The URL can be used to link to this page

Browse Search

Home My WebLink About20001706.tiff STATE OF COLORADO DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION • • ,POT Division of Transportation Development ,, 4201 East Arkansas Avenue Denver, Colorado 80222 (303) 757-9525 July 6, 2000 Ms. Barbara Kirkmeyer Upper Front Range RPC 915 10th Street Greeley. CO 80632 Dear Ms. Kirkmeyer, Enclosed please find one fully executed copy of the FY 2001 planning assistance contract dated July 1, 2000 for your files. Also enclosed please find a copy of the Colorado Regional Plan Summary document for your files. If you have any questions regarding either of these documents please contact me at (303) 757- 9495. Very Truly Yours, George W. Ventura Enclosures SG'121 2000-1706 77/ /jOOO Routing No: (kD f7 DGI fl REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION PLANNING Upper Front Range Transportation Planning Region TPR CONTRACT THIS CONTRACT, made this / day of 2000, by and between the State of Colorado for the use and benefit of the Colo do Department of Transportation (CDO'I'), Division of Transportation Development, hereinafter referred to as "the State", and the Upper Front Range Regional Planning Commission (RPC), PO Box 758, Greeley, CO 80632, created under powers set forth in §§43-1-1102(5) and 30-28-105 C.R.S., hereinafter referred to as "the contractor". WHEREAS, authority exists in the law and funds have been budgeted, appropriated, and otherwise made available to FEIN Number 846000813, in COFRS Fund 400, Organization 9991, Appropriation Code 010, Program 5000, Function 1441 Object 5180-1 (P), Reporting Category 0510, Project 13285, Phase 2, TOTAL ENCUMBRANCE IS $7,500.00 EXACTLY; and WHEREAS, required approval, clearance, and coordination has been accomplished from and with appropriate agencies; and, WHEREAS, general purpose local governments within the Transportation Planning Region (TPR) as defined in the intergovernmental agreement of the contractor, have agreed that the Contractor shall assume responsibilities, in cooperation with the State and in accordance with §§30-28-105 and 43-1-1103(1) C.R.S. and 23 U.S.C. Section 135; and, WHEREAS, pursuant to 043-1-1103 (5) C.R.S., state legislation requires the CDOT to integrate and consolidate regional transportation plans into a comprehensive state transportation plan; and, WHEREAS, §43-1-1101 C.R.S. identifies RPCs (RPC) for the TPRs as the proper forum for regional transportation planning; and, WHEREAS, pursuant to §43-I-I 103(3)(a) C.R.S., the RPCs, in cooperation with the State and other governmental agencies, are responsible for carrying out continuing, cooperative, and comprehensive transportation planning for the TPRs; and, WHEREAS, pursuant to §§43-1-1102(7) and 43-1-1103(5) C.R.S., the State has developed Rules at 2 CCR 604-2 ("the Rules") which identify the TPRs and set forth the process through which RPCs for the TPRs can develop, amend, and update regional transportation plans for integration by the CDOT into a comprehensive state transportation plan; and, 1 WHEREAS, the Regional Transportation Plan is complete and will be updated on a six year cycle pursuant to Section VII of the Rules; and WHEREAS, the Regional Transportation Plan may be amended pursuant to Section VII of the Rules during intervening years so as to reflect changing conditions and maintain consistency with the long range state transportation plan and the State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP): and, WHEREAS, the State receives on an annual basis federal State Planning and Research funds (SPR funds) for purposes including statewide planning, the planning of future highway programs and local public transportation systems, and plans for the implementation of such programs: and, WHEREAS, the State desires to delegate its responsibility for assessing the transportation needs for any jurisdictions within the Upper Front Range TPR not participating on the Upper Front Range RPC; and, WHEREAS, the Upper Front Range RPC desires to conduct regional transportation planning for any jurisdiction within the Upper Front Range TPR not participating on the Upper Front Range RPC; and, WHEREAS, the Contractor desires to receive SPR funds apportioned to the State by the Federal Government in accordance with 23 U.S.C. Sections 104 and 307(C) to be administered by the State and to be spent by the Contractor on activities associated with the statewide transportation planning process carried out in accordance with 23 U.S.C. Section 135 and §43-1- 1103 C.R.S.; and, WHEREAS, the funding has been approved and budgeted for use by the Contractor in the Fiscal Year 2001 SPR PR01-002 and the Federal Fiscal Year 2001 SPR PR 01-002 Work Program; and, WHEREAS, the Contractor desires to be responsible for the expenditure of the SPR funds for carrying out activities associated with the statewide transportation planning process, for the period beginning with the executed date of the contract through June 30, 2001 (the Program Period); and, WHEREAS, the Contractor desires to perform the work described in the Rural Planning 'Work Program (Exhibit A) and has agreed to monitor the progress and costs of the work in order to stop performance prior to incurring costs in excess of$7,500.00; and is the only entity empowered with this responsibility; and, WHEREAS, this contract is entered into pursuant to the authority of§§43-1-106, 43-I 224, 30-28-105, 29-1-203, and 24-103-205 C.R.S.; 2 NOW, THEREFORE, the parties hereto mutually agree to carry out the necessary continuing, cooperative, and comprehensive transportation planning within the Upper Front Range TPR as more specifically described herein. The parties agree: I. SCOPE OF WORK A. The intergovernmental agreement creating the Contractor under C.R.S. 30-28-105, the Statewide Transportation Planning Process and Transportation Planning Regions rules (2 CCR 604-2, "the Rules"), and the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR 23, Part 172 and CFR 49, Part 18) regarding administration of negotiated contracts are made a part of this contract by reference. Also, the State Special Provisions and Exhibit A (the Rural Planning Work Program) are attached hereto and incorporated herein as temis and conditions of this contract by this reference: B. In the event of a conflict between CFR 23, Part 172 and/or CFR 49, Part 18 and the provisions of this contract proper of the attachments hereto; CFR 23, Part 172 and CFR 49, Part 18 shall control to the extent of such conflict. However, the provisions of 23 U.S.C. Section 135 take precedence over any conflicting terms of this contract. The provisions of this paragraph do not constitute a waiver of legal and administrative appeals available to the Contractor or the State. C. The contractor shall cooperatively undertake the activities related to the statewide transportation planning process, set forth in Sections IV, V, VI, VII and VIII of the Rules and perform the tasks identified in Exhibit A for the expenditure of SPR funds during the Program Period. D. The contractor shall provide the mechanism for funding the tasks during the Program Period for the SPR funds to be expended to implement the planning process in the TPR. E. The contractor shall assure that SPR funds spent during the Program Period for those tasks identified in Exhibit A are spent in accordance with all applicable State and Federal requirements and with the terms of this contract. F. The contractor shall assure that the management of the Rural Planning Work Program will be accomplished. G. The Contractor shall provide the products and services identified in Exhibit A to the State by the specified date(s). H. The Contractor shall take all reasonable steps to obtain the necessary staff or consultant services required to carry out all tasks described and identified in Exhibit A and Section I. The selection for consultant services shall be in compliance with all federal procurement requirements. In addition, any Request for Proposal (RFP) used by the Contractor to secure consultant services must be reviewed and approved by the State prior to release 3 The Contractor shall obtain written authorization from the State before executing any contract for consultant services which utilizes SPR funds. I. Within 30 days after the end of the Program Period, the Contractor will provide to the State a final accomplishment report of the Rural Planning Work Program tasks performed under this contract. It shall include, but not be limited to: (1) final accomplishments by task; (2) status of uncompleted products; and, (3) actual expenditures for the Program Period. The State Contract Administrator has the right to disallow any costs incurred by the Contractor which are not consistent with or in compliance with the authorized tasks of Exhibit A. J. The progress and cost data associated with tasks described in Exhibit A, and Section I shall be monitored by the State at least quarterly. The State will provide at least one week's notice the date and time of any meeting. II. COMPENSATION (Obligation, Billing A. 'The contractor shall bill the State for the allowable cost of those tasks eligible for SPR funds identified in Exhibit A. Billings shall be rendered by the contractor to the State on a regular basis, provided that such basis shall be at least quarterly. All billings shall include a statement of direct charges, and an invoice for the amount of reimbursable SPR expenditures by Work Program task incurred during the reporting period. The State shall promptly pay the Contractor's bills for expenditures incurred in performance of tasks described in Section I, and subject to conditions specified in Section II, Paragraphs B and C. B. The State's obligation under this contract shall not exceed the maximum amount of $7,500.00 unless a supplemental agreement is executed to increase such amount prior to additional costs being incurred. The contractor shall be solely responsible for all expenses incurred before the execution of this contract. In addition, the contractor shall be solely responsible for all costs incurred which are either not allowable or which exceed the total estimated costs without a prior executed supplemental agreement. C. Allowable costs shall be limited to those necessary to carry out the tasks described in Exhibit A, Section I and as provided in applicable Federal Regulations as determined by the State. These include direct costs such as the costs of computer services, salaries, technical supplies, and reproduction; public participation-related costs including mailing costs, and public opinion surveys; State Transportation Advisory Committee Member travel costs; and consultant contracts. D. Federal Funding. This contract is subject to and contingent upon the continuing availability of Federal funds for the purposes hereof. The parties hereto expressly recognize that the contractor is to be paid, reimbursed, or otherwise compensated with funds provided to the State by the Federal Government for the purpose of contracting for 4 the services provided for herein, and therefore, the contractor expressly understands and agrees that all its rights, demands and claims to compensation arising under this contract are contingent upon receipt of such funds by the State. In the event that such funds or any part thereof are not received by the State, the State may immediately terminate this contract without liability, including liability for termination costs. III. GENERAL PROVISIONS A. For the purpose of this Contract, Mr. George Ventura is hereby designated representative of the State and Barbara Kirkmeyer is hereby designated representative of the contractor. Either party may from time to time designate in writing new or substitute representatives or new addresses where notices shall be sent. All notices required to be given by the parties hereunder shall be given by certified or registered mail to the individuals at the addresses set forth below: To CDOT: To The Contractor: George Ventura Barbara Kirkmeyer DTD/Transportation Planning Branch Upper Front Range TPR Colorado Department of Transportation PO Box 758 4201 E. Arkansas Avenue, EP-B606 Greeley, CO 80632 Denver, CO 80222 13. The parties aver that, to their knowledge, their employees have no interest in and shall not acquire an interest in, directly or indirectly, which would conflict in any manner or degree with the performance and services required to be performed under this contract. The parties further promise that they will not employ any person having an outside interest in the performance of this contract. C. The Contractor warrants that it has the authority to enter into this contract under the intergovernmental agreement which forms the RPC within the Upper Front Range TPR and that it has taken all appropriate actions to lawfully execute such authority. The Contractor shall be responsible for all claims and liabilities resulting from the Contractor=s acts or omissions, or the acts or omissions of consultants, subcontractors, agents, or employees of the Contractor. D. (1) Data, studies, surveys, drawings, maps, models, photographs, reports, and any other materials produced or developed pursuant to this contract shall become the property of the Contractor, except as set forth herein; also, the Contractor is hereby authorized to copyright and market computer software produced under this contract. All proceeds from the sale of products or services developed under this contract must be returned to the Statewide Transportation Planning Process. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the State and FHWA shall, without costs to them, have the royalty-free, non-exclusive and irrevocable right to reproduce, publish. or 5 otherwise use and to authorize others to use, all such materials for State and U.S. Government purposes. In addition, the State and U.S. Government shall have the right to use, duplicate, or disclose technical data and computer software produced under this contract in whole or in part, in any manner and for any purpose whatsoever, and to have or permit others to do so. However, should the Contractor choose to market computer files and/or software produced under this project, the State agrees to refer inquiries concerning such materials to the Contractor. (2) All information, data, reports, records, and maps which are developed by the Contractor for carrying out the Rural Planning Work Program within the Upper Front Range TPR, shall be made available in sufficient copies (not to exceed fifteen) to the State and FHWA, and directed by the State. (3) All reports pertaining to the performance of this contract shall be reviewed and approved pursuant to the procedures established under the Rules, but no report will be published without the prior approval of FHWA. Any published material shall acknowledge the participation of the State and the FHWA in recognition of the cooperative nature of the Statewide Transportation Planning Process. (4) The Contractor and any consultants shall maintain all books, records, and other documentation pertaining to authorized Rural Planning Work Program tasks and to completely substantiate all costs incurred during the Program Period for a period of three years from the date of termination of this contract. These records shall be made available for inspection and audit to the State, FHWA, or the Comptroller General of the United States, and copies thereof shall be furnished, if requested. The Contractor shall include this record keeping/audit requirement in any contract with any consultant employed to perform Rural Planning Work Program tasks by expressly requiring the Consultant to comply with this requirement. (5) The State and FHWA are specifically authorized to review and inspect at all reasonable times all such records, and all technical and financial aspects of the tasks described in Exhibit A. FHWA will arrange such reviews and inspections through the State. E. The Special Provisions attached hereto are incorporated herein by this reference. F. Either party has the right to withdraw from this contract by giving written notice to the other party at least 60 days in advance of such withdrawal, whereupon the contract shall terminate at the expiration of the period of notice. 6 G. Officers, members, or employees of the parties and members of the governing body of the localities in which the planning program is situated or being carried out, who exercise any function or responsibility in the review or approval of the undertaking or carrying out of this contract, shall not: (1) participate in any decision related to this contract which affects their personal interest or the interest of any corporation, partnership, or association in which they are directly or indirectly interested; or, (2) have any interest, directly or indirectly, in this contract or the proceeds thereof. H. The term of this contract shall begin on the executed date and extend through June 30, 2001. I. To the extent that this Contract may be executed and performance of the obligations of the parties may be accomplished within the intent of the Contract, the terms of this Contract are severable, and should any term or provision hereof be declared invalid or become inoperative for any reason, such invalidity or failure shall not affect the validity of any other term or provision hereof. The waiver of any breach of a term hereof shall not be construed as waiver of any other term. J. This Contract is intended as the complete integration of all understanding between the parties. No prior or contemporaneous addition, deletion, or other amendment hereto shall have any force or effect whatsoever, unless embodied herein in writing. No subsequent novation, renewal, addition, deletion, or other amendment hereto shall have any force or effect unless embodied in a written contract executed and approved pursuant to the State Fiscal rules. K. Except as herein otherwise provided, this Contract shall inure to the benefit of and be binding upon the parties hereto and their respective successors and assigns. L. Neither party may assign its rights or duties under this Contract without the prior written consent of the other party. NI. The Contractor represents and warrants that it has taken all actions that are necessary or required by internal procedures and bylaws, and applicable law, to properly authorize the undersigned signatory for the Contractor to lawfully execute this Contract on behalf of the Contractor and to bind the Contractor to its terms. IV INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR RELATIONSHIP The contractor shall perform its duties hereunder as an independent contractor and not as an employee. Neither the contractor nor any agent or employee of he contractor shall be or shall he deemed to be an agent or employee of the state. Contractor shall pay when due all required employment taxes and income tax and local head tax on any moneys paid pursuant to this contract. Contractor acknowledges that the contractor and its employees are not entitled to unemployment insurance benefits unless the contractor or a third party provides such coverage 7 and that the state does not pay for or otherwise provide such coverage. Contractor shall have no authorization, express or implied, to bind the state to any agreements, liability, or understanding except as expressly set forth herein. Contractor shall provide and keep in force worker's compensation (and show proof of such insurance) and unemployment compensation insurance in the amounts required by law, and shall be solely responsible for the acts of the contractor, its employees and agents. V GRANT ASSURANCES A. Since this grant contract involves the expenditure of federal funds, the grantee/local agency/contractor shall at all times during the execution of this contract strictly adhere to and comply with all applicable federal laws and regulations, as they currently exist and may hereafter be amended, which are incorporated herein by this reference as terms and conditions of this contract. The grantee/local agency/contractor shall also require compliance with these statutes and regulations in subgrant agreements entered into under this contract. Federal laws and regulations that:may be applicable include: B. The Uniform Administrative Requirements for Grants and Cooperative Agreements to State and Local Governments" (Common Rule), at 49 Code of Federal Regulations, Part 18, or the "Uniform Administrative Requirements for Grants and Agreements with Non- Profit Organizations", at 49 Code of Federal Regulations, Part 19, as applicable. The requirements of 49 CFR Part 18, or Part 19, include, without limitation: (1) the Contractor shall follow applicable procurement procedures, as required by section 18.36(d) or 19.36(d); (2) the Contractor shall request and obtain prior CDOT approval of changes to any subcontracts in the manner, and to the extent required by, applicable provisions of section 18.30 or section 19.30; (3) the Contractor shall comply with section 18.37 or section 19.37 concerning any subgrants; (4) to expedite any CDOT approval, the Contractor's attorney, or other authorized representative, shall also submit a letter to CDOT certifying Contractor compliance with section 18.30 or section 19.30 change order procedures, and with 18.36(d) or section 19.36(d) procurement procedures, and with section 18.37 or section 19.37 subgrant procedures, as applicable; (5) the Contractor shall incorporate the specific contract provisions described in section 18.360) or section 19.360) (which are also deemed incorporated herein) into any subcontract(s) for such services as terms and conditions of those subcontracts. 8 C. Title 23, United States Code, Part 172, and Title 23, Code of Federal Regulations, Part 172, if the contract work includes professional engineering or architectural services. Title 23, United States Code, Part 112, and Title 23, Code of Federal Regulations, Parts 633 and 635, if the contract work includes construction services. E. Provided, however, that to the extent that other applicable federal requirements (including the provisions of Title 23) are more specific than provisions of Title 49, Part 18 or 19.. those requirements shall supersede such Part 18 or 19 provisions. 9 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this agreement on the day first above written. STATE OF COLORADO, COLORADO DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION ATTEST: By: iU f A Tom Norton Executive Director, CDOT / .- y a G}J L.�- By: (-�'LLt,�- r(1y By: J nifer Fin$h Chief Clerk Director, DffD J, APPROVED: Ken Salazar Attorney General By> B1 Arthur Barnhart State Controller Assistant Attorney General Natural Resources Division REGIONAL PLANNING COMMISSION B ,litt L, By: Y, Chairperson i Chief Deputy Clerk Regional Planning Commission 10 EXHIBIT A RURAL PLANNING WORK PROGRAM The purpose of this exhibit is to present detailed procedures for the continuation of the statewide transportation planning process within the Transportation Planning Regions. TASK I - STATEWIDE TRANSPORTATION ADVISORY COMMITTEE (STAC) Purpose: For the STAC representative from the Upper Front Range Transportation Planning Region to attend regularly scheduled meetings and carry out the other duties of the STAC pursuant to Section 43-1-1104 C.R.S., as amended, and to Section V. of the Rules for the Statewide Planning Process (2 CCR 604-2). Method: 1. Review and comment on Regional Transportation Plans. 2. Review and provide a recommendation to the Department on whether the plans, amendments, and updates to these plans meet the requirements of sections V-A of the Rules. 3. Assist in resolving conflicts which arise between TPRs, or between the Department and a TPR. 4. Make recommendations to the Department concerning the integration and consolidation of Regional Transportation Plans (RTP) into the Stale Transportation Plan. 5. Provide advice to the Department on Colorado=s mobility requirements by furnishing regional perspectives on transportation problems requiring statewide solutions. 6. Make recommendations to Planning Organizations and the Department that will improve modal choice, linkages between modes, and transportation system continuity. TASK 2 - PUBLIC PARTICIPATION Purpose: For the Upper Front Range Transportation Planning Region in cooperation with the Department in carrying out the Statewide Public Participation Process for Transportation Planning pursuant to Section V1-A of the Rules for the Statewide Planning Process (2 CCR 604-2). 11 I. Cooperate with the Department in providing reasonable notice and opportunity to comment on upcoming state transportation planning related activities and meetings. 2. Provide annual recommendations on the TPR project priorities for the STIP through the Project Priority Programming Process. 3. Cooperate with the Department in facilitating public meetings in the TPR pursuant to Section VI-A (6) of the Rules for the Statewide Planning Process (2 CCR 604-2). 4. Review and comment on draft Statewide Transportation Improvement Programs. 5. Prepare responses to significant issues raised at required public meetings within the TPR concerning the RTP pursuant to Section VI-A of the Rules for the Statewide Planning process (2 CCR 604-2). TASK 3 - STATEWIDE TRANSPORTATION PLAN REVIEW Purpose: Provide input on the integration and consolidation of regional plans with the Statewide Transportation Plan. Method: Review and provide comment, through the STAC representative, on elements of the Statewide Transportation Plan, including proposed criteria for incorporating projects into the Statewide Transportation Plan, drafts of the Statewide Transportation Plan, and the final Statewide Transportation Plan pursuant to Section 43-1-1103 (3) (a) C.R.S. TASK 4 - REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION PLAN AMENDMENTS Purpose: Circumstances altering the transportation systems planning factors upon which the RTP is based may change the TPRs project priority recommendations to the Department and require amending the R.TP. Method: Amend the RTP as necessary to make additions or deletions on review and analysis of the RTP to insure successful implementation throughout the Statewide Transportation Plan pursuant to Section VIII of the Rules for the Statewide Planning Process (2 CCR 604-2). 12 AGREEMENT OF ASSIGNMENT The Upper Front Range Regional Planning Commission (RPC): the assignor herein, is a regional planning commission formed under 30-28-105 C.R.S., as the transportation planning organization for the Upper Front Range Transportation Planning Region (TPR) comprised of the area within Larimer, Morgan and Weld Counties. Weld County, the assignee herein, is an Incorporated County in Colorado which is a member of the RPC. The Upper Front Range RPC has agreed to be responsible for regional transportation planning activities within the Upper Front Range TPR, including the development of a long- range regional transportation plan, and the Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT) has agreed to provide federal transportation planning funds to the Upper Front Range RPC to carry out this responsibility. Due to the facts that the Weld County has the capability for administrative and accounting services and has a federal tax identification number which is a state accounting prerequisite for reimbursement of funds, and that the Upper Front Range RPC does not, the Upper Front Range RPC hereby assigns, orders and transfers to the Weld County the right to receive the federal transportation planning funds directly from CDOT. The Upper Front Range RPC retains all other duties and responsibilities for regional transportation planning activities in the Upper Front Range TPR as defined in the Regional Transportation Planning Contract between the Upper Front Range RPC and CDOT. This agreement is effective on the date indicated below and remains in effect until one of both parties requests a termination of the agreement in writing to the other party. Assignor warrants: (a) This agreement is permitted under the terms of the Transportation Planning Contract between the Upper Front Range RPC and CDOT, contingent upon written concurrence of CDOT. (b) There are no claims or demands concerning or arising from the contract between the Assignor and CDOT. (c) The Weld County agrees to receive the federal transportation planning funds from CDOT on behalf of the Upper Front Range RPC for the sole purpose of reimbursing regional transportation planning activities including administrative, accounting and professional planning services. (d) The Weld County agrees to maintain separate accounting of the federal transportation planning funds made available to the Upper Front Range RPC from any other funds received by the Weld County. 13 (e) The Weld County agrees to comply with the terms of the Regional Transportation Planning Contract provisions. (0 The Upper Front Range RPC retains all other duties and responsibilities for regional transportation planning activities in the Upper Front Range TPR as defined in the Regional Transportation Planning Contract. IN WITNESS THEREOF, the Upper Front Range Regional Transportation Planning Commission has executed this Agreement of Assignment through the undersigned officer on the date written below. Upper Front Range Regional Planning Commission By: %Cl Lii t cI,.'; <//C-'— Chairperson Date: 14 ACCEPTANCE Weld County, the assignee named in the above agreement, accepts the assignment from the Upper Front Range Regional Planning Commission (RPC) to receive the federal transportation planning funds from CDOT on the behalf of the Upper Front Range RPC for the sole purpose of reimbursing regional transportation planning activities including administrative, accounting and professional planning services. Further, the Weld County agrees to maintain separate accounting of the federal transportation planning funds made available to the Upper Front Range RPC from any other funds received by the Weld County. And, the Weld County agrees to comply with the terms of the Regional Transportation Planning Contract provisions. Weld County ;',�, By: )rib uai .! /i % u;z 1_, Date: '�'` 00 CONSENT By its signature below, CDOT consents to the terms of this Agreement of Assignment. COLORADO DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION By: 44,-.1u- 177 {cc'E_ /4 Date: 3 / % 15 • E • SPECIAL PROVISIONS CONTROLLER'S APPROVAL .This contact shall not be deemed valid until it shall have been approved by the Controller of the State of Colorado orsuch assistant as he may designate. This provision is applicable to any contract involving the payment of money by the State. FUND AVAILABILITY 2.financial obligations oldie State of Colorado payable after the current fiscal year are contingent upon funds for that purpose being appropriated,budgeted, and otherwise made available. BOND REQUIRIi2dENT 3.1f this contract bivalves the payment of more than fifty thousand dollars for the construction,erection,repair,maintenance,or improvement of any building, road bridge,viadua,tunnel;excavation or other public work for this State,the contractor shall,before entering upan the performance of any such wortincluded in this contract,duly execute and deliver to the State official who will sign the contract,a good and sufficient bond or other acceptable surety to be approved by said official in a paid wan not less than one-half ofthe total amount payable by the terms of this contract. Such bond shall be dub,executed by a qualified corporate surety maimed upon the faithful perfotmance of the contact and in adtrition,shall provide that if the contractor or his subcontractors 611 to duly pay for any labor,materials,team hire,sustenance,provisions,provendor or other supplies used or consumed by such contractor or his subcontractor in performance of the sack contracted to be done or fails to pay any pawn who supplies rental machinery,tools,or equipment in the prosecution of the work the wtety will pay the same in an an mmt not exceeding the sum specified in the bond,together with interest at the rate of eight per cent per annum. Unless such bondIs .=anal,delivered and filed,no claim in favor of the contractor arising under such contract shall be audited,allowed or paid. A certified or cashier's cheek or a bank money ceder payable to the Treasurer oldie State of Colorado may be accepted in lieu of a bond. This provision is in compliance with CRS 38-26406. INDEMNIFICATION 4.To the extent authorized by law,the contractor shall indemnify,save,and hold harmless the State,its employees and agents,against any and all claims, damages,Babrli y and amt awards including costs,expenses,and attorney fees incurred as a result of any act or omission by the contractor,or its employees, agents,subcontractors,or assignees pursuant to the terms of this contract DLS(3w(AITI:IN AND AFFIRMATIVE ACTION The contractor apses to comply with the letter and spirit of the Colorado Mfidisaimination Act of 1957,as amended,and other applicable law respecting Atcrimfoaton aodunfair employment practices(MS 24-34402),sod as required by Executive Order,Equal Opportunity and Affirmative Action,dated April 16,1975.Prsaanm%Ana the following provisions shall be contained 6r all State contacts orb. During the performance of this contract,the contractor agrees as follow= (a)The contractor will not disaimiate against any employee or applicant for employment because of race,aced,color,national origin,sex,marital status, relies,ancestry,mental or physical handicap,or age.The contractorwil take affirmative action to insure that applicants are employed,and that employees at rented dafmgemployment,without regard to the above mentioned characteristics' Such action shall mclade,but not be limited to the following:employment upgrading,demotion,or transfer,=aliment or reauimhent advertising;lay-offs or tammatm .rates of pay or other forms of compensation;and selection far training„including apprenticeship.The contractor agrees to lost in conspicuous places,available to employees and applicants for employment,notices to be provided by the contracting officer setting forth provisions of this nondisaiminaton clause. (Vibe contractor will,in.11 solicitations or advertisements for employees placed by oron behalf of the=tractor,sate that all qualified applicants will receive consideration foranployment without regard to race,and,color,national origin,sex,marital status,religion,ancestry,mental or physical handicap,or age. (c)The contractor will send to each labor union or representative of workers with which he has a collective bargaining agreement or other contract or undastancringnoticetobeprovidedbythecontractingoffsr,advisingtheWrorunionorwaken'represnativeoldecontractor'scommitmentundrthe Executive Order,Equal Opportunity and Affirmative Action,dated Aprl 16,1975,and of the rules,regulations,and relevant Orders of the Governor. (d)Ilse contractor nod labor unions will famish all information and reports required by Executive Order,Equal Opportunity and Affirmative Action of April 16,1975,and by the rides,regulations and Orders of the Governor;or pursuant thereto and will permit access to his books,records,and accounts by the contracting agency and the office ofthe Governor or his designee far purposes of investigation to ascertain compliance with such rules,regulations and orders. (e)A labor organization will note exclude any individual otherwise galiRed from full membership rights in such tabor organization.or expel any such individual tram membership in such labor organisation or discriminate against any of its members in the full egjoyment of work opportunity because of race,aged,color. national mien,or ancestry. i i)A labor osgaohation,or the employees or mambas thereof will not aid,abet,incite,compel or coact the doing of any act defined in this contract to be faaimblatory aobstuaatprevent say person from complying g with the provisions of this contract or any order issued t haemde;or attempt,either directly r indirectly,to commit any act defined In this contract to be discriminatory. ,g) In the event ofthe contractor's non-compliance with the nondasaiminatian clauses otitis contract or with any of math rules,regulations.or orders,this omeatt may be canceled,terminated or suspended in whole or in part and the contractor may be declared Ineligible for further State contracts in accordance *Oh preadult,authorized in Executive Order,Equal Opportunity and Affirmative Action of April 16,1975 and the rules,regulations,or orders promulgated n&AOC=((ratao6ot9n aevhado6iel/ar cage 1 of?pages Required by State Fiscal Rules { _ • in Affirmative Action April 16,accordance therewith,and such other sanc ions as may be Imposed and remedies as may be invoked as provided is Executive Order Equal Opportunity end by rules,regulations,or orders promulgated ht accordance therewith,or as otherwise provided by law. (It)The 000hactor will include the provisions of paragraphs(a)through(h)in every sub-contact and mbcour'aetorpurchase order vales regulations,or orders issued pmauntto Executive Order,Equal Opportunity and Affirmative Action of exempted wall by role binding, upon eadnsubcontraaororvendor. The contractorwiiltake such action with to orp rchasethatsash econtractngabecmy diea,asa means of such ��°°o�rgaPnttheeeaderes8te beomesinymed': in,aril threatened enCorcmg provisions,mdud'mg sanctions for non-compliaurce;provided,however,that in the event the contractor becomes involved with,litigation with the subcontractor or vendor as a result of such direction by the contracting agency,the contractor may request the State of Colorado to enter into such litigation to protect the interest of the State of Colorado. COLORADO:LABOR PREFERENCE b. When a construction contact for a public project is to be awarded to a bidder,a resident bidder shall be allowed a preference against a non-resident bidder from a state or foreign country equal to the preference given or required by the state or foreign county in which the non-resident bidder is a resident If it is determined by the officer responsible for awarding the bid that compliance with the subsection.06 may cause denial of federal finds which would otherwise be available or would otherwise be inconsistent with requirements of Federal law,this subsection shall be suspended,but only to the extent necessary to prevent denial of the moneys or to eliminate the inconsistency with Federal requirements(CRS 8-19-101 and 102). GENERAL 7. The laas of the State of Colorado and rules and regulations issued pursuant thereto shall be applied in the interpretation,execution,and enforcement of this contract. Any provision of this contract whether or not incorporated herein by reference which provides for arbitration by any extra-judicial body or person orwhich is otherwise in conflict with said laws,roles,and regulations shall be considered null and void. Nothing amain' in any provision incorporated herein by reference while purports to negate this or any other special provision in whole or in part shall be valid or enforceable or available in any action at lawwhether by way of complaint,defense,or otherwise. Any provision rendered null and void by the operation of this provision will not invalidate the remainder of this contract to the cant that the contract is capable of mention. 8. At all times during the performance of this contact,the Contractor shall strictly adhere to all applicable federal and state laws,rules,and regulations that have been may hereafter be established. 