one fatality involved a driver under the influence making a left turn onto US 6. Eight (8) accidentsinvolved drivers making a left onto US 6. Recent improvements by CDOT should mitigate these previous safetyconcerns. There were 12 (9 property damage only, 3 injury, 0 fatalities) accidents on/at the ramps of 24 Road(Redlands Parkway). Accident Report analysis showed no significant patterns. VisiData review showed that thewestbound on-ramp does not have a clearly defined acceleration lane. CDOT will consider placement of pavementmarkings to better delineate the acceleration lane for entering vehicles. The Access Control Plan also precludes anyfuture access within these limits. Accident report and VisiData analysis of Area 5 showed no other patterns.Supplemental accident data provided by the City of Grand Junction for years 2000 – June 2008 adjacent to the US 6interchange indicated the following accidents:21-1/2 Road (14 property damage only, 6 injury, 1 fatality)22 Road (11 property damage only, 6 injury , 0 fatalities)Sanford Rd (16 property damage only, 1 injury, 0 fatalities)Valley Ct (8 property damage only, 2 injury, 0 fatalities)Scarlet (5 property damage only, 2 injury, 0 fatalities)The one fatality occurred in 2005 with a slowing single vehicle traveling westbound.Supplemental accident data provided by the City of Fruita for years 2003 to 2008 indicated the following summary ofaccidents:16Colorado Department of TransportationMesa County – City of Grand Junction – City of Fruita

US 6 West/SH 139 Access Control Plan Final ReportJune 2010Coulson – 2 accidentsPlum – 5 accidentsMesa – 1 accidentMulberry – 1 accidentPeach – 2 accidentsElm – 3 accidentsMaple – 1 accidentGrand – 2 accidents18 Road – 2 accidents19 Road – 16 accidentsMost of the accidents at 19 Road occurred in 2005, but have shown a reduction after installation of the traffic signalat this location.17Colorado Department of TransportationMesa County – City of Grand Junction – City of Fruita

US 6 West/SH 139 Access Control Plan Final ReportJune 20104.0 PROJECTED CONDITIONS FOR THE YEAR 2035Part of the purpose of an Access Control Plan is to improve future conditions. Therefore, a long-range planninghorizon of the year 2035 has been selected for evaluating the corridor. To make a fair comparison, future projectedtraffic volumes have been analyzed with no access control changes, and then analyzed on mitigated lane geometryand conditions to determine the results of the mitigations.4.1 Year 2035 Traffic VolumesMesa County provided 2035 corridor volumes throughout the project area from their regional travel demand modelthat accounted for all future planned development. The 2035 Grand Valley Regional Transportation Plan for MesaCounty is the result of a comprehensive process to examine priorities established in the previous 2030 Plan and thenvalidated or modified those priorities as appropriate. To do so, planners solicited public input through a succession ofactivities and met regularly with the Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) to develop this current long rangeplan.Major components of the process included:• Key Issues and Emerging Trends – through input from the MPO, planners identified what evolvingsocioeconomic and transportation factors affect transportation decision-making.• Vision Plan – includes a set of visions, goals, and strategies for each corridor, including the costs to makethe desired improvements.• Constrained Plan – identifies available funding and matches resources with high priorities for the entireplanning period from 2008 – 2035.• Midterm Implementation Strategies – selects strategies that require attention during the first 10 years ofthe planning period.• Transit and Human Services Coordination Plan – as part of SAFETEA-LU requirements, a parallelplanning process was undertaken to develop a local Transit Implementation Plan and Human ServicesCoordination Plan. The priorities of this process determined the transit Vision and Constrained Plan.The resultant plan provided the basis for volumes used for the Access Control Plan. To convert these corridorvolumes into usable turn volumes consistent with the Access Control Plan configuration, exiting turn movementcounts and the 2035 corridor volumes were used with the TurnsW32v2 program to apply procedures from theNCHRP report to create accurate turning volumes. The volumes can be found in the Appendix.4.2 Year 2035 No Access Control Plan Level of ServiceFuture turn movement counts obtained from the TurnsW32 v2 program were used with the Synchro traffic model todetermine intersection Levels of Service. For the no Access Control Plan scenario, auxiliary lanes were assumedwhere necessary, and no capacity improvements were implemented. Also, where necessary, un-signalizedintersections were changed to signalized intersections to show realistic delay results. Detailed Synchro output for2035 no Access Control Plan Levels of Service can be found in the Appendix. The results of the Level of Serviceanalysis for 2035 no Access Control Plan conditions are shown in the Appendix and Table 1.Of the 41 intersections evaluated for Levels of Service, 34 have all approaches/movements with a Level of Service Dor better. This was influenced by the assumed addition of auxiliary lanes consistent with the State Highway AccessCode requirements. These auxiliary lanes help mitigate the increase in corridor traffic. The remaining sevenintersections recorded an approach/movement with a Level of Service E or F. The intersections with low Levels ofService, and therefore higher delays, are all major public road accesses. They are mostly located on the west end of18Colorado Department of TransportationMesa County – City of Grand Junction – City of Fruita

