Meeting Agenda of the TRANSPORTATION ADVISORY COMMITTEE July 20, 2017 1:30 p.m. PPACG Lower Level Conference Room
Agenda items marked with indicate that additional materials were included in packets mailed to members. Please park in the large parking lot on the east side of the building and enter the east entrance to the lower level.
1. Call To Order / Establish A Quorum / Introductions 2. Agenda Approval 3. Public Comments – For items not on the agenda 4. Approval of the June 15, 2017 Minutes 5. Board of Director’s Report – July Board Meeting 6. Action Items A. FY 2017-2022 TIP Amendment 11 Kevin Rayes, Transportation Planner B. 2045 Long Range Transportation Plan: Objectives and Targets Kevin Rayes, Transportation Planner 7. Discussion Items A. FY 2017-2022 TIP Delay Policy Kevin Rayes, Transportation Planner 8. Information Items A. 2045 Long Range Transportation Plan: Activities Update Jennifer Valentine, Transportation Planner 9. Member Entity Announcements 10. Items for Future TAC Meetings 11. Adjournment
Meeting Minutes of the TRANSPORTATION ADVISORY COMMITTEE June 15, 2017 1:30 p.m. PPACG Lower Level Conference Room
1. Call to Order / Establish a Quorum / Introductions- Chair Brian Vitulli called the meeting to order at 1:34 p.m. and established a quorum. Introductions were made. 2. Agenda Approval- The Colorado Department of Transportation requested to change the agenda. Mr. Larry Manning moved to change the I-25 PEL Study Update on the agenda from Item 7B to item 6A. Mr. Anton Ramage seconded. The motion carried unanimously. 3. Public Comments – There were none. 4. Approval of the May 18, 2017 Minutes- Ms. Victoria Chavez moved approval of the May 18 meeting minutes, seconded by Ms. Brandy Williams. The motion carried unanimously. 5. Board of Director’s Report – Mr. Ken Prather, Acting Transportation Director, provided an overview of the Board of Directors’ discussions and actions from the June Board meeting: • The Board approved amending the 2050 long range transportation plan planning horizon to 2045. • CDOT’s tier 1 list of projects is still unknown. 6. Action Items A. TIP Policy Task Force TIP Funding Policy Proposal Mr. Kevin Rayes, Transportation Planner, presented the TIP funding policy proposal as drafted by the TIP policy task force. There was discussion on the wording of the proposal and minor changes were made. Mr. Tim Roberts moved that the TIP policies as modified through the TAC discussion replace the existing NOPE policy with the requirement that should the CAC make any substantive changes to this proposed policy, it should come back to the TAC for further discussion. Ms. Victoria Chavez seconded. The motion carried unanimously. B. TIP Amendment 10 Mr. Rayes presented TIP amendment 10 for recommendation. Discover Goodwill requested the amendment to add FASTER dollars into the TIP to purchase two buses. Ms. Victoria Chavez moved approval of the item. Ms. Brandy Williams seconded. The motion carried unanimously. C. UPWP FY-2018 & FY-2019 Mr. Prather presented PPACG’s upcoming unified planning work program (UPWP). The scope of work for the UPWP includes approving a new TIP in 2018 and approving the 2045 long range transportation plan in 2019. Member governments also identified planning activities to be conducted during FY 2018 and FY 2019. Ms. Victoria Chavez moved approval of this item with a note that there may be minor changes to the document. Mr. Tim Roberts seconded. The motion carried unanimously.
7. Discussion Items
A. TIP Project Roll Forwards Mr. Rayes presented the list of projects in the TIP that will be rolled forward into FY 2018. There was discussion on the list to make sure it was accurate.
Page 2
B. I-25 PEL Study Update Ms. Mandy Whorton, CH2M Senior Project Manager, presented the progress on the PEL study for the I-25 corridor. She mentioned that safety, reliability and mobility are all necessary improvements to the corridor. Based on CDOT’s current timeline, they project that the environmental assessment on the “gap” will be completed by the end of 2018 and construction will begin in 2019. CDOT is also in the process of finding additional funding sources to pay for this project. They project the cost will range from $290-$570 million, depending on what the project entails.