9. Pursuant to (RS 24-30-202.4(as amended),the state controller may withhold debts owed to state agencies under the vendor offset intercept system for: (a)impald child support debt or child support arienages (b)unpaid balanceoftax,acauedinteest, or other clingS specified inArticle22, Title 39, CRS; (e)unpaid loans due to the student loan division of the department ofhithereducation;(d)owed amounts required to be paid to the unemployment compensation find;and(e)other unpaid debts owing to the state orany agency thereof;the amount of which is found to be owing as a result of final or reduced to judgment as certified by the controller. determination 10. The signatories aver that they are familiar with CRS 184-301,et seq.,(Bribery and Corrupt Influences)and CRS 184401,et seq.,(Abase of Public Office), and that no violation of such provisions is present I1. the signatories aver that to their knowledge,no state employee has any personal or beneficial interest whatsoever in the service or property desafbed herein WHEREOF,the parties hereto have executed this Contract on the day first above tam / `CanState of Colorado r..„....................„,,..,,.-'e / (Full Legal Name) ROY ROMER,GOVERNOR By Position(Tale)_ By Social Security Number or Federal LD.Number Deparm o PUBLIC HEALTH AND ENVIRONMENT — If Corporation,TownCity/C6amty,or Equivalent; APPROVAL: 1 ,_ — Attest(Affix Seal) By r • Corporate Secretary,or Equivalent,T Count)!Clerk APPROVALS ATTORNEY of CONTROLLER • -By By . A.Norton Clifford W.Hall • 'Pas sac=(amain aerisedOMMMIA? Page 2 which is the last of?pages Colorado Regional Transportation Plans SUMMARY .Fp iiwri as tie x< ►I( t0 w i FFi e�au' 4 wJ, -tbIr 4 dEuP 5 s � ��tr.'. / yr, r .` } �y A F Oil re. )a° 1. Colorado Department of Transportation Division of Transportation Development May 1, 2000 I OTIll Prepared by: Daniel, Mann, Johnson &Mendenhall, Inc. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Transportation Planning Center of Excellence s D v F )(I7 COLORADO REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION PLANS TABLE OF CONTENTS Colorado Regional Transportation Plans SUMMARY TABLE OF CONTENTS Introduction 2 Acronyms 7 Pikes Peak Area Regional Transportation Plan 8 Greater Denver Metropolitan Area Regional Transportation Plan 22 North Front Range Regional Transportation Plan 39 Pueblo Area Regional Transportation Plan 51 Grand Junction/Mesa County Regional Transportation Plan 59 Eastern Regional Transportation Plan 69 Southeast Regional Transportation Plan /7 San Luis Valley Regional Transportation Plan 35 Gunnison Valley Regional Transportation Plan 94 Southwest Regional Transportation Plan 194 Intermountain Regional Transportation Plan 114 Northwest Regional Transportation Plan 123 Upper Front Range Regional Transportation Plan 132 Central Front Range Regional Transportation Plan 142 South Central Regional Transportation Plan 151 w w w Page 1 )or COLORADO REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION PLANS Try INTRODUCTION Colorado Regional Transportation Plans Summary INTRODUCTION In 1998 the Colorado Department of Transportation(CDOT) began the process of updating the 15 regional transportation plans that form the framework for the 2020 Statewide Transportation Plan. The regional transportation plans were completed and submitted to CDOT November 1, 1999. The Colorado 2020 Transportation Plan is expected to be complete by January 2001; it will integrate the vision. needs and plans detailed in each regional plan with a statewide perspective. See Map A—Colorado's Transportation Planning Regions. This report provides an executive summary of each regional transportation plan in a format that will enhance understanding of transportation needs among the 15 transportation planning regions. For more detailed information, or for information on how to obtain a specific regional transportation plan, please contact: Colorado Department of Transportation Division of Transportation Development 4201 E.Arkansas Denver, CO 80222 Phone: (303) 757-9495 Fax: (303)757-9727 Internet: http://www.dot.state.co.us/business/index.htm This report was completed with the assistance of State Planning and Research (SPR)funds provided by the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA)through CDOT. Portions of this report have been drawn directly from the respective regional transportation plans. Legislative Background Colorado's transportation planning process is firmly based in legislative and administrative direction. Early in the 1990s CDOT recognized that long-range planning,with a strong element of local input,would be necessary to address mounting transportation needs. The initial impetus to develop regional transportation plans came from the state legislature. In 1991, the Colorado General Assembly passed transportation legislation(Colorado Revised Statute 43-1-Part 11) assigning to CDOT the responsibility to define transportation planning regions(TPRs), establish a transportation planning process, and develop a comprehensive long-range state transportation plan based on the consolidation and integration of 15 regional transportation plans. Further direction and support was soon forthcoming at the federal level; the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act(1991), better known as ISTEA, or Title 23 also called for each state to develop long-range plans. Title 23 was re-authorized as the Transportation Equity Act for the 21 sI Century,or TEA-21, in 1998. TEA-21 continued and strengthened the requirement for states to develop long- ^M _■ Page 2 )()r wax. COLORADO REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION PLANS ramignopmemosmi INTRODUCTION range plans. Together, these pieces of legislation have institutionalized the concept of major highway and transportation planning based on coordination and cooperation with local governments. Statewide Transportation Planning Rules and Regulations By 1992, the Colorado Transportation Commission had adopted the Statewide Transportation Planning Process Rules and Regulations at 2-CCR-604-2. The rules spelled out in detail the specific responsibilities of regional planning commissions and a statewide transportation advisory committee in completing the regional plans. The rules also established the 15 transportation planning regions, which included the five existing metropolitan planning organizations(MPOs) previously established under federal regulations. The plans that followed, and that are summarized in this report, are based on the rules which encompass all the necessary state and federal legislation, regulations and guidelines. The rules were updated in 1994 and again in 1997 to remain compatible with evolving transportation planning practices. Planning Cycle CDOT has established a six-year planning cycle, in which the regional plans must be completed first, followed by the development of the statewide plan, then repeating the cycle every six years. The first set of 15 regional plans was completed in 1994 and formed the basis for Colorado's 20 Year Transportation Plan, adopted by the Transportation Commission of Colorado, January 1996. The current set of 15 regional plans summarized in this report was completed by November 1, 1999, and will form the basis of the next statewide plan. The regional plans will again be updated in 2005. The Regional Transportation Planning Guidebook CDOT provided the Regional Transportation Planning Guidebook,January 15, 1998,which encapsulates all the required elements of the planning process. The Guidebook includes an outline for the plan, suggested methodologies for several elements, a list of deliverable products, a schedule and other reference materials. The Guidebook was provided to the regional planning commissions and/or their consultants to assist them in developing their plans and to ensure that CDOT would receive a measure of consistency in the plans. Many of the regional planning commissions have chosen to utilize funds provided by CDOT to hire consultants to assist in the planning process. The Planning Process The Guidebook outlined a series of steps to follow in the regional planning process. Those steps included the following. This report summarizes how each TPR followed or adapted the steps to meet the transportation needs and desires of the region. Regional Planning Commissions The regional planning commission (RPC) is the statutorily authorized body responsible for conducting the regional planning process within its transportation planning region(TPR). Each TPR is comprised of municipalities and counties within a given geographical area as established in the rules. The regional plan reports the signatories to an intergovernmental agreement among the cities and counties in the TPR and establishes the RPC. The plan also reports the chairperson of the commission and an appointee to the statewide transportation advisory committee.The RPC may establish any advisory committees that may be helpful in completing the plan. This report summarizes this step. w w w Page 3 - K)T COLORADO REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION PLANS .--tea INTRODUCTION Regional Values, Vision, Goals and Strategies Each plan explored the values and vision that are important or unique to that area. Then,goals and strategies were developed that will work toward putting that vision in place. The plan that follows is the implementation element of the values, vision, goals and strategies, which are summarized for each TPR in this report. Socioeconomic Characteristics and Environmental Profile The socioeconomic and environmental profile establishes an overview of the region's population, economic conditions, tourism profile, and identifies areas that are environmentally sensitive to future transportation development. All regions used these profiles to project future levels of growth for the region and to tie that growth to travel demand and the need for transportation improvements. In addition, specific air quality issues related to federal or state requirements were identified in the plans. A summary of each profile is included in this report. Preferred Plan Following the development of mobility demand estimates and analyses of alternatives, each region developed a preferred plan. The preferred plan provides a long-range vision for the TPR's transportation system. It highlights the interrelated nature of transportation to land use and development, and to the region's quality of life, including a vital economy and the natural environment. The plan is intermodal in nature and emphasizes both maintaining the existing transportation system and providing for future needs. A local needs element is also included that projects roadway maintenance and construction costs on roads that are not a part of the state highway system.A table summarizing the preferred plan for each region is included in this report. Each table is summarized by the investment categories adopted by CDOT: System Quality, Safety, Mobility, Program Delivery and includes a Local Needs component as developed in the regional plan. See the source regional transportation plan for more specific project information. Prioritization Process A sum of needs is established for each planning region. Once this its accomplished those needs are put in order of priority. The regions used a variety of methods to establish priority based on local values. Many of the TPRs chose to use the method, or a variant,suggested by CDOT in the Guidebook. The method was not required, but proved useful in many cases. The method involved rating each project on a series of weighted factors and establishing a final score with a rank order of projects. The following factors were suggested but were individually weighted by local needs and values: Public Support > Preservation of the Existing System • Congestion D Economic Impact(including cost) • Safety ➢ Multimodalism ➢ Environment 'e Ability to Implement e System Continuity The method used by each TPR to establish priority for its projects is summarized in this report. Where a different method of the TPR's own choosing was used, it is also reported and discussed. DA JA Page 4 )Oi COLORADO REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION PLANS INTRODUCTION Financially Constrained Plan Finally, a financially constrained plan was established for each TPR. Through a process of coordination with CDOT administrative regions, each TPR identified, from its preferred plan, a list of prioritized projects expected to be funded over the next 20 years through anticipated fiscal sources. During this step, each of the six CDOT Regions was provided a 20-year control total of anticipated funds. Each planning region's projects were then constrained at the overall region level. Other funding sources, such as local or private contributions, were included in some cases if determined to be"reasonably available." Projects presented with funding source recommendations in the financially constrained project list are not guaranteed to receive funding from these sources. All costs are in year 2000 dollars. The resulting list,the financially constrained plan, is reported for each planning region. This tabulation does not include the Strategic Program projects(Th Pot), or CMAQ projects which are reported separately in the Statewide Plan Project Appendix. In addition, funding for projects with committed funds in FY 1999& FY 2000 have been removed from the tabulation for the purposes of the statewide 2020 Plan, which covers the planning period 2001- 202(Il.ln addition, a map of each region is included that locates the projects on the transportation system. This step must include an assessment of the social, environmental,energy and economic impacts of the Financially Constrained Plan on the TPR. See the source regional transportation plan for more specific project information DN1 - Page 5 01‘v‘irrin COLORADO REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION PLANS WSW MIMINIMENIM INTRODUCTION Map A— Co/orado Transportation Planning Regions AMP— -....."Pr=FMOWM ....•.....".....---:÷.-:÷:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:÷:^:÷:":-:÷:÷:":`:.:- 7 _.hi__ _::::__„:_:::::...:::::::::::.ff:..f.:::::yf:._.z.f:_f::f:::.:::::::::.:_:: _ _______. ....:::_;:_...x.... ., . ....plieffintliNGE:-:-:-:--------- ----....,.....:......-..--..n.-.... M bl- MN 1,1, ...„,..„......,..::::...„,..,: ... ....... ...,.............„, .„,.... _______-----,.. ,. . .; ,,..,. " ,,,„,....„..„„,„„: " . '00009. �/ , .�.... / i00 OO••i 01•00000• �/•0900000•00000000 IP,�,�I I -,•ToO°oo°°°°°°° /n ,//,//.dl%1 r ..•00 ••/• -0000000• .I,•�:� •000000•�'fad•: � �:: •000000 f/r� L•i./ �/�1,. �/ __ _.__ .5 •; •, •0 000000 000 00000 000• ///J�/////�� ` •0000000000000000000• �/� \ •00000000000000000000• ., 0000000000000000000000 � \ OOOOOOOOOOOOJO000000000 / „.. ..........::•.:„...•: .... .:‘,.... , :::::,,:::: .:.,,::::..„ .............00000.0.00,,,,..`• 00000000000000000000000•• �� \ .:, . 0000000000000000000000000• 000000000000000000000000• ,„.,,......_ • 00000000000000000000000000• . t.,, ..0000d0000�°�000000000000000 /'' \ / 000000 •0000Soot0000a00000 - /��'�%��.4 0000000 0000000000000000Poo000ii /" 00000000 0....0.0000000.000.• 00000000 O 0000000 000000000000 0000000000 000000 000000000000 0000000000 r,,o //,/ •000000 000000000000 000000000• ./, •000000 000000000000 000000000•• •000•• ��/ / 000000 000000000000 000000 O '4 i J- O 00000 O 000 0000000 000000000000 O 00 ^�� 0000000 000000..0oodo090 �� V� � : -..% 000000.000000000 # / •00000000000o000doo000 .:ti / •00000000000000000 0000000000 - 000OOd00000000000 •JO0000000 '•0000000000000000.0000000000 0000000000000000 0000000000 000000000000000••0000000000 -' ' 00000000000000••0000000000 :00.0.0000000.••00000.0.00. •i:.:[••'::�'::"i•::::�i'i�:•:•i�:� ''' '�'�-'�''�' Page t }(YT COLORADO REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION PLANS IIMISMMOMOUSUMIM PIKES PEAK AREA ACRONYMS The following list of commonly used transportation acronyms is intended as a reference to assist the reader: AADT Average Annual Daily Traffic CDOT Colorado Department of Transportation CDPHE Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment CMAQ Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality CO Carbon Monoxide DOLA/DLG Department of Local Affairs/Division of Local Government DTD Division of Transportation Development(CDOT) FAA Federal Aviation Administration FHWA Federal Highway Administration FRA Federal Rail Administration FTA Federal Transit Authority HOV High Occupancy Vehicle ISTEA Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 ITS Intelligent Transportation System MPO Metropolitan Planning Organization NAAQS National Ambient Air Quality Standards NEPA National Environmental Policy Act NHS National Highway System PMio Particulate Matter less than 10 microns in diameter RPC Regional Planning Commission RTP Regional Transportation Plan SIP State Implementation Plan STAG Statewide Transportation Advisory Committee STIP State Transportation Improvement Program STP Surface Transportation Program(from ISTEA and TEA 21) TAC Technical Advisory Committee TDM Transportation Demand Management TDP Transit Development Program TEA 21 Transportation Efficiency Act for the 21s1 Century TIP Transportation Improvement Program TPR Transportation Planning Region VMT Vehicle Miles of Travel w ww Page 7 in'. COLORADO REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION PLANS zionsawamim PIKES PEAK AREA PIKES PEAK AREA REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION PLAN Regional Planning Commission The Regional Transportation Plan (RIP) covers the Colorado Springs Urbanizing Area which includes Palmer Lake, Monument, Manitou Springs, Green Mountain Falls, Colorado Springs, Fountain, Woodland Park, urbanizing El Paso County, and a small portion of Teller County. (For purposes of CDOT transportation planning,the rural portions of El Paso County and Teller County are covered in the Central Front Range Transportation Planning Region.)The Pikes Peak Area Council of Governments(PPACG), an MPO, acts as the Regional Planning Commission (RPC)for the area and is responsible for the development of the 2020 Pikes Peak Regional Transportation Plan(RTP). The STAC representative and Chairman of the RPC is Chuck Brown, El Paso County Commissioner. Formulation of the RTP involved an extensive public consultation process that included elected officials,technical, and citizen representatives and committees, public agencies, and the general public. For example, the Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities Plan is a culmination of the PPACG Bicycle and Pedestrian Subcommittee with the participation arid approval of the Community Advisory Committee, the Transportation Advisory Committee and the Urban Area Policy Committee. w _w Page 8 )tTT COLORADO REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION PLANS saner 177r1,Tritr,'" , PIKES PEAK AREA Regional Values, Vision, Goals and Strategies In the fall of 1996, PPACG launched an extensive public participation program to encourage citizens of the region to take part in developing the 2020 Regional Transportation Plan. Through a series of public meetings, citizens identified what they felt were the transportation needs of the region, listed many problem areas, and provided input into the development of Goals and Objectives and Evaluation Criteria for selecting projects for inclusion in the 2020 Plan. Four goals, with objectives designed to achieve these goals were formulated. These Goals are summarized below. Mobility Goal— Plan,develop and maintain a safe and efficient transportation system to meet the present and future mobility needs of the region. • Environmental Goal—Coordinate the interaction of transportation and land use planning to achieve the overall regional objective of creating and maintaining a healthful and aesthetically pleasing living environment. • Alternative Modes Goal—Develop and promote transportation modes offering alternatives to the single- occupant automobile. • Implementation Goal—Implement and maintain the planned transportation system in a coordinated and cost-effective manner. tiw ww Page 9 )OT COLORADO REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION PLANS PIKES PEAK AREA Socioeconomic and Environmental Profile Socioeconomic Characteristics The Colorado Springs Urbanizing Area is the second largest metropolitan area within the State of Colorado. It serves as a regional center for much of the state south and east of Denver. It has experienced, and is expected to continue to experience, dramatic growth, both in the core of the city and in outlying areas. Other regional characteristics described in the plan include: The tourism industry contributes$800 million annually to the local economy. fi Tourism is a major economic factor with 5.9 million visitors annually. ▪ Garden of the Gods Park, the United States Olympic Training Center, the US Air Force Academy, Pikes Peak and access to gaming in Cripple Creek are major tourist attractions. ✓ The military is a major economic factor with 5 military installations in the region. • Space technology, both in the government and in the private sector,continue as strong economic forces. fi The computer and electronics industries continue to attract employers, manufacturing, distribution and information centers. • Printing and publishing is a major economic activity. Using DRAM/EMPAL, a socioeconomic forecasting model, population, employment and household forecasts were made in five-year increments to 2020. The Small Area Forecasts, based on 1990 US Census tracts and Transportation Analysis Zones were prepared by the Pikes Peak Area Council of Governments and released August 20. 1996.A full report of the forecasts and the output data is included in the appendix to the Pikes Peak plan. The year 2000 population is projected to be 505,204, growing to 659,315 by 2020. This represents 30.5%growth in population for the 20-year planning period. Year 2000 employment is projected to be 253,609, growing to 318 640 by 2020. This represents 25.6%growth in employment during the 20-year planning period. Pikes Peak Area Transportation Planning Region Population and Employment Growth 2000 -2020 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 Total Change Change POP 505,204 544,439 582,861 621,803 659,315 154,111 30.5 EMP 253,609 272,843 289,770 305,228 318,640 65,031 25.6 bM I Page 10 )OT COLORADO REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION PLANS PIKES PEAK AREA Environmental Profile Air Quality The Environmental Protection Agency(EPA) has established standards for acceptable levels of carbon monoxide allowed in the air. A community whose monitored levels of carbon monoxide fall below these standards is referred to as an "attainment area."The Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 require PPACG to maintain a State Implementation Program (SIP) and to demonstrate conformance of all transportation plans and programs to the SIP. After a number of years of nonattainment, PPACG is currently in the final stages of demonstrating to the EPA that the Colorado Springs Urbanized Area now meets the requirements to be re-designated as an attainment or maintenance area. In FY 1998, PPACG performed an air quality conformity modeling analysis for both the 2020 Regional Transportation Plan and the 1999-2004 Transportation Improvement Program (TIP). PPACG worked closely with CDOT, the Air Pollution Control Division (APCD) and the FHWA to determine proper procedures for ensuring the conformity of the 2020 Plan and TIP with the carbon monoxide SIP. Both the 2020 Plan and the TIP successfully met the conformity requirements. As part of the Air Quality Program in FY 1998, PPACG also worked with APCD, CDOT and other MPOs to finalize the draft conformity SIP and studied an option to remove the oxyfuels program. A memorandum of agreement between PPACG and APCD for transportation conformity evaluations was completed in FY 1998. To further assist the region in complying with the CO standards, PPACG utilizes Congestion Mitigation Air Quality (CMAQ)funds. CMAQ funds are allocated to projects and programs that aim to reduce vehicle miles traveled (VMT). vehicle hours traveled (VHT) and CO emissions in the region. During FY 1998, PPACG monitored the CMAQ program and projects, and compiled information for the CMAQ Annual Report. EPA set the CO standard at 9 ppm to protect public health. The effects on health of a decrease or increase in concentrations below this standard have not been studied. If oxyfuels are removed,total CO emissions will increase. but future CO concentrations are not expected to be higher than those in 1990. Carbon monoxide concentrations at the two state monitoring stations ranged between 6.7—6.9 ppm in 1990, between 5.0—5.7 ppm in 1993, and between 3.8 -6.11 ppm in 1998. DNIJ YI Page 11 —TOT COLORADO REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION PLANS PIKES PEAK AREA Water Quality PPACG was designated by the Governor of the State of Colorado and the EPA as the local areawide water quality management planning agency for the Pikes Peak Region. As such, PPACG is required to prepare and update an quality the Clean Water Act.This lanuality 9 referred to aent Plan s the Project Aquarius address regional water atery Quality Man issues under nagement Plan,will: 208 of y Identify treatment facilities necessary to meet the anticipated municipal and industrial waste treatment needs. Y Establish construction priorities for treatment facilities. fr oint sources of ution(agricultural runoff,ldentextra tion,andurbanlstormwaterr runaddress issues noff,associated prunoff, and Ind iv duall Sewage Disposal Systems uce (ISDS)). fr Identify management and operating agencies to carry out recommendations made in the Water Quality Management(208) Plan. fr Make recommendations regarding measures and solutions necessary to improve water quality planning within the region. These issues are addressed within the context of a watershed and,in doing so, recognize that water pollution is both diffuse and site-specific and that problems must be addressed collectively. DA NA -----'—�— Page 12 Mil COLORADO REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION PLANS nummommmOnnnWm PIKES PEAK AREA Preferred Plan The Pikes Peak 2020 Regional Transportation Plan proposes a comprehensive strategy for enhancing regional mobility and achieving air quality mandates. It is a multimodal plan emphasizing the need to encourage alternative modes of transportation in resolving mobility issues. The plan includes the following modes: bus transit, bicycle and pedestrian facilities, roadways, aviation, freight movement and congestion management. The Pikes Peak Area uses the DRAM (Disaggregated Residential Allocation Model)and EMPAL(Employment Allocation Model)to simulate basic location and land use dynamics in the region in order to make long range forecasts related to transportation demand. • The Pikes Peak Area TPR is one of five federally designated MPOs in Colorado. Its plan is targeted at providing necessary transportation improvements while maintaining conformity with federal air quality regulations. • Goals and Objectives were developed in the following areas: • Mobility • Environment • Alternative Modes • Implementation v Several transit alternatives based on service hours per capita are examined The plan recommends several major corridor studies to be undertaken during the planning period: 1-25 North/South Major Investment Study/Environmental Assessment v South Powers Feasibility Study • East-West Mobility Study ✓ Congestion Management System Implementation Corridor Preservation of the Black Forest Transitional Area The total cost to implement the Preferred Plan is$788,586,000. The table below summarizes the cost, by Investment Category, as recorded in the project database accompanying the regional plan. Local Needs have not been tabulated separately, but are included in the overall plan. Pikes Peak Area Transportation Planning Region 2020 Preferred Plan (thousands of year 2000 dollars Investment Category Cost System Quality 430,462 Safety 20,759 Mobility 337,312 Program Delivery 53 Total $788,586 NOTE: This table summarizes information contained in the regional transportation plan. For more specific project information,please reference the source plan or contact CDOT �A wA Page 13 k COLORADO REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION PLANS mairaan PIKES PEAK AREA Prioritization Process Using the Goals and Objectives as a guide, the Project Prioritization Process was developed for all modes of transportation projects to be considered for inclusion in the Pikes Peak 2020 RTP.A weighted scoring system and criteria was developed and refined through input from the Community Advisory Committee,the Transportation Advisory Committee and the Air Quality Technical Committee. The evaluation criteria are key objectives that form the basis for evaluating alternative solutions. The evaluation criteria focus on the four adopted goals concerning mobility,the environment, promotion of alternative modes, and project implementation. The key evaluation objectives formulated for each goal were examined and divided into subcategories as shown below. The evaluation criteria are consistent across all modes of transportation. Each mode, however, is assigned weights individually for each of the four goal areas. A project could receive from 0 to 3 points depending upon how well it met each criterion. Criteria Points Weight Maximum Points Mobility Total 50.00 System Continuity 0-3 3.33 10.00 System Maintenance 0-3 3.33 10.00 Efficiency 0-3 3.33 10.00 Congestion mitigation 0-3 3.33 10.00 Safety 0-3 3.33 10.00 Special Transportation Needs NA NA NA Environment/Land Use Total 30.00 Air Quality 0-3 2.50 7.50 Natural environment 0-3 2.50 7.50 Compatibility with Adjacent Land 0-3 2.50 7.50 Uses Compatibility with Neighborhoods 0-3 2.50 7.50 Alternative Modes Total 10.00 Multimodal Travel 0-3 1.11 3.33 Modal Connections 0-3 1.11 3.33 Corridor Preservation 0-3 1.11 3.33 Implementation Total 10.00 Leverage of Resources 0-3 1.11 3.33 Public Support 0-3 1.11 3.33 Cost 0-3 1.11 3.33 Total 100.00 DM _■ Page 14 >O"i' COLORADO REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION PLANS rainamaammeze PIKES PEAK AREA Financially Constrained Plan Proposed funding for projects in the financially constrained 2020 Regional Transportation Plan for the Pikes Peak Area TPR is based on information published in CDOT's State Highway Fund Revenue and Resource Guide. In addition, local sources of funding were evaluated and are included in the estimate of reasonable anticipated revenues for the period 1999 through 2020. The plan also includes the City of Colorado Springs' Springs Community Improvement Program, a successful local bond initiative, in the estimate. In this non-attainment area, as in all others fiscally constrained plans and programs ensure that sufficient funds are available to implement required Transportation Control Measures. Further, the program of projects contained in the plan gives assurance that conformity with the SIP for the reduction of transportation-related pollutants will be maintained throughout the planning period. Funding sources include: ''e Federal and State funds available to CDOT Region 2 less statewide priorities Y STP Metro Discretionary funds directly allocated to PPACG e Safety funds as allocated through a statewide grant application process y Private and local funds STP Enhancement funds CMAQ Program funds as allocated to non-attainment areas The financially constrained plan for the Pikes Peak Area TPR totals$826,749,000. Projects in this element are eligible to move into the implementation phase. See the table below for the project listings for the fiscally constrained plan. Map 1, used with permission of the PPACG, shows the location of all roadway system projects in the planning area. 0M N1 Page 15 JOT COLORADO REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION PLANS PIKES PEAK AREA Pikes Peak Area Transportation Planning Region 2020 Constrained Plan (thousands of year 2000 dollars Project# Description Cost 152 SH-16- 1-25 to US 85 Widen 21M80 ----- ------------- 219 US 24-West of Falcon to Peyton 1,0`,14 93 US-24(Woodland Park)-SH 67 east to Short 6325 83 US-24-Cascade/Pikes Peak Highway Intersection 1,2(16 86 US-24 Realignment(Woodland Park) 749 87 US-24-Corridor Safety Improvements West of Colorado S 746 88 US-24- Ed Lowe Road to Woodland Park 4,216 90 US-24-Woodland Park Congestion Management 3.090 91 US-24-Manitou Ave.to 8th St. 20,850 92 US-24-Woodland Park, Access Control, 0 193 US 24-Peterson to Marksheffel Minor Widening 3,851 162 US-24 Bypass- New interchange at Academy 29,370 163 US-24-Chelton/Fountain Intersection 5130 164 US-24 Realignment(PE/EA) 278 165 US-24-Peterson Rd.Accel/Decel lanes 1,623 198 US-24 Powers Blvd.to east of Ramah,striping 0 199 US-24-Woodland Park to Divide 0 82 US-24 Bypass- New interchange at Stewart Ave 0 89 US-24- E. of Powers Blvd.to E. of Constitution 0 46 ITS-Variable Message signs on 1-25 0 31 1-25-Widen and Continuous Accel/Decel Lanes 0 32 1-25-Circle Lake Interchange(Funded in 98, $1 0 33 1-25-Corridor PE Briargate to South Academy 0 34 1-25 Corridor ROW and Utilities (i 35 1-25 Corridor, PE, ROW, Utilities _ 0 36 1-25-Fontanero Interchange 0 37 1-25-Garden of the Gods Interchange _ 0 38 1-25- Monument/SH-105 Interchange Reconstruction 0 39 1-25- Nevada/Tejon Interchange _ _ _ 0 40 1-25-Safety-S.Academy to Briargate Pkwy, ac I) 41 1-25-SH 85/Fountain Interchange 8,443 42 1-25-Stout-Allen Rd Interchange Construction _ _ 0 43 1-25-Uintah Interchange Reconstruction I! 44 1-25-Woodmen Interchange 131 1-25- Bijou Interchange Reconstruction I! 132 1-25-Briargate Pkwy Interchange Reconstruction it 133 1-25-Cimmaron Interchange 0 134 1-25-Fillmore Interchange 0 135 1-25- North Academy Interchange Reconstruction 0 136 1-25- Rockrimmon/N. Nevada Interchange ') w ww Page 16 )OT COLORADO REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION PLANS PIKES PEAK AREA Pikes Peak Area Transportation Planning Region 2020 Constrained Plan (thousands of year 2000 dollars 137 1-25 Safety-S.Academy By to Briargate Pkwy 0 138 1-25 Safety- Briargate Pkwy to Monument/SH-105 0 180 1-25 -S.Academy By to Briargate Pkw Widening 0 181 1-25 -S. Academy By to Briargate Pkw Widening J 72 SH-67/US24- Intersection North, rUlft turn lane 0 154 SH-67 - US 24 to Lucky Lady Woodland Park,Widen 11,436 73 SH-83-Shoup/Northgate/Hodgen Intersection 3 153 SH-83-SH 115 to 1-25(S. Academy) Widen 7378 74 US-85-Academy By to Mesa Rd 1,584 75 US-85-Carson/Allegre/Mesa Intersection 0 76 US-85-SH 16 to Academy(SH 83) 17,918 155 SH-85-SH 16 to Academy(SH 83) 0 156 SH-85- 1-25 to B St.Widen through Fountain 8,789 77 SH-94- Marksheffel to Enoch Rd. 396 190 SH-94- US-24 to Enoch Rd. Minor Widening 7.378 71 SH-105- Furrow Rd. &Arrowwood Intersections 0 151 SH-105-Woodmoor to Beacon Hill(Funded as I-25/Mon IX) 0 189 SH-105-Beacon to Palmer Minor Widening (Accel/Decel/Turn Lanes 5,902 197 SH-115 Corridor- Penrose to Colo Spgs (Only 2 2,3'8 218 Woodmen Road-Powers Blvd.to US 24 5,500 12 Bridge On System- East of Falcon-US-24 0 13 Bridge On System- East of Powers By-US-24 0 14 Bridge Off System-STR EPCO0027-02.65 0 15 Centennial-30th to Allegheny 0 16 Centennial By-Allegheny to 30th Widen 0 17 Circle/Lake Av-Venetucci By to Janitell Rd,W 18 Citywide Neighborhood/School Traffic Calming 527 19 Colorado Springs Transit Planning 67 20 County Line Rd- Meridian to Beacon Realign Turn Bays I 0 21 Curtis Rd-Drennan to Blue Ridge New(Defense.Access Ro 11,699 22 Drennan Rd. -Academy to Powers 6,758 23 Dublin By-Widen and New Construction, (Small 0 24 East-West Multi-modal Mobility Study 0 25 Falcon Highway Intersection 26 Fillmore St.-Safety Projects: 1-25 to Union 0 27 Fillmore-Cascade Intersection (i 45 ITS- 1-25 Interconnect, CDOT to CS Traffic 0 47 ITS- Port of Entry Automation 48 Mitchell Rd- Mitchell Extension to Baptist Rd _ 132 49 Mitchell Rd- Mitchell to SH-105 14`l 50 Nevada Ave. -through Colorado Springs, striping 51 Nevada Ave Various Locations-Platte to Cimmaron w ww Page 17 �. - COLORADO REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION PLANS mim PIKES PEAK AREA Pikes Peak Area Transportation Planning Region 2020 Constrained Plan (thousands of year 2000 dollars 52 North End Neighborhood Intersection Safety Imp 1,939 53 North End Pedestrian Improvements 337 54 North End Traffic Calming 3,162 55 Peterson Rd - Carefree to Barnes New Construction 1O540 56 Platte Ave. -Chelton Rd. Intersection Improvements 1,982 57 Powers By South Feasibility Study(Funded in 9 0 58 Powers By, SH-16 to Fontaine(Funded in 98 TIP 0 59 Powers By- Platte Av Interchange New Construct (I 60 Powers- Interchange at Woodmen Rd. or Stout All (I 1 Academy Blvd. -through Colorado Springs, STIP 2 Academy By- Platte Ave Interchange 0 3 Academy By-Parkmoor to Palmer Various Locations 0 4 Academy Widening- Union to Montebello 9,876 5 Academy-Woodmen Interchange () 6 Austin Bluffs-Briargate to Rangewood New Construction 0 7 Baptist Rd-Widen and Interchange with 1-25 3,162 8 Barnes Rd- Marksheffel to Riva Road New Construction 0 9 Beacon Lt Rd-Connection to Old Denver Hwy 0 10 Bradley Rd- Meridian to Marksheffel New Construction (1 11 Briargate Parkway-E/O Powers to Explorer New Construction 2,530 28 Garden of the Gods-Centennial Blvd to 30th St 3,056 29 Grinnell Rd - Powers to Bradley New Construction 0 30 Hodgen Rd.-SH 83 to Roller Coaster Road extend (1 61 Powers- Peaceful Valley Rd.to 1-25(2 lanes) 0 62 Powers-Stout Allen to Woodmen Rd. (4 lanes) 0 64 Research Parkway, New Const-E/O Powers to Scarborough 5,2.70 65 Roswell Neighborhood Truck Route Improvements 1,602 66 Rusina Rd. Local Impro Dist-Tech Center to Popes Valley 72 67 RR Crossing at Old Pueblo Rd (CR 415) I 68 RR Crossing Near Palmer Lake(CR 86) 69 Regional Intermodal Transportation Center Ride �) 70 Regional Reserves for CO TCMs _ �? 94 Venetucci Blvd-Widening and Upgrade )) 95 Voyager Parkway-South Section,Widen Current 8,4.32 96 Woodmen Rd,Widen-Campus to Commerce Center 0 97 Woodmen Rd.- Havenwood to Powers I) 98 Woodmen Rd. - 1-25 to Lexington 12,27) 99 Woodmen Rd. -Meridian Rd. to SH 24(extend 2 _ �) 100 Woodmen Rd. -Powers to Marksheffel 3,162 101 Woodmen Rd.Widening- Buckhorn Cir./Peregrine 64 102 21st St Widen-US 24 to Rio Grande 4,240 103 21st St. Roadway/Drainage 4,068 �■ J■ Page 18 )UT COLORADO REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION PLANS PIKES PEAK AREA Pikes Peak Area Transportation Planning Region 2020 Constrained Plan (thousands of year 2000 dollars 104 8th Street-Widening US 24 to Rio Grande 4,005 105 8th St./Motor City Dr. - Intersection Improvement 812 106 Academy Interchanges,.-Union 16,021 107 Academy Interchanges"-Austin Bluffs 15,810 108 Academy Intersection Improvements`- Dublin Blvd 2,034 109 Academy Intersection Improvements'-Chelton Road 1,530 127 Fountain/Wahsatch/Cimarron- Reconfigure Intersection 2,667 128 Furrow Rd, Gleneagle to SH-105-New Construction 129 Garden of the Gods-•Mark Dabling Intersection I 485 130 Hancock/Delta Dr. E. Intersection Improvements 559 139 Mitchell Rd. -Extension to Baptist Rd. 1,173 140 Nevada Av- Downgrade, Reduce Functional Class 0 141 Nevada Ave.- Rio Grande Intersection Improvement 727 142 Northgate Rd- Realign to Straighten Curves D 78 Stout-Allen Road -New Construction($ included ) 79 Tejon St. -Brookside St. Intersection Improvement 1,265 80 Traffic System Upgrade-Colorado Springs 876 81 Union By- New Construction Current terminus to Powers 632 85 US-24 Corridor(Cripple Creek)(Gaming funds) 0 110 Academy Intersection Improvements'-North Montebello Dr 1,581 111 Academy Intersection Improvements'-Drennan Rd. 1,530 112 Academy Intersection Improvements* Flintridge Dr. 2,034 113 Academy Intersection Improvements'-San Miguel St. 1,581 114 Academy Intersection Improvements'-Galley Road 1,581 115 Academy Intersection Improvements'- N Carefree Circle 1,581 116 Academy Intersection Improvements'-Vickers Drive 1,581 117 Academy Intersection Improvements'-Pikes Peak Ave. 1,581 118 Academy Intersection Improvements'-Maizeland Ranch 1,581 119 Academy Intersection Improvements'- Palmer Park Blvd 1,581 120 Academy -Maizeland Ranch to Galley Widening: 11,699 121 Austin Bluffs -Barnes to Stetson Hills Widening 5,913 122 Black Forest Rd.