US 6 West/SH 139 Access Control Plan Final ReportJune 2010the City of Grand Junction on both sides of the I-70/US 6 interchange. A large increase in volume along US 6contributes to increased delay for the southbound left-turn movements which may be improved with the addition ofthrough lanes.Table 1: 2035 No Access Control Plan Level of Service ResultsIntersection Traffic Control AM LOS PM LOSUS 6 12 Road Un-Signalized C C12 1/2 Road Un-Signalized C C13 Road (SH 139) Signalized B B13 3/10 Road Un-Signalized C CM Road Un-Signalized B B13 1/2 Road Un-Signalized B B14 Road Un-Signalized C C15 Road Un-Signalized D E15 1/2 Road Un-Signalized E E16 Road Signalized B AK Road Un-Signalized C C16 1/2 Road Un-Signalized C DCoulson Road Un-Signalized C CWillow Road Un-Signalized B BPlum Road Signalized B AMesa Road Un-Signalized B B18 Road Signalized C BWest H.S. Un-Signalized C CEast H.S. Un-Signalized A A19 Road Signalized C B19 1/2 Road Un-Signalized F F20 Road Signalized B C21 Road Signalized B C21 1/2 Road Signalized B EValley Court Signalized D FSanford Road Un-Signalized C FScarlet Road Un-Signalized C DG Road Signalized B B23 Road Signalized A AF Road Un-Signalized F FSH 139 N Road Un-Signalized B BN. Parking Un-Signalized B BS. Parking Un-Signalized A AM 1/2 Road Un-Signalized B BMiller Road Un-Signalized B BM 1/3 Road Un-Signalized C BHottes Road Un-Signalized C ACoronado Road Un-Signalized B BM Road Un-Signalized C BL 7/10 Road Un-Signalized B CL 1/2 Road Un-Signalized B B19Colorado Department of TransportationMesa County – City of Grand Junction – City of Fruita

US 6 West/SH 139 Access Control Plan Final ReportJune 201020Colorado Department of TransportationMesa County – City of Grand Junction – City of Fruita

US 6 West/SH 139 Access Control Plan Final ReportJune 20105.0 ACCESS CONTROL TECHNIQUESThe purpose of this Access Control Plan is to identify the location and allowed movements at existing and futureaccesses along the US 6 and SH 139 study corridors to protect the safety and traffic operations while considering theaccess needs of the adjacent properties and general street systems. To do so, common techniques include closures,relocation, consolidation, and limiting movements at accesses.5.1 Applications of Access Control Techniques on US 6 and SH 139Some accesses along US 6 and SH 139 have been proposed for closure. Several accesses are being closed if theproperty has more than one access; the required minimum as stated in the State Highway Access Code. An accessmay also be closed if alternative access to the property may be reasonably obtained from the general street systemand closing the access reduces the number of conflict points along the highway.The State Highway Access Code calls for ideal spacing of accesses at half-mile intervals for the categoryclassifications represented in the project area, excluding areas within Fruita. To accomplish this, some accessesalong US 6 and SH 139 will require relocation. Accesses are also being relocated in order to create saferintersections or to accommodate adjacent development.Mesa County has a dominant one mile spacing for its roadway grid system. With US 6 intersecting through this gridsystem at a significant skew angle, there are locations where multiple roads intersect US 6 within close proximity.Where this occurs, combining these accesses helps in optimizing spacing while allowing adequate access toadjacent properties. The Access Control Plan addresses these locations accordingly.Left turns introduce conflicts with opposing turn and through traffic movements which increase accident potential. Toimprove safety, a reduction in these conflicting movements may be necessary. To reduce conflict points, the AccessControl Plan has utilized ¾ or right-in, right-out accesses with adjacent intersections allowing relief for any resultingout-of-direction travel.20Colorado Department of TransportationMesa County – City of Grand Junction – City of Fruita

US 6 West/SH 139 Access Control Plan Final ReportJune 201021Colorado Department of TransportationMesa County – City of Grand Junction – City of Fruita

