Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Transportation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
City, consultants outline Transportation Master Plan update; public engagement, DRCOG modeling and sidewalk/truck‑route gaps highlighted
Summary
Public‑works staff and consultants presented a status update on Commerce City’s Transportation Master Plan update, reviewing engagement to date, a revised travel demand forecast aligned with the comprehensive plan, existing‑and‑future conditions, sidewalk gaps, and the need to evaluate functional road classifications and truck routes.
Commerce City public‑works staff and their consultants presented an update on the Transportation Master Plan (TMP) update, describing public engagement to date, technical work with Denver Regional Council of Governments (DRCOG) modeling, and next steps toward a draft plan.
Interim Public Works Director Jenna Hahn and consultants from FHU (Jenny Young and a colleague) said the TMP — the first update since 2010 — will be multimodal and long‑range, looking to 2050. The planning team said they conducted a robust first phase of engagement last summer and fall, collecting more than 2,200 online interactions and 800 location‑based comments, then began a second engagement phase in March; a second mailer was sent to residents to boost participation.
Consultants said DRCOG’s regional travel‑demand model was modified to match Commerce City’s comprehensive plan land‑use forecasts after staff identified mismatches between DRCOG’s default land‑use and the city’s plan. The team adjusted household and employment locations in the model to reflect where Commerce City expects growth and reran future traffic forecasts to produce a refined picture of 2050 traffic volumes.
Model results show increased volume‑to‑capacity ratios on key corridors if no improvements are made; adding DRCOG’s fiscally constrained project list reduces congestion in many locations. Consultants emphasized that widening is not the only solution: options include operational improvements (signal timing), new parallel routes, improved transit reliability and targeted multimodal facilities.
Consultants and staff highlighted active‑transportation priorities: filling sidewalk gaps, addressing safety concerns at intersections and rail crossings, and clarifying facility types (protected bike lanes vs. multi‑use paths) for recommended corridors. They also described the functional road classification review that will guide standards and future developer expectations; the team noted changes to arterial classifications require DRCOG/CDOT coordination because they can affect regional significance.
Council members raised freight and truck‑route concerns repeatedly. Staff said the TMP will consider truck routing and enforcement but noted designated truck‑route ordinances predate the TMP and enforcement can be difficult. Several council members requested the consultants examine truck volumes, accident data and designated truck routes as part of plan recommendations.
Staff said the draft TMP is on track for an August presentation to council with final adoption later in the year; the team said they will use engagement feedback to prioritize projects and that more targeted outreach — including pop‑up events and mailers — increased engagement in phase one. No formal council action occurred; staff will return with draft recommendations and requested additional stakeholder engagement.