-Woodmen to Vollmer widen 0 123 Bradley Rd - Powers to Gold, New Con(Defense Access Ro 0 124 Briargate Parkway-Black Forest to Powers New Const 7,378 125 Carefree North -Marksheffel to Peterson New Construction 5,270 126 Dublin By- Marksheffel to Peterson Widen and New Const 5,270 143 Peterson Rd - Barnes to Dublin New Construction 0 144 Peterson Rd -Dublin to Woodmen New Construction 0 145 Platte Av/Cascade/Bijou Connection - Nevada to 1-25 2,224 146 Powers- Peaceful Valley Rd.to 1-25(2 lanes to 0 147 Powers-SH 83 to 1-25 0 148 Raygor Rd -Woodmen to Stapleton New Construction 0 �A ww Page 19 COLORADO REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION PLANS PIKES PEAK AREA Pikes Peak Area Transportation Planning Region 2020 Constrained Plan (thousands of year 2000 dollars 149 Research Parkway-Black Forest to E/O Powers 0 150 Roller Coaster- Higby to Hodgen Realign Higby Inters, 0 157 Stetson Hills By-Marksheffel to Powers New Construction 5,270 158 Traffic System Upgrade-Colorado Springs 722 159 Union Blvd. -Austin Bluffs Interchange 13,913 177 Dublin By-Powers to Peters Widen and New Const(Small (1 178 Hancock Expressway Medians 2,424 179 Hancock/Chelton Extensions 5,122 182 Nevada Ave. -Fillmore to I-25(North),Widen 3,162 183 Old Ranch Rd-Black Forest to Old Ran New Construction 3,162 184 Pikes Peak Ave- New Construction From Airport 3,162 185 Platte Av-Academy to SH 94 Widening 11,910 186 Powers By- Drennan to Woodmen Widen 0 187 Powers By, North (I 188 Powers -Various Interchanges from Fountain Blvd 0 191 Union By- Powers to Old Ranch/Milam 0 194 Vincent Dr. -Extension to Nevada(Corridor Preservation) 1,054 160 Union Blvd.-Constitution Ave. Intersection Imp 1,265 161 University Pkwy-Academy By to Nevada Av 10.540 166 Voyager Parkway- Middle Cir to Powers N Sect New Const (1 167 Wahsatch -Cimarron Realignment 1,138 168 Woodmen Rd -Wahsatch to Cimm Widen/Upgrade to 4 Lane 0 169 30th St.-Garden of the Gods to Mesa Widen 10,780 170 Academy Interchanges"- Platte 8,643 171 Academy Interchanges" Hancock 15,810 172 Academy Intersection Improvements' 0 173 Academy Intersection Improvements'Airport Road 2,034 174 Academy Widening: Fuller to Woodmen 4,248 175 Airport Rd,Widen and Align with Stewart Ave I 0 176 Banning-Lewis Pkwy, US24 to SH94, New Construction 0 215 Transit Scenario B Operating 41,976 216 Transit Scenario B Capital 307,820 217 Academy Intersection Improvements`-S Montebello 1,581 Total $826,749 NOTE: This table summarizes information contained in the regional transportation plan.For more specific project information,please reference the source plan or contact COOT w■ M Page 20 o i -4 O yf 9 9 ss1 j i N O v O v m = yx I m mzs oc 9m Z O 2 (-ALYEA LANE I / e W _ rn r-1 _- `JRALKEA RD EVANS RD l.._.. \ tlK:RY_6D_..rrr l y� HODOEN RD BN'II RO g -I I I i•,M� . r� • Ii / I MURPHY RDi __-I \.�.•rt 1 ! -I-�- r_. �� N. TE RD'' I 87 1 I S\ _SHDUP RD_ ---Q ��ApNN ' {WOfIDPARD�'-' I_ ,s\ \ __}-BURGESSD — ----� �` K / ; v �. IAIR FORCE, �' i A... \ C ACADEMY ' I ,,� y / l.._.r......� FALLS MTN , M�,_ art 15OA /:- _ d �auoze_o It T--- 1, r Ai lr" I �. WOODMEN RD i F ( \ se = 7 -- I.� 1 l: ?•+'—� �.../ rg"I—' __-rFN.CON INN ,24 L..\�..� , J 4C7 R. ( m 1JONES RO 1 E ,1�j of A 1 f WAS_J_RD. :ANIT — rCOLORADOou � SPRINGS t 2 I I 4 r f I: SPRINGS �� I� � 3 � ' : 'I AeL. . L___,0 �I ' � I _.__. BOON RO y -I- COLD SPGS --_ ._aioatuj I ;`,'11 ' f CNOCH RD e• � • NRPOR ,SE a - � _._... ... �1ECTIRTY Jul(�''} T WIDEFIELD J K � E4MN,y �� j __ g I c_*-5_ �^ I/a1 1 L.-__-� ,OUNT SQUIRREL CREEK RD I _.I ij 36 R Pikes Peak Area Council of Governments in 2020 Regional Transportation Plan ' '\` Fiscally Constrained Roadway System Projects �, 1 Roadway Projects-Federal and State Funded liSe g iI PPACG Roadway Projects-Local and/or Private Funded \ .j Pin..Posit Soso Council of Gowmm.nu Transportation Planning Program CIS )OT COLORADO REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION PLANS GREATER DENVER METROPOLITAN AREA GREATER DENVER METROPOLITAN AREA REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION PLAN Regional Planning Commission The eight-county Denver Region includes Boulder County,Adams County,Arapahoe County,Gilpin County, Clear Creek County, Jefferson County, Douglas County, and Denver County. The MPO Transportation Management Area does not include Gilpin County, Clear Creek County,the Eastern"half"of Adams County, or the Eastern"half'of Arapahoe County that are outside the air quality non-attainment areas of the Denver Region. The Denver Regional Council of Governments(DRCOG) is the designated Metropolitan Planning Organization(MPO)for the Denver Area charged with developing the regional transportation plan (RTP). The RTP is based on Metro Vision 2020. Polly Page (Arapahoe County)served as Chairman of DRCOG and George Scheuemstuhl, Director of Transportation Services at DRCOG, represented DRCOG at the STAG. DRCOG developed the 2020 RTP in cooperation with local governments, CDOT,the Regional Transportation District (RTD), the Regional Air Quality Council (RAQC), and the Air Pollution Control Division(APCD)of the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment. Local governments bring particular knowledge of their jurisdictional areas; RTD is responsible for the development maintenance and operation of a public transportation system within its six county area;APCD and RAQC reflect the air quality interests of the state and the region. Decisions on the RTF are made through the MPO committee structure and the DRCOG Board of Directors who are responsible for regional development and transportation planning, coordination of the planning efforts of RTD and CDOT, and representation of the various perspectives of its 48 local government members. The DRCOG Board of Directors acts on the advice of numerous committees including the Transportation Committee (TC) and the Transportation Policy Committee (TPC). The TPC includes elected public officials and the public. It was formed to review regional transportation issues and DRCOG transportation program issues, and to provide policy recommendations to the TC and the Board. Other groups advising the TC are the Pedestrian and Bicycle Advisory Committee and the Special Subject Task Forces and Public Forums. Committees advising the Transportation Policy Committee are the Transportation Demand Management Coordinating Committee, the Regional Planning Advisor Committee and the Aviation Technical Advisory Committee. tiwiivv Page 22 )(1"C COLORADO REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION PLANS GREATER DENVER METROPOLITAN AREA Regional Values, Vision, Goa/s and Strategies The Metro Vision 2020 Plan, adopted by the DRCOG Board in March 1997 and amended in 1999, is the long-range growth and development strategy for the Denver region. This plan integrates previously separate plans for growth, development,transportation, and water quality management into a single comprehensive foundation for future regional planning efforts; and provides a regional context for local decision-making on growth and developmert issues. Metro Vision is the region's vision of the desired future. > Metro Vision calls for a more efficient development pattern that supports transit, protects valuable recreation and open space, and provides for diversity in community structure and housing choices. • Metro Vision strategies preserve and enhance the region's quality of life and position the region to benefit from economic growth. Metro Vision has six core elements that describe key growth and development features or issues that together create a preferred future vision, that provide direction through goals and objectives and that consider the other plan elements. The core elements goals and objectives were developed and accepted the DRCOG Board as part of Metro Vision 2020:A Framework for the Denver Metropolitan Region in November 1995. The six core elements are'. > Extent of urban Development > Open Space > Free-standing Communities > Balanced, Multimodal Transportation System > Urban Centers > Environment Quality The Balanced, Multimodal Transportation System Goal calls for a balanced, multimodal transportation system that will include rapid transit, a regional bus network, regional beltways, bike and pedestrian facilities, and improvements to tie existing roadway system. Mero Vision identifies seven objectives to guide the development of the region's transportation system to achieve the goal. The objectives (preferred plan)demonstrate Metro Vision's promotion of an efficient transportation systen achieved by increasing capacity through public transit, managing the system and providing for alternative modes, in addition to widening roadways. fr Restore and/or maintain the designed transportation function of existing and future transportation facilities; > Provide high-capital transportation facilities where development actions support the efficient use of those facilities; • Implement rapid transit to reduce the need for additional roadway capacity and reconfigure the bus network to serve the rapid transit system; ▪ Implement high service frequency on principal bus corridors and alternative bus services for suburb-to- suburb travel and other markets not well served by the rapid transit system; w `. Page 23 -MOT COLORADO REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION PLANS ranniminiast GREATER DENVER METROPOLITAN AREA 'v Enhance the attractiveness and convenience of non-motorized modes in serving non-recreational travel; r Improve the connection of passenger and commercial transportation systems within modes, between modes, and between the metropolitan area and other areas of the state;and Demonstrate the need for increased revenues to close the gap between needed facilities and the region's ability to pay for them. The 2020 Mountains and Plains Element of the Regional Transportation Plan specifies a coordinated system of transportation facilities and services to address existing problems and identify desired and fiscally constrained improvements trough the year 2020, for the Mountains(Gilpin and Clear Creek Counties) and Plains areas(eastern hal'of Adams and Arapahoe Counties). The Mountains and Plains area plan is multimodal, incorporating aviation, transit, bicycle, pedestrian and highway facilities and services. Residents of the Mountains area are concerned with balancing the preservation of their country lifestyle with development of an economic base. Residents of the Plains area value their small communities and would like to preserve their agricultural land and way of life. The Plains residents desire a transportation system that facilitates convenient and safe access within the plains and to the Denver metropolitan area. C,I w w■ Page 24 MIT COLORADO REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION PLANS moor -® GREATER DENVER METROPOLITAN AREA Socioeconomic and Environmental Profile Socioeconomic Characteristics The Denver region is the economic center of the Rocky Mountain region and the state of Colorado. In 1996, approximately 2.13 million people resided in the Denver region. The region experienced a recession in the late 1980s,followed by a growth cycle in the 1990s. From 1990 to 1996,total population increased by 270,000. Growth will continue with an additional 634,545 people expected between 2000 and 2020, for a total estimated population of 2.94 million. (Source: Division of Local Government/Demography Division) Employment opportunities have and are expected to continue to increase. The region is expected to provide 1 3 million jobs in 2000, increasing to just less than 1.7 million by 2020. Other demographic characteristics from the plan: Population and employment growth expected for Elbert County and southern Weld County, outside the current DRCOG planning area,will affect the Denver region. • In addition, growth in Fort Collins, Greeley and Colorado Springs will affect travel on north-south interregional routes. ▪ Growth in the mountainous areas of the state will affect travel to Denver International Airport. • Rises in household income were slowed following the most recent recession, however, due to increased price pressures in housing and regional wage levels, household incomes are forecast to rise at a faster rate into the early part of the next decade. ➢ Most of the region's population and employment growth since 1970 has occurred in the suburbs, while the City and County of Denver, itself,experienced a decline in population. • The Central Business District of Denver is expected to gain more new jobs and remain the region's largest and most dense employment center. • The participants in Metro Vision have begun defining an urban growth boundary to assist in providing predictability in planning.A goal was established to contain growth to a 700 square mile area rather than allowing it to spread to the 1100 square miles indicated by each local jurisdiction's planned build- out. Denver Area Transportation Planning Region Population and Employment Growth 2000 - 2020 Total 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 Change Change POP 2,311,518 2,483,611 2,646,640 2,803,178 2,946,063 634,545 27.0% EMP 1,338,000 1,426,000 1,514,000 1,602,000 1,690,000 352,000 263% cMsmn Page 25 7OT COLORADO REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION PLANS umessam GREATER DENVER METROPOLITAN AREA Environmental Profile The Denver Area RTP and Metro Vision 2020 Plan address two major environmental issues—water quality and air quality. Strong programs have been adopted to ensure that Denver's water and air quality remain at acceptable levels. The plan acknowledges that the location,type of growth and land development have significant effects on the region's air and water quality. The integration of air, transportation,development patterns, and water resources is crucial in protecting environmental quality in the region.The regional plan proposes a development pattern designed to reduce growth in vehicle miles of travel and vehicle trips. Air Quality DRCOG is required to show conformity of its metropolitan transportation plan with the State Implementation Plan (SIP)for air quality. Following federal regulations, certain transportation pollutants must be tested for non-attainment areas for ozone, Carbon Monoxide(CO), and PMto(particulate matter less than 10 microns in diameter).All regionally significant highway and transit projects, regardless of funding source, must be included in the regional emssions analysis. The transportation plan describes the envisioned future transportation system and provides for the timely completion or implementation of all transportation control measures(TCMs) in SIPs that are eligible for fuming under Title 23 USC or the Federal Transit Act. The regional transportation plan was determined to be n conformity with the SIP on November 17, 1999. The Mountains and Plains areas of the TPR are outside the air quality non-attainment areas and are not subject to the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). No violations of the air quality standards occurred in either 1996 or 1997. This reflects many years of progress in reducing both the number of days of violation and the magnitude of the violations. These emissions tests relate to the pollutants and their precursors for which the Denver region does not attain the NAAQS. These pollutants and precursors include: A- Carbon Monoxide PMio NOx as a precursor for PMIo Ozone - The Denver region has been classified as an attainment area for ozone and is now operating under a maintenance plan for that pollutant. Carbon Monoxide-The number of days the CO standard was violated has decreased dramatically from 37 days in 1983,to five days in 1992,to zero days in 1994, to one day in 1995, and to zero days in 1996 and 1997. In 1997 the state health department measured 7.0 parts per million(ppm)which can be compared to the federal health standard of 9.0 ppm(averaged over eight hours). PM,o-The PM10 standard was last violated on three days in 1992. The highest reading in 1997 was 98 micrograms per cubic meter,which can be compared to the federal standard of 150 micrograms per cubic meter, averaged over 24 hours. C,v. -w Page 26 A )OT COLORADO REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION PLANS GREATER DENVER METROPOLITAN AREA Transportation Control Measures In 1994 and 1995,the air quality planning process identified a number of TCMs or Contingency Measures in the development of the CO SIP update and the new PM10 SIP. The transportation community has provided funding and support through the long-range plan for these control measures: Subsidized EcoPass for RTD Transit • Four transportation management organizations ✓ Vacuum street sweepers to remove sanding materials • Alternative deicers Santa Fe Drive HOV Lanes Light Rail Transit Regional RideArranger Program • Regional Traffic Signalization Program • Pedestrian and transit facilities provisions To meet confonnity, the plan assumes that total regional VMT will be reduced by about 2 million miles per day in 2020 as a result of the implementation of Travel Demand Measures such as encouraging a compressed work week supporting current carpool marketing programs,encouraging telecommuting, funding the EcoPass program, encouraging new development that facilitates alternative mode use. Water Quality The Metro Vision plan has a detailed water quality component and monitors the following pollutants: ✓ Metals(15) ➢ Oxygen • Ammonia-Nitrogen r Pesticides ir Phosphorus Y Fecal Coliform r Toxicity > Sediments The water quality plan addresses the following issues: ` An integrated watershed approach for all nine watersheds in the region • Stormwater, construction and urban runoff assessment and management ✓ Nonpoint source pollution and best management practices > Wastewater treatment works or facilities needed through 2020 Y Biosolids management Y Wasteload allocations and the total maximum daily load • Groundwater quality and protection • Water quality-based standards, biological and physical criteria and classification of bodies of water Restoration of beneficial uses ✓ Water quality monitoring ➢ Regionally significant wetlands ir Conservation and wastewater reuse programs E4 ' _■ Page 27 )O/ �. COLORADO REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION PLANS GREATER DENVER METROPOLITAN AREA Preferred Plan The Greater Denver Area TPR is one of five federally designated Metropolitan Planning Organizations in Colorado The preferred plan (Metro Vision 2020 Plan) is targeted at providing necessary transportation improvements while maintaining conformity with federal air quality regulations. The Metro Vision 2020 Plan, adopted March 1998 and amended November, 1999, is the Denver region's plan for addressing the future growth of the metropolitan area. It outlines strategies and implementation steps to preserve the region's quality of life while positioning it to benefit from growth. The plan is organized around six core elements dealing with the development pattern of the region,the necessary transportation system and the actions needed to preserve air and water quality. The Metro Vision 2020 Plan is based on the six core elements identified in this document under Regional Values, Vision, Goals and Strategies: Extent of urban development ▪ Open space ▪ Free-standing communities ▪ Balanced multimodal transportation system r Urban centers Environmental quality The plan to be implemented is envisioned as voluntary, flexible, collaborative and effective. The cost to implement the Metro Vision 2020 Plan is $44.3 billion. The table below summarizes the cost, by Investment Category, as recorded in the project database accompanying the regional plan. This tabulation does not inc ude funding for the Strategic Program projects(7th Pot) or CMAQ projects that are reported separately in the Statewide Plan Project Appendix, which are accounted for in Statewide Program Projects. In addition, funding for projects with committed funds in FY 1999 & FY 2000 have been removed from the tabulation for the purposes of the statewide 2020 Plan, which covers the planning period 2001-2020. Local Needs have not been tabulated separately, but are included in the overall plan. Greater Denver Metro Area Transportation Planning Region 2020 Preferred Plan (thousands of year 2000 dollars Investment Category Cost System Quality 18,710,435 Safety 1,382,917 Mobility 24,209,321 Program Delivery 0 Total $44,302,673 NOTE: This table summarizes information contained in the Metro Vision 2020 Plan.For more specific project information,please reference the source plan or contact COOT EI ■ .M Page 28 E i ��. COLORADO REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION PLANS GREATER DENVER METROPOLITAN AREA Prioritization Process Because of the sheer size and complexity of the region's transportation system—its facilities, policies, and services. the process for developing the component elements of the regional transportation plan did not strictly focus on a quantitative evaluation of every possible individual project consistent with Metro Vision. Instead, it was woven into the fabric of the continuing cooperative regional transportation planning process. It was incremental and evolutionary. Only rapid transit and highway facilities and improvements included in the Metro Vision networks are eligible for inclusion in the 2020 RTP. The rapid transit network of the transit element was initially defined to reflect substantial realization of the Metro Vision rapid transit network by 2020. A November 1997 public vote denied a sales tax increase to fund this ne work and other services. Accordingly,the rapid transit network had to be scaled back. Many months were spent in policy- level consideration of alternatives. The decision is reflected in the 2020 RTP. For roadway capacity improvements within the highway element, a more formal quantitative prioritization process was followed. Candidate improvements for the 2020 RTP consisted of all new facilities and facility improvements necessary to achieve Metro Vision. A three-step prioritization process was developed to consider prior DRCOG Board commitments;the need and benefits an improvement may provide based on a prioritization scoring system; anc the need to provide the Denver region with a continuous and complete roadway network. Step One: Committed improvements, based on funding commitment, were considered the highest candidate 3. These include projects in the 1999-2004 TIP; all improvements listed the Colorado Strategic Transportation Project Investment Program; and all projects for which a local government has committed 100 percent of the required funds This includes all highway recommendations and essential improvements for the West, East, and Southeast Major Investment Study Corridors adopted by the DRCPG Board in 1997. Step Two: All non-committed improvements were subject to a prioritization scoring system to determine ranking for inclusion in the 2020 RTP. The criteria considered the need,cost, and demand for a facility; the closure of gaps and the provision of an adequate network of roads(spacing); and a facility's role in providing for regional travel. Points were allocated I:o each prioritization criteria. The improvements with the highest scores became candidates for inclusion. Prioritization Criteria Allocated Points Future Need 35 Cost/ PMT 35 Gap Closure 10 Spacing 5 Facility Classification 5 Total Points 90 Step Three: Improvements were added to the RTP as necessary to form a complete and continuous network of roadways including connections between and to freeway facilities, and gaps in the highway network that resulted in the inclusion of improvements from Step One and Step Two. A ww Page 29 )OT COLORADO REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION PLANS GREATER DENVER METROPOLITAN AREA Financially Constrained Plan The Denver Area TPR's fiscally constrained element includes those regional transportation facilities identified in Metro Vision(the preferred plan) that can be provided through the year 2020, based on reasonably expected revenues. The plan consists of a network of highways of various roadway classifications, high-occupancy vehicle (HOV) and rail rapid transit facilities, bus service, specialized services for the elderly and disabled, airports of daric us classifications, provisions for freight travel, a regional bicycle network, sidewalks for pedestrians, and interrnodal facilities to provide connections among and between transportation modes. In this non-attainment area, as in all others, fiscally constrained plans and programs ensure that sufficient funds are available to implement required Transportation Control Measures. Further,the program of projects contained in the plan gives assurance that conformity with the State Implementation Plan for the reduction of transportation-related pollutants will be maintained throughout the planning period. The financial resource projections include funds from: r FHWA TEA-21 Programs(Interstate Maintenance, NHS, Bridge, STP Metro and Non-Metro, Transportation Enhancements Program, CMAQ) • State Highway User's Tax Fund • Regional Transportation District Federal Transit Administration Federal discretionary funds for the 1-70 Mountain Corridor • Local match Assumptions on which the forecast is made are listed on page 111 of the plan. Projects in this element are eligible to move into the implementation phase. The financially constrained plan for the Denver Area TPR totals$13,161,042,000. See the table below for the project listings for the fiscally constrained plan. Fo the Denver Area, Map 2a shows Emphasis Corridors for Operational Improvements; Map 2b shows the planned rapid transit system, including light rail, commuter rail, bus/HOV lanes, stations and terminals; and Map 2c specific highway improvements, including interchanges and capacity additions. Th s table reports zero funding for Strategic Program projects (7th Pot), and CMAQ projects which are accour ted for in other Statewide Program projects in the Statewide Plan Appendix. It represents costs in year 2000 funds. In addition,funding for projects with committed funds in FY 1999 & FY 2000 have been removed from the tabulation for the purposes of the statewide 2020 Plan, which covers the planning period 2001-2020. C,M ■ Page 30 COLORADO REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION PLANS GREATER DENVER METROPOLITAN AREA Greater Denver Metro Area Transportation Planning Region 2020 Constrained Plan (thousands of year 2000 dollars Project# Description Cost 30 US 6(West Corridor) Interchange Improvements-Sheridan&Simms 4,827 31 US 6(West Corr)Bridge Replacement Garrison, Sheridan; Federal, Bryan 32,2'0 32 US 6(West Corr)Simms, Kiping,Wadsworth, Knox, Perry Bridge 21,154 33 US 6(West Corr)Golden to Sheridan ITS Improvements, Safety 16,221 159 6th Av-@Indiana- Reconstruct interchange (local $) 11,782 108 US 6-SH 58 to 19th -add capacity 3,5:'1 113 US 6(Vasquez Blvd)-SH 2 to 1-76-add capacity 14,988 24 SH 7(Arapahoe Rd)-Cherryvale to 75th -Add Capacity 9,697 457 1-25 @ Colfax Addition of H Ramp(Roll Forward) 7,270 2 Southeast Corridor-Lincoln Ave to Broadway- LRT Line 1,174,191 39 I-25(SE Corr)-@C-470 Reconstruct nb ramp @ interchange 0 40 I-25(SE Corr)-@ County Line-Signing/striping/signal 0 41 1-25(SE Corr)-@Dry Creek Signing/striping/signal 0 42 1-25(SE Corr)-@Arapahoe-Add NB auxiliary lane 0 43 1-25(SE Corr)-@Belleview-Signing/striping/signal 0 44 I-25(SE Corr)-Construction 1/2 diameter @DTC BI./I-225 0 45 825(SE Corr)-@Evans -Signing/striping/signal 0 46 I-25(SE Corr)-Evans to Broadway Drainage improvements 0 47 1-25(SE Corr)-Evans to Broadway- Reconstruction;shoulders 0 48 1-25(SE Corr)-@Colorado Blvd-Interchange improvement 0 49 1-25(SE Corr)-@University- Interchange improvement 0 50 1-25(not SE Cor)-Broadway to Alameda-Viaduct/interchange reconstruction 1911,723 51 1-25(SE Corr)-@Evans, Reconstruct bridge 0 82 1-25-Lincoln to C-470/E-470-add capacity 0 122 1-25-@120th Ave-Reconstruct interchange 11,752 123 1-25-@136th Ave-New interchange(local $) 1'1,752 124 1-25-@ Arapahoe Rd- Reconstruct interchange 1/2 32.316 143145(1-25 So)-Lincoln to MP 179- Reconstruct all interchanges 0 192 1-25(SE Corr)-C-470 to Logan/Broadway, add capacity 0 52 6th Ave-Airport By to E-470 Constr/+capacity @SH-30 18,486 80 SH 30(Havana St)- 1st to 6th- add capacity :S,130 197 SH 32(Tower)-Colfax to 1-70 -add capacity(local$) 10,013 5 US-36/1-25/SH270 Bus/HOV Sheridan to I-25direct connect 0 134 US 36-@92nd Ave-Construct 1/2 interchange 11,752 135 US 36-@Wadsw-Reconstruct intrchng; 120th ext;widen. 74,834 136 US 36-@Sheridan- Reconstruct interchange 11_752 140 US 36(NW MIS)-Funds to implement LPA 70.534 163 96th St-@US 36-Reconstruct interchange(local$) 11,752 164 92nd&98th-@US 36-New partial interchanges(local$) 11752 110 US 40-Berthoud Pass to below Pass-Add climbing lanes 0 bM w I Page 31 COLORADO REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION PLANS GREATER DENVER METROPOLITAN AREA Greater Denver Metro Area Transportation Planning Region 2020 Constrained Plan (thousands of year 2000 dollars 167 US 40(Colfax)-1-70 to Eldridge St -+cap(local$) 5,639 453 US 40-Empire Drainage improvements 362 59 104th Av- US 85 to Colorado Blvd - add capacity 16,14' 92 SH 52(Mineral Rd)-Longmt Diag to E Co Ln Rd -+capac 36,848 98 SH 66(Ute Rd)-Hover to E Co Li Rd- +capacity 21,797 20 1-70-Washington St to Brighton Blvd -add capacity �1 34 1-70(East MIS)-add capacity betwn 1-270 1-225, Pena 0 35 1-70(East MIS) Brighton BI to SH 2Recon viaduct,shldrs 128,683 36 1-70(East MIS)- 1-25 to Pena- ITS Improvements 9,40'.? 37 1-70 (East MIS)-@ Sand Creek Reconstruct bridges 12,100 85 1-70-SH 58 to Wadsworth -add capacity 39,957 86 1-70 East-Tower to Arar co line- Undetermined improvements 126 1-70-@US 6-Reconstruct interchange, add movements 35,256 127 1-70-@SH 58NVard-Reconstruct intrchng, add movements 32,463 128 1-70-@Ward Rd - Reconstruct interchange 11,75.? 129 1-70-@Kipling- Reconstruct interchange 11,75.? 178 SH 72 - Indiana to SH 93 -add capacity(local$) 22,203 446 SH 74- Left Turn Lane in Kittridge 1,206 447 SH 74-(Upper Bear Creek Road) 3,486 21 1-76-@120th/SH 2/SH 51 Constr new intrchng, new road 87 1-76-1-70 to 1-25-add capacity, recons auxil. Lanes 72.283 130 1-76-@Colo BI-Reconstruct interchange, add movements 11.75? 23 SH 83(Parker Rd)-Hampden to 1-225- rec.intrchng; cap ') 93 SH 83(Parker Rd)- Hilltop to Hampden-add capacity 85.089 99 SH 83(Parker Rd)-SH 86 to Bayou Gulch- +capacity 15.641 1 Southwest Corr- Mineral to Broadway-LRT(FFGA Funds) 24,07.) 103 US 85(Santa Fe)-Highlands Rnh to C-470-add capacity 10,000 104 US 85(Santa Fe Dr)-C-470 to Church -add capacity 11,000 111 LIS 85- Meadows to Highlands Rnch Pkwy-add capacity 67,103 137 US 85-@Dartmouth Ave - New interchange 11,752 458 US 85(Santa Fe Dr)-C-470 to Church 17,03) 138 US 85-@120th Avenue - New interchange 11,752 139 US 85-@Bromley Ln-New interchange 11,752 79 Founders Prkwy-SH 86 to 1-25- Reconstruction 23,504 76 SH 88 (Federal Blvd)-Colfax to Hampden-add capacity 107,919 66 Arapahoe Rd - 1-25 to Parker Rd -add capacity 46,007 131 SH 88(Arapahoe Rd)-@Parker Rd -New interchange 23,504 100 SH 93-US 6 to Bldr City limit-Safety/minor widening 17,633 101 SH 119- US 6 to SH 279 Safety improvements 10,340 132 SH 119-@Jay Rd (Longmont) New interchange 18,234 133 SH 119-@Mineral Rd (Longmont)New inlerchange 11,752 114 SH 121(Wadsworth Blvd)- C-470 to Bowles -add capacity 25,096 Dl w `■ Page 32 Ior COLORADO REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION PLANS GREATER DENVER METROPOLITAN AREA Greater Denver Metro Area Transportation Planning Region 2020 Constrained Plan (thousands of year 2000 dollars 115 SH 121(Wadsworth BI)-Bowles to Hampden-add capacity 23,494 116 SH 121 (Wadsworth)-Hampden to Exposition-add cap 74,866 117 SH 121 (Wadsworth Blvd)-6th to 1-70-add capacity 81,095 118 SH 121 (Wadsworth Prkwy)-92nd to SH 128-add capacity 21,148 199 SH 128- Indiana to SH 121 -add capacity(local $) 21,080 60 SH 128(120th Av)- US 287/Federal to Huron-add cap 10,582 38 1-225(SE Corr)- 1-25 to Parker Rd - Add shoulders 0 83 1-225-Parker to 6th-+capacity, reconstr extng pavemnt 38,52e. 121 1-225-@Iliff-Reconstruct interchange(part metro funds) 3,47£1 172 1-225-@Alameda Ave- New interchange(local $) 11752 193 1-225(SE Corr)- 1-25 to Parker Rd -add capacity 0 84 1-270, 1-76 to 1-70 -add capacity 72,589 102 SH 270- 1-25 to 1-76 -add capacity 6,46 26 SH 270- 1-25 to 1-76-Construct 4-lane road (I 28 US 285- Foxton to Parmalee-capac; constr new intrchng U 182 US 285(Hampden)- @Simms- New interchange(local$) 11,752 61 US 287(120th Av)-SH 128/Federal to Vance St-add cap 18,09' 29 US 287-SH 66(Ute Rd)to county line add capacity 77 US 287(Federal Blvd)-Colo So RR to 70th -add capcity 1,623 78 US 287 (Federal Blvd)-Turnpike Dr to 80th -add cap 4,11 109 US 287- Midway BI to .5 m n/o Empire Rd-add capacity 27,246 74 C-470-Wadsworth Blvd to 1-25- add capacity 133,278 166 C-470-@Alameda Ave- New interchange (local $) 11,752 183 C-470-@Yale- New interchange (local $) 10,540 17 C-470-at 1-70; to US 6 new interchange U 459 C-470-EIS Commitments 10,501) 3 West Corridor-Golden to CPV LRT Spur-Discretionary Fund 594,456 4 East Corridor-DUT to Pena-Inc1 LRT Ext-Discretionary funds 399,571 6 Denver Union Terminal Partial funding- Intermodal Facility 41,138 7 RTD LRT Fleet(Central Corridor) 69,142 8 RTD Bus Replacement/Expansion 782,806 9 RTD Park-n-Ride Lots(non-rapid transit) 115,413 10 RTD ADA Vehicle Fleet 38,15'.3 11 RTD Maintenance Facilities/Equipment 138.28'3 12 RTD Debt Service 412,009 13 RTD Misc. Facilities/Equipment 415.803 16 Broadway Viaduct-Blake to Brighton Blvd Replace structure 10.013 53 56th Avenue-Quebec to Powhatan add capacity(metro$) 60.637 54 72nd Ave- Pierce to Kipling New 4 lane rd (metro$) 12 964 55 72nd Ave-Sheridan to e/o Yates add capacity(metro$) 543 56 86th Pk/88th-Indiana to-Garrison constrt/+cap(metro funds) 20,033 57 88th Ave-Dahlia to 1-76-add capacity(metro$) 5,302 ^-w ww Page 33 )0 COLORADO REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION PLANS !man ininaxes• GREATER DENVER METROPOLITAN AREA Greater Denver Metro Area Transportation Planning Region 2020 Constrained Plan (thousands of year 2000 dollars 58 96th St-Coalton to Arapahoe -add capacity(metro$) 32,126 62 120th Av-Washington to Colorado BI -add capacity 11,85 63 120th Av- Holly to US 85-add capacity(metro $) 17,981 64 120th Av- US 85 to E-470-add capacity (metro$) 24,210 65 Arapahoe Rd University to Quebec +capacity(metro$) 23,515 67 Arapahoe Rd-Parker to Buckley-add capacity(metro $) 4,458 68 Arapahoe Rd -Buckley- .4 m w Liverpool -capacity (metro$) 11,088 70 Buckley Rd-120th to Bridge- Constr/-3 capacity (metro$) 25,1413 71 Buckley Rd-Orchard to Arapahoe- New 4 lane (metro$) 9,802 72 County Line Rd -Colorado to Quebec +capacity (metro$) 3,162 75 Colo HI-1-76 to 96th Constr 4 In-align Vasquez(metro $) 16,105 81 Hover Rd - Longmont Diag to Nelson -add capacity 4,374 88 Ken Pratt BI - US 287 to SH 119- New 4 lane (metro funds) 23,504 89 Main St(Prkr)- Motsenbchr to Dransfldt +capacity (metro funds) 4,04' 90 McCaslin BI - SH 128 to Rock Cr Pkwy- +capacity(metro funds) 14,630 91 McIntyre/Indiana-63rd to 68th-Constr 4 lane (metro $ 5,291 94 Pearl Pk/63rd-55th to Gunbarrel-Constr/+capac(metro funds) 17,12' 95 Quebec St-Evans/Iliff to Iowa-add capacity (metro funds) 2,509 96 Quebec St- Leetsdale to 23rd - +capacity(metro funds) 15,55' 97 Quincy Av- Reservoir to Himalaya, +capacity(metro funds) 2,530 105 Sheridan Blvd-US 36 to 120th -add capacity(metro funds) 22,260 106 Sheridan Blvd-136th to 144th-Constr 4 lane (local $) 5,291 107 Smoky Hill Rd - E-470 to Arapahoe- +capacity (metro funds) 5,04!) 112 Tower/Buckley-104th to 120th - Constr 2 lane (metro funds) 13,512 119 Ward Rd/Alkire St-65th to 86th - Constr/+capac(met$ 1 13,755 120 Washington St- Elk PI to 83rd Dr- +capac(met$) 20,996 455 Region 6- Roadway Reconstruction Pool 15,001) 456 Region 6-Intersection Reconstruction Pool 5,700 146 Freeways(95% State) Operational/Systems Mgmnt 139,139 147 Freeways (5% Local) Oprtnl/Sys Mgmnt(metro funds) 9,380 1481 Maj Reg Artrls (90% State)Operational/Systems Mgmnt 142,606 149 Maj Reg Artrls (10% Local) Oprtnl/Sys Mgmnt(metro funds) 15,915 150 F'rin Arterials (50% State)Operational/Systems Mgmnt 26,751 151 F'rin Arterials (50% Local) Oprtnl/Sys Mgmnt(metro funds 26,751 152 Regional ITS Plan (90% State) 68,415 153 Regional ITS Plan (10% Local) (metro funds) 7,71)5 154 Regional Traffic Signal Improvement Prog (cmaq $) 72.515 155 RideArrangers Program (cmaq $) 35.056 156 US 36 T.M.O. (cmaq $) 316 157';Pedestrian and Bicycle Program (Enhancement$) 84.773 158 104th Av- Melody Dr to 1-25 -+capacity(local $) 1.876 162 96th St-SH 128 to Coalton-Construct 4 lane (local $) 3693 DAN Page 34 )(IT COLORADO REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION PLANS GREATER DENVER METROPOLITAN AREA Greater Denver Metro Area Transportation Planning Region 2020 Constrained Plan (thousands of year 2000 dollars 168 E-470- 120th to 1-25 N -Constr 4 lane tollrd (loc$) 159,945 170 E-470-@Cottonwood- New 1/2 dia interchange (local$) 5,881 171 E-470-@Gartrell Rd-New interchange (local $) 173 Jewell Av-Tower to Himalaya - add capacity(local $) 10,69t 174 Lincoln Av- Yosemite to SH 83-add capacity(local$) 40.674. 175 5 Meadows Prkwy- US 85 to 1-25 -add capacity (local $) 12.574 176 Pena Blvd- E-470 to Jackson Gap Rd. +capacity (local$) 6,226 177 Quincy Av- Himalaya to E-470 -add capacity(metro funds) 9,054 179 Smoky Hill Rd - Pheasant Rn to E-470- +capacity(loc$) 30.945 180 South Access Rd- 1-70 to SH 279- Constr 4 lane(loc$) 41,13E 181 Tower Rd - 56th to Pena -add capacity (local$) 0 189 South Intermodal Center(cmaq$) 0 190 CU Campus Intermodal Center(cmaq $) 0 191 Cent Platte Vly- Colfax Av/Osage to DUT 20,55;'L 194 Jordan Rd-Arapahoe to Doug Co, add capacity(local $) 6,32z- 195 Arapahoe Rd- Buckley to Richfield, +capacity (local$) 5,270 196 64th Av- SH 93 to Indiana-add capacity (local$) 6.85' 198 Tower Rd- 1-70 to 38th -add capacity(local $) 6.166 200 144th Ave. - 124th to Zuni St-add capacity(local$) 9,59- ___-- 201 Pena Blvd - 1-70 to E-470-add capacity(local $) 23,188 203 104th Av- Fox Rn to Colorado BI-+capacity(local$) 3,162 205 TDM Program (CMAQ 5) 15,357 206 PM-10 Capital Equipment(CMAQ $) 10,75 207 RTD Operations and Maintenance 5,122,335 208 Specialized Transportation Services 18,340 209 STP-Metro for non-capacity projects 114,571) 210 Gaming-related projects )) 449 1st.Avenue-Steel to University 1,549 452 170/Colorado Blvd - Idaho Springs 7,819 Total $13,161,042 NOTE: This table summarizes information contained in the regional transportation plan. For more specific projeq t information,please reference the source plan or contact CDOT. w ww Page 35 2 -�IzpwiK, Emphasis Corridors for . i" Operational_improve Freeway Emphasis Corridors µ Major Regional Arterial Emphasis Corridors Principal Arterial Emphasis Segments (119 (segments without 2020 RTP Capacity Improvements Nz G w �l�" P ' n X 1 1_. 3 O m 3� nxm N 1= 9 0 65 t 5a 2 mx z GI 0 I 9 a ' f u:.,1 ttit:k iARMi Ii nip . . .... .* ."6""" "*. 5 4) f 36 _ I ✓ p , ,yV l ", I � r I } rr 5s r(�•► I `v•1 ... :, �.• �t .. mii i.inatMRiuyusiMx.I...nw p t 6 6 Y t I ' 7a urost li I � Cleat Greek l County Lena Tf _ __. . ii y 470 �A11W�Wi �MMiy.Ar+P.NfiNFlF , •—_ __ 1 It S S.JLI.SiY=IA vnu= �#Ml=0,41,N�li�.pn�, } C 470 " l 4 X85 4. t 83 0 5 10 Miles norr:3„,,,,,,,„ I 85 ,:,,,, „, N A l'4''''Niu To south Douglas County Line 2020 RTP Rapid Transit System /2 Amended September 1999 ;//7/ 63 i Existing or Committed Light Rail o Us = Us Commuter Rail o N x BusIRON lanes z >»;7- - Light Rail ; .