US 6 West/SH 139 Access Control Plan Final ReportJune 201022Colorado Department of TransportationMesa County – City of Grand Junction – City of Fruita

US 6 West/SH 139 Access Control Plan Final ReportJune 20106.0 PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT PROCESSThe State Highway Access Code requires that at least one advertised public meeting be held and all property ownersabutting the state highway be notified of the proposed plan and given the opportunity to comment on the proposedplan.The public involvement process for this Access Control Plan incorporated the following:1. Initial outreach to local elected officials including City Councils and the Mesa County RTPO.2. Initial Public Open Houses – June 24, 2009 in Grand Junction and June 25, 2009 in Fruita.3. Second Public Open Houses – October 28, 2009 in Grand Junction and October 29, 2009 in Fruita.4. One-on-one property owner meetings.5. Public official updates with City and County staff.6. Website postings.7. Group/Neighborhood Meetings – December 10, 2009, February 3, 2010, March 3, 2010, and May 5, 20108. Presentations to elected officials.6.1 First Open HousesThe initial public open houses were held on June 24, 2009 in Grand Junction at the Mesa Mall and on June 25, 2009in Fruita at the Fruita City Hall. The open houses were advertised in local newspapers (Grand Junction Free Pressand Grand Junction Sentinel), via mailed postcard announcements, a CDOT press release, and on the CDOTwebsite. Copies of the newspaper ads and postcards are included in the Appendix. The purposes of the open houseswere to:• Meet the study team.• Find out the study’s purpose, process, and schedule.• Learn about the methods and benefits of access management.• Present the preliminary access configuration for the study corridor.• Gather comments/feedback from the public.Representatives from CDOT, Mesa County, the City of Grand Junction, the City of Fruita, the Mesa County RTPO,and the consulting team were on hand to answer questions and gather input from those in attendance. A copy of themeeting materials and comments can be found in the Appendix. These comments were reviewed and taken intoconsideration during the development of the recommended Access Control Plan.6.2 Property Owner Meetings/WorkshopsIndividual and group/neighborhood meetings were conducted with various property owners and other interestedstakeholders. Staff from CDOT, Mesa County, the City of Grand Junction, the Mesa County RTPO, and the City ofFruita, with support from the consulting team, met with these parties to present the Access Control Plan, listen tocomments, gather information, identify concerns, and determine additional access alternatives to address concernswhile meeting the goals of the project. The public comments were used to refine the preliminary and recommendedaccess control plans and in developing the final Access Control Plan.Project representatives contacted several property and business owners and their representatives and met withthose who expressed interest in having a one-on-one meeting. Additional one-on-one correspondence occurredbetween project representatives and property and business owners via phone calls, mailed letters, and emails. Someof these included the following:23Colorado Department of TransportationMesa County – City of Grand Junction – City of Fruita

US 6 West/SH 139 Access Control Plan Final ReportJune 2010• 84 Lumber• ADCOR Acquisitions• Alex Kamas, Fruita Consumers’ Cooperative Association• Alex Mirow• Amir Eslami• Carol and Greg Smith, Fruita Cow Town development• Christy and Cerise Asheim• Daryl Austin Davis• David Carmichael• David Wininger• Don Ochs, Acorn Convenience Stores• Doug Colaric• Doug Leming, Fruita Cow Town development• Doug Pumphrey, Suncor• Fruita Chamber of Commerce• Greenstone LLC• J D Shelton• James Bradley• James DeHart, Comfort Air of Grand Junction, LLC• John Rader• Kathy Horn, Harvest Moon• Kimberly Kaal• Mark and Sherri Brown, Go-Fer Convenience Stores• Mesa County School District• Mike Ferris, Western Slope Auto• Modern Auto Salvage• Pat Bittle, Loma Committee• Patrick Wolsey• Robert Hutchins• Robert Jones, Fruita Industrial Park• Robert Wilcox• Rosemary Jennings• Six Plus LLCMS• Twin Crossings• Wren FranklinDuring the public input process, several specific areas were identified which required additional input, study, anddiscussion. Some of these areas included the following:• I-70B/Exit 26 and 22 Road. The I-70 B/Exit 26 interchange and 22 Road intersection with US 6 wasidentified as an area that required additional study due to a potential development project within the City ofGrand Junction city limits. This project has the potential to require modifications to the I-70 westboundramps which may require an Interstate Access Request (IAR). As this is a separate permitting processthrough the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and requires additional study, it was determined that itis outside the scope of this Access Control Plan. However, several meetings were held with the City ofGrand Junction, Mesa County, the Mesa County RTPO, and CDOT staff to discuss the process andalternatives for the development. Additional meetings were held with FHWA, the developer, and theproperty owner. This section of the highway was removed from the Access Control Plan and once a24Colorado Department of TransportationMesa County – City of Grand Junction – City of Fruita