< z m zarj * Station Xi Q Z r A DUT Multimodal Terminal il i! �—_--/ J Changes ;A 1.. (\ L 85 36 iir 9-3 /51 .. —c-\-/------ Oro) , a7o Inset Scale 1 150 000 1 I � / 83, ,. I \ 85 0 5 10 Miles I „ _ A 7RCOC. Amendments and Changes 36 2020 RTP Highway Improvements September 17, 1999 Regionally 100% Locally Funded Funded Improvements Improvements j Add 1 Lane <.. u,,.,,.• Add 2 Lanes .4,1,,lu,t ,,,0i, Add 4 Lanes (111G * Interchange Improvements 2,1.37, Other Improvements Amendments and Changes "4 \ '4. Removed from RTP a I n O 3 '4C m n z m 13 O 13 0 .r"_ 1• ( • .1 y x 1 16 1 m ',) i ,, z s ..-- o czi 5 m n zo E z • \\\yli6 _ � _ \\464:3-1 "' Notes u f a a (t)Widening t0 accomodate -!"---/-N,.)a' +,,,^ mayaddi be al lands ""� IHOV iame5) �,, may be considered }J during the environmental 1 process * ice s CO j-------,. i f ,.._.. vehicle auxiliary —.I slow.movir,g One..from Castle Fines Parkway to II Lincoln Avenue Or�� j A new 6 lane (2) roadway from * \-. 1-25 to 1.76 0 5 10 Miles * `-' {4i Includes addition of"H ramp at Colfax Avenue,"A" _ -E ramp at 6th Avenue A �6�1 and eer m lanes betweer ramps Definitive information is contained in DICOG. Appendcv 4 )OT COLORADO REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION PLANS NORTH FRONT RANGE NORTH FRONT RANGE REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION PLAN Regional Planning Commission The North Front Range Transportation Planning Region(NFRTPR) includes the more populous portions of Larimer and Weld Counties. There are ten communities within the NFRTPR: Fort Collins, Greeley, Loveland, Berthoud, Evans, Garden City, Johnstown, LaSalle,Timnath and Windsor. The North Front Range Transportation and Ar Quality Planning Council (NFRT &AQPC) is the designated Metropolitan Planning Organization(MPO) responsible for developing the North Front Range Regional Transportation Plan (TPR). NFRT&AQPC members include representatives from the two counties and each of the ten communities, the Transportation Commission and the Air Quality Control Commission. Tom Selders of the Greeley City Council served as Chair and represented the RPC at the STAG. A Technical Advisory Committee(TAC),comprised of staff representatives of the member entities, CDOT representatives, and the Air Pollution Control Division, identified and prioritized the plan's projects.The Technical Advisory Committee was Chaired by Marc Engemoen of Larimer County. The Council conducted the allocation of'he funding resources available to the region, because it is a policy issue. These two elements, the prioritized project list and the funding allocations,were"meshed"to formulate the lists of projects included in the RTP. DIw w w Page 39 )(1'/ COLORADO REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION PLANS NORTH FRONT RANGE Regional Values, Vision, Goals and Strategies Upon review and discussion of the regional goals established in the 2015 RTP and upon consideration of public comment,the NFRT&APC adopted 12 goals to guide the development of the 2020 RTP. While the goals are all interrelated,for the purposes of this document,they can be summarized into three categories: The transportation system,the environment, and the economy. The Transportation System To provide a balanced, multi-modal transportation system that can move people, goods and information quickly and efficiently 24 hours a day To foster regional coordination and system continuity • To provide safe transportation facilities • To connect modal systems • To ensure adequate maintenance of the system • To meet the needs of the transportation disadvantaged • To minimize congestion on the transportation system The Environment • To improve quality of life in the Region and in individual communities Y To improve air quality To minimize negative environmental impacts To reduce urban sprawl The Economy S To provide a positive economic impact Fwthermore, the Council strongly believes that a principal strategy for achieving these goals should be to effect a shift in travel modes resulting in a reduction of ten percent of the mode share represented by single occupancy vehicle(SOV)trips. These trips would be shifted to other means of travel such as walking, bicycling,passenger ra I, transit, carpooling, varpooling and telecommuting. . w w Page 40 COLORADO REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION PLANS NORTH FRONT l?ANGE Socioeconomic and Environmental Profile Socioeconomic Characteristics For transportation planning purposes,the North Front Range has been divided into 335 traffic analysis zones. Uti izing household and employment data from the 2015 RTP for each of these zones,these data were updated and expanded to the year 2020. The total number of households is projected to increase an average 2.3%annually from 1995 to 2020.The population figures have been inferred from the average household size of 2.53 stated in the plan Employment is projected to grow at an annual rate of 2.7%. The rate of population growth ranges from 1.9%to 2.8%annually in the air quality planning area and 3.4%to 3.9°J in the remaining areas of the counties. This indicates faster growth in the suburban areas as compared to the urban areas. North Front Range Transportation Planning Region Population and Employment Growth 2000 - 2020 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 Total Change Change POP 315,929 359,743 399,520 439,294 481,021 165,093 52% EMP 143,454 165,314 188,525 211,735 234,760 91,306 64% DMJNI Page 41 -or COLORADO REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION PLANS NORTH FRONT RANGE Environmental Profile The most significant transportation-related environmental area of concern in the NFR is air quality. The NFRT & AQDC was designated by the Governor as the lead air quality planning organization for the Greeley/Fort Collins area in June of 1993. The Council is responsible for the development of the Fort Collins and Greeley elements of the SIP as well as other transportation related air quality planning projects in the North Front Range. Both Greeley and Fort Collins experienced violations of the National Ambient Air Quality Standards(NAAQS)for carbon monoxide(CO) in the late 1980s, and as a result, their previous non-attainment status continued with the passage of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990. Carbon monoxide levels have improved substantially in the 1990s, and Greeley was re-designated from nonattainment to attainment status on May 10, 1999. Fort Collins is corsidering submitting the same request. Motor vehicle emissions constitute the major source of CO emissions in the NFR.A number of strategies are being implemented to limit CO, including a Basic Inspection and Maintenance program, oxygenated fuels, and aggressive alternative transportation programs. These include transit, bicycle and pedestrian, carpool and van pool programs. In addition, extensive public education is taking place at the local and regional level in an effort to encourage citizens to use alternative transportation. DIw `w Page 42 )O7. COLORADO REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION PLANS NORTH FRONT RANGE Preferred Plan The North Front Range TPR has developed a"Vision Plan", analogous to the"Preferred Plan." It includes all of the identified needed improvements in the region by the year 2020. All projects were initially identified by the local entities, which submitted project descriptions using a standard form to ensure uniform and consistent information. Projects were prioritized within each project category. The project categories include Transit/HOV, Rail, Bike/Pedestrian, Mobility Strategies,Aviation and Highway. The North Front Range TPR plan includes these unique characteristics: ifr The North Front Range must consider the conformity requirements of federal air quality regulations. ✓ The North Front Range TPR is one of five federally designated Metropolitan Planning Organizations in Colorado. Its plan is targeted at maintaining conformity with federal air quality regulations. ▪ The TPR prioritized all roadway project needs in the highway category, including needs on the Iccal (city and county) road system. Local road needs have been identified separately in the attached table. for the purposes of this summary report. - Transit/HOV projects that represent the continuation of existing services were determined to be of the highest priority and, therefore, were not ranked. Inter-regional projects aimed at enhancing travel from the North Front Range TPR to the Denver Metropolitan Area are not included in the Vision Plan. These projects are being assessed through the North Front Range Transportation Alternatives Feasibility Study. Recommendations from the Feasibility Study will be incorporated in a future update of the long-range plan. The total cost to implement the preferred plan is$1,700,149,000. This total amount includes$303,936,000 in Local Needs. The table below summarizes the cost, by Investment Category, as recorded in the project database accompanyinc the regional plan. North Front Range Transportation Planning Region 2020 Preferred Plan (thousands of year 2000 dollars Investment Category Cost System Quality 87,779 Safety 96,682 Mobility 1,210,905 Program Delivery 847 Sub-total 1,396,213 Local Needs 303,936 Total $1,700,149 NOTE: This table summarizes information contained in the regional transportation plan. For more specific project information,please reference the source plan or contact CDOT. w R w Page 43 )07 COLORADO REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION PLANS NORTH FRONT RANGE Prioritization Process The project prioritization process in the North Front Range RTP was largely a technical effort and, therefore, was corducted primarily through the TAC,comprised of staff representatives of the member entities. The allocation of funding resources available to the region is a policy issue that was conducted by the Council. These two elements were then meshed to formulation the lists of prioritized projects for the RTP. Seven evaluation criteria were developed to be applied to all project categories and to ensure that all of the goals of the plan were addressed by at least one of the criteria. • System Continuity • Congestion Mitigation • Safety Enhancement • Multi-Modal Enhancement Environmental/Air Quality • Implementability • Economic Impact A custom scoring and weighting system with separate scoring guidelines for applying each criterion(with scores ranging from 0 to 3) was developed for each project category. The weighted scoring was then used to rank project; within each category. These scores were then multiplied by the assigned weight for each criterion and summed to obtain total weighted points for a project. These ranked projects comprise the Vision Plan. The purpose of the resource allocation task was to identify how the available resources should be distributed among the project categories to achieve the plan goals. The Council established the following assignment of funds. Transit/ HCV 40%, Rail 10°/a, Bicycle/Pedestrian 8%, Mobility Strategies 10%, and Highway 32%. With these prioritized lists of projects within each category and the estimated available funds assigned to each category, the two elements were merged to develop the Financially Constrained Plan of the RTP. A w w Page 44 IOT COLORADO REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION PLANS NORTH FRONT RANGE Financially Constrained Plan The North Front Range financially constrained plan is comprised of those projects that ranked high enough to likely be funded by the year 2020 based on the projected financial resources available to the region. The region based its estimates on projections provided by CDOT. Furding sources include: ir Regional Priorities(state and federal funds) • Small Urban ir Enhancement Program • Federal Transit Administration ir Local The North Front Range plan is unique in that 40%of all its funding is targeted to the transit/HOV area,the highest perentage in the state. In tiis non-attainment area, as in all others,fiscally constrained plans and programs ensure that sufficient funds are available to implement required Transportation Control Measures. Further, the program of projects contained in the plan gives assurance that conformity with the SIP for the reduction of transportation-related pollutants will be ma ntained throughout the planning period. Prcjects in this element are eligible to move into the implementation phase. The financially constrained plan for the North Front Range TPR totals$321,135,000 including all identified sources. See the table below for the project listings for the fiscally constrained plan. The fiscally constrained project maps for the region have been separated into the three urban areas. Map 3a shows Ft. Collins; Map 3b shows Greeley; and, Map 3c shows Loveland. L MJM Page 45 )01- COLORADO REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION PLANS raliMMINSIIMOSIMPIIIMOM - NORTH FRONT RANGE North Front Range Transportation Planning Region 2020 Constrained Plan (thousands of year 2000 dollars Project# Description Cost 95 SH 14- 1-25 Interchange Phase I & II 1.027 311 SH 14- 1-25 Interchange Phases III & IV 16,442 62 US 287(southern boundary of NFR to SH 402)widen to 4 0 71 US 287(SH 1 to La Porte Bypass)major widening to 4 lane 18,149 79 US 287/37th Street intersection reconstruction 270 36 US 34(Eisenhower Blvd)from Jefferson to Monroe Avenue 0 37 US 34/Louden Ditch crossing bike trail underpass U 66 US 34(Jefferson to Monroe Avenues)widen to include le 2,778 68 US 34/Taft Ave intersection rebuild 207 69 US 34 Greeley Business Route(SH 257 to 47th Ave)environmental 24,594 75 US 34(Glade Rd to Morning Dr)minor widening 3,237 73 US 34 Business (23rd Ave to 35th Ave)access control 270 76 US 34 Bypass(2nd to 23rd Ave.) minor widening and 809 42 SH 392/LCR 32(1-25 to WCR 15)bike lanes 70 SH 402 (US 287 to 1-25)widen to 4 lanes, add turn lane 26,707 74 SH 56/US 287 intersection reconfiguration :270 82 US 85 Bypass intersection improvements at 8th Street 216 83 US 85 Bypass intersection improvements at 5th Street 216 319 Cont. of Existing Transfort Service 51,132 1 Local NFR TDM Program (Includes CD-ROM) 2,385 2 Regional TDM Program-SMART Trips (Includes GIS and MR 2,38.1 3 14th Street overpass of BNRR 5,395 4 UP RR Crossing improvements at 13th and 16th Streets(s 57 6 UP RR Crossing at 6th, 7th, 10th Streets and Great West 142 8 Continuation of Existing Transfort Service- Capital 19,103 9 Continuation of Existing Transfort Service-Operating 12,300 10 Paratransit Vehicle Replacement Greeley 1,208 11 Fixed Route Vehicle Replacement Greeley 3,582 12 Admin/Maintenance Vehicle Replacement Greeley 259 13 Fare Box Replacement Greeley 97 14 Operating Assistance(Existing Service)Greeley 9,127 15 Maintenance Shop Equipment Greeley 248 16 Rural Larimer County Rural Public Transit Services-Op 15,866 17 Regional Vanpool Program-Operating 2,308 18 Rural Weld County Rural Public Transit-Operating 2,066 19 Rural Weld County Rural Transit Vehicles-Capital 54 20 Rural Weld County Rural Transit Vehicles- Operating 1,787 21 Continuation of existing Loveland-Fort Collins service 256 22 Continuation of existing Loveland-Fort Collins service 1,333 23 US 34 East-West Bus Service 3.350 DM w■ Page 46 COLORADO REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION PLANS NORTH FRONT RANGE North Front Range Transportation Planning Region 2020 Constrained Plan (thousands of year 2000 dollars 24 Loveland-Fort Collins Transit Service Expansion-Capital 865 25 Loveland-Fort Collins Transit Service Expansion-Operating 1,338 29 Harmony Road (US 287/College to 1-25)bike lanes 0 30 BNI/Mason Street multi-use trail 0 31 16th St(21st to 25th Avenues)bike lanes/path 0 32 Laurel Street(Stover to Shields)bike lanes 0 33 Reservoir Road(22nd Ave to 12th Ave) bike path/lane 0 34 Wilson Ave(29th St to 1st St)bike lanes 0 35 Harmony Road/I-25 Transportation Transfer Center 540 38 LCR 11/Timberline(LCR 30/Trilby to SH68/Harmony)bike 0 39 LCR 40 Timnath Link(Poudre River& Horsetooth at 1-25) 0 40 LCR 17 (Taft in Loveland, Shields in Ft Collins)widen 0 41 LCR 38(Harmony)and WCR 74, add bike lanes (1-25 to SH 0 43 College Avenue(Lake to Pitkin Streets)bike/ped underpass 0 44 Bicycle Racks on Transit Vehicles 16 45 Poudre River Trail extension (west to 83rd Ave, east to 0 61 Regional signal pool projects 6,825 64 LCR 17(Taft in Loveland, Shields in Ft Collins)widen 5,179 63 1st St. (Jefferson to RR)Rebuild intersections on 1st 4,180 65 LCR 17(Taft in Loveland)widen to 4 lane roadway, add 5,611 67 Taft Hill Rd (Horsetooth to CR 38E)widen to 4 lane art 3,237 72 Prospect Road (Poudre River to 1-25),widen to 4 lanes 9,711 77 Tirnberline Road (Prospect to Vermont Dr)widen to 4 lane 10,790 78 Lemay/Mulberry(SH-14)intersection improvements 1,079 80 LCR 17(Taft Ave)/LCR 28(57t St)intersection improvement 373 81 Vine Dr(1-25 to College/US 287)widen to 4 lane arterial 36,686 84 8th Ave SB connector to US 85 reconstruction 108 312 Prospect/Lemay Intersection Improvement 82 315 Fort Collins Railroad Consolidation Phase III 527 316 Region 4 Bridge Rehab Pool 3,510 310 Misc. Planning Studies 8:36 Total $321,135 NOTE: This table summarizes information contained in the regional transportation plan. For more specific project information,please reference the source plan or contact COOT A Jp Page 47 • • NFR 2020 Regional Transportation Plan laIO U } Douglas Rd, a H O Z a L 2 8 { U 1) A. I '� .i L0 i S TERRY) �� t W CI 2 F �ache z ,�� J�LAKE I `7,_-. \ \• mI I Z _ ��unr \ LONG I I .-\ 2 •R'yer ¢ (11)H-4 1 'POND e m g II U '. Country Club Dr. } I ,0 m 1 v �.1;'- � '`r r•' ( I Mountain View Or. it}1 n•�• _ _ N • LINDENMEIER W V , \ ;) �'- }}} c...� N • (2J B-103 �, • � r+iaeory sr., con,rer St.. .. . U �N� °( (21)B-16, (26)11-121 I . 21)H-2fi Vine Dc : ��„1•\•�� Vine Dr. i 'J � :SCR 48 �( r'' _ r s(3)R-2"t• (26) ' N.,, H-21 CR 46 •• .� ••I•.r• LaPorte Ave. - k fir••— Li BNRR I Mountain Ave. (2)B-1 ■ rot �� s �ro (35)H-71 , a a (18)11-14 Mulberry Sty 14) ' r LaulelSt. N I`,. r � \ O I•ElizabbetheSt._ (4)B•') :' � \�r�.`� ". 1 \�....— I :.....•'-'" (28)B-17 z° �� o �.�.. HORSE OTH \ I Lake sL f L. —••— I t (15)B•18 • CR 44 Prospect Rd. L RES.', 1 1 ¢ c .J CR44 Stuart St (12)11-17' 1 ,� r. CA42 U Drake Rd. ( (18)B-2 ,-)I Ga \ • \ . 2 Rd. I ` \+4..°oa \ I ` /B47 CR 40 Horsetooth Rd. CR 40 1 ' •—. r.._(7):{-,,,. �r`q _� / ,WARREN) AKE \�� 1 �� CR 38E — �� Troutman ( �_ (30;B� 1 --\ -46 CR38 I Harmony Rd (1)B-6 .kwy • (12)B CR38 " • • (23)11-too ; ( :' _-I (7)B-8 �j� I l_ I r' " Za I (' (to)s-log---; cR3s �\ L..._,.._ .N. r••I ..J� i '7: , •! r 1 LEGEND CR34 ! �� L.Trilby Rd. /\ = Highway Projects r•• I -; _ FOSSIL('REEK ■J.._ •r.. -� RES. _ • • Bike/Ped Projects (26111-67 ■ Ir ..r. T. 1(12) ! ,j o ..� -- - 6Xnn##mw = ail Projects r ject g i ;B-44 .j .;� E ^ -t I /1 )\ CFI 32 /1 (12)B-67 ProjectDesignation CR 32�,I jr L„ •.�,. 1„_� / I (XX) = Project Ranking �T (4)11-70 } ai rn h a• i ¢ �1 U N U REGIONAL FINANCIALLY m — �28 �� I U CR30 CONSTRAINED PROJECTS U U 1 MOBILITY STRATEGIES PROJECTS I (1)M-3 (Local TOM Program) (2)M-4 (Regional TDM Program) ADDITIONAL HIGHWAY PROJECT TRANSIT/HOV PROJECTS(FORT COLLINS) (1)H-93 (Regional Signal Pool) •CONTINUATION OF EXISTING SERVICES ADDITIONAL BIKE/PED PROJECT T-1 (30)8-68 y Bike Path on RR ROW) •PROPOSED PROJECTS TRANSIT/HOV PROJECTS -MULTI-MODAL FACILITIES *CONTINUATION OF (3)T--4, EXISTING SERVICES T-53,T-60,T-61,T-62,T-66 •PROPOSED PROJECTS -NEW/EXPANDED SERVICE • (2)T-9,(4)T-57 Figure VI-1 North Financially Constrained Plan Projects in the Fort Collins Area Felsburg Holt&Ullevlg NORTH FRONT RANGE TRANSPORTATION PLANNING REGION 2020 FISCALLY CONTRAINED PLAN Map 3b � ; P 1 ir\39,2—1 3 9 I. I 3 1\L---:1;GAR1V WCR 66 !— L••� I W 3_ (2.61B-6 3 \�//,j`` os„ r ....._.„......•..4.,,4_ • e°°r- -"--��-_ 4• .i i4♦►♦ 47is ♦ o (15)0-3-S�.�• ��- G+'.- i \ - R1—',/•/ r ♦ j;�\ • WCR 62 FSL �-- - - B;siness • ' BYPsas 1 r.• L•'—• (2716-31�, a,b I' _�' WCR62 • • �♦♦ zois-z3� _ 1 dsr — I I a I ¢ I r1 am sc �� am s4�• l sm sr. � I?3111-6 1 ..—:u 3 1 •• U 7th St. th♦ (2UH 62 25� �. 1-1 torn s 9th sr. F\1\ c V• �. (9)H-6 f ` -- �ti__-.�.—..�• (32 (13111-54 (4)It-4ab." .�.• �i.��i._ 26 — L. Business ` (2)R-6 Q 13th St •, —.� Ern sr Q 1 Q • L ! 6th 9L -- I .—•-� i s` ----- R♦y. REGIONAL FINANCIALLY �' (26)H-63 e (3)0-19 `- 18th St CONSTRAINED PROJECTS / I I Iry Q(zz)Is-z'n (37111,61 3 � •— •— . 3 � •• zorn sr " N(5.11S_z4 a ( zom sr. it' MOBILITY STRATEGIES PROJECTS - tom sr ti \\.3 (1)M-3 (Local TDM Program) Bypassm m22nd S!r—„ (2)M-4 (Regional TDM Program) Iv 5 20th Sr. WCR 56.P" 261 s m ADDITIONAL HIGHWAY PROJECT P° •�� -rd- , l'- C— (1)H-93 (Regional Signal Pool) I 2110 SL 27th St 3 y C� r �f; Bypass ADDITIONAL BIKE/PED PROJECT r-• Bvpass 1261H-56� • (333111-36 (16111-7 L'1 y.I/f I• ")y I •—•• .• r-- 3ndst. r 2nd St. m T3RANST/H0)B-68 �V PROJECITSke Palh on 29th Sr (_3)11-95 —••—••—••—••—••—• J •• m •CONTINUATION OF LEGEND - II EXISTING SERVICES T-53,T-60,T-61,T-62,T-66 0;th St ---- I"-� I I = Highway Projects ¢ L „-� •PROPOSED PROJECTS • 3 I EVANS / -NEW/EXPANDED SERVICE Bike/Ped Projects (2)T-9,(4)T-57 ADDITIONAL BIKE/PED PROJECTS TRANSIT/HOV PROJECTS(GREELEY) I .mm•mmm• = Rail Projects (GREELEY) ( t --- V V X-## = Project Designation •CONTINUATION OF EXISTING SERVICES - Figure VI-2 (15)B-28(Bike Racks on Transit Vehicles) T-29,T-30,T-39,T-42,T-47,T-48 I North (XX) = Project Ranking Financially Constrained Plan Projects in the Greeley Area Felsburg Holt&Ullevig II • NORTH FRONT RANGE TRANSPORTATION PLANNING REGION 2020 FISCALLY CONTRAINED PLAN Map 3c LEGEND , R � �_, = Highway Projects rn 'h 28 (23)B-55■ � v a ■ 1 • = Bike/Ped Projects " m 10 ra ■ •ru n.ana = Rail Projects 14111-70 •.'.—'•—.-- "°`�� ; �\ 1•.\• CR 3o • .(•" X-## = Project Designation v• A _ ��, (XX) = Project Ranking — —..—..1 ■ •—'-1 � � � •ft-Collins-Lovelace 2 ■ Municipal Airport i I U • 57th Street ■( Earhart Rd ' . 20)H-68M (5)R-9 !--11 I I --al; HORSESHOE J LAKE I C C .•�. LAKE \ C TRANSIT/HOV PROJECT(LOVELAND) m \', ' — -. f • •• cR2s •PROPOSED PROJECT •—• I, �' L_—_- jr tCrossroads Blvd. : -NEW/EXPANDED SERVICE (1)T-54 — (19)11•87 (f„ 37th St / V l r - - ' V-. CR24E • • —• '—'- • 37th St l•� I .( \ (/ 1iou rs l ^ ~J 29th Sheet — 1 \, 10 CR.J.w f.•1 I r... ,l'' (- 1 ' ( 1 ( --,\\ , • \ I ' m .,, EQAWZEFC • • I • r F Q�� , �. •- -� .J LAKE �AKFE� c m I . REGIONAL FINANCIALLY I I I I IT LOVELAND 16th a m , Nn� �`� CONSTRAINED PROJECTS 916 56'1 R 8>H-97 m Er ennowar eWe- I• E 115)11-B— �� . �� •• �— - r3,i - • MOBILITY STRATEGIES PROJECTS �: �• (5)B-57 . a (5111-89 4.1261H-90(2410.1 � GwRw (1)M-3 (Local TDM Program) I _, c . (816-122 �.�-- ------ ��• •�;�/_ �•■ •11816-120 - _�- ••— (2)M-4 (Regional TDM Program) j ,••— 8th SG J --? 3 7th S1 I~ ADDITIONAL HIGHWAY PROJECT .-- - (2416-121 g / (f)H-93 (Regional Signal Pool) .\•./':)C- _ CR 2o _ - 1stSt, n • ,J rn v - N �7�' 7 ..�.—..— .) -- (3)11-74. .� �.._..—, �� , � ADDITIONAL BIKE/PED PROJECT '_-- a -�. m (--=J (30)8-68 (Inter-City Bike Path on BOEDECKER o ) _ "1 Thompson Q RR ROW) I RFs. // U _ TRANSIT/HOV PROJECTS `:! ��' a ..r\_i._. 8 •CONTINUATION OF f 14th St e v� EXISTING SERVICES 11"—"—%.L _ ._ •J^ --- CR 18 I,o � (1)R-8 (111111-84 T-53,T-60,T-81,T-62,T-66 1-_,/ 126)11-7044 •PROPOSED PROJECTS 18th S-••-••-'<_-_2_, i U CR 165 -NEW/EXPANDED SERVICE „'Cr-C e v--:) . � l ••—. "-' I � . I • (2)T-9,(4)T-57 � I •- • i12111-5.* CR 16 } CR 16 CR 16 r (5)11-69 28"i — Figure VI-3 U U North °Projeu Is included in 0w'Sltalcgic Proirot ILcestrnent Prcctst/ Financially Constrained Plan Projects in the Loveland Area Felsburg Holt.0 Ullevig • • I got . COLORADO REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION PLANS PUEBLO AREA PUEBLO AREA REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION PLAN Regional Planning Commission The Pueblo Transportation Planning Region is coterminous with Pueblo County. The Pueblo Area Council of Governments(PACOG), a designated MPO, is the Regional Planning Commission (RPC)for the area and is responsible for the development of the Pueblo Regional Transportation Plan: Year 2020(RTP). The Transportatior Technical Committee and the Citizen's Advisory Committee guided the RTP project. The Transportation Technical Committee included representatives from the City of Pueblo, CDOT, Pueblo County, Pueblo West Metro District, FTA, FHWA, and Pueblo Transit. The Citizens Advisory Committee included representatives from the public a:large and several departments of the City of Pueblo and Pueblo County(City Manager,Attorney, Planning, Zoning, and Public Works). Cathy Green from the Pueblo Area COG served as RPC Chair and represented the TPR at the STAC. A Working Group was formed to include others not presently serving on transportation related committees. Representatives included City of Pueblo, TranSystems Consultants, Pueblo County, Pueblo Transit, Pueblo West Metropolitan District, CDOT, Colorado City Metropolitan District, Pueblo Merchants, Union Avenue Merchants and Mesa Junction. Various city, county and other public agencies such as Pueblo Transit,the Senior Resource Development Agency(SRDA), and several private transportation interests provided addition insight to local issues covered in the RTP. DI w w- Page 51 COLORADO REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION PLANS -a.- PUEBLO AREA Regional Values, Vision, Goals and Strategies The overall vision for transportation in the Pueblo Transportation Planning Region is to provide the facilities and services necessary to support the continued development of a quality community with sustainable growth, economic vitality, and adequate mobility options.To accomplish the vision, a series of goals and objectives were developed by the Transportation Plan Working Group. They are summarized in the RTP under the following headings: Mobility, Lard Use, and Livability. ✓ Mobility Goal—Plan, develop and maintain a safe and efficient multi-modal transportation system o preserve and enhance the present and future mobility needs of the Pueblo Region. The objectives associated with this goal address interconnectivity between major activity centers by promoting intermodal transfer points, and minimizing congestion by emphasizing use of existing alternate modes,transportation system management and operations techniques and travel demand management strategies. • Land Use Goal—Coordinate the interaction of transportation systems and land use planning to promote orderly expansion of the multi-modal transportation system serving the Pueblo Region. The objectives of this goal are focused on coordination of land use planning and transportation planning to achieve consistency, rational relationships, right-of-way reservations, corridor preservation, access to major activity centers, and facilitation of transit use to reduce growth in VMT. • Livability Goal—Create, enhance and maintain a safe, healthful and aesthetically pleasing living environment by integrating transportation mobility needs with those of the citizens within the Pueblo Region. The objectives of this goal discuss the reduction of environmental and safety(especially in residential areas) issues associated with transportation facilities including air, noise, volume of traffic generated outside the neighborhood,aesthetics of transportation corridors, and the interaction between various modes and people. DRUM Page 52 II )OT COLORADO REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION PLANS r.� w PUEBLO AREA Socioeconomic and Environmental Profile Socioeconomic Characteristics The Pueblo Region Comprehensive Development plan was updated concurrently with the regional transportaton plan and is the source for population and employment projections through 2020.At the time of this report,the igures are preliminary and subject to adjustment as necessary. The Pueblo TPR is aggregated into 13 traffic analysis districts comprised of 240 traffic analysis zones. The entire county population increased 10.5%from 1990 to 1998,following a slight decrease in the 1980s. Net migration accounted for much of the TPR's recent population growth. New residents are attracted to Pueblo for its high quality of life,economic and recreational opportunities, and a small town feeling with the amenities of a large urban center.Approximately 77%of the population live in the City of Pueblo, but the percentage is expected to increase somewhat by 2020. Major growth areas include Pueblo West, La Vista Hills and Regency Park. Future growth is expected primarily in suburban areas. Employment growth will continue to increase in central Pueblo and in areas immediately adjacent to the CBD. Employment growth is also projected as a result of expansion of the Airport Industrial Park. Downtown Pueblo and the Pueblo Mall south of US 50 are the primary commercial centers. To :ounter the rapidly growing outlying retail centers, the City is encouraging a renewal and redirection of development centered on the CBD. New facilities proving attractive to the downtown include: the Convention Center, a new hotel,the Sangre de Cristo Fine Arts Center, the Historic Arkansas Riverwalk and the Pueblo Transit Transfer Center. Pueblo Area Transportation Planning Region Population and Employment Growth 2000 -2020 Total 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 Change Change FOP 140,000 150,000 160,000 170,000 180,000 40,000 28.6 EMP 57,326 64,357 71,388 78,419 85,450 28,124 49% OvkN Page 53 0 )OT COLORADO REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION PLANS ranneuniirat PUEBLO AREA Environmental Profile The projects and programs identified in the financially constrained plan have been reviewed relative to the potential environmental impacts that might occur from implementation. The major impact categories that were corsidered were air quality, noise and water pollution. No significant negative environmental impacts were identified or are ant cipated from any of the projects recommended in the plan. Since the area is in attainment for federal air quality standards and projects proposed in the plan are significantly lass that those proposed in previous plans, no future violations are anticipated in conjunction with its implementatiDn. Major projects must be considered on a case-by-case basis. The plan and environmental overview do not rep ace any of the environmental analyses necessary for any project. Specific impacts cannot be determined at the systems plaining level; therefore, each project will require the appropriate level of environmental analysis at that time. Page 54 )QJ COLORADO REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION PLANS PUEBLO AREA Preferred Plan The Pueblo TPR preferred plan represents projects and programs that are necessary to provide a level of mobility and accessibility consistent with achieving the vision,goals and objectives set forth in the plan. The preferred plan identifies modal needs and projects exclusive of those statewide programs that are covered in the statewide transportation plan. The Pueblo TPR plan includes these unique characteristics: y The Pueblo TPR is one of five federally designated Metropolitan Planning Organizations in Coloradc r The projects in the preferred plan are prioritized by mode. - The plan recommends three corridor investment studies requiring comprehensive evaluation of alternatives and impacts.When developed, the specific projects and costs will need to be integrated into the preferred plan through the amendment process(page 76). Y The Pueblo TPR supports, in concept, front-range passenger rail service in the future as proposed it the Statewide Passenger Rail Study. ➢ The local needs element was developed independently from the CDOT/DTD proposed methodology It does not include long-range maintenance costs(page 73). - Short-term aviation project needs were based on the airport's capital improvement program. And are included in the constrained plan element. The full list of long-range aviation needs is contained in the Master Plan Update, January 1992, and the Airport Layout Plan Update, February 1999. For the purpose of this plan summary, only the capital improvement program needs are included. The total cost to implement the preferred plan is$597,545,000, including $32,000,000 in Local Needs. The table below summarizes the cost, by Investment Category, as recorded in the project database accompanying the regional plan. Pueblo Area Transportation Planning Region 2020 Preferred Plan ((thousands of year 2000 dollars Investment Category Cost System Quality 48,188 Safety 22,134 Mobility 495,223 Program Delivery 0 Sub-total 565,545 Local Needs 32,000 Total $597,545 NOTE: This table summarizes information contained in the regional transportation plan. For more specific project information,please reference the source plan or contact CDOT. C,w _■ Page 55 6 '` )07 COLORADO REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION PLANS PUEBLO AREA Prioritization Process Transportation needs and potential projects for the Pueblo RTP were identified through a wide variety of source() including public input, interviews with public officials, business leaders and others. Documents used included the 2015 Regional Transportation Plan, the TIP, the STIP, previous requests to the City, County and CDOT, and other appropriate studies, plans, and databases. Alternatives for the Preferred Plan were identified and each project was discussed by the Transportation Te';hnk al Committee(TTC) regarding its ability and cost-effectiveness to meet the mobility deficiencies and needs. It was concluded that the Region's roadway system would be the highest focus of this plan. However, all other modes rrf transportation were addressed to the level of detail appropriate to the Region and the level of concern expressed by the public. Staff, the TTC and CDOT then subjectively evaluated each project by using the general prioritization screening measures below. Projects were first evaluated by mode and were then integrated into a consolidated transportation pan considering cost and funding availability. Based on this evaluation, the transportation projects that would improve the mobility and accessibility of the region consistent with the vision, goals and objectives were included in the region's Preferred Transportation Plan. The screening criteria were: Number of Goals and Objectives Addressed ➢ Service Level/Capacity ➢ Safety Physical Condition y Travel Demand Benefits ➢ Environmental Concerns • Costs fr Public and Political Support fr Ability to Implement The Pueblo Memorial Airport provided its Capital Improvement Program with prioritized aviation projects. EwuvI Page 56 X)! COLORADO REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION PLANS PUEBLO AREA Financially Constrained Plan The Pueblo Area financially constrained plan includes only those projects for which available funding can be identified. The plan uses CDOT estimates of available federal and state funding. The plan does not include projects targeted at federal discretionary programs such as the Recreational Trails Program, Transportation and Community and System Preservation, and various FTA programs such as Access to Jobs and Reverse Commute Program. However, the regional planning commission endorses these programs as consistent with the goals and objectives of the TPR and encourages member entities and eligible organizations to apply for these funds. Projects awarded funds from these grant programs are considered eligible for the TIP aid STIP. Projects in this element are eligible to move into the implementation phase. The financially constrained plan for the Pueblo TPR totals$119,831,000, including Transit Scenario B. See the table below for the project listings for the fiscally constrained plan. Pueblo Area Transportation Planning Region 2020 Constrained Plan (thousands of year 2000 dollars Project# Description Cosi: 6 1-25 through urbanized Pueblo 49,836 10 Urban system management/safety and traffic operations 2,14:', 79 US 50-City of Pueblo to Pueblo County Line Improvements 17,030 77 US 50 at 36th Lane 1,581 76 Bridge Replacement Kramer Creek 1,878 16 Scenario B-Operating 36,27.1 17 Scenario B-Capital 10,03:1 73 SH 165-Colorado City to Rye 1,054 Total $119,831 NOTE: This table summarizes information contained in the regional transportation plan.For more specific proje:1 information,please reference the source plan or contact CDOT. DN. `. Page 57 PUEBLO AREA TRANSPORTATION PLANNING REGION 2020 FISCALLY CONSTRAINED PLAN — Map 4 ---- -- -- --- — # `#" Highway Improvement N O au Transit Project O Rail Project O Other � I 050 aPUEa7 O045 050 090 _ BOONE a O`T ,050 — 096 aso 078 � � { PUEBLO 1025 1& I I RYE I - 010 ' DMJM )« COLORADO REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION PLANS GRAND JUNCTION/MESA COUNTY GRAND JUNCTION/MESA COUNTY REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION PLAN Regional Planning Commission The Grand Junction/Mesa County TPR is confined to the Mesa County area and its RPC consists of several lavers of staff and committees. Acting as the TPR staff for the update of the 2015 Regional Transportation Plan,the Mesa County Regional Transportation Planning Office(RTPO), consists of staff reporting to both the Grand Junction/Mesa County Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO)and the Transportation Planning Region. The MPO includes the City of Grand Junction, Mesa County and CDOT Region 3. The Regional Transportation Plan also includes projects outside the MPO and within the Mesa County Transportation Planning Region(TPR) including Fruita, Palisade, DeBec;ue and Collbran. Cliff Davidson, Director of the Mesa County Regional Transportation Planning Office,acts as Chairman of the RPC and represents the Mesa County TPR at STAC meetings. The Regional Transportation Plan effort was overseen by the Transportation Technical Advisory Committee (TTAC:) and the Transportation Policy Advisory Committee of the MPO and well as a new committee—the Regional Transportation Policy Advisory Committee.The TTAC consists of staff members from the City of Grand Junction and Mesa County, as well as staff from a number of transportation-related agencies in the urbanized area. Staff members frorn outside the urbanized area are also invited to attend monthly TTAC meetings. The new Regional Transportation Policy Advisory Committee has the following members: a Mesa County Commissioner representing unincorporated residents, Collbran and DeBeque, a City of Fruita Council Member, a City of Grand Junction Council Member, and a Town of Palisade Trustee. The Regional Transportation Planning Office reports to the chief administrative officials of Mesa County, and the cities of Grand Junction, Fruita and Palisade. The Mesa County RTPO staff is Cliff Davidson (Director), Ken Eimms (Transportation Planner),and Tambra Dabbs (Grants and Contracts Manager). MUM Page 59 F wr COLORADO REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION PLANS I GRAND JUNCTION/MESA COUNTY Regional Values, Vision, Goa/s and Strategies The Mesa County 2020 Regional Transportation Plan includes a"Statement of Goals for the Region" based on the "fully substantiated"findings and values from the 2015 Plan, and that have been maintained. "Multi-modal solutions have been found to be not only appropriate, but absolutely necessary for the long-term viability of the transportatio 1 system in this region. Multi-modalism has been found to be no longer just a term—but is now a'bricks & mortar' necessity, if this region is to maintain its current levels of service in the face of an expanding and diversifying population." To