US 6 West/SH 139 Access Control Plan Final ReportJune 2010solution is determined, the Access Control Plan will need to be modified accordingly. The City coordinatedneighborhood/community meetings with the property owners on 22 Road, Valley Court, and 21 ½ Road todiscuss the constraints and determine a preferred alternative as part of the development process. Based onthe input from the meetings and additional comments from affected businesses, staff has developed amodified alternative that relocates 22 Road west to Valley Court, allows access to the property on the southside of US 6, and may provide a crossing of the railroad for access to River Road.• Scarlet, Sandford, and G Road Intersections with US 6. This industrial/commercial area has three closelyspaced intersections which serve an area that has high semi-truck traffic volumes. The close spacing of theintersections geometrically prohibits maintaining all three open for the long-term traffic volumes as there isnot enough distance to construct auxiliary lanes. Two neighborhood/community meetings and severalindividual meetings were held with the property and business owners in this area to discuss the constraintsand to determine the final access alternative for the area. The final plan included closing the north leg of GRoad, a full-movement intersection at Scarlet, and a ¾ movement at Sanford.• Loma. During the access control plan project, Mesa County was actively developing a community plan forthe area in unincorporated Mesa County known as Loma. This plan developed the recommended densitiesand zoning for the Loma area and included some local network connections in the plan. A meeting washeld with the Loma Committee to discuss the Access Control Plan. The Loma community plans were usedin the development of the Access Control Plan.• Fruita Consumers’ Cooperative Association. The City of Fruita, Mesa County, and CDOT staff met severaltimes with the Fruita Cooperative to discuss a future connection of Ottley Road through the Cooperativeproperty. The future relocation of Ottley through the Cooperative property allowed for a future fullmovementaccess for both the Cooperative and Ottley while obtaining the spacing needed for the future Cityof Fruita arterial to the north. A letter agreement was developed between CDOT and the Cooperative todocument the discussions and is enclosed in the Appendix.• City of Fruita. The project team met with the City of Fruita and members of the Fruita Chamber ofCommerce to discuss the downtown streets intersecting the US 6 corridor. The street network is alreadyconstructed and developed with closely spaced public streets, making it difficult to apply accessmanagement techniques. The close spacing of the streets prohibits the construction of full auxiliary lanesand does not meet the standard ½-mile spacing for full-movement intersections with the potential forsignalization. Working with the City, it was determined that Elm, Peach, and Mulberry would be viewed as asystem and restricted to address safety or operational concerns. Future restrictions of the adjacentintersections will occur when traffic volumes increase and safety or operational issues develop rather thansimply with redevelopment which may not increase traffic volumes to the level requiring turn restrictions.6.3 Second Open HousesThe second public open houses were held on October 28, 2009 in Grand Junction at the West Gate Inn and onOctober 29, 2009 in Fruita at the La Quinta Inn & Suites. The open houses were advertised in local newspapers(Grand Junction Free Press, Fruita Times, and the Grand Junction Sentinel), via mailed postcard announcements, aCDOT press release, and on the CDOT website. Copies of the newspaper ads and postcards are included in theAppendix. The purposes of the open houses were to:• Present the recommended access configurations for the study corridor.• Communicate ideas concerning various access points including current or future access.• Communicate how the comments and feedback received were incorporated into the recommended plan.• Provide information about how the plan would be implemented.25Colorado Department of TransportationMesa County – City of Grand Junction – City of Fruita

US 6 West/SH 139 Access Control Plan Final ReportJune 2010• Gather comments/feedback from the public.Representatives from CDOT, Mesa County, the City of Grand Junction, the City of Fruita, the Mesa County RTPO,and the consulting team were on hand to answer questions for those in attendance. A copy of the meeting materialsand comments received are located in the Appendix. These comments were taken into consideration during thedevelopment of the final Access Control Plan.6.4 Website PostingsA CDOT website was developed for posting information regarding the status of the project, open house material,draft access control plans, and advertising for upcoming open house meetings. The information was posted athttp://www.dot.state.co.us/travelinfo/studies.htm.6.5 Presentations to Elected OfficialsAs part of the public involvement for this Access Control Plan, several presentations were made to elected officials.These presentations were to provide information regarding access control plans, provide updated information andstatus of the project, and gather input from the elected officials regarding the process. The officials identified at thebeginning of the project were the City of Fruita City Council, Mesa County Commissioners, City of Grand JunctionCity Council, and the Mesa County RTPO. The following is a list of the presentations made during the process ofdeveloping the Access Control Plan:• January 26, 2009 Mesa County RTPO• July 28, 2009 City of Fruita, City Council• September 14, 2009 Mesa County Commissioners• March 3, 2010 City of Fruita Executive Staff• May 2009, City of Fruita Traffic Committee26Colorado Department of TransportationMesa County – City of Grand Junction – City of Fruita

US 6 West/SH 139 Access Control Plan Final ReportJune 20107.0 ACCESS CONTROL PLAN RECOMMENDATIONSThe recommended Access Control Plan, located in the Appendix in tabular and graphic form, illustrates the allowedmovements at existing and future accesses along the study corridors. The graphics and tables are meant tocomplement each other and should be used jointly to fully characterize the allowed movements. In addition,references to conceptual locations for alternate access are meant to complement how local traffic circulation plansare necessary to support and implement the Access Control Plan. The results are based on operational analysis,safety, and guidelines from the State Highway Access Code.It is important to note that the changes recommended in this Access Control Plan will only occur when there arechanges in land use, changes in access use, identified safety problems, or in the course of a highway improvementby CDOT or a local government highway construction project. Additionally, the intent of this study was not to identifydetailed design elements of access such as number, length, and type of auxiliary lanes, but rather to focus on whereaccesses should be located and what type of turns should be allowed at each location. The exact design elementsfor each access would be completed through additional analysis in conformance with requirements of the StateHighway Access Code.7.1 Future Traffic Conditions with Access Control Plan ImplementationA final Level of Service (LOS) analysis was performed once all accesses along the study corridors were identifiedwith proposed mitigations. The purpose of this was to determine the results the mitigations have on traffic asopposed to no changes represented in the 2035 No Access Control Plan scenario. Additional detail is provided inSections 3 and 4 of this Access Control Plan and in the Appendix.7.2 Year 2035 With Access Control Plan Level of ServiceYear 2035 with Access Control Plan volumes were adjusted to reflect the proposed access mitigations. The revisedvolumes where then entered into a Synchro model representing the mitigations proposed in the Access Control Planto determine the intersection Levels of Service. Only warranted auxiliary lanes and signals were included as part ofthe analysis. Not included are any capacity improvements beyond the required configurations meeting warrantrequirements. Detailed Synchro output for 2035 With Access Control Plan Levels of Service can be found in theAppendix. The summary results of the LOS analysis are also shown in Table 1.Of the 34 intersections evaluated for the 2035 with Access Control Plan scenario, 28 have approaches/movementswith a Level of Service A, B, C, or D. The remaining six intersections recorded approaches/movements with Level ofService E or F. The intersections with low Levels of Service, and therefore higher delays, are the same intersectionswith low Levels of Service without the Access Control Plan implemented. A large increase in volume along US 6contributes to increased delay along US 6 since capacity improvements (additional auxiliary and through lanes) werenot assumed. The increase in volume along US 6, as well as on minor approaches to US 6 due to other closed orrestricted accesses, have increased delays on those minor approaches.27Colorado Department of TransportationMesa County – City of Grand Junction – City of Fruita

US 6 West/SH 139 Access Control Plan Final ReportJune 2010Table 1: 2035 With ACP Level of Service ResultsIntersection Traffic Control AM LOS PM LOSUS 6 12 Road Un-Signalized C C12 1/2 Road Un-Signalized C C13 Road (SH 139) Signalized B B13 3/10 Road Un-Signalized C CM Road Un-Signalized CLOSED13 1/2 Road Un-Signalized B B14 Road Un-Signalized D C15 Road Un-Signalized D E15 1/2 Road Un-Signalized E D16 Road Signalized B AK Road Un-Signalized CLOSED16 1/2 Road Un-Signalized CLOSEDCoulson Road Un-Signalized C CWillow Road Un-Signalized B BPlum Road Un-Signalized B CMesa Road Signalized B A18 Road Signalized C BWest H.S. Un-Signalized C CEast H.S. Un-Signalized A A19 Road Signalized C B19 1/2 Road Un-Signalized F F20 Road Signalized C C21 Road Signalized C C21 1/2 Road Signalized C FValley Court Signalized E FSanford Road Un-Signalized B CScarlet Road Signalized B CG Road Signalized CLOSED23 Road Signalized A BF Road Un-Signalized F FSH 139 N Road Un-Signalized B BN. Parking Un-Signalized B BS. Parking Un-Signalized A AM 1/2 Road Un-Signalized B BMiller Road Un-Signalized CLOSEDM 1/3 Road Un-Signalized CLOSEDHottes Road Un-Signalized B BCoronado Road Un-Signalized B BM Road Un-Signalized C CL 7/10 Road Un-Signalized CLOSEDL 1/2 Road Un-Signalized C B28Colorado Department of TransportationMesa County – City of Grand Junction – City of Fruita