determine visions and values in the 1992-1993 planning efforts, residents were asked questions regarding the "Strengths of Our Region." Responses considered many things including transportation's role in maintaining a high quality of life. "The future transportation system for Mesa County,and its municipalities, should consist of a wide variety of transportation options that are tied closely to the City of Grand Junction's Growth Plan, Mesa County's Countywide Land Use Plan, City of Fruita's Master Growth Plan and other growth plans when adopted." The Goals are categorized into four areas: Mobility, Economic Vitality, Safety, and System Enhancement. The vision for the transportation system includes: Corridor preservation, a gradual improvement of the current highway and road system, new arterials and collector roads in conformance with the Major Street Plan, and an efficient public transit system serving the urbanized area and surrounding communities. Further, it includes improved accessible transportation facilities, a renewed emphasis on non-motorized, low polluting, low cost pedestrian and bicycle improvements, both on-road and off-road. It also visualizes motorized off-road trails and roads in designated locations, a land use plan that emphasized infill development and,finally,enhancement of the transportation retwork with attention on scenic byways, historic preservation and beautification. Strategies to achieve the goals are divided into Public Sector Initiatives, Public Sector Initiatives, and Inter-modal Potential. Transportation demand management techniques; improved signal timing, intersection, bicycle and pedestrian facilities, transit system, and shoulder improvements, access management and parallel corridor improvements are also suggested as transportation efficiency solutions and capacity relievers. w Public Sector Initiatives focus on implementation of adopted plans and review of development proposals for compliance with plans, enforcement of requirements for new development plans tc supply necessary transportation infrastructure and pay impact fees. In addition, review of growth and development issues for conformity,finance options, development of a transit system, and improved cooperation among private and public entities are advised resulting in an efficient system. Private Sector Initiatives address services near work places, incentives for reducing single occupant vehicle commuting, redevelopment of blighted areas, park and trail development, and compliance with land use and transportation plans. Y Inter-modal Potential discusses a multi-modal transportation center and the need for easy connections between modes of travel. dM I I Page 60 n )fJT COLORADO REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION PLANS GRAND JUNCTION/MESA COUNTY Socioeconomic and Environmental Profile Socioeconomic Characteristics A comprehensive list of plans, policies, and data sources, both local and state, were used to develop the TPP's growth projections. These sources were used to predict housing and population characteristics to the year 2020 a> part of the calibration of the MINUTP transportation computer model used to predict future travel on the region's existing and proposed road system. The Metropolitan Planning Organization's planning area(not including the entire county) is divided into 101 transportation analysis zones for modeling purposes. Mesa County underwent a tremendous boom-bust cycle in the 1980s after a slow, steady growth from 1970 to 19.'8. The county's growth began to accelerate in the late 1970s in response to the national energy crisis and renewed interest in the region's energy resources. The population continued to decline until 1988, before beginning to rise 'o 113,668 in 1997. The county is projected to continue to grow at an average 2.0%-2.5%annually over the next 211 years. Mesa County serves as the center of population and employment on the Western Slope, and is projected to co itinue in that role over the next 20 years. rand Junction/Mesa County Transportation Planning Region Population and Employment Growth 2000 - 2020 Total 0/0 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 Change Change POP 117,317 128,201 139,624 151,321 163,602 46,285 39 5% EMP 51,665 59,557 66,452 72,812 79,502 27,837 53 9% w w w Page 61 X)II COLORADO REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION PLANS rateessiesei GRAND JUNCTION/MESA COUNTY Environmental Profile Air Quality Air duality in the region is generally good with a notable exception of high short-term concentrations of total suspended particulates(wind borne dust, ozone)and carbon monoxide. Climate is a contributing factor to Grand Junction's air pollution problems. Winter inversions compound air pollution problems by trapping pollutants in the urbanized valley where winter inversions have been known to last as long as three months. Spring and summer wind storms also contribute to the suspended particulate problems. Continued urbanization will probably lead to increased carbon monoxide, nitrogen dioxide and particulate concentrations unless additional control technologies are applied. In general, decreasing air quality may lead to more restricted development, greater health impacts, and possible secondary impacts to agriculture and tourism. These impacts should be minimized through compliance with air quality regulations. The Environmental Health Division of the Mesa County Health Department operates air quality monitoring stations in the Grand Valley. The County Health Department,the Colorado Department of Health and tl e U.S. Environmental Protection Agency are charged with the responsibility to enforce air quality regulations. Water Quality Mesa County lies within portions of five major sub-basins in the Upper Colorado River Basin, including:the upper Colorado River, Gunnison River, Dolores River, Plateau Creek and Roan Creek. Water quality in the region is generally declining because of increasing development and from withdrawals of relatively high quality waters in the- headwaters causing less dilution of poorer quality downstream waters. Federal drinking water standards are occasionally exceeded in the lower reaches of these rivers as they pass through Mesa County. Potential pollutant include soluble iron, manganese, sulfates, and salt.A system of check dams and retention structures has been constructed to detain sediment and salinity contributions to the Colorado River. Ground water quality is generally staole. Threatened or Endangered Species A table of Threatened and Endangered Species is included in the plan, listing those species in the Grand Junction BLM Resource Area and other species considered to be in a tenuous position. Four areas-Skipper's Island, Unaweep Seep, Pyramid Rock and Rough Canyon, are identified for their unique value to sensitive, threatened and endangered species. Public Parks and Recreation Sites The plan cites a 1992 joint city and county plan that included an inventory of parks, schools and recreation resources. The study concluded that the area is deficient in its parkland acreage and recommends that additional open space and parklands be established. Only 28%of the county is private land,the remainder being administered by various state or federal land agencies. D . w w Page 62 �- )OT COLORADO REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION PLANS mama GRAND JUNCTION/MESA COUNTY Historic Sites The BLM lists 1,460 archeological sites representing over 10,000 years of human habitation in the region. -he Museum of Western Colorado operates four trails through paleontological sites. In addition the city and county participated in a Historic Resource Inventory in 1980-82 in which 300 sites and buildings were identified. Hazardous Material VVaste Sites The plan lists one municipal landfill and six other sites with limited waste disposal facilities. Noise Analysis The Mesa County Environmental Health Division conducts and interprets an on-going noise survey. Mesa County zoning regulations mandate a minimum setback from classified roadways to maintain acceptable noise levels Dw ww Page 63 • COLORADO REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION PLANS GRAND JUNCTION/MESA COUNTY Preferred Plan The Grand Junction/Mesa County TPR created a"preferred alternative"analogous to the"preferred plan." It is primarily a policy level plan representing programs envisioned as necessary to provide a level of mobility and accessibility desirable to the region. The preferred alternative includes corridor level highway needs and goals and objectives for other programs. The Grand Junction/Mesa County TPR plan includes these unique characteristics: ✓ The Grand Junction/Mesa County TPR is one of five federally designated Metropolitan Planning Organizations in Colorado. • The projects in the preferred plan are prioritized by mode. • The highway projects are listed as corridor projects to encompass various phases during future programming processes. ▪ The Major Street Plan is included in the Mobility Demand chapter identifying local roadway needs totaling $69,850,000. The Major Street Plan is not identified as part of the preferred alternative (page III-12). The total cost to implement the preferred plan is $135,380,000. A Local Needs component was not tabulated for this plan. The table below summarizes the cost, by Investment Category, as recorded in the project database accompanying the regional plan. rand Junction/Mesa County Transportation Planning Region 2020 Preferred Plan (thousands of year 2000 dollars Investment Category Cost System Quality 38,190 Safety 79,171 Mobility 17,907 Program Delivery 0 Sub-total 135,268 Local Needs (not tabulated) Total $135,380 NOTE, This table summarizes information contained in the regional transportation plan. For more specific project information,please reference the source plan or contact COOT. DM M Page 64 )oi. Ira COLORADO REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION PLANS GRAND JUNCTION/MESA COUNTY Prioritization Process The prioritization process used by the Mesa County Transportation Planning Region was consensus based. The Transportation Technical Advisory Committee(staff members from the City of Grand Junction and Mesa County, as wed as staff from a number of transportation-related agencies in the urbanized area)evaluated all identified projects against the criteria set forth by the Colorado Department of Transportation. This consensus method of prioritization and project ranking took advantage of a wide variety of criteria, balancing empirical data and local knowledge with public perception and regional desires. Di-M Page 65 X)T COLORADO REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION PLANS GRAND JUNCTION/MESA COUNTY Financially Constrained Plan The Grand JunctionlMesa County TPR completed a financially constrained plan based on a combination of CDOT revenue projections and local revenue projections. Projected funding sources include: Y Other regional priorities(state and federal) ▪ r POT(Strategic Projects Program) • Enhancement Program ✓ Local funds(Mesa County, City of Grand Junction and City of Fruita) The Walker Field Airport Master Plan is incorporated by reference and contains project needs and resources for aviation. The planning agency utilized the MinUTP and TransCAD traffic models to provide forecasts of future traffic volume s The plan does not include projects targeted at federal discretionary programs such as the Recreational Trails Program, Transportation and Community and System Preservation, and various FTA programs such as Access to Jobs and Reverse Commute Program. However, the regional planning commission endorses these programs as consistent with the goals and objectives of the TPR and encourages member entities and eligible organizations to apply for these funds. Projects awarded funds from these grant programs are considered eligible for the TIP and STIP. Projects in this element are eligible to move into the implementation phase. The financially constrained plan for the Grand Junction/Mesa County TPR totals$127,058,000, including Transit Scenario B. See the table below for the project listings for the fiscally constrained plan. DM VI Page 66 opt Ha 1 -- COLORADO REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION PLANS ramakvimagai GRAND JUNCTION/MESA COUNTY rand Junction/Mesa County Transportation Planning Region 2020 Constrained Plan (thousands of year 2000 dollars Project# Description Cost 2 SH 340- Ridges Blvd to Redlands Parkway 5,270 3 1-70 Bus Route- 1st Street to 12th Street 3,162 4 SH 340-Redlands Parkway to 20 3/4 Road 5,270 5 Intersection improvements various locations state hwys 8A32 6 US 6-Clifton to Palisade 6,324 7 Upgrade existing 1-70 interchanges in Grand Junction/Me 10,540 8 SH 330-SH 65 to Colbran 14,756 9 SH 139-Loma to the Highline Canal 8,432 10 SH 141 - North of Cactus Park 7,378 11 SH 340-20 3/4 Road to Colorado River 10,540 1 US 6-Add paved shoulders and turn lanes 3,283 21 US 6-Fruita East 4,74'3 20 SH 340- Redlands Parkway to 1st. Street 738 16 Scenario B-Operating 24,443 17 Scenario B-Capital 11,976 18 Grand Junction- North/South Corridor Roadway Improvments 52 I 19 29 Road & 1-70 Bus to Patterson Road 1,250 Total $127,058 NOTE: This table summarizes information contained in the regional transportation plan. For more specific project information,please reference the source plan or contact CDOT. w w w Page 67 GRAND JUNCTION/MESA COUNTY TRANSPORTATION PLANNING REGION 2020 FISCALLY CONSTRAINED PLAN Map 5 4/4S00.9 Highway Improvement N O Transit Project --—_— O Rail Projecti I — - -- ---_- 139 — -_- --- 0 Other i DE: QUE I 070 I I COLLBRAN l 070 006 ��J J I 330 �` ° FRUITA i i 070 3a _ ► 070 006 PALISADE GRAND JUNCTIO °7° 065 4 (7 / Al ESA J 050 / I,4� DMJM )0T '-. COLORADO REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION PLANS ramaiminimmt EASTERN EASTERN REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION PLAN Planning Advisory Committee The Eastern Transportation Planning Region consists of Elbert County, Cheyenne County, Kit Carson County Lincoln County(all in CDOT Transportation Region 1), Logan County, Phillips County, Sedgwick County, Yuma County, and Washington County(all in CDOT Region 4).A Regional Planning Commission was not formed to oversee and develop the RTP. Instead, a Planning Advisory Commission composed of elected officials and th?ir staff persons, CDOT regional staff, and representatives of all modes of transportation as well as other persons with an interest in transportation issues met to develop the Eastern Regional Transportation Plan. The plan itself is the responsibility of the Eastern Regional Planning Advisory Commission (PAC). The PAC leadership is a three-member board that provides oversight and guidance to the development of the plan. The board consists of the regional STAC representative, Lyle Schumacher, a Logan County Commissioner, as well as tM executive directors of each of the two regional councils of government that coexist in this TPR. Advisory committees were formed to discuss aviation, bicycles and detailed project specifications. MUM■ Page 69 )U7' COLORADO REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION PLANS ,.rrtIrt• "' EASTERN Regional Values, Vision, Goa/s and Strategies As Dart of the regional planning process for the original plan created for 1995-2015, the Planning Advisory Committee identified major transportation issues for the region. The PAC reviewed and updated the issues for the 2020 RTP by individual transportation or issue category. Many of the original issues are included in the updated 2020 RTP. They include Air, Bicycle/Pedestrian, Transit, Rail, Highways, Trucks, Safety, and Financing. Based on consideration of the regional transportation issues, the Regional Vision for the Eastern TPR was developed: To maintain and improve the quality of life in the Region by vitalizing northeastern and east-central Colorado as the threshold to major economic markets through agriculture, tourism, oil and gas production, and recreation via enhancement of multi-modal transportation systems. The following statements define the overall intent of transportation planning for the Eastern Region and are rejarded as the Region's Transportation Goals: • Develop an adequate transportation system to support the movement of goods and people to,through and from the region. ✓ Provide a safe and reliable multi-modal transportation system. ➢. Develop an enhanced transportation system to provide regional accessibility for employment,tourism,. and recreation. '. Use alternative transportation modes to meet regional mobility needs. • Provide a transportation system that has adequate public and private funding. Provide adequate transportation access to the Denver International Airport and other regional transportation facilities. y Enhance transportation for transit dependent groups. Develop transportation to support economic vitality. 1- Utilize existing transportation facilities to assist in the development of multi-modal transportation • Preserve and enhance railroad right-of-way corridors. Coordinate transportation services to provide for an efficient and improved transportation system. Maintain and enhance existing airports. ^,mow ww Page 70 COLORADO REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION PLANS -'" EASTERN Socioeconomic and Environmental Profile Socioeconomic Characteristics The Eastern Colorado TPR is primarily rural and agricultural in nature. The exception is western Elbert County, which is only 30 minutes from Denver. It is experiencing suburban development pressure similar to other nearby areas. The 1990 TPR population experienced a 3.1%decrease from 1980, but is rebounding strongly in the 1990s.All comities in the TPR are projected to show positive population growth during the planning period, led by Elbert County with 12E.8%total growth. According to the Colorado Department of Labor and Employment, 37,507 persons were employed in 1998,wi h a 3.7% unemployment rate;employment projections were not available. Over 20%of employment is in the agricultural sector. The largest single employer is the Colorado Department of Corrections, with two prison facilities and o ier 10(0 employees. Other demographic statistics from the 1990 US Census: r Elderly population— 15.7% r Persons with disabilities—3.0% - Minority status—7.8% r Median household income(1989)-$23,345 r Average travel time to work- 14.5 minutes The automobile is the predominate mode of transportation and only 5%of households are without a vehicle. Ma or activity centers are listed as Sterling, Julesburg, Holyoke, Limon, Akron, Yuma, Wray, Burlington and Cheyenne Wells. Grain elevators, feedlots and storage facilities, in almost every community, play a significant role in the region's transportation activity. Eastern Colorado Transportation Planning Region Population Growth 2000 - 2020 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 Total Change Change 85,104 95,616 104,771 113,461 119,556 34,452 40.5 D ,u w■ Page 71 A . car COLORADO REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION PLANS -.. EASTERN Environmental Profile The plan profiles the environmental issues of the transportation planning region, including ecology, wetlands, threatened and endangered species,water quality, archaeology, paleontology, historic places and landmarks noise analysis, air quality, parks and recreation lands, and hazardous materials and waste sites. Significant findings in the plan: • The region is primarily rural with an agricultural and livestock grazing base, that features irrigaticn in the north and dry land farming in the south. • There are no air quality non-attainment or at-risk areas in the TPR. • The plan includes a list of seven threatened or endangered plants and 19 animals with habitat in the region. • The archeological overview documents 472 prehistoric sites, 20 sites on the National Register o Historic Places and one site as a National Historic Landmark. • No recorded highway generated noise problems exist. • 27 major public parks and recreation areas are documented in the nine counties. D ■ w■ Page 72 X)7 ARM COLORADO REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION PLANS EASTERN Preferred Plan The Eastern Colorado TPR preferred plan includes all of the identified transportation improvement needs in the TF'R through the year 2020. The preferred plan focuses on the state highway system,the main means of transportation for people and products in the region. Other modes are included to the extent expressed by the public and the planning advisory committee. It includes highways, transit, rail, aviation, ITS and enhancement projects. Highway projects are prioritized numerically within each sub-region of the TPR. The Eastern Colorado TPR plan includes these unique characteristics: Project lists are divided into northern and southern elements, based on CDOT Transportation Regior boundaries. y A series of policy statements were developed in the following areas: • Highway policy issues and concerns are listed on page 64. • Aviation recommendations are listed on page 72. • Bicycle/pedestrian directives are listed on page 72. • Rail recommendations are listed on page 73. The TPR adopted Scenario B to address transit needs in the preferred plan. Transit directives and recommendations are listed on page 74. A local road and bridge needs element was included in the plan. The methodology supplied by CDOT's Division 01 Transportation Development was used to determine the appropriate level of funding necessary to construct, replac e,. and maintain the local roadway system. State-supplied values and the consultant's estimates of future needs mem combined to arrive at the projection for local roadway needs. The total cost to implement the preferred plan is $1,062,276,000. This total amount includes $599,050,000 in _ocal Needs. The table below summarizes the cost, by Investment Category, as recorded in the project database accompanying the regional plan. Eastern Transportation Planning Region 2020 Preferred Plan (thousands of year 2000 dollars Investment Category Cost System Quality 420,421 Safety 25,989 Mobility 16,051 Program Delivery 765 Sub-total 463,226 Local Needs 599,050 Total $1,062,276 NOTE: This table summarizes information contained in the regional transportation plan. For more specific projEct information,please reference the source plan or contact COOT Canw Page 73 / xrl COLORADO REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION PLANS EASTERN Prioritization Process To arrive at the Preferred Plan for the Eastern TPR,the PAC examined and considered public input, the Draft State wide Transportation Program (STIP), state highway land width and shoulder width deficiencies, aviation plans. rail plans, and transit plans within the TPR. Information from these sources was compiled and assembled as a list of present and future needs and possible projects. That list was reviewed to determine if the project was in the STIP wit STIP projects given top priorities. Projects with uncertain or unproven benefits were either removed or marked for consideration as a study. Projects that were anything less than of great need were removed or marked for consideration as a study as well. The resulting list is a lean list with "wishes"already eliminated. The next level of prioritization involved the evaluation of each project against nine criteria on a scale of one to three. The PAC was divided into two sub-groups based on the north/south division created within the TPR by its beirg split between two different CDOT Transportation Regions. Projects in the north group were evaluated by those representing the CDOT Region 4 area, and projects in the south group were evaluated only by those representing the Region 1 area.After the evaluation results were completed, the result was a needs list for each of the two CD(iT regions within the TPR ranked according to PAC priority. The nine criteria used for the evaluation were: Public Support ✓ Traffic Congestion Public Safety • Environment Safety Y System Continuity • Preservation of the System • Economic Impact • I n termodal/Modal Importance ✓ Ability to Implement The TPR established an aviation sub-committee,that, with the assistance of CDOT Division of Aeronautics, adapted the region's 20 year Airport Capital Improvement Program to the long-range plan. w ww Page 74 )0T COLORADO REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION PLANS EASTERN Financially Constrained Plan The TPR estimated its resources based on preliminary CDOT revenue projections and historical distributions from Regions 1 and 4 to the southern and northern parts, respectfully, of the TPR. Based on those estimates, the financially constrained totals$155,534,000 including Transit Scenario B. Protects in this element are eligible to move into the implementation phase. See the table below for the project listings for the fiscally constrained plan. Eastern Transportation Planning Region 2020 Constrained Plan (thousands of year 2000 dollars Project# Description Cost 15 SH 86-Douglas-Elbert County line to Kiowa 3,72E. 16 SH 71 -City limit of Limon to City Limit of Limon 1,:370 21 US 40-County Road 34 to US 385(Cheyenne Wells) 11,594 18 US 24- ElberUEl Paso Line to Limon 6,506 19 Kiowa/Bennett Rd Study-Kiowa to Arapahoe/Elbert Co Ln 369 20 US 385-Study through entire region 39(; 22 SH 71 -Jet 94 at Punkin Center 527 23 US 34-MorganNyashington County Line to Akron 22737 1 1-70-East of Agate to West of Agate 0 2 1-70-Limon Bypass 24 1-76-Atwood Exit to US 6 24.242 25 I-76- Morgan County/Washington County Line to Atwood 41.106 3 US 385-Burlington White Top 2,506 4 US 24-Limon South Realignment 5,140 26 1-76-Sedgwick to Julesburg 495 5 I--70- East of Stratton to West of Stratton(1st half) 9 I-70- East of Stratton to West of Stratton(2nd half) _ 0 14 US 40-Hugo to County Road 42 ll 133 Scenario B-Operating 17,477 134 Scenario B-Capital 13,831 135 Region 4 Bridge Rehab Pool 3,510 Total $155,534 NOTE: This table summarizes information contained in the regional transportation plan.For more specific projea information,please reference the source plan or contact CDOT O-. _■ Page 75 I EASTERN / ,J RG T74 TRANSPORTATION PLANNING REGION PEE SAD 2020 FISCALLY CONSTRAINED PLAN /�` 3651 Map 6 CRO Y Highway Improvement N LOGAN I 136, ^-'EDG`"''s`-mot' 0 Transit Project hose o2 © 0 076, 0 G Rail Project J 014 Other PHILL IPS 061 ---I 313, 1 OTIS AKRON MA u3a 063 r T 7 /} C T_T ]y �7y'`{7y j 1059/ �j7�7[/j;{ l' A SIIIJVGT OSY l UI LA X38 036 30 6' __ I________ 3,67-1 07) i 0 040 059 385 ELIZABETH ELBERI' KL CAKSON IM VA ___, BURLIN o70 --(o e (oioj— STRATTON LIMO SIM UGO oao _-- --- I I I r TO,r,/Thi Ai I 'aes I I ,T 094 / \ t U 059 oao CHEYENNE WELLS KIT t A SON- 071) DMJM aIaW COLORADO REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION PLANS SOUTHEAST SOUTHEAST REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION PLAN Regional Planning Commission The Southeast Colorado Regional Planning Commission (also known as the Southeast Council of Governments) is the designated organization responsible for the Regional Transportation Plan. The RPC is made up of elected officals of the municipalities and counties(Kiowa, Crowley, Otero, Bent, Prowers and Baca) in the Southeast Region The RPC established a Working Group to guide the RTP study made up of county commissioners from the fivc counties and mayors of selected municipalities (Las Animas, Eads, and Lamar). Chairperson Dutch Eikenberg Commissioner from Kiowa County, is the RPC representative to the STAC. D V 1JNI Page 77 HIT COLORADO REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION PLANS SOUTHEAST Regional Vision, Issues and Goa/s The regional vision for Southeast Colorado, as developed by the Study Advisory Committee is: To position Southeast Colorado to compete for economic development opportunities by strengthening the transportation infrastructure to support the effective and efficient movement of people and goods. Key issues facing Southeast Colorado over the next twenty years were identified. How these issues are addressed will effect the future quality of life in the region. The issues were categorized by transportation mode including Hichways, Rail Air, Bicycle/Pedestrian, and Transit. In addition, Transportation Financing and Safety were identified as key issues. In response to the identified transportation issues, two goals, with "subgoals", were developed by the Working Group and commented on by the public. it Goal#1 —To strengthen the economic viability of the region. Subgoals address the maintenance and development of transportation infrastructure to sup port The agricultural base, and to enhance tourism and recreational opportunities for residents and visitors Goal#2—To develop multi-modal transportation options to improve mobility and support economic development. Subgoals under this goal discuss the support of economic activities with transportation linkages to markets in Colorado, Kansas, Canada and Mexico.They also discuss improvements to various modes of transportation in the region including air, rail, bus,transit and bikeways, in addition to highways. CAA vi Page 78 )0T COLORADO REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION PLANS 'a-- SOUTHEAST Socioeconomic and Environmental Profile Socioeconomic Characteristics The Southeast Colorado TPR is primarily rural and agricultural in nature. Between 1980 and 1990 the population decreased by 6.1%, but has begun a steady rebound, having added about 4,000 people since 1990. Otero and Prcwers Counties will experience the greatest growth. The Cities of Lamar and La Junta are the major hubs of shopping, business and medical activity for much of the region. Rocky Ford, Las Animas, Eads, Springfield and Ordway serve as secondary centers of activity for their respective counties. About 35%of the region's employees are employed in the services sector and 18%are employed in retail trade, wh le 16%are employed in agriculture. The unemployment rate for the region in 1990 was 6.6%. Major employers inc ude the Fort Lyon Hospital,the Arkansas Valley Regional Medical Center, Lamar Community College, Otero Junior College, government offices and school districts. Other demographic statistics from the 1990 US Census: • Elderly population— 16.3% ✓ Persons with disabilities—4.6% ✓ Minority status—Including 26.6% Hispanics, 38% r Poverty level—21.9% ✓ Average travel time to work- 13.5 minutes Southeast Colorado Transportation Planning Region Population and Employment Growth 2000 - 2020 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 Total Change Change POP 53,294 55,143 56,985 58,504 59,655 6,361 11.9 EIMP 19,740 20,571 21,616 22,691 23,524 3,784 19.2 Caw V1 Page 79 HIT wan COLORADO REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION PLANS SOUTHEAST Environmental Profile The plan profiles the environmental issues of the transportation planning region, including topography, air quality, water quality,threatened and endangered species, public parks and recreation sites,cultural resources, paleontology, archaeology, historic sites, hazardous materials and solid waste sites, leaking underground storage tanks and noise. Significant findings in the plan: > This is a semi-arid environment consisting mostly of plains and grasslands. The City of Lamar is a PMio non-attainment area. Wind borne dust from geologic erosion originates from natural processes, agricultural tilling and unpaved roads. Dust contributes at least half of the particulates,with the remainder coming from feedlots, woodbuming,stationary sources, tailpipe emissions and other sources. A high concentration of total dissolved solids, mostly salt, impairs the quality of water in the Arkansas River downstream from La Junta. Heavy metals concentrations were noted in the headwaters of the Purgatoire and Huerfano Rivers. • The plan lists 16 threatened or endangered animal and fowl species, 5 fish and 11 plants. > The plan lists 31 major recreation areas, including the Comanche National Grassland, Bent's (Old) Fort, and the Sand Creek Massacre Site. • The Colorado Historical Society documents 1,100 historical sites in the region, including 833 prenistcric sites and 377 historic sites. The Santa Fe Trail and associated sites are among the most popular historic sites. • The plan lists 99 Leaking and Underground Storage Tanks,of which 59 are closed. bM VI Page 80 X)T COLORADO REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION PLANS SOUTHEAST Preferred Plan The Southeast Colorado TPR preferred plan includes all of the identified transportation improvement needs in the TPR through the year 2020. The preferred plan includes highways, transit, rail, aviation, ITS and enhancement projects. Projects are prioritized within each mode. Priorities are rated as high, second level or third level. The Southeast Colorado TPR plan includes these unique characteristics: r Priorities for highway projects are established by highway corridor. r Alternative modes are prioritized by mode. r The Transit projects section Transit Scenario C includes a breakout of individual projects to maintain arid support existing services plus an inter-city bus project. A local road and bridge needs element was included in the plan. The methodology supplied by CDOT's Division of Transportation Development was used to determine the appropriate level of funding necessary to construct, replace, and maintain the local roadway system. Each local government was queried to determine estimates of local needs and anticipated costs. This information was used in combination with state-supplied values and the consultant's est mates of future needs to arrive at the projection for local roadway needs. The total cost to implement the preferred plan is $1,731,687,000.This total amount includes$1,217,537,500 i i Local Needs. The table below summarizes the cost, by Investment Category, as recorded in the project database accompanyinc the regional plan. Southeast Transportation Planning Region 2020 Preferred Plan (thousands of year 2000 dollars Investment Category Cost System Quality 48,036 Safety 199,871 Mobility 266,042 Program Delivery 201 Sub-total 514,150 Local Needs 1,217,537 Total $1,731,687 NOTE: This table summarizes information contained in the regional transportation plan. For more specific project information,please reference the source plan or contact COOT. DI I w w Page 81 )UT COLORADO REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION PLANS ' a SOUTHEAST Prioritization Process Early in the study process for the 2020 RTP, the Working Group developed a Regional Vision, Goals, and But-goals (quoted previously in this chapter). Based on the regional vision and goals and the analysis presented, the Working Group determined that the overall modal priorities identified in the previous 20-year plan(2015 RTP)would remain for the 2020 RTP. biv vi Page 82 I 5-o COLORADO REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION PLANS raesiat -"" SOUTHEAST Financially Constrained Plan Representatives of the Southeast TPR met with CDOT Region 2 and representatives of other TPRs within the CDOT Region in May 1999 to establish region-wide priorities from the TPR preferred plans within the framework of fiscal constraint. The TPR utilized revenue estimates provided by CDOT. The meeting resulted in the fiscally constrained element of the long-range plan. Modes other than highways are not included in the financially constrained play. Projects in this element are eligible to move into the implementation phase. The financially constrained plan for the Southeast TPR totals$75,856,000, including STIP projects and Transit Scenario B. See the table below for the pro ect listings for the fiscally constrained plan. Southeast Transportation Planning Region 2020 Constrained Plan (thousands of year 2000 dollars Project# Description Cost 3 US 50- Four-lane U.S. 50 from Pueblo to La Junta 46,700 119 Scenario B-Capital 12,80C 118 Scenario B- Operating 16,35f Total $75,856 NOTE This table summarizes information contained in the regional transportation plan.For more specific proio 4 information,please reference the source plan or contact CDOT. ^,M w I Page 83 SOUTHEAST COLORADO TRANSPORTATION PLANNING REGION 2020 FISCALLY CONSTRAINED PLAN --/-�- -- Map 7 -------- --- Y Highway Improvement N / 096 EA�Si S _ 1O O LAKE Transit Project HASWELL I I O Rail Projecti I 0V71i _ 1 0 I • Other / / KIC3WA 28 CROWLEY / • I ) @!_,:. r, I ORDVN/A ' I z0� VLY- _1--- ARTMAN III FOWLER-- C oU�R)XNDA �� "�- 050 —_— — X196 MANZANOLA %ALAS MAS I LA AR O4LY ROCKY FORD oso� i I AAA I / BE NI' I(016Tii0i I PRO t iJb,-IS 1� #OI ERO �s� 10891 300 1 I TWO— 1'11,' BUTTES ite� SPRINGIFIELQ ,_ WALSH _ -1 I 160J 287 CAMPO 0T �., COLORADO REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION PLANS SAN LUIS VALLEY SAN LUIS VALLEY REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION PLAN Regional Planning Commission The San Luis Valley Regional Planning Commission includes representatives from Alamosa County, Chaffee County, Conejos County, Costilla County, Mineral County, Rio Grande County, and Saguache County. Leadership of the RPC was provided by Vern Rominger(RPC Chairman, STAC Member and Rio Grande County Commissioner, and James Thompson (RPC Vice Chairperson and Chaffee County Commissioner). The balance of the RPC consists of representatives from the other counties and the mayors of the following cites: Alarnosa,Antonito, Blanca, Bonanza, Buena Vista, Center, Creede, Crestone, Del Norte, Hooper, Saguache, San Luis, Sanford, La Jara, Manassa, Moffat, Monte Vista, Poncha Springs, Romeo, Salida, and South Fork. Other participants and technical advisors included a representative from RIDE Transit and airport representatives. In addition to CDOT Region 5 representatives, various individuals and citizens participated in the development of the plan An aviation technical advisory committee comprised of representatives of each airport was formed to consider long range airport needs and make recommendations to the RPC. Dw Page 85 COLORADO REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION PLANS SAN LUIS V4LLEY Regional Values, Vision, Goals and Strategies According to the San Luis Valley Regional Transportation Plan,the region, in 2020, is envisioned as having vibrant communities where people can live, work and raise their children in an area characterized by agriculture,outdoor recreation, and environmental quality, linked to but away from the large urban areas of the Front Range. Goal, developed to reach this vision focus on sustainability in several areas: v Economic growth and expanded employment opportunity, based on diversification of the agricultural sector and tourism industry, are proposed to reduce poverty, improve regional image and visibility, and increase population growth. Improved infrastructure, transportation linkages and availability of alternate transportation modes_ are proposed as the means of expanding access for all populations to the region's services and facifties thus improving the quality of life D Enhanced quality of life is desired including environmental preservation (including scenic), increased recreation opportunities, and preservation of what is perceived as a unique regional character. The transportation system objectives to meet the vision statement includes roadways, transit, bicycle and pedestrian, aviation and rail modes with emphasis on safety,environmental, energy conservation, affordability, efficiency, equity (transit for elderly and transit dependent), and connectivity. Particular attention is paid to maintenance and upgrades to existing roadways, interstate highways improvements including increased signage for key cultural and recreation areas, additional pedestrian and bicycle facilities, the pursuit of interregional, interstate and international route through the valley, and additional service by commercial air carriers and inter-city buses. Finally, the region expresses support for regulatory controls to minimize the environmental impacts of mining, hazardous waste shipments. heavy industry and new residential and business developments on environmentally sensitive areas. DM M Page 86 1OT COLORADO REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION PLANS SAN LUIS VALLEY Socioeconomic and Environmental Profile Socioeconomic Characteristics The San Luis Valley TPR has an historically strong rural and agricultural background. The City of Alamosa serves as the region's center of services and major employment. Historically flat growth is expected to continue throughout mu;h of the San Luis Valley; however, significant growth has already occurred and will continue in localized communities that are impacted by a new type of growth based on tourism and recreation. Overall, the relatively high growth in these communities will have a positive impact on regional growth as a whole. According to the Division of Local Government/Demography Division, the region grew 3.4%during the 1980s, but has grown 11.0%during the 1990s. According to the Division of Local Government/Demography Division; 20,236 persons were employed in 1997. employment projections were not available. Services (24%), Wholesale and Retail Trade(22%), Agriculture(19%) and Government(19%)together comprise 84%of the region's economy. Other demographic information from the plan. • The elderly population exceeds the state average of 10%. Poverty levels are high across the region, ranging from 13.1%to 34.5%. The state average is 12.5% • Alamosa and Chaffee Counties will continue to attract the largest share of new residents. • The average travel time to work is 14 minutes. y About 2.0%have a mobility or self-care limitation. ▪ Average household size is 2.71 —declining, but still higher than the statewide average of 2.56. San Luis Valley Transportation Planning Region Population Growth 2000 -2020 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 Total Change Cnange FOP 65,468 70,360 75,254 79,905 84,133 18,665 28.5 D ■ w■ Page 87 )OT COLORADO REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION PLANS SAN LUIS VALLEY Environmental Profile A high and large valley approximately 150 miles long and 75 miles wide dominates this region, which is surrot nded by high mountains. The diverse and rich habitat supports a large variety of animal wildlife as well as a long-standing agricultural community. The plan recommends that transportation projects be analyzed individually for environmental impacts. An Environmental Baseline Survey Study Checklist is included for this purpose that addresses geology and soils, vecetation,wildlife,threatened or endangered species, landfills and hazardous materials, hydrological feature 3, water quality, air quality, land use, public infrastructure, neighborhoods and cultural resources. Significant findings in the plan: • The Farmland Protection Policy Act requires coordination between CDOT and the Soil Conservation Service to determine impacts to prime or unique farmland that may require protection. • The plan lists two amphibians, seven birds,five fish and four mammals on the threatened or endangered species list. • Three"Superfund" hazardous waste sites are documented. The Summitville Mine, Smeltertown and the Bonanza Mining District Restoration Project all resulted from mining that began in the area in 1870 and continued in some locations until 1992. • The Rio Grande River has been nominated for American Heritage River status. Designated rivers mo y receive federal assistance in the form of focused programs, grants, and technical assistance from existing federal sources. The City of Alamosa has been identified by the State of Colorado as an air quality at-risk area for PM,; r The region is well known for its recreational opportunities, including two ski areas, five national forests, four wilderness areas and numerous other federal and state public lands. The plan documents 70 sites on the state of federal register of historic places. cl l w■ Page 88 k. )U'!„ COLORADO REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION PLANS SAN LUIS VALLEY Preferred Plan In the San Luis Valley TPR,the highway system is recognized as the most important element in the regional trar sportation system. Therefore, most of the projects in the preferred plan deal with improvements to the highway system. However, the TPR also recognized that the complete picture includes other alternatives. Continuing to add highway capacity indefinitely to accommodate the accelerating regional growth is neither affordable nor desirable from a community impact standpoint. Needs for alternative modes, including freight infrastructure,transit, aviation, rail, bicycles and pedestrians, and travel demand management(TDM), were included in the plan.All of these alternatives, working together as a system, will make significant improvements to the region's travel mobility aid access to transportation options. The San Luis Valley plan includes these unique characteristics: The entire preferred plan is prioritized within High, Medium or Low categories. • Approximately$72,000,000 is identified to study, plan and construct the"Through Alamosa Project." It is recognized that the cost of the project exceeds resources available to CDOT Region 5 during the 20- year planning period for a project of this type. However,the TPR has identified this need as its number one priority for future resource identification. • COOT Region 5 has identified a series of high priority intersection projects that will be addressed, as funds are available. The TPR supports this concept and has added additional intersection projects to its preferred plan as candidates for the region-wide intersection program. • Freight infrastructure projects from the 1999 CDOT study have been incorporated into the highway element list and prioritized along with other highway projects. • The RPC adopted an Aviation Policy in support of the project list and methods employed by the Aviation Subcommittee(page 105). • The RPC adopted a Rail Policy concerning efforts to preserve rail corridors for future transportation rise arid conceptual support of a tourist excursion train between South Fork and Creede(page 106). • The RPC adopted a policy designating bicycle/pedestrian projects in local plans as consistent wth the regional plan and therefore eligible for the Transportation Enhancement Program (page 107). ➢ The RPC adopted a policy that rumble strips should be placed to the traffic side of the shoulder page 107). • The plan includes a Needs Statement for Telecommunications(page 108). A local road and bridge needs element was included in the plan. The methodology supplied by CDOT's Division of Transportation Development was used to determine the appropriate level of funding necessary to construct, replace, and maintain the local roadway system. Each local government was queried to determine estimates of local needs and anticipated costs. This information was used in a combination with state-supplied values and the consultant's estimates of future needs to arrive at the projection for local roadway needs. The total cost to implement the preferred plan is$1,294,833,000. This total amount includes$670,260,000 in local needs. ctw w w Page 89 1O1 COLORADO REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION PLANS mss... SAN LUIS VALLEY The table below summarizes the cost, by Investment Category, as recorded in the project database accompar yinu the regional plan. San Luis Valley Transportation Planning Region 2020 Preferred Plan (thousands of year 2000 dollars Investment Category Cost System Quality 231,966 Safety 199,574 Mobility 190,883 Program Delivery 2,150 Sub-total 624,573 Local Needs 670,260 Total $1,294,833 NOTE: This table summarizes information contained in the regional transportation plan.For more specific projei:t information,please reference the source plan or contact COOT, DMJM Page 90 r -JOT I COLORADO REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION PLANS SAN LUIS VALLEY Prioritization Process The San Luis Valley RPC elected to follow the recommendations in the Colorado Regional Transportation Planning Guidebook. The process followed three steps. First, a set of prioritization criteria was adopted. These criteria are intended to be policy level guides and necessarily somewhat subjective in nature. Second, a relative weight and definition was assigned to the selected criteria. Third, each proposed project was analyzed for its positive ability to solve a transportation problem (mobility or access for example)and scored on a scale of 0 to 3 for each criterion. Finally,the scores were totaled for each project. The resulting total score placed each project in rank order on the overall list. The same process was applied to projects in all modes, resulting in a prioritized "cross-modal" project list reflecting the immediate, medium range and long range needs of the planning region. Project selection criteria weighting: Criteria Weight Safety 18 System Continuity 14 System Preservation 14 Congestion 14 Economic Impact 11 Implementation 11 Environment 7 Intermodal 7 Public Support 4 The aviation sub-committee prioritized airport needs based on the following criteria: • Existing Airport/Access Deficiencies ➢ Safety • System Enhancement - Capacity y Economic Growth and Development EIw _w Page 91 )f?T COLORADO REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION PLANS SAN LUIS VALLEY Financially Constrained Plan Representatives of the San Luis Valley TPR met with CDOT Region 5 and representatives of other TPRs within the CDOT Region on April 27, 1999, to establish region-wide priorities from the TPR preferred plans within the framework of fiscal constraint. Revenue projections were provided by CDOT. The meeting resulted in the fiscally constrained element of the long-range plan. Projects in this element are eligible to move into the implementation phase. The financially constrained plan for the Sari Luis Valley TPR totals$36,613,000 and includes Transit Scenario B from the Transit Needs and Benefits Study. See the table below for the project listings for the fiscally constrained plan. San Luis Valley Transportation Planning Region 2020 Constrained Plan (thousands of year 2000 dollars Project# Description Cost 5097 US 50 - Monarch Pass 1,05z 5095 Bypass Through Alamosa Corridor Study 2,10t; 5137 US 285-SH 17 North-STIP SL2089 13,53:, 5138 US 160-West side Wolf Creek Pass-STIP SL3452 12,321. 5141 Scenario B TNBS Operating 3,2226 5142 Scenario B TNBS Capital 4,367 Total $36,613 NOTE: This table summarizes information contained in the regional transportation plan. For more specific proje information,please reference the source plan or contact CDOT. bI ■ Page 92 SAN LUIS VALLEY TRANSPORTATION PLANNING REGION (0±\;)ti 2020 FISCALLY CONSTRAINED PLAN \ Map 8 Highway Improvement N BUENAA\ oza © Transit Project VISTA I" • Rail Project C IAFFEE O' Other FFEE 475-01 h SA A V -\ 285 U �li SAGUAdHE SAGUACHE I MOFAT CREEG9E �— 2 �, I a9 � HOOR SOU�� QELt '11 FOF�I� NORTE. 9`,, I 'r MINERAL/ M ALAATOSA I visrl ' i / say; RIO GRANDE Imo'- -,$Qp 160 ALAM SAS BLANCA r i ''''.\\ SANFORD MANASSA 142 SAN LUIS 017, (285) `- ANTOI1 ITO 759 DMJM I )t?T COLORADO REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION PLANS GUNNISON VALLEY GUNNISON VALLEY REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION PLAN Regional Planning Commission Region 10 League for Economic Assistance& Planning, Inc. serves as the Regional Planning Commission for Della, Gunnison, Hinsdale, Montrose, Ouray, and San Miguel Counties. The Transportation Committee of the Region 10 League for Economic Assistance & Planning, Inc. officially serves as the"regional planning commission"for the Gunnison Valley Transportation Planning Region. Leadership was provided by staff participating in the development of the Gunnison Valley Regional Transportation Plai, including Anna Zivian (STAC Member, RPC Chairperson, and San Miguel County Commissioner), Scott Scarborough (Region 10 Chairperson), Leslie Jones(Region 10 Executive Director), and Mike Braaten(Regicn 10 Community Development Coordinator). Representatives and technical advisors from each of the six counties included county commissioners, appoint=_d officials and county staff persons. Cities were represented by mayors,trustees, and city staff persons. Cities represented include Delta, Paonia, Cedaredge, Mt. Crested Butte, Crested Butte, Montrose, Nucla, Olathe, Lake City, Ouray, Ridgeway, Telluride, and Mountain Village. Other participants and technical advisors included representatives from Delta County Council on Aging, Mountain Express Transit, Montrose Chamber of Commerce, Bureau of Land Management, US Forest Service, National Pal k Service and Ouray County Council on Aging. In addition to Region 3 and Region 5 CDOT representatives, various ind victuals and citizens participated in the development of the plan. El �■ Page 94 _ COLORADO REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION PLANS minimemimen GUNNISON VALLEY Regional Values, Vision, Goals and Strategies The Vision Statement of the Gunnison Valley Regional Transportation Plan is: Maintain and improve our quality of life, environmental health and economic viability within Region 10 through the establishment of an efficient, safe, and environmentally sound regional intermodal system. As expressed in the Plan,the regional visions, values, and goals of the Gunnison Valley RTP are based on four areas of concern: quality of natural environment, preservation of rural character and Western values, sense of community and economic opportunity. Y The quality of natural environment issues stress the contribution of the natural environment to the quality of life in the region and the need to manage,enhance and protect it. e Preservation of rural character and western values includes recognition of the traditions and heritage that created the character of the region and also recognizes that regional values are changing, especially in regard to the extractive industries and their effect on the regional economy. • Sense of community describes"a strong desire to maintain a sense of community and qualities that contribute to it" including"high quality of life, low crime rates, social diversity, etc. ... with lifestyle opportunities for all age groups ... [with]strong support for maintaining the'rugged individualism' type of lifestyle,which draws many to the west." • Economic opportunity focuses on the need to create economic stability in the region including tourism and year-round visitation, and more sustainable industries(and improved telecommunications) "Overall, regardless of the strategy chosen,the stated goals were to attract livable wage jobs; create employment opportunities for youth, especially beyond high school; avoid boom/bust economies through diversification of industries, and provide year-round employment options." The transportation system objectives to meet the vision statement includes surface, transit, bicycle and pedestrian aviation and rail modes with emphasis on safety,environmental, energy conservation, affordability, efficiency, equity (outlying areas), and connectivity. Particular attention is paid to coordination of public(across jurisdictions) and private investments in transportation and the land-use/growth management techniques required to meet overall community goals. Finally, the goals address the possibility of using transportation demand management techniques to levy transportation impact fees to support alternate modes of transportation. M w _I Page 95 )OT COLORADO REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION PLANS GUNN/SON VALLEY Socioeconomic and Environmental Profile Socioeconomic Characteristics The Gunnison Valley plan contains an extensive section on demographic and economic analysis. The TPR used population and demographic data primarily from the Division of Local Govemment/Demography Division. Employment and other economic projections were obtained from the Center for Business and Economic Forecasting. The region has three urban areas offering regional services—Montrose(population 12,183), Delta(5,303) and Gunnison(5,139). The tourism industry is important throughout the region, especially in the resort areas of Crested Bulte and Telluride, and, to a lessor extent, Ouray and Lake City. Western State College in Gunnison provides a stable educational and economic component. Population growth was flat in the 1980s, but grew over 25% in the 1990s. The growth was spread across the regions counties, but also concentrated in the major centers of each. There has been a shift from rural population to u tan centers beginning about 1990. Other demographic information from the plan: • There is a significant population of elderly persons(18%), but a shift to a younger population is evident over the last decade. • The unemployment rate ranged from 5.1%to 8.1%from 1990-1996. • In 1997, per capita income was 68.5%of state average, related to the fixed incomes of the older population and the low paying service jobs prevalent in many parts of region. y The region has experienced a transition from its historic agricultural economy,which, in 1969 was 16.1%of the economy, but has dropped to less than 2.0%of regional income in 1997. y Government(local, state and federal) has become the largest employer. • Leisure development and the second home industry is strong. • Tourism development is growing throughout the region, but has some economic limitations due o its seasonality and lower-paying service industry jobs. Gunnison Valley Transportation Planning Region Population and Employment Growth 2000 -2020 Total 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 Change Change POP 85,987 97,461 108,731 119,333 129,414 43,427 50.5 [MP 34,658 37,908 40,876 42,753 44,590 9,932 28.6 Caw ww Page 96 X11. COLORADO REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION PLANS masa GUNNISON VALLEY Environmental Profile The environmental profile is meant to identify environmentally sensitive areas that need to be more carefully considered subsequent to implementation of the regional transportation plan. Topics covered include topography air quality,water quality, threatened and endangered species, active/inactive mine sites,transportation-relate noise, wetlands and cultural resources. The region is very diverse, ranging from desert-like mountain valleys to forested highlands, fertile river valleys high momtains and rolling hills. Air Quality ✓ Mt. Crested Butte is monitored for possible PM10 problems and considered at-risk, but is expected to attain the standards and not be classified as a non-attainment area.. ✓ The Town of Telluride is a PM10 non-attainment area that is now meeting current revised standards. ✓ Special purpose PMzs monitoring was expected to begin at Telluride and Delta, beginning in 1999. ✓ Regional haze sites to be monitored include the Black Canyon National Monument, the Maroon Belk Wilderness Area and the Weminuche Wilderness Area. Other significant findings in the plan: ✓ A variety of non-point pollution, primarily from inactive mine sites,contributes to degraded water quality in certain drainages. The report lists 18 waters with either documented or suspected water quality problems. ✓ The plan lists 15 animal species as either officially listed candidate species or proposed to be listed c n the federal threatened or endangered species list. ✓ The plan lists 58 active mines in the region. • One"Superfund"site, the Uravan Mill Site, is located in the region. In addition, the Idarado Mine near Telluride and Ouray and a private site are also being addressed under provisions of CERCLP,. • Only a small percentage of each of the six counties(13.7%of the region) has been partially or totally surveyed for archaeological, historical and prehistorical resources. ✓ The Farmland Protection Policy Act requires coordination between CDOT and the Soil Conservation Service to determine impacts to prime or unique farmland that may require protection. w w w Page 97 )OT COLORADO REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION PLANS ..'. - GUNNISON VALLEY Preferred Plan Throughout the plan development, focus has been on the transportation improvements necessary to maintain the mobility of the residents and visitors to the region. While the highway system is recognized as the most important component in the regional transportation system, and most projects deal with improvements to the highway system, all modes are necessary for regional mobility. Since continuing to add highway capacity indefinitely to accommodate accelerating growth is neither affordable nor desirable from the region's standpoint, improvements to alternative modes are considered. These alternative modes include freight infrastructure,transit, aviation, rail, bicycles arid pedestrians.All of these alternatives, working together as a system, will maintain the transportation system, and result in significant improvements to the region's travel mobility and access to transportation options. The Gunnison Valley plan includes these unique elements: • Highway projects are prioritized as either in the STIP(or other dedicated funds)or in three subsequeit tiers—(Years 1-6, Years 6-12, Long-Range Needs). • CDOT Region 5 has identified a series of high priority intersection projects that will be addressed, as funds are available. The TPR supports this concept and has included $91,571,000 for intersection projects in its preferred plan as candidates for the Intersection Study. • Transit needs are identified by specific project. • Enhancement projects are ranked for years 2000-2002 plus list of un-prioritized projects. A local road and bridge needs element was included in the plan. The methodology supplied by CDOT's Division of Transportation Development was used to determine the appropriate level of funding necessary to construct, replace, and maintain the local roadway system. Each local government was queried to determine estimates of local needs and anticipated costs. This information was used in a combination with state-supplied values and the consultant's estimates of future needs to arrive at the projection for local roadway needs. The total cost to implement the preferred plan is$1,425,643,000. This total amount includes$667,210,000 in local needs. b ■ M Page 98 N)'),I COLORADO REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION PLANS GUNNISON VALLEY -PIE table below summarizes the cost. by Investment Category, as recorded in the project database accompanying the regional pla]. Gunnison Valley Transportation Planning Region 2020 Preferred Plan (thousands of year 2000 dollars Investment Category Cost System Quality 265,599 Safety 265,599 Mobility 225,981 Program Delivery 1,254 Sub-total 758,433 Local Needs _ --667,210 Total $1,425,643 NOTE This table summarizes information contained in the regional transportation plan.For more specific project information,please reference the source plan or contact COOT. DIVUM -_ Page 99 )O"l COLORADO REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION PLANS aosommoomisala GUNNISON VALLEY Prioritization Process The prioritization process used by the Gunnison Valley Transportation Planning Region was consensus based Two sets of criteria were considered in the decision making process. Each mode(Surface Transportation, Transit, Aviation, Rail, Bicycle/Pedestrian System Development, Other) had a separate set of Criteria developed at the regional level from the public involvement process. The criteria set forth by the Colorado Department of Transportation were also considered. This consensus method of prioritization took advantage of a wide variety of criteria, balancing empirical data with public perception and regional desires. The transportation projects were ranked by consensus by mode and placed into three categories:first six years, si> to eleven years, and long range priorities. Project prioritization by mode was completed separately to best interface plan recommendations with applicable project funding and selections processes. The ranked projects, by mode, were then ranked across modes. Thus, the results of the ranked projects reflect the consensus of the needs and goals o' the region. See the following table. �w ww Page 100 KIT era COLORADO REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION PLANS GUNNISON VALLEY Mode Criteria Surface • Does the project increase safety Transportation • Does the project improve air quality? • Does the project maintain the existing system? Transit • Does the project interconnect the systems? • Does the Project utilize an alternative and energy-conserving alternative mode? • Does the project provide efficient transportation to population centers from outlying areas? • Does the project encourage car / van polling, intercept parking, inter/inner city shuttles? • Does the project improve services for special populations (elderly, disabled and pre-school? Aviation • Does the project result in a higher quality of air travel? • Does the project result in more affordable air travel? • Does the project result in consistent and reliable commercial air service? • Does the project provide for public transportation to airports? • Does the project result in improvement to smaller airports? Rail • Does the project provide for the retention of existing lines that are essertial to the integrity of the service in the region? • Does the project reopen a corridor still in place where service had been suspended? • Does the project encourage the preservation of existing corridors and service? • Does the project decrease rail /auto-crossing conflicts? Bicycle / • Does the project create a new facility or expand the current system (North Pedestrian Fork, Crested Butte area, Uncompahgre Riverway, and Eastern San Miguel System County)? Development • Does the project provide for increased promotions / marketing of the regional trail? • Does the project allow for use of irrigation ditch roads? Other • Does the project reduce the reliability on the automobile through alternative modes? • Does the project encourage people to live in the communities where they work? • Does the project provide for a designated bicycle / pedestrian route within the community? • Does the project increase the availability of bicycle racks or storage facilities? • Does the project improve the telecommunications infrastructure within the region? DA JA Page 101 COLORADO REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION PLANS GUNNISON VALLEY Financially Constrained Plan Representatives of the Gunnison Valley TPR met with CDOT Region 5 and representatives of other TPRs within the CDOT Regions on April 27, 1999 and with Region 3 on May 13, 1999 to establish region-wide priorities from the TPR preferred plans within the framework of fiscal constraint. Revenue projections were provided by CDOT. The meeting resulted in the fiscally constrained element of the long-range plan. Projects in this element are eligible to move into the implementation phase. The financially constrained plan for the Gunnison Valley TPR totals$293,944,000. See the table below for the project listings for the fiscally constrained plan. Gunnison Valley Transportation Planning Region 2020 Constrained Plan (thousands of year 2000 dollars Project# Description Cost 1 SH 145- Placerville to Society Turn 21,080 2 SFI 135-Gunnison to East River 10,01 3 3 US 50- Montrose to Sargents various locations 11,594 22 US 550- SH 62 to Mile Post 125.9 9,486 4 SH 92 -Austin to Hotchkiss 14,251 5 SFI 133- Hotchkiss to Paonia 15,81!) 6 SH 135-6th&6th/Elk Intersections 1,054 10 SFI 65-Center turn lane Cedaredge city limit to city limit 21 I 11 US 50-63.00 Rd-Signalization&TSM 211 15 SFI 149- Lake City Center turn lane 1,053 17 US 50-Truck bypass/RR Xing/emergency access Study 153 18 US 50/US 550 Intersection Study 153 9 SH 135- N/O Almont to Crested Butte-broaden project scope 52 7 13 CDOT Region 5 Intersection Study r) 70 US 50 Montrose Bypass - Northway Minor Arterial 2,841 180 Transit Scenario B -Operations 168.743 181 Transit Scenario B -Capital 36.753 Total $293,944 NOTE: This table summarizes information contained in the regional transportation plan.For more specific project information,please reference the source plan or contact COOT w ww Page 102 GUNNISON VALLEY '.. TRANSPORTATION PLANNING REGION 2020 FISCALLY CONSTRAINED PLAN Map 9 - --_ _ v' Highway Improvement N I (// O Transit Project MARBLE , • Rail Project j �65 O Other DELTA — sa- CED EDGE I MT.CRESTED BUTTE NIA L® CRESTED BUTT ORCH�rD CITY 092 HOTCHKISS T DELT 0 --- _ _-__ CRAVORD GUNNISON (LATHE -� ® f i i GUNNISON T MONTRO — . `{_. A MONTROSE 0959 ) 959 090 _- /� NUfPLA NATURITA 1, ,a.il NORWOOD — oss IDGWAY<— SAN MIGUEL �_ OU Y LAKE CITY SAWPIT l_ / "�) MOUNT IN { VILLA E ‘-‘k) ,___/...„...„. IfINc 7 `OLE 1:��• :i I DMJM l' HIT COLORADO REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION PLANS SOUTHWEST SOUTHWEST REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION PLAN Regional Planning Commission The Southwest Regional Transportation Planning Commission includes representatives from Archuleta County, Dolores County, La Plata County, Montezuma County, and San Juan County. While 19 RPC appointments were officially made,the meetings and votes did not distinguish between the commissioners and the technical advisors. Leadership of the RPC was provided by Gene Story (RPC Chairman, STAG Member and Montezuma County Commissioner), Denise Naegle (RPC Vice Chairperson and Manager of the Town of Bayfield), and Ed Morlan (Contract Administrator, Director of Region 9 Economic Development District). Representatives and technical advisors from each of the five counties included county commissioners, appoinred officials and county staff persons. Cities and Indian Tribes were represented by mayors, trustees, and city staff persons. Cities represented include Pagosa Springs, Dove Creek, Ignacio, Bayfield, Cortez, Dolores, Mancos and Silverton. Tribes represented were Ute Mountain Ute Tribe and Southern Ute Indian Tribe. Other participants and technical advisors included representatives from Dolores County Extension, Bayfield Al ea Chamber of Commerce, La Plata Air Quality Advisory Council, Southern Ute CAP, and the Region 9 Economic Development District. In addition to Region 5 CDOT representatives, various individuals and citizens participated in the development of the plan. The Southwest Colorado RPC formed an aviation sub-committee to examine the long-range needs of each airport and develop 20-year plans as a component of the regional transportation plan. The sub-committee was represented by each airport in the region and assisted by CDOT's Division of Aeronautics. C4 1J1V1 Page 104 )OT COLORADO REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION PLANS SOUTHWEST Regional Values, Vision, Goals and Strategies The Mission of the Southwest RPC is: To ensure that the quality of life desired by its residents and visitors is maintained by providing for a balanced transportation system that accommodates the movement of residents, tourists, and goods throughout the region, through the use of telecommunications, expanded air travel, and an enhanced highway system. The Southwest Regional Transportation Plan expresses goals regarding several issues: beautiful and safe streets. highways and trails that effectively connect population (employee), business and tourist destinations; improved telecommunications: and air and rail service for commerce and tourism. Other goals include respect for natural resources, geography and the environment in transportation system development; and enhanced communications wilt state and federal government agencies. Numerous strategies for meeting the goals and mission statement were developed. Highlights of these strategies incl ode: • Regional cooperation and partnerships for planning and funding transportation and land use systems recognition of Highways 160, 550 and 666 and their feeder routes as major corridors that require safety considerations; Upgrading and maintenance to accommodate tourism and local needs; 'Jr Development of roadway shoulders for bike trails for increased safety; 'Jr Encouragement of increased commercial air flights and improved telecommunications in the region; y Encouragement of transit oriented and multi-modal development; and Balanced, accessible transportation links that meet the design and maintenance needs of the communities of the region. Flexibility of the system is seen as important for prioritization, to accommodate changing functional uses, environmental concerns, and community needs. Dw w w Page 105 E )DTi COLORADO REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION PLANS SOUTHWEST Socioeconomic and Environmental Profile Socioeconomic Characteristics The population within the five-county area of the Southwest TPR has grown at a rate of 3.4%annually from 1 f 90 to 19c7. Over half of the population lives in La Plata County, with Durango as its center. Most of the growth occurred in unincorporated areas, reflecting the conversion of agricultural land to rural subdivisions. People in the region often commute long distances to take advantage of better employment opportunities, better shopping opportunities or lower real estate prices. Historically, industries such as mining, agriculture and forestry formed the local economic base. These base industries have been replaced over time by tourism,which may be in a slight decline, according to the latest economic indicators. The Division of Local Government/Demography Division provided employment and income data population. The Southwest TPR includes both of Colorado's two Indian reservations,the Southern Ute and the Ute Mountain Ute Ind an Tribes. The homelands for the Ute Mountain Utes total over 597,000 acres in the Four Corners Region including parts in Colorado, Utah and New Mexico; the tribal enrollment in 1998 was 1,943. The Southern lite Reservation encompasses an area of over 750,000 acres in La Plata and Archuleta Counties;the tribal enrollment in 1998 was 1,330. The two tribes employ over 1,900 people and are major contributors to the regional economy. Offer demographic information from the plan: • The region as a whole has experienced significant population growth, beginning about 1970 and continuing today. Growth is expected to slow somewhat after 2000, reflecting national trends. • Growth in unincorporated areas has had a substantial impact on both local and state roads as they have become local commuting routes. • There is a significant shortage of affordable housing in the region,contributing to the long distan:e commuting phenomenon. 'e The average unemployment rate from 1993 to 1997 (5.7%)exceeded the statewide average. • The Services industry provides the largest source of both jobs and income. According to the 1990 US Census, 17%of the region's population was below the poverty line, based on household size and family income. Southwest Transportation Planning Region Population Growth 2000 - 2020 Total 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 Change Change FOP 81,397 92,894 104,145 114,203 123,160 41,763 51.0 Dl ■ ■ Page 106 H)T COLORADO REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION PLANS SOUTHWEST Environmental Profile The plan addresses air quality, cultural and paleontological resources, endangered species, flood plains, hazardous material sites, noise levels, parklands, farmlands, water quality and wetlands. Significant findings in the plan: r Pagosa Springs is a designated non-attainment area for PM,). The Town completed specified mitigation in 1996, including paving, use of improved sanding materials and improved street sweeping practices. y Durango has been identified as an at-risk area and is being monitored. • While only a small portion of each county in the region has been systematically surveyed for archaeological and historic resources, over 20,000 sites have been identified in this rich area. Chief among them are the Ancestral Puebloan ruins at Mesa Verde National Park. The plan describes 53 sites registered as State or National Historic sites or landmarks or Colorado's Endangered Places. ➢ The Colorado Department of Health monitors 75"Superfund" sites, 10 sites under CERCLA and 70 solid waste facilities. The Uranium Mill Tailings Remedial Action Program (UMTRA), administered by the Colorado Department of Health and Environment, monitors numerous mill sites throughout the region that pose a threat to health and environment. • The plan lists 10 animal species and four plant species on the threatened or endangered species list r Major water quality issues include an extensive mine reclamation project on the upper Animas River and the Icing-proposed and much-delayed Animas-La Plata water diversion and storage project. DNIJM Page 107 I )In COLORADO REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION PLANS - ........smweemenaimmemu SOUTHWEST Preferred Plan In the Southwest TPR, the highway system is recognized as the most significant element in the regional transportation system. Therefore, most recommended projects in the plan deal with improvements to the highway system. However,the TPR also recognizes that the complete system includes other alternatives. Continuing to add highway capacity indefinitely to accommodate accelerating growth is neither affordable nor desirable from a community impact standpoint. Needs for alternate modes including freight infrastructure,transit, aviation, rail, bicycles and pedestrians, and travel demand management(TDM) measures were included in the plan. All of these alternatives, working together as a system, will not only maintain an operating transportation system, but also will make significant improvements to the region's travel mobility and access to transportation options. The Southwest TPR plan includes these unique characteristics: • The entire preferred plan, with the exception of the aviation projects, has been scored with respect tc priority. Projects were then ranked in accordance with these scores separately by mode and across modes. • Funding for Indian reservation roads is included in the amount of$3,918,000. • CDOT Region 5 has identified a series of high priority intersection projects that will be addressed, as funds are available. The TPR supports this concept and has included $34,697,000 for intersection projects in its preferred plan as candidates for the Intersection Study. Freight infrastructure projects from the 1999 CDOT study have been incorporated into the highway element list and prioritized along with other highway projects. A local road and bridge needs element is included in the plan. The methodology supplied by CDOT's Division of Transportation Development was used to determine the appropriate level of funding necessary to construct, replac e. and maintain the local roadway system. Each local government was queried to determine estimates of local needs and anticipated costs. This information was used in a combination with state-supplied values and the consultant's estimates of future needs to arrive at the projection for local roadway needs. The total cost to implement the preferred plan is $756,005,000. This total amount includes $178,707.948 in local needs. O ■ _■ Page 108 WTI COLORADO REGIONAL TRANSPORTA 77ON PLANS mommoommeinmeman SOUTHWEST The table below summarizes the cost, by Investment Category,as recorded in the project database accompanying the regional plan. Southwest Transportation Planning Region 2020 Preferred Plan (thousands of year 2000 dollars) Investment Category Cost System Quality 88,063 Safety --------- 160,188 Mobility ------- --- -- __._--328,391 Program Delivery 655 Sub-total 577,297 Local Needs — — 178,708 Total W-.