US 6 West/SH 139 Access Control Plan Final ReportJune 20108.0 NEXT STEPSAccording to the State Highway Access Code, CDOT is required to provide reasonable highway access to individualproperties, when no reasonable alternative access to the general street system exists, and has the ability to modifyexisting accesses for safety and operational reasons. In addition, recommendations may include the restriction ofaccess to something less than existing conditions. Changes in access are covered in the State Highway AccessCode as follows:The Department or issuing authority may, when necessary for the improved safety and operation of theroadway, rebuild, modify, remove, or relocate any access, or redesign the highway including any auxiliarylane and allowable turning movement. The permittee and or current property owner will be notified of thechange. Changes in roadway median design that may affect turning movements normally will not require alicense modification hearing as an access permit confers no private rights to the permittee regarding thecontrol of highway design or traffic operation even when that design affects access turning movements.The study corridor is in need of access control from an operational standpoint, as well as based on the requirementsset forth in the State Highway Access Code as follows:The access control plan shall indicate existing and future access locations and all access-related roadwayaccess design elements, including traffic signals, that are to be modified and reconstructed, relocated,removed, added, or remain.The outcome of this Access Control Plan identifies the number, location, and type of access points that will beallowed on US 6 and SH 139 within the study limits. However, future changes to the plan are allowed based upon therequirements of the State Highway Access Code as followsThe plan must receive the approval of both the Department and the appropriate local authority to becomeeffective. This approval shall be in the form of a formal written agreement signed by the local authority andthe Chief Engineer of the Department. After an access control plan is in effect, modifications to the planmust receive the approval of the local authority and the Department. Where an access control plan is ineffect, all action taken in regard to access shall be in conformance with the plan and current Code designstandards unless both the Department and the local authority approve a geometric design waiver under thewaiver subsection of the Code.This document describes the process of developing the US 6 and SH 139 Access Control Plan. There are severalimportant steps that need to occur in both the short and long term to ensure the corridor realizes the maximumbenefit of the recommended plan. These next steps start with the approval process.8.1 Approval ProcessBefore the corridor can begin to benefit from the recommendations of the Access Control Plan, a few importantevents must occur.1. Inter-governmental Agreement (IGA) – All parties must develop and agree to an IGA.2. Plan Approval – The Access Control Plan must be approved by each entity. This includes CDOT, the MesaCounty Commissioners, the City of Fruita, and the City of Grand Junction.3. Plan briefing to the State Transportation Commission.4. Plan Adoption – All parties must sign the IGA and put the plan into law.5. Approval by the Chief Engineer of the Department of Transportation.29Colorado Department of TransportationMesa County – City of Grand Junction – City of Fruita

US 6 West/SH 139 Access Control Plan Final ReportJune 2010Once the Access Control Plan is officially adopted by all parties, the adopted Access Control Plan becomes the basisfor future decisions on site access.8.2 Plan ImplementationAs for the long term, CDOT, Mesa County, the City of Grand Junction, and the City of Fruita should work together toidentify opportunities to implement portions of the final Access Control Plan. Implementation of the full plan at asingle time is unlikely to be feasible, but highway improvement projects or development along the corridor mayprovide the agencies with a means through which the plan can be implemented.30Colorado Department of TransportationMesa County – City of Grand Junction – City of Fruita

US 6 West/SH 139 Access Control Plan Final ReportJune 20109.0 REFERENCESState Highway Access Category Assignment Schedule. 2003. 2 CCR §601-1a. 30 October 2007.Transportation Commission of Colorado. 1998. State Highway Access Code, Volume 2, Code ofColorado Regulations 601-1. March 2002.Transportation Research Board. 2000. Highway Capacity Manual. Washington, D.C.: NationalAcademy of Sciences.31Colorado Department of TransportationMesa County – City of Grand Junction – City of Fruita