-- $756,005 NOTE This table summarizes information contained in the regional transportation plan. For more specific project information,please reference the source plan or contact CDOT. MUM Page 109 COLORADO REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION PLANS SOUTHWEST Prioritization Process The Southwest RPC elected to follow the recommendations in the Colorado Regional Transportation Plannipg Guidebook designed to support project prioritization across modes.The process followed three steps. First, a set of policy level prioritization criteria(guides)was adopted and, necessarily, is somewhat subjective in nature. Second, a relative weight and definition was assigned to the selected criteria. During this step in the process, score range am scoring criteria were also established. Third, each proposed project was analyzed and scored based on its effect relative to the identified project evaluation criteria. The scores were totaled for each project. By definition of the adopted scoring criteria, the higher the project score, the higher the project rank. Project selection criteria weighting: Criteria Weight Maximum Score Safety 26 3 System Preservation 19 3 Highway Modes 19 3 Alternative Modes 19 3 Congestion 15 3 Ability to Implement 8 6 Institutional Barriers 8 3 Technical/Administrative 8 3 Barriers Community Acceptance 8 3 Economic Impact 8 3 Relative Cost/Benefit 8 3 Environment 8 3 Integration of Modes 4 3 System Continuity 1.6 8 DM N1 Page 110 )0T i. COLORADO REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION PLANS rarainniimau SOUTHWEST Financially Constrained Plan Representatives of the Southwest TPR met with CDOT Region 5 and representatives of other TPRs within the CDOT Region on April 27, 1999, to establish region-wide priorities from the TPR preferred plans within the framework of fiscal constraint. Revenue projections were provided by CDOT. The meeting resulted in the fiscally constrained element of the long-range plan. Projects in this element are eligible to move into the implementation phase. The financially constrained plan for the Southwest TPR including the CDOT Region 5 Intersection Program, Transit Scenario B and highway projects, totals $111,614,000. See the table below for the project listings for the fiscally constrained plan. Southwest Transportation Planning Region 2020 Constrained Plan (thousands of year 2000 dollars Project# Description Cost 20 US 160-8th St to North& South Pagosa Blvd 10,540 21 US 160- Florida River to 1 mi E/O Bayfield 11,858 22 IJS 666- Mile Post 37.1 to intersection CR G 12,648 5 IJS 160-Cherry Creek to Wildcat Canyon/Reconstruction 1,594 175 IJS 160-Wash Six Miles North of US 666 3,500 176 County Road 316 N/O County Road 314-Indian Reservation U 177 SU 140/East Archuleta Road-Indian Reservation Road 0 178 SU 164/Capota Lake Road-Indian Reservation Road 559 179 SU 152/Hondo-Vega Road-Indian Reservation Road 4,444 180 SU 154/Jefferson Canyon Road-Indian Reservation Road 798 181 SU 156/Sandoval Canyon Road-Indian Reservation Road 3,060 182 SU 111/Cox Canyon Road-Indian Reservation Road 7,158 183 SU 114/Gore Road-Indian Reservation Road 3,353 184 New Pine River Crossing North of Ignacio-Indian Reservation 4.050 '185 New Pine River Crossing South of Ignacio-Indian Reservation 3,645 186 SU 310/Mountain View Road-Indian Reservation Road 64 187 SU 169/Narrow Gauge Road- Indian Reservation Road 5,320 189 SU315/Ignacio Peak Road-Indian Reservation Road 55 190 New Local Connector-Ignacio School Indian Reservation R 4,320 191 New Road Cedar Point Housing Indian Reservation Road I) 192 County Road 314 W/O SH 172-Indian Reservation Road 0 193 Casino Acceleration and Deceleration Lanes UMU Indian R 194 Towaoc Streets Paving UMU Indian Reservation 0 195 Mike Wash Road Entrance Road UMU Indian Reservation 0 196 Johnson Canyon Road UMU Indian Reservation 0 197 Chip Seal Towaoc and White Mesa Streets UMU Indian Reservation 0 198 Lion Canyon Road UMU Indian Reservation 0 199 Mariano Wash Road UMU Indian Reservation 0 92 Transit Scenario B-Operating Funds 26,589 DM M■ Page 111 COLORADO REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION PLANS SOUTHWEST Southwest Transportation Planning Region 2020 Constrained Plan (thousands of year 2000 dollars 93 Transit Scenario B-Capital Funds 6,294 61 Narrow Gauge Road-Indian Reservation Road 112 65 Towaoc St- Indian Reservation Road Design 580 188 SU 311/Northridge Dr.-Indian Reservation Road 165 169 East La Boca Road - Indian Reservation Road 170 Southern Ute Indian Reservation Chip Seal 454 171 Southern Ute Reservation Wide Safety :22:; 172 Southern Ute Reservation Wide Striping 208 173 Southern Ute Reservation Chip Seal#2 0 174 Navajo Bridge Replacement 9 Total $111,614 NOTE. This table summarizes information contained in the regional transpodation plan, For more specific proje':t information,please reference the source plan or contact CDOT D ■ `■ Page 112 SOUTHWEST TRANSPORTATION PLANNING REGION 2020 FISCALLY CONSTRAINED PLAN Map 10 /Nile V' Highway Improvement N O Transit Project O Rail Project O Other I ------DOVE CREEK SILVERTON -s RICO/ 1- SA , 1A Na i 6ss / sso DOLORES__ 84 1YI7t ONTEZ L'Ttr L`S , 145 CORTEZ 1so,,\�NCOS r 1 jdt'� �L�T� iI ' fCD ( URANGO " J( 1 T_ , l fl 0 � �""4� � i F(r -T a I \1160- _ - PAGOSA SPRINGS d BAYFIELD, I Ifs It r Y �/ .'''''') 160 -- r {04). i — — - ssoi '.151 - --� _. ...._ ."I' _ 0ia0� s - _ �s UTE MOUNTAIN IR 'J 666 - SOUTHERN ei-EIR 72 8o 4, �.1 )MJM 1°' ..a.r..re� COLORADO REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION PLANS _ INTERMOUNTAIN INTERMOUNTAIN REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION PLAN Regional Planning Commission The Intermountain Region includes five counties: Eagle,Garfield, Lake, Pitkin and Summit. The RPC includec a representative from each county and a representative from each of the municipalities within the counties. The Chair of the RPC is Mick Ireland, County Commissioner from Pitkin County and region's representative to the STAC. The Intermountain Region established three committees to work on elements of the RTP: Aviation, Bicycle/Pedestrian, and Transit. The committees were tasked to identify needed improvements,to establish s;)ecitic goals for their respective modes,to evaluate the improvement projects using the criteria established for that mode and to prioritize the improvement projects. The committees made specific recommendations to the RPC for projects to be included in the Fiscally Constrained Transportation Plan. In addition, all local governments and busines:,es wit+iin the region were invited to participate in the regional planning process. C Page 114 r xrr COLORADO REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION PLANS INTERMOUNTAIN Regional Values, Vision, Goals and Strategies According to the Intermountain RTP, Final Report, the draft vision statement was based on the identificatior of regional values: Our vision is for a region that is composed of physically distinct, unique, diverse communities interconnected by a multimodal transportation network that promotes preservation of the unique character of each community and open space, while providing economic, cultural, environmental, and outdoor recreational benefits. Fin major goal areas with draft goals were identified to address regional issues and implementation of the vision. The major goal areas include Coordination of Planning, Funding, Environment, Socioeconomic, and Implementation. • Coordination of Planning speaks to(draft goals)development of a regional perspective or vision coordination of land use and multimodal planning, and the need to address existing and future n9edr and inadequacies. • Funding addresses the balance of funding for transportation options, phasing,total life-cycle costs, funding flexibility, and funding sources. • Environment deals with efficient energy use, land and critical environment(s) preservation, direc' and indirect environmental impacts, and maximizing system efficiency to minimize needless trips. • Socioeconomic speaks to the location of attainable/accessible housing and services,community uniqueness, services funding equity,the needs of transportation users,transportation links for economic development, and the social costs of transportation projects. • Implementation addresses the need for open and comprehensive public involvement in prioritizztion and implementation of projects. Cww ww Page 115 W t )OT COLORADO REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION PLANS INTERMOUNTAIN Socioeconomic and Environmental Profile Socioeconomic Characteristics The five-county area has many special features that draw both residents and non-residents to the area. The region's 12 ski areas draw many people to the area. The three largest communities—Glenwood Springs,Aspen and Rile— are home to 19%of the region's population.The region is one of the fastest growing areas in the state over a sustained period, having grown about 323%from 1960 to 2000. The two primary employment centers are the Roaring Fork Valley(Pitkin and Garfield Counties) and the 1-70 Corridor(Eagle, Lake and Summit Counties). he employment growth rate is projected at about 4.0%annually for the next 20 years in these major employment certers. Other demographic information from the plan: ✓ Only 6%of the residents are age 65 or older. • The residential population is supplemented by over 7.6 million skier days(1997/98, Colorado Sk Country USA). The total winter population is generally over twice that of the permanent population • The area is popular as a second home location, which is a cause of demand for increased urban services. ✓ Services(38%) and Retail Trade(23%)are by far the largest economic sectors. • The tourism basis of much of the economy has inherent challenges, notably seasonal employme nt, traditionally lower wages and a lack of affordable housing near the employment centers. • The 1994 Intermountain Regional Plan predicted significant growth, but has been exceeded by even greater growth rates in population and employment than predicted at that time.A comparison of projections from 1994 and 1999 is included in the current plan. Intermountain Transportation Planning Region Population and Employment Growth 2000 - 2020 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 Total Change C'iange POP 119,428 132,226 145,024 163,806 182,588 63,160 53.0 EMP 88,618 97,158 105,697 122,899 140,101 51,483 58.0 C,M V■ Page 116 )0 1.1 COLORADO REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION PLANS INTERMOUNTAIN Environmental Profile The plan includes an overview of air quality, land use, noise levels, water quality, wetlands, flood plains, threatened/endangered wildlife, historical/archeological sites and hazardous materials sites. The plan also notes that the environmental profile is meant only to identify environmentally sensitive areas to be considered during project level planning. Significant findings in the plan: • The Town of Aspen is a non-attainment area for PM1o. The particulate matter results primarily frc m wood burning during the high winter season population influx. The City of Aspen and Pitkin Cour ty have implemented several mitigation measures including restrictions on gas log fireplaces, wood- burning stoves or fireplaces, restaurant grills, paid parking, a shuttle service, park and ride facilities, improved transit services, improved sanding and sweeping practices and a voluntary"no-drive" program. • 23 significant wetlands are identified in the region, which require a complete survey prior to being disturbed by development or construction. y The plan lists 15 plants, three fish, and six animals as threatened or endangered species. In addition it lists seven plants, nine birds, six fish, four mammals, one amphibian and one reptile as potential y threatened or endangered. • The region contains six federally designated wilderness areas. • The plan lists 11 known noise barrier locations and suggests that noise abatement measures should be included in construction projects when evaluation under federal regulations indicates the need. Other noise issues include the two airports and the main Denver& Rio Grande and Western rail line. r. A map indicates the presence of 19"Superfund"sites in the region. A list includes 16 Leaking Underground Storage Tank locations, eight solid waste facilities and other information. Approximately 1,800 prehistoric sites and 2,025 historic sites have been documented in the region. Can Page 117 *4- )01 COLORADO REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION PLANS INTERMOUNTAIN Preferred Plan The Intermountain TPIR preferred plan includes all of the identified transportation improvement needs in the TPR through the year 2020. The preferred plan consists of 276 projects identified as surface transportation system improvements and 116 aviation system projects needed in the region. The Intermountain TPIR plan includes these unique characteristics: • The plan is comprehensive in its identification of intermodal transportation needs. It also includes several components that do not appear in other plans and contribute to the apparent high total cost. Some of these items include statewide programs such as safety, bridges, rest areas, and pavement maintenance, as well as an extensive list of bicycle/pedestrian needs. fr Transit Scenarios A, B and C are discussed in detail in the Transit Needs chapter. Individual projects are listed in the preferred plan. ✓ The Colorado Fixed-Guideway project is included in the preferred plan at a cost of$8.4 billion. fr The TPF;chose to prioritize the top 50 projects. The preferred plan includes these top 50 plus all other needs by mode in one list. A local road and bridge needs element was included in the plan.The methodology supplied by CDOT's Division of Transportation Development was used to determine the appropriate level of funding necessary to construct, replace, and maintain the local roadway system. State-supplied values and the consultant's estimates of future needs were combined to arrive at the projection for local roadway needs. The total cost to implement the preferred plan is $12,782,790,000. This total amount includes$542,919,836 in Local Needs and $8,853,000,000 for the Fixed-Guideway project from Denver International Airport to Eagle County Airport. The table below summarizes the cost, by Investment Category, as recorded in the project database accompanying the regional plan. Intermountain Transportation Planning Region 2020 Preferred Plan (thousands of year 2000 dollars Investment Category Cost System Quality 1,128,734 Safety 1,296,574 Mobility 9,814,562 Program Delivery 0 Sub-total 12,239,870 Local Needs 542,920 Total $12,782,790 NOTE: This table summarizes information contained in the regional transportation plan.For more specific project information,please reference the source plan or contact COOT. OM Vi Page 118 JOT COLORADO REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION PLANS INTERMOUNTAIN Prioritization Process The Intermountain Region developed a vision statement and goals statements that were used to formulate their seventeen prioritization criteria. (The vision statement is quoted in a previous chapter of this summary document.) In addition to the criteria, weights were assigned by the RPC to establish a level of importance to each criterion. The weights ranged from ore to three so that each project could receive a score from one to three points depending on how well the project achieved the criteria. A project has the potential to receive a total score of 117 points. See the table below. The RPC met and reviewed all of the projects in the Preferred Plan. The full list of desired projects includes 276 projects. The first step in prioritization was to evaluate that long list and decide which projects should be considered for potential inclusion in the Financially Constrained Plan. The primary criterion for screening, and the first criterion as shown below, is support of the region for the project. This support was defined by the RPC as the project being a high priority need within the region. Those projects considered as high priority for the region were selected for prioritization. This list of candidate projects was established at 50 projects from around the region. The remaining projects remained in the Preferred Plan, but were not ranked or prioritized further. Possible Rating Weight Criteria Points Does the project have regional support as defined by being Yes/No Pass/Fail Pass/Fail considered High Priority by the RPC? Does the project support local land use plans? 0-3 3 9 Does the project relieve congestion? 0-3 1 3 Does the project improve transportation system continuity? 0-3 2 6 Does the project preserve the existing transportation system? 0-3 3 9 Is the project intermodal or multimodal? 0-3 3 9 Is the project eligible for multiple funding sources? 0-3 2 6 Does the project enhance the environment or minimize the external 0-3 2 6 environmental impacts? Does the project preserve land? 0-3 2 6 Does the project maximize the efficiency of the transportation 0-3 2 6 system? Does the project minimize the number of trips? 0-3 3 9 Does the project minimize travel distances/times between housing 0-3 2 6 and community services? Does the project minimize disruption to communities? 0-3 3 9 Does the project minimize additional local capital or impose long- 0-3 3 9 tern maintenance cost on local governments? Does the project support economic development? 0-3 1 3 Does the project have public support? 0-3 3 9 Does the project improve safety? 0-3 3 9 How easily can the project be implemented? 0-3 1 3 Total 117 ^-■ _. Page 119 )UT COLORADO REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION PLANS INTERMOUNTAIN The criteria in this table were of a subjective nature. Some general guidelines were developed to assist in the scoring and to provide some consistency in how the criteria were applied to each project. Certain types of projects were grcuped together: highway transit and intermodal projects were grouped into three categories—major, intermediate, and minor. Bicycle, trails and aviation projects were grouped into two categories—major and minor. A subcommittee reviewed the individual scores to ensure the scores were appropriate for the projects and that the ranking reflected regional priorities. D■ J■ Page 120 COLORADO REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION PLANS INTERMOUNTAIN Financially Constrained Plan Representatives of the Intermountain TPR met with CDOT Regions 1 and 3 and representatives of other TPRs within the CDOT Regions during May 1999 to establish region-wide priorities from the TPR preferred plans within the framework of fiscal constraint. Revenue projections were provided by CDOT. The meeting resulted in the fiscally constrained element of the long-range plan. Projects in this element are eligible to move into the implementation phase. The financially constrained plan for the Intermountain TPR totals$1,158,771 including Transit Scenario B. See the table below for the project listings for the fiscally constrained plan. Intermountain Transportation Planning Region 2020 Constrained Plan (thousands of year 2000 dollars Project# Description Cost 387 SH 82 - Maroon Creek Roundabout 4,800 26 Summit County Park and Ride Lots 8,221 17 SH 82- Intersection at MP 3.70 2,108 35 SH 9-Breckenridge to Frisco 32,674, 12 US 6- Eby Creek Road to Eagle 1,000 18 US 24-Bottom of Tennessee Pass to Leadville 6,324 20 SH 82- Midland Extension Grade Separation 2,108 39 1-70- US 6 Erosion Control, Straight Creek to Eisenhower Tunnel 6,964 15 US 24-Jct 1-70- Dowd Jct to Minturn City Limit 3,246 19 US 24-Eagle/Lake County Line to Bottom of Tennessee P 6,324 14 1-70-West Vail Frontage Rd.to East Vail Interchange 12,12' 16 Pedestrian Overpass at Cascade Village 3,162 23 US 24- Eagle/Lake County Line to Bottom of Tennessee P 6,324 4 1-70-Eagle County Airport New Interchange 0 7 1-70- Edwards Spur Road II 61 US 6- 1-70 to Keystone 27,404 55 SH 9-Bottom of Hoosier Pass to Breckenridge 3,315 68 SH 9-Silverthorne to Ute Pass 9,110 :392 Transit Scenario B-Operating 751,538 :393 Transit Scenario B-Capital 272,0213 Total $1,158,771 NOTE: This table summarizes information contained in the regional transportation plan. For more specific proje;t information,please reference the source plan or contact COOT ■ w■ Page 121 INTERMOUNTAIN TRANSPORTATION PLANNING REGION 2020 FISCALLY CONSTRAINED PLAN Map 11 `e Highway Improvement N O Transit Project Q Rail Project Q Other 11 a l L �1 _t 006 AVON 4 013 NEW CASTLE ono GYPSUM�� Q VA \ SILVE THORNE 325 `006 GARFIELD ��GLENWO D SPRINGS' O `070 7 O, �J X39 070 RIFLE 0821. L TitfI �� O BREC .NRIDGE o2a o1 CARBONDALE, IJ 082 091 ® \0 '---, 'LEADVI E ASPEN w (6:9 LAKE, PillKITV ,- DMJM )O"I WANCOLORADO REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION PLANS NORTHWEST NORTHWEST REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION PLAN Regional Planning Commission The Northwest Regional Transportation Planning Commission includes representatives from Grand County,Jackson County, Moffat County, Rio Blanco County and Routt County. While 9 RPC appointments were officially made, the meetings and votes did not distinguish between the Regional Planning Commissioners and their technical advisors. Leadership of the RPC was provided by Ben Beall (RPC Chairman, STAC Member, and Routt County Commissioner). Darryl Schrum(RPC Vice Chairperson and Manager of the City of Winter Park), and Linda Kakala (RF'C Advisor, Contract Administrator, City of Steamboat Springs). Members and technical advisors from each of the five counties included county commissioners, appointed offivials and county staff persons. Cities were represented by mayors, other officials, and city staff persons. Cities represented include Granby, Winter Park, Walden, Dinosaur, Craig, Meeker, Rangely, Steamboat Springs, Oak Creek and Hayden. Other participants and technical advisors included representatives from the Headwaters Trail Association, Steamboat Ski and Resort, US Forest Service, State Trails Committee, Routt Memorial Hospital, Alpine Taxi, and RE-2 School District. Independent citizens from other commercial and volunteer organizations around the region also participated. In addition to Region 5 CDOT representatives, an Aviation Technical Committee worked with the CDOT Division of Aeronautics. Regional Representatives included Doug Younge(McElroy Field— Kremm ing Airport), Brian Feeney(Steamboat Springs Airport), Burt VerHaar(Yampa Valley Regional Airport), and John Feiguson (Routt County Aviation). CIA UM Page 123 or )01-1 rs COLORADO REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION PLANS NORTHWEST Regional Values, Vision, Goals and Strategies The Mission Statement of the Northwest Regional Transportation Planning Commission is: To work together to establish and maintain a realistic, balanced multi modal transportation system that effectively addresses current and future needs at the same time protecting the quality of life and the safety of the residents and visitors in the Northwest Region. As expressed in the RTP,the regional visions, values, and goals of the Northwest TPR are based on four areas of concem expressed as Goals: Y Quality of natural environment for recreation and tourism ✓ Preservation of rural character and agricultural heritage • Growing regional economy and economic stability • Safe and efficient multi modal transportation system Finally, regional unity is desired. The transportation system objectives to meet the vision statement and goals include an emphasis on multi modal certers to serve residents and tourists of the region (including public/private partnerships) and cooperative transportation partnerships among the counties,cities and towns. The importance of the US 40 corridor and its feeder routes is expressed, as well as the identification of the economic importance of other routes and their roles as lifelines and transportation links(equity)to the region's outlying areas. Highway safety and maintenance that keeps access open for locals and tourists(both vehicle and bicycle)and which allow for the movements of wildlife aria of utmost importance. Paiticular attention is paid to interregional corridor partnerships regarding key growth areas, multi modal centers, funding partnerships(maximize regional funding), and quality transportation systems. The development of transportation and the land-use/growth management techniques based on encouragement of transit oriented and multi-modal development is desired to meet the mission statement. Finally, improve air carrier service to Grand Junction, Colorado Springs, Denver, and Salt Lake airports and improve service to and from resort related airports D ■ w Page 124 COLORADO REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION PLANS lissomness NORTHWEST Socioeconomic and Environmental Profile Socioeconomic Characteristics The Northwest TPR is located in the sparsely populated northwest corner of Colorado. The region has only slightly mo a than 1%of the state's total population, but 13%of the total land area in the state. The major urban areas of this large region include Steamboat Springs, Craig and Meeker, which offer regional services. The three major resort areas (Steamboat Springs, Winter Park and Grand Lake) receive a large influx of tourists throughout the year. Population growth in Routt and Grand Counties will outpace the rest of the region through 2020. The region's employment history and projections are variable by county. The downturn in the mining industry has led to cleclining employment in Jackson, Rio Blanco and Moffat Counties; meanwhile employment growth in Routt and Grand Counties continues its upward trend, attributable to the ski areas and tourism. Otter demographic characteristics from the plan: • Two-thirds of the region consists of unpopulated, publicly owned land,exaggerating the low population density—3.5 persons per square mile. • The region is responsible for slightly over one-third of all oil and natural gas produced in the state, and two-thirds of the state's coal production. • The large size of the region, and distances between population centers, dictate that the highway system, and especially the single occupant vehicle plays a crucial role in the regional transportation system. • The region's reliance on tourism creates multimodal options that would serve the more urban settlements successfully. The tourism industry continues to be a major contributor to the economy,offering year-round activities and events. • Tourism relies on air transportation and rail as well as automobiles. ➢ Home prices in many areas exceed the level of affordability for the employees of the areas, resulting in long-distance commuting to employment centers. While the current population of elderly is less than the state average, the larger percentage in th a 45-64 year age group indicates potential growth in the transit dependent population. Northwest Transportation Planning Region Population Growth 2000 -2020 Total 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 Change Change F'OP 52,042 58,236 64,657 70,853 76,256 24,214 46.5 b ■ ■ Page 125 COLORADO REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION PLANS NORTHWEST Environmental Profile The plan recommends that transportation projects be analyzed individually for environmental impacts. An Environmental Baseline Survey Study Checklist is included for this purpose that addresses geology and soils, vegetation,wildlife, threatened or endangered species, landfills and hazardous materials, hydrological feature>, water quality, air quality, land use, public infrastructure, neighborhoods and cultural resources. Significant findings in the plan: Y The Bureau of Land Management administers 3.2 million surface acres and sub-surface mineral rights on 7.6 million acres, including coal, gas, oil and shale resources. Over 60%of the entire region s held by public agencies. • The region contains parts of three national forests and eight wilderness areas, administered by tie US Forest Service. Rocky Mountain National Park and the Dinosaur National Monument, administered by the US Department of Interior's National Park Service, draw over 3 million annual visitors. • The plan lists three amphibians, seven birds, seven fish, three mammals, one mollusk and six plants on the threatened or endangered species list with habitat in the region. In addition, Bald Eagle and Greater Sandhill Cranes are known to nest in the region. According to the US Geological Survey,the most acidic snow in the Rocky Mountains falls in and near the Mt. Zirkel Wilderness Area, endangering its sensitive aquatic systems. New pollution equipment bias been added since 1993 to the coal-burning plants at Hayden and Craig to help alleviate the situation • Steamboat Springs is a PM,() non-attainment area. Real-time fine particulate monitors assist in fine- tuning sweeping operations, which are carried out with a waterless, dustless sweeper. • Winter Park and Fraser have been identified as air quality at-risk areas because of high VMT growth and geographic similarities to other areas with air quality problems. Six ski areas are located in the region. • Only 2%to 7%of the region has been surveyed for prehistoric or historic resources. Nearly 7,000 sites have been documented to date, including over 800 individual petroglyphs and pictographs in parts of the region that have been inhabited for at least 11,000 years. COMM w I Page 126 )l1T COLORADO REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION PLANS -- NORTHWEST Preferred Plan In the Northwest TPR, the highway system is recognized as the most significant element in the regional transportation system. Therefore, most of the projects in the preferred plan deal with improvements to the highway system. However,the TPR also recognized that the complete picture includes other alternatives. Continuing to add highway capacity indefinitely to accommodate the accelerating regional growth is not affordable or desirable from a community impact standpoint. Needs for alternative modes, including freight infrastructure,transit, aviation, rail, bicycles and pedestrians, and travel demand management(TDM)were included in the plan.All of these alternatives working together as a system, will make significant improvements to the region's travel mobility and access to transportation options. The Northwest plan includes these unique characteristics: The number one priority is a transit project. e The highway element includes projects on eligible local roads (major collectors). Highway projects are prioritized at four levels, 1) in current STIP, 2) High Priority, 3) Medium Priority, 4) Off-system. • The TPR created the following Rail Policy—"The Northwest Regional Planning Commission supports activities to keep freight rail transportation operation on the existing routes and to encourage the establishment of passenger service beyond the Amtrak lines in Grand County." kr Freight infrastructure recommendations from CDOT's 1999 study have been incorporated in the highway and rail elements. • Consistent with the RPC's highest priorities, maintenance of the existing system and safety, pavement maintenance of existing airport runways and the addition or upgrade of aviation navigational equipment are considered high priorities. w The plan recommends the development of eight intermodal centers throughout the region. A local road and bridge needs element was included in the plan. The methodology supplied by CDOT's Division of Transportation Development was used to determine the appropriate level of funding necessary to construct, replace. and maintain the local roadway system. Each local government was queried to determine estimates of local needs and anticipated costs. This information was used in a combination with state-supplied values and the consultant's estimates of future needs to arrive at the projection for local roadway needs. The total cost to implement the preferred plan is $1,921,918,000. This total amount includes $582,565,480 in additional projected local needs. DMA' Page 127 COLORADO REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION PLANS .pPt.Y'a^a'•4AM!' ':V..,,« NORTHWEST ThE table below summarizes the cost. by Investment Category, as recorded in the project database accompariyrnc the regional plan. Northwest Transportation Planning Region 2020 Preferred Plan (thousands of year 2000 dollars Investment Category Cost System Quality 177,931 Safety 229,938 Mobility 931,010 Program Delivery 474 Sub-total _ 1,339,353 Local Needs _i _ 582,565 Total $1,921,918 NOTE: This table summarizes information contained in the regional transportation plan.For more specific project information,please reference the source plan or contact COOT. DIVIJM Page 128 '- COLORADO REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION PLANS NORTHWEST Prioritization Process The Northwest RPC elected to follow the recommendations in the Colorado Regional Transportation Planning Guidebook so as to facilitate and simplify the integration of its plan with other regional plans.. The process followed four steps. First, a set of prioritization criteria was adopted. These criteria are intended to be policy level guides and necessarily somewhat subjective in nature. Second, a relative weight and definition was assigned to the selected criteria. During this step in the process, score range and scoring criteria were also established. Third, each proposed proect was analyzed and scored based on its effect relative to the identified project evaluation criteria. The scores were totaled for each project. Fourth,two separated prioritized project lists were created, one by mode and/or project funding program and the other mixing all but the bridge and aviation projects. Each Preferred Plan project was ranked, either across modes or by mode based on score. The resulting total score placed each project in rank order on•:he overall list. By definition of the adopted scoring criteria, the lower the project score, the higher the project rank. Project selection criteria weighting: Criteria Weight Maximum Score Congestion Capacity LOS 1.0 4 Demand ADT 1.2 5 Safety 1.4 5 Ability to Implement State/Federal Funds 1.6 5 Local Funds 1.8 5 Community 2.0 5 Acceptance Intermodal 2.4 5 Economic Impact Economy 1.6 5 Cost Effectiveness 2.2 5 Environment 1.8 5 System Continuity 1.6 5 System Preservation 1.6 5 The aviation projects were prioritized by a subcommittee with the assistance of the CDOT Aeronautics Division Dw w w Page 129 !Iry HYl r- COLORADO REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION PLANS —ice+ NORTHWEST Financially Constrained Plan Representatives of the Northwest TPR met with CDOT Region 3 and representatives of other TPRs within l:he COOT Region on May 13, 1999 to establish region-wide priorities from the TPR preferred plans within the framework of fiscal constraint. Revenue projections were provided by CDOT. The meeting resulted in the fiscally constrained element of the long-range plan. Projects in this element are eligible to move into the implementation phase. The financially constrained plan for the Northwest TPR totals$173,053,000, including Transit Scenario B. See the table below for the project listings for the fiscally constrained plan. Northwest Transportation Planning Region 2020 Constrained Plan (thousands of year 2000 dollars Project# Description Cost 5 SH 13- M.P. 111 to Colorado/Wyoming state line 11,594 6 SH 131 -CR 14 to CR 18 6.193 7 SH 131 -CR 14 to Oak Creek 11,594 8 US 40-Entrance to Snow Mtn Ranch, YMCA o/t Rockies 1.054 9 SH 13-Rio Blanco/Garfield county line to SH 64 17,523 10 US 40-Kremmling to Muddy Pass 21,080 11 SH 9- Ute Pass Rd.to Kremmling 7,378 12 US 40-6th Street(Granby) 1,320 13 US 40- Intersections within Steamboat Springs 1.897 14 US 40-Fraser to Winter Park 5,270 15 US 40-Tabernash to Fraser 7,258 1 US 40-Downtown Winter Park to Ski Area 4,954 67 Steamboat Springs-Stockbridge Transit Center 1,58 2 SH 131 - US 40 to South 4 miles 9,9111 105 County Road 54- Elk Creek Bridge-rehab 33 3 SH 13-SH 64 to South 8 miles 9,868 4 US 40-M.P. 157.8 to W/O Muddy Pass 3,45 I 74 McElroy Field Grand Kremmling Trans. Center-intermodal 232 212 Transit Scenario B-Capital 14,226 213 Transit Scenario B-Operating 36,333 Total $173,053 NOTE: This table summarizes information contained in the regional transportation plan.For more specific prole information,please reference the source plan or contact CDOT. I _■ Page 130 I - NORTHWEST TRANSPORTATION PLANNING REGION 2020 FISCALLY CONSTRAINED PLAN Map 12 w - v' Highway Improvement N O Transit Project Q Rail Project p' Other i 125 125 11l o F C l ,JACK6t\7 03 T WA �EN rp j / , C fG QQ l 1zs oia- 040 MAYHELC�/-_ _ , ' HAYDEN 1 / 013 STEAMBOAT �� i� SPRINGS 317_ -. �� 040 ,_ �_' , 13� �0 DI AUR= OAK LEEK -- -- < 064 "osa ———-- 131 I zs GRANDo3a LAKE \ YAMFA RAN-OELY 'I I, (R'f\IVL) I M�ER �� .1 � KRE ING 040'- GRANBY 0 �� 0 131) i i. 7040) I i oil sl ERASE v13_9) WINTE PARK r I DMJM xrr rte -tea COLORADO REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION PLANS UPPER FRONT RANGE UPPER FRONT RANGE REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION PLAN Regional Planning Commission The Upper Front Range Regional Planning Area is located in the north-central area of the state and is comprised of Larimer, Morgan and Weld Counties, excluding the urbanized areas in Larimer and Weld Counties which comprise the North Front Range planning area. Many small to moderate sized communities are included in the planning are a The RPC includes representation from each of the three counties and from each of the following 27 communities: Estes Park, Wellington, Brush, Fort Morgan, Hillrose, Log Lane Village, New Raymer, Wiggins,Ault, Dacono, Eaton, Erie, Firestone, Fort Lupton, Frederick, Gilcrest, Grover, Hudson, Keenesburg, Kersey, Lochbuie, Mead, Milliken, Nu in, Pierce, Platteville, and Severance. The planning process was conducted under the direction of a Technical Advisory Committee made up of two representatives from each county and two representatives from CDOT(one from Region 4 and one from the Division of Transportation Development). Barbara Kirkmeyer(Chairperson, Weld County Commissioner, STAC Member and Chairperson) provided TAC leadership. In addition, an Aviation Sub-Committee was established to consider Iong- rarge aviation needs. CAA wA Page 132 )01. COLORADO REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION PLANS UPPER FRONT RANGE Regional Values, Vision, Goals and Strategies As presented in the Upper Front Range 2020 RTP, although the TPR is envisioned to remain largely rural in the future, it is anticipated that its importance in the context of the entire Front Range of Colorado will continue to jrow. Development pressures from the Denver metropolitan area are expected to continue to expand into the reaches of the Upper Front Range(UFR).Also, the region will maintain its position as a primary"gateway"to Rocky Mountain Nalional Park and the recreation areas in the mountains. Thus, the transportation demands on the region will continue to increase. With this in mind,the RPC adopted a mission statement in the 2015 RTP. For the 2020 plan, CDOT identified five planning themes for the to provide direction and consistency in the statewide process. The previous mission statement was reviewed for consistency with the CDOT themes and the region's vision and was deemed to be still appropriate. To provide a balanced multi-modal transportation system that maximizes public input, fosters cooperation, and meets the transportation needs of all segments of the population in the Upper Front Range region. At the onset of the 2020 planning process,the goals previously established for the 2015 RTP were also reviewed and modified in light of the five CDOT planning themes. The fourteen revised goals speak to many issues: a multi-modal transportation system, public participation in the process, regional cooperation in planning, maintenance of existing systems, use of funding sources and opportunities, and land use/transportation interrelationships and planning. The goals continue by addressing transportation and the environment, meeting the transportation needs of agricul''ure and industry,transportation for economic development, protection and improvement of the quality of life, public/private partnerships, tourism transportation needs, and access/impacts of Denver International Airport on the region. DIw _■ Page 133 ior COLORADO REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION PLANS monimmimat. UPPER FRONT RANGE Socioeconomic and Environmental Profile Socioeconomic Characteristics The Upper Front Range TPR is largely rural, and nearly surrounds the North Front Range TPR(comprised of the urbanizing areas of Fort Collins, Greeley and Loveland),which serves as the regional center. Other smaller uroan are 3S include Estes Park, Fort Lupton, Fort Morgan and Brush,which serve as local centers of employment and services. (The North Front Range shares part of its southern Larimer County border with the Greater Denver 1PR The Upper Front Range TPR includes all of Morgan County, 12%of the population of Larimer County and 42%of the population of Weld County, based on 1990 US Census data.Applying the same percentages to projections supplied by the Division of Local Government/Demography Division,future population of the region was computed. The average annual growth rate for the region from 1990 to 1997 was 2.4%. Services, Manufacturing and Retail Trade comprise the biggest industrial sectors of the region. Rocky Mounta n National Park reported over 3.2 million visitors in 1998. The peak months of tourism in the Park are typically June through September. The Town of Estes Park also attracts large numbers of visitors. Weld County is one of the larcest agricultural producers in the state, containing about 18%of all farms in the state. Otter demographic characteristics from the plan: r The projected average annual growth rate in population from 1997 to 2020 is 1.62%. The projected average annual growth rate in employment from 1997 to 2020 is 1.7%. The region grows 61%of the state's sugar beets, 30%of the dry beans, 24 %of the corn, 67%cif the dairy cattle and 49%of the sheep. Upper Front Range Transportation Planning Region Population Growth 2000 - 2020 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 Total Change Change POP 127,988 137,997 155,935 161,509 173,008 45,020 35.0 D ■ _■ Page 134 -A - JOT 'a- - COLORADO REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION PLANS ®., ,.. .. UPPER FRONT RANGE Environmental Profile The Upper Front Range plan states that all laws and regulations concerning the protection of environmental aid cultural resources should be researched via the appropriate state and federal agencies and met prior to the implementation of any improvement project recommended in the plan. The plan addresses air quality, water quality, threatened and endangered species, natural areas, and historical sites. Significant findings in the plan: • While there are no non-attainment or at-risk areas in the region,workers commuting into Greeley or Fort Collins more than 90 days per year must comply with Colorado's vehicle emissions program requirements. • The plan lists an array of threatened or endangered species, including three amphibians,five birds, six fish, seven mammals, 14 invertebrates, 11 plant communities and 41 plants. • Three Colorado Natural Areas preserve unique animal or plant communities, geologic formations or paleontological locations. The Roosevelt National Forest, Pawnee National Grasslands and several wilderness areas also preserve some of the region's unique resources. • The plan lists 57 historic places and landmarks on a list of State and National Historic Sites. tiw wi Page 135 )U"1' COLORADO REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION PLANS UPPER FRONT RANGE Preferred Plan The Upper Front Range TPR preferred plan includes all of the identified transportation improvement needs in the TPR through the year 2020, in the prioritized order established through the project prioritization process. Highways, system preservation,transportation support systems, rail,transit, aviation, and local needs projects. A ocal road arid bridge needs element was included in the plan. Each entity was asked to provide an estimate of local needs within their jurisdiction,to whatever level of detail they felt comfortable.While a number of smaller communities did not provide such information, the majority of needs are represented in the attached table. The Upper Front Range TPR plan includes these unique characteristics: Y Inter-regional projects aimed at enhancing travel from the North Front Range TPR to the Denver Metropolitan Area are not included in the Vision Plan. These projects are being assessed through the North Front Range Transportation Alternatives Feasibility Study, from which recommendations Nill he available in the next year. These projects are being assessed through the North Front Range Transportation Alternatives Feasibility Study. Recommendations from the Feasibility Study will he incorporated in a future update of the long-range plan. The TPR adopted policies specific to each project category. They can be located in the regiona transportation plan on the pages noted: • System Preservation Category(includes Preservation and maintenance of the existing system and the continued development and implementation of the management system) (page V-5- 6) • Transportation Support Systems(Includes Travel Demand Management, Telecommufng Pnd Alternative Modes) (page V-7) • Rail Policy(page V-8) • Transit Policy(page V-9) • Aviation Policy(page V-10) • Bicycle/Pedestrian Policy(page V-14) • Enhancement Projects(page V-14) The total cost to implement the preferred plan is$1,060,693. This total amount includes$329,669,600 in Local Needs. DN VI Page 136 COLORADO REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION PLANS UPPER FRONT RANGE The table below summarizes the cost, by Investment Category, as recorded in the project database accompannyinc, the regional plan. Upper Front Range Transportation Planning Region 2020 Preferred Plan (thousands of year 2000 dollars Investment Category Cost System Qu ality JJ 181,690 Safety 236,140 Mobility 312,553 Program Delivery 640 Sub-total 731,023 Local Needs 329,670 Total $1,060,693 NOTE: This table summarizes information contained in the regional transportation plan.For more specific prole:t information,please reference the source plan or contact CDOT. DMJM Page 137 a xrr COLORADO REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION PLANS UPPER FRONT RANGE Prioritization Process Based on the premise that projects should only be scored against similar projects, six project categories were established through the planning process. Each of the categories was defined to include specific types of projects The categories are Highway, System Preservation, Transportation Support Systems, Rail, Transit, and Aviation. Seven evaluation criteria were established. Each criterion relates to one or more of the fourteen goals established for the RTP and one or more of the five planning themes identified by CDOT. Although the seven criteria are applicable to all project categories,the TAC found that the assessment measures for a criterion may differ for each project category and that the relative importance of each criterion could be different for each category. Therefore, a scoring and weighting system was devised for each project category with scoring guidelines for each criterion. Scores could range from 0 to 3. These scores were then multiplied by the assigned weight for each criterion and summed to obtain total weighted points for a project. The weighted points are then used to rank the projects within each category. This planning process, however, was not used for transit because individual transit projects were not identified. The evaluation criteria are as follows. • Safety ✓ Maintaining Existing System ➢ Relative Benefits/Relative Costs • Congestion Relief ✓ Environmental • Ability to Implement/Public Support • System Continuity The Aviation Subcommittee, which was comprised of Airport Managers from within the UFR TPR and a staff member from the CDOT Division of Aeronautics, prioritized the aviation improvement projects using a prioritization system different than that used for the other categories. This system was based on a two-tiered approach. It first prioritized projects according to specific project content categories such as pavement maintenance, land acquisition, capital equipment, and so forth. Then the projects were further prioritized within each category based on how each project would contribute toward certain airport enhancements such as safety,capacity,economic development, and so forth. The TAC recommended the following allocation of funds among the project categories: Highway 64.0%, System Preservation 33.0%, Transportation Support Systems 0.3%, and Rail 2.7%. The TAO did not allocate funds to Av ation or Transit project as they each receive funds from other sources specifically designated for these moles. bM vI Page 138 ilk X)I WM= COLORADO REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION PLANS .a �-, UPPER FRONT RANGE Financially Constrained Plan Representatives of the Upper Front Range TPR met with CDOT Region 4 and representatives of other TPRs within the CDOT Region to establish region-wide priorities from the TPR preferred plans within the framework of fiscal constraint. Revenue projections were provided by CDOT. The meeting resulted in the fiscally constrained element of the long-range plan. Projects in this element are eligible to move into the implementation phase. The plan does not include projects targeted at federal discretionary programs such as the Recreational Trails Program, Transportation and Community and System Preservation, and various FTA programs such as Access to Jobs and Reverse Commute Program. However, the regional planning commission endorses these programs as consistent with the goals and objectives of the TPR and encourages member entities and eligible organizations to apply for these funds. Projects awarded funds from these grant programs are considered eligible for the TIP and STIP. The financially constrained plan for the Upper Front Range TPR totals$259,913,000 The total includes other -egional priorities, two high priority aviation projects, a rail project and transit Scenario B. See the table below for the project list ngs for the fiscally constrained plan. �A M Page 139 COLORADO REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION PLANS _ UPPER FRONT RANGE Upper Front Range Transportation Planning Region 2020 Constrained Plan (thousands of year 2000 dollars Project# Description Cost 68 SH 52-Grade Separation Rail Line in Hudson 5,160 61 1-76-Adams/Weld C L to Morgan/Wash CL concrete overlay 38,580 1 US 85 -SH 66(Platteville)Signalize Inters 210 64 Estes Valley/Rocky Mtn Nat Park Trans Feasibility Study 210 65 SH 1 - US 287 NFR to 1-25 capacity and access study 110 2 SH 60-83rd Avenue 3,160 66 SH 1 - 1-25 Wellington interchange feasibility study 110 3 US 85-Weld County Road 6 550 4 SH 66-East of Weld County Road 13 to US 85 12,650 67 Region 4 Scoping Pool - Investigate trans problems 210 5 US 36-West of Downtown Estes Park 2,110 6 SH 66- Boulder County Line to Weld County Road 13 16,860 7 US 287- Larimer County Road 54G 10,540 8 SH 52- US 85 to East of Fulton Ditch 8,430 9 US 85-Weld County Road 44(Peckham) 1,580 10 US 34-Barlow Road (Fort Morgan) 470 11 SH 37-SH 263 to US 34 (n/o Kersey) 3,900 12 US 36-Lake Estes Causeway 1,790 13 SH 263- North Front Range Border to SH 37 2,530 14 US 85-SH 66(Platteville)Signalize and RR Xing 1,370 15 SH 52-Boulder County Line to 1-25 13,860 59 Bridge Rehab Pool 3,510 60 Traffic/Safety Management Pool 8,960 69 Scenario C-Operating 78,593 70 Scenario C-Capital 44,460 Total $259,913 NOTE: This table summarizes information contained in the regional transportation plan. For more specific project information,please reference the source plan or contact CDOT DM w 1 Page 140 UPPER FRONT RANGE TRANSPORTATION PLANNING REGION 2020 FISCALLY CONSTRAINED PLAN Map 13 `/ Highway Improvement N O Transit Project Q Rail Project Q Other i 1 : GROVER ii I I 2s7 Lf?F.'1 MER WELD 7 025 LD --.1:7._/' WEL-4INGTON NUNN . oo� PIECE l ota RAYMER / 257-(0104 AU T W N SOR 0 0 0 I EATON - -44- „.. c-'037) OO 03a: North Front Range �52 „-.,-,;-\- ESTES r,034 MPO KERS-EY { 006 Q 03 060 /- r MI_ ' 007 o3a / j�o3a 0 076 :RUSH 03a FORT 066 A WIGGINS MORGAN 119 076 � 1 ,.. ., 0521 �oszr LU TON Q KEENESBURG r` HUDS ios ' ERIE(625 1 ,--!079; LOCHBUIE DMJM —K)d' COLORADO REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION PLANS CENTRAL FRONT RANGE CENTRAL FRONT RANGE REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION PLAN Regional Planning Commission The Central Front Range Regional Planning Commission includes representatives from Custer County, Park C ouniy, Fremont County, El Paso County, and Teller County. Leadership of the RPC was provided by Joe Rall, the RPC Chairman, STAC Member, and Fremont County Commissioner. The balance of the RPC is made of county commissioners from the other counties and elected officials of the following cities: Alma, Canon City, Coal Creok, Cripple Creek, Fairplay, Silver Cliff, Victor and Williamsburg. The Technical Advisory Committee is composed of city and county staff persons, CDOT personnel, and citizens representing special interests and citizens at large. The organizations represented include city and county planning departments,city and county transportation, road and bridge departments, trails organizations, and tourism. Both CDOT Region 1 and Region 2 as well as the Division of Aeronautics and Transportation were represented on he Technical Advisory Committee. In addition,technical committees were established to consider long-range needs for aviation and bicycle/pedestrian facilities. U4I■ ■ Page 142 )OT COLORADO REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION PLANS I-M t, CENTRAL FRONT RANGE Regional Values, Vision, Goals and Strategies According to the Central Front Range Regional Transportation Plan,the region in year 2020 is envisioned as a well- planned area with economic health, clean air, safe roads, natural beauty and open vistas. The vision includes proud communities that are well linked to the rest of Colorado and the world. The diverse region visualizes many new residents moving to its strong rural communities,employment opportunities(including retained agriculture and mining)that do not require long commutes, thriving tourism, and a full range of recreational,commercial, cultural and residential development that does not compromise the environment. Finally,the vision includes expanded passenger air.ervice, improved general aviation facilities, local transit services, and other transportation alternatives including walking and bicycle trails. Goals developed to realize this vision focus on: ➢ A safe, efficient and well-maintained roadway system that provides access and mobility options for individuals and commerce, effective access to visitor destinations, and effective through-access to interregional destinations Improved and sustainable quality of life, economic heath, and safe environmental resources including air, water, scenic quality and wildlife habitats 'r Efficient use of limited financial resources The transportation plan to meet the vision and goals includes roadways,transit(especially for elderly and transit dependent populations), bicycle and pedestrian (non-motorized)to recreation areas, aviation (improved conne:tiors and terminal facilities)and rail modes(high volume corridors) with emphasis on minimizing impacts to the region's air, water and wildlife habitats. Particular attention is paid to upgrades to regional highways including through trave: lanes, passing lanes, turn lanes, adequate shoulders and rest areas; signage for key cultural and recreation areas and preservation of view corridors. The region expresses support for leveraging available resources with public/private partnerships and coordinating the region's transportation planning with surrounding regions' transportation plans. bIv vi Page 143 _ COLORADO REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION PLANS CENTRAL FRONT RANGE Socioeconomic and Environmental Profile Socioeconomic Characteristics This five-county region, excluding the Pikes Peak Area TPR, has experienced explosive growth since the last transportation plan was completed in 1994. This has been fueled largely by a burgeoning federal and state prison industry in Fremont County,the new gaming industry in Cripple Creek and continued "flight"from major Front Range urban areas to outlying residential areas. Those trends have continued at unexpectedly high rates, leading to rev sions in growth projections in all areas. While Colorado Springs, and to a certain extent, Denver(for northern Park County)serve as regional centers due to their size and proximity, Canon City also serves as a regional center for the southern part of the TPR. Other towns in the region are much smaller. In ff 993, the total population of the region was expected to reach about 64,000 by 2015. The actual population exceeded 71,000 just two years later. Estimates for total population now exceed 126,000 for 2020, according o the Division of Local Government/Demography Division. Otter demographic characteristics from the plan: ➢ Park and Custer Counties are projected to receive over 100%growth by 2020. • Several areas have higher than average senior populations: Custer County(15%), Fremont County (19%) and Canon City(25%). • Services(32%), Government(23%) and Wholesale and Retail Trade(20%)together make up 75%of the region's economy.Agriculture as a share of regional economic activity has declined over recant decades. % Long distance commuting prevails throughout the region: 32%of the region's workers commute to another place for work. In Park County, 60%and in Teller County 48%, of workers commute. • The average household size has declined to 2.71, but is still higher than the state average(2.56 Central Front Range Transportation Planning Region Population Growth 2000 -2020 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 Total Change _Ciange FOP 85,540 96,930 107,232 117,260 126,346 40,806 47.7 �A M Page 144 F )O'I COLORADO REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION PLANS nen CENTRAL FRONT RANGE Environmental Profile The plan recommends that transportation projects be analyzed individually for environmental impacts. An Environmental Baseline Survey Study Checklist is included for this purpose that addresses geology and soils, vegetation, wildlife, threatened or endangered species, landfills and hazardous materials, hydrological features, water quality, air quality, land use, public infrastructure, neighborhoods and cultural resources. Significant findings in the plan: ✓ The plan lists five birds, three fish, four mammals, one invertebrate and two plants as threatened or endangered species having habitat in the region. v One"Superfund"site exists at Lincoln Park in Canon City,the result of uranium ore mill operations. fr High selenium levels have been documented in parts of the Arkansas River basin, with potential adverse effects on fish and other wildlife. Investigations are under way to determine appropriate mitigation measures. ✓ Canon City is a PMro non-attainment area, but has not had a violation of the NAAQS since 1988 because of improved sweeping and sanding methods. Cripple Creek is listed as an at-risk area hr poor air quality because of high VMT growth and elevated PMw levels recorded in 1996. fr Important paleontological resources are found in the Garden Park Fossil Area, one of the world's. most significant dinosaur localities. The region also includes the Florissant Fossil Beds National Monument. The Arkansas Headwaters Recreation Area follows 148 miles of the Arkansas River and is signirican from a transportation viewpoint for its proximity 10 US 50, a major east-west corridor. fr The Colorado Historical Society lists 150 sites within the region containing significant cultural resources. Dw w, Page 145 )0T COLORADO REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION PLANS CENTRAL FRONT RANGE Preferred Plan In the Central Front Range TPR, the highway system is recognized as the most important element in the regional transportation system. Therefore, most of the projects in the preferred plan deal with improvements to the highway system. However,the TPR also recognized that the complete picture includes other alternatives. Continuing to add highway capacity indefinitely to accommodate the accelerating regional growth is neither affordable nor desirable frorr a community impact standpoint. Needs for alternate modes including freight infrastructure,transit, aviation, rail, bicycles and pedestrians, and travel demand management(TDM) programs, were included in the plan.All of these alternatives,working together as a system,will make significant improvements to the region's travel mobility ar d access to transportation options. The Central Front Range Plan includes these unique characteristics: The highway element is prioritized into High, Medium and Low categories. The plan includes$500,000,000 for the Front Range Intermodal High Speed Corridor, also known as "Superslab."This high-cost long-range project is identified in the plan as 100% privately funded. Other resources, either private or non-federal/state are also identified totaling $69,900,000. Freight Infrastructure projects from the 1999 CDOT study have been incorporated into the highway element. r Consistent with the RPC's highest priorities, maintenance of the existing system and safety, pave mert maintenance of existing airport runways and the addition or upgrade of aviation navigational equipment are considered high priorities. The RPC adopted a policy making bicycle/pedestrian projects in local plans consistent with the regioral plan and therefore eligible for the Transportation Enhancement Program(page 101). v The plan recommends an intermodal center at Divide(page 103). A local road and bridge needs element was included in the plan. The methodology supplied by CDOT's Division of Transportation Development was used to determine the appropriate level of funding necessary to construct, replace, and maintain the local roadway system. Each local government was queried to determine estimates of local needs and anticipated costs. This information was used in a combination with state-supplied values and the consultant's estimates of future needs to arrive at the projection for local roadway needs. The total cost to implement the preferred plan is $1,020,931. This total amount includes$451,260,000 in local needs, "Superslab"and other private or non-federal/state resources. Dw ww Page 146 ��. COLORADO REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION PLANS CENTRAL FRONT RANGE The table below summarizes the cost, by Investment Category, as recorded in the project database accomparying the -egional plan. Central Front Range Transportation Planning Region 2020 Preferred Plan (thousands of year 2000 dollars Investment Category Cost System Quality _ 77,817 Safety 173,261 Mobility 767,598 Program Delivery 2,255 Sub-total 569,671 Local Needs 451,260 Total $1,020,931 NOTE: This table summarizes information contained in the regional transportation plan.For more specific proje t information,please reference the source plan or contact CDOT. DIVIJM Page 147 )i1T COLORADO REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION PLANS mamma CENTRAL FRONT RANGE Prioritization Process The Central Front Range RPC elected to follow the recommendations in the Colorado Regional Transpdrtahon Planning Guidebook. The process followed three steps. First, a set of prioritization criteria was adopted. These criteria are intended to be policy level guides and necessarily somewhat subjective in nature. Second, a relative weight and definition was assigned to the selected criteria. Third, each proposed project was analyzed for its Positive ability to solve a transportation problem (mobility or access for example) and scored on a scale of 0 to 3 for each criterion. Finally, the scores were totaled for each project. The resulting total score placed each project in rar k order on :he overall list. The same process was applied to projects in all modes, resulting in a prioritized "cross modal" project list reflecting the immediate, medium range and long range needs of the planning region. Project selection criteria weighting: Criteria Weight Safety 18 System Continuity 14 System Preservation 14 Congestion 14 Economic Impact 11 Implementation 11 Environment 7 Intermodal 7 Public Support 4 The aviation sub-committee used the following criteria to rank projects in the aviation category: • Existing Airport/Access Deficiencies • Safety • System Enhancement > Capacity ➢ Economic Growth and Development t54 w w Page 148 COLORADO REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION PLANS auscommona CENTRAL FRONT RANGE Financially Constrained Plan Representatives of the Central Front Range TPR met with CDOT Regions 1 and 2 and representatives of other TPRs within the CDOT Regions in May 1999 to establish region-wide priorities from the TPR preferred plans within the framework of fiscal constraint. Revenue projections were provided by CDOT. The meeting resulted in the fiscally constrained element of the long-range plan. Projects in this element are eligible to move into the implementation phase. The financially constrained plan fo•the Central Front Range TPR totals $104,727,000 including Transit Scenario B. See the table below for the projec listings for the fiscally constrained plan. Central Front Range Transportation Planning Region 2020 Constrained Plan (thousands of year 2000 dollars Project# Description Cost 5032 US 285-Bailey to Jefferson County- PE/Design/ROW 11,067 5033 US 285-PCR-43 to Jefferson County 13,597 5034 US 285-Bailey to PCR-43 8,480 5036 US 285-School& PCR 43&72 832 5047 SH 9-Alma to Hoosier Pass 5.270 5048 SH 9-at US 285 S & 1 M NO Fairplay 843 5037US285-Jefferson toBailey --- - _ - 17,391 5035 US 285-Antero Jct to Bailey 1,054 5054 US 24- Rule Creek to Ed Lowe Road 6,324 5049 SH 115- Penrose to Cob Spgs(selected locations not including MPO) 10,27(. 5051 SH 115-Canon City to Penrose(selected locations) 1.054 5020 IJS 24-Divide to Woodland Park- PE/Design/ROW 1,054 5056 US 24- Divide to Rule Creek 3,162 5040 SH 9- Drainage/Curb/Sidewalk through Fairplay 36c- 5125 SH 115-Salt Creek North 1.32( 5082 Scenario B TNBS Capital 14,544 5088 Scenario B TNBS Operating 8,09( Total $104,727 NOTE: This table summarizes information contained in the regional transportation plan. For more specific proje,1 information,please reference the source plan or contact CDOT IDlV I'ifl Page 149 CENTRAL FRONT RANGE I� TRANSPORTATION PLANNING REGION 2020 FISCALLY CONSTRAINED PLAN Map 14 `/ Highway Improvement N O Transit Project BAILEY JEFFERSON Q Rail Project Csss� CD Other 009 /—" FAIRd?LAY I PARK 0'V , , os �RAMAH 85' �r\ HA TSEL CALHAN D_IVI0 Pikes Peak I MPO N F�-1 ,- I osa 0 H /\'1 I C", - CRIPPLEe' CREEK'`c ''>-- — 115 REMO - TEXAS ' CANON' �o oso CRFE CITYs 050 FLORI CE 1 To9e1 W FSTCLIFF-€--- SILVER CLIFF 165 i069'i I \J I C1R I I Ir for COLORADO REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION PLANS SOUTH CENTRAL SOUTH CENTRAL REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION PLAN Regional Planning Commission The South Central Region is made up of Huerfano and Las Animas Counties. The four-member Board of the Huerfano-Las Animas Area Council of Governments(HLAACOG)which is comprised of representatives from each county and the cities of Walsenburg and Trinidad,serves as the Regional Planning Commission, and is responsible for :he development of the Regional Transportation Plan. Mike Bailey, who is also Director of the Huerfano/La; Ani iias Council of Governments and the region's STAC representative,chairs the RPC. The RPC provides oversight for plan development, establishes goals, prioritizes projects, and determines the financially constrained project list. A Technical Advisory Committee was established for the separate Transit Development Plan that was developed concurrently with the Regional Transportation Plan.Airport managers of the three airports in the region acted as an Aviation Technical Committee to provide direction for long-range aviation needs. ^,mow VI Page 151 COLORADO REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION PLANS SOUTH CENTRAL Regional Values, Vision, Goa/s and Strategies The South Central Region's vision for the transportation system reflects its social,economic and environmental characteristics that can be summed up as its quality of life. Maintaining the quality of life is very important. High quality rural life is a primary resource in the area and is reflected in the goals for the region. However, the region needs to balance two almost mutually exclusive issues: the need to strengthen and diversify the economy (development of methane gas deposits)and the need to preserve the unique environmental features of the. area (Spanish Peaks as a potential wilderness designation and preservation of other environmental resources for the future). Given these issues, the Vision of Transportation Services in the South Central Region is: A transportation network that supports a stronger and diversified economy, preserves the environmental and scenic quality of life, expands recreational opportunities, and preserves the unique historical, cultural, and small town character of the region. Four goals were established to support this vision. r Provide for safe, efficient, and properly maintained facilities and services with the capacity to accommodate projected growth and development in the region. v Provide for improved regional access for tourists, residents and businesses through a wide variety of modal options and improved roadway connections to other regions within the State. Provide for improved regional image and visibility to highway travelers. r Mitigate the impacts of methane gas shipment, and new housing development upon the region's most sensitive environments and tourist areas and activities. Strategies developed to assist in project selection for the RTP include: y Improving the aesthetic appeal of the area and blending historic nature of the region with major projects. This may include projects such as the River Walk project or the Highway of Legends. Y Supporting activities that strengthen the economy with mitigation of environmental and transportatior impacts. v Development of a continuous bike and pedestrian trail along the Scenic Highway of Legends with connections to Highway 12. OM w 1 Page 152 JOT COLORADO REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION PLANS SOUTH CENTRAL Socioeconomic and Environmental Profile Socioeconomic Characteristics Walsenburg and Trinidad provide regional services to the South Central TPR. Following a period of population decline from 1970 to 1990,the region's population is again on the increase, according to the Division of Local Government/Demography Division. Much of the future growth is expected to be in the unincorporated areas of the counties and in the scenic mountain communities. The region's population is significantly older than many other areas of the state. The median age in the state is 32.5 years; in Huerfano County it is 39.6 years and in Trinidad it is 37.7 years. This is the result of young persons leaving to a eas with more employment opportunities and the in-migration of retirees. In the region, 57%of the population is Caucasian and 43%of the population is Hispanic, providing the area with strong Hispanic cultural traditions. Other demographic characteristics from the plan: 13%to 18%of workers reported as walking to work or working at home, reflecting the size of I:he communities and farm workers, although home-based businesses are becoming more common. • 19.2%of the region is over age 65. y 25%of the region's population is under the poverty line. fr 12%of the households do not have an automobile. ✓ The economy has shifted in recent decades from mining and agricultural to tourism and services Y Unemployment in the region is among the highest in the state. The unemployment rate in 1997 was 5.1%in Huerfano County and 6.4%in Las Animas County. South Central Colorado Transportation Planning Region Population Growth 2000 - 2020 Total 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 Change Change POP 24,287 25,712 27,000 28,278 29,600 5,313 21.8 �w . Page 153 )OT COLORADO REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION PLANS SOUTH CENTRAL Environmental Profile This bi-county region is noted for its natural beauty and diverse environment. The Purgatoire River Valley is the most important physical element in the region,which also includes parts of the Sangre de Cristo Mountains,the Spanish Peaks Wilderness Area, and prairie environments. Sig iificant findings in the plan: The region contains significant untapped coal and methane gas reserves. An important dinosaur fossil resource was discovered on the plains east of Las Animas in the early 1990s. Reconstruction of the bridge over Trinchera Creek revealed a rich archeological find of stone and bone tools, which were extensively evaluated and documented by CDOT. While the region has not been officially listed as at-risk for air quality concerns,the plan states that the extent of un-paved roads in the area could contribute to future particulate problems as projected population growth continues. - ` I Page 154 Hai I COLORADO REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION PLANS r�—iss `-' SOUTH CENTRAL Preferred Plan The South Central TPR preferred plan includes all of the identified transportation improvement needs in the TF'R through the year 2020.The preferred plan includes highways, transit, rail, aviation, and pedestrian/enhancement projects. Projects are prioritized within each mode. Priorities are rated as high, second level or third level. The South Central RTF' plan includes these unique characteristics: - A list of bridge rehabilitation projects is included in the regional plan under highway projects. Those bridge needs total$13,187,000, but are not included in the summary table on the next page. The plan lists several statements concerning the reconstruction of 1-25 in Trinidad related to construction phasing, access during construction, bicycle/pedestrian connections, aesthetics and utilities that will preserve and enhance local mobility(page 49-50). The plan includes a desire to arrange to trade jurisdictional authority of a local road segment for a state highway segment(page 52). Two statements in support of rail passenger service are included; one supporting retention of the Amtrak Trinidad stop,the other supporting eventual development of a passenger rail between Albuquerque and Denver(page 52). A kcal road and bridge needs element was included in the plan. The methodology supplied by CDOT's Division of Transportation Development was used to determine the appropriate level of funding necessary to construct, replace. and maintain the local roadway system. State-supplied values and the consultant's estimates of future needs were combined to arrive at the projection for local roadway needs. The total cost to implement the preferred plan is $291,132,000. This total amount includes $166,425,000 in Local Needs. The table below summarizes the cost, by Investment Category, as recorded in the project database accompanying the regional plan. South Central Transportation Planning Region 2020 Preferred Plan (thousands of year 2000 dollars Investment Category Cost System Quality 57,449 Safety _ 54,805 Mobility 12,453 Program Delivery 0 Sub-total 124,707 Local Needs 166,425 Total $291,132 NOTE: This table summarizes information contained in the regional transpodation plan.For more specific project information,please reference the source plan or contact CDOT. �■ M Page 155 )OT COLORADO REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION PLANS SOUTH CENTRAL Prioritization Process Projects in the South Central TPR were prioritized by mode in a two-step process. Each project was ranked on several factors, as listed below. These factors were assigned a weight to reflect the relative importance of the factor in the region. For each factor, projects were given a three for high impact, a two for moderate impact,or a one for low impact. The number scores were multiplied by the weight in each category to arrive at a weighted score for each factor. Criteria Weight Description Puolic Support 20 Support by transportation stakeholders and general public Reduce congestion by implementing operational improvements o Congestion 05 reducing demand for trips Sa`ety 15 Addresses existing or potential hazardous conditions Minimize impacts to water and air resources, minimize noise Environment 10 pollution System Continuity 05 Complete gaps in transportation system, provide regional connections Preservation of System 05 Maintain/preserve transportation infrastructure Minimize maintenance costs over time; support regional economic Economic Impact 10 development goals; have high benefit/cost ratio Inter/Multi-modal 05 Improve connections between modes or supports alternate modes Ability to Implement 25 Technologically sound and achievable Projects already included in the STIP were not ranked as funding was already programmed for these projects Aviation projects were ranked separately by the aviation sub-committee. �w w w Page 156 311T • COLORADO REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION PLANS raw SOUTH CENTRAL Financially Constrained Plan Representatives of the South Central TPR met with CDOT Region 2 and representatives of other TPRs within the CDOT Region in May 1999 to establish region-wide priorities from the TPR preferred plans within the framework of fiscal constraint. Revenue projections were provided by CDOT. The meeting resulted in the fiscally constrained element of the long-range plan. Projects in this element are eligible to move into the implementation phase. The financially constrained plan for the South Central TPR totals$52,593,000. See the table below for the project listings for the fiscally constrained plan. South Central Transportation Planning Region 2020 Constrained Plan (thousands of year 2000 dollars Project# Description Cost 1 1-25 -through Trinidad 36,783 112 Maintain current transit operations 3,314 113 Replace existing transit fleet 1,180 2 SHI 12 -Weston East 2,814 3 US 160 -W. of Walsenburg 3,876 4 US 160 - Trinidad East to Beshoar Jct. 3,876 114 Expand existing transit service 75(1 Total $52,593 NOTE: This table summarizes information contained in the regional transportation plan. For more specific proje,:t information,please reference the source plan or contact COOT ■ w■ Page 157 SOUTH CENTRAL TRANSPORTATION PLANNING REGION 2020 FISCALLY CONSTRAINED PLAN Map 15 `/ Highway Improvement N 0 Transit Project 0 Rail Project p' Other I .t? '-, IftERIA_VO s v , WALSURG Yip i 0 / LA`6ETA I,_% i� O e C r, 350 / AGUILAR\LARD. /./` LA.S ANIVI 3 ozs KIM , im ilea otz, COKEDALE, TRINIDAD 87 0 STARKVILLE '389' BRANSON I Hello