8. Information Items
A. Update on 6/8 Scenario Planning Workshop Ms. Jennifer Valentine, Transportation Planner, gave an overview of the scenario planning workshop. She mentioned that PPACG’s next task will be going out to several public events to present the workshop results as well as gather additional input.
9. Member Entity Announcements There were none. 10. Items for Future TAC Meetings TIP Delay projects and a TIP amendment will be coming forward. PPACG is tentatively looking at July 10 and 11 for a TAC workshop to finish establishing objectives and targets. 11. Adjournment- Mr. Vitulli adjourned the meeting at 3:23 p.m.
Transportation Advisory Committee Attendees June 15, 2017 Present Name Agency/Affiliation Wade Burkholder Manitou Springs X Larry Manning Monument Lor Pellegrino Woodland Park Aaron Bustow FHWA Bob Radosevich Town of Palmer Lake X Wendy Pettit CDOT X Ken Prather PPACG X Brandy Williams Fountain X Darren Horstmeier Schriever AFB Mike Kozak Cheyenne Mountain AFB X Rick Orphan Fort Carson Debra Baumgardner USAFA X Tim Roberts Colorado Springs X Brian Vitulli Colorado Springs Mountain Metro Transit X Anton Ramage El Paso County X Victoria Chavez El Paso County X Kevin Rayes PPACG X Jennifer Valentine PPACG
Page 2
Transportation Advisory Committee Attendees June 15, 2017 Present Name Agency/Affiliation Bethany Schoemer PPACG Raimere Fitzpatrick El Paso County Michelle Anthony City of Manitou Springs X Mandy Whorton CH2M Senior Project Manager
Agenda Item 6A
DATE: July 20, 2017 TO: PPACG Transportation Advisory Committee FROM: Kevin Rayes, Transportation Planner SUBJECT: FY 2017-2022 TIP Amendment 11
ACTION REQUESTED: Review & Recommend
SUMMARY PPACG FY 2017-2022 TIP Amendment 10 has the following requests: • The City of Colorado Springs requests to add $2,863,472 CDOT Permanent Water Quality Mitigation Pool funds to the TIP with a $2,140,000 local match. The City plans to design, construct and maintain a critical full spectrum basin at the northwest corner of Powers Boulevard and Research Parkway. The project will improve peak flows and water quality along the Fairfax tributary of Cottonwood Creek. (See Colorado Springs amendment request letter in attachment 1). • CDOT Region 2 requests to add $900,000 dollars of Bridge on System Funds to the TIP. $720,000 of those funds will be programmed in FY 2018 and $180,000 will be programmed in FY 2019. CDOT plans to repair and realign the culvert needing attention on SH 94 between mile marker 3.5 and 4.5 (See CDOT amendment request letter in attachment 2). • In March of each year, the CDOT Transportation Commission adopts the annual budget for the upcoming State Fiscal Year which begins on July 1 (See CDOT amendment request letter in attachment 3). The adopted budget adjusts the following federal program balances in the PPACG area: o CMAQ FY18 now has $1,382,019 programmed. Before the update, CMAQ had $1,013,473 programmed. CMAQ FY18 now has $401,675 unprogrammed funds. o TAP FY18 now has $756,291 programmed. Before the update, TAP had $550,699 programmed. TAP FY18 now has $205,592 unprogrammed funds. o STP-Metro FY18 now has $7,947,725 programed. Before the update, STP-Metro had $7,670,273 programmed. STP-Metro FY18 now has $277,722 unprogrammed funds.
RECOMMENDATION(S) N/A
PROPOSED MOTION Recommend PPACG FY 2017-2022 TIP amendment 11 for approval.
Agenda Item 6A
ALTERNATIVES The TAC has the following alternatives to consider:
1) Recommend approval of the item as presented. 2) Do not recommend approval of the item. 3) Refer the item back to staff.
PREVIOUS BOARD ACTION Projects in the TIP and/or their original funding have previously been approved by the PPACG Board of Directors in the FY 2017-2022 TIP or earlier TIPS.
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS N/A
BACKGROUND As the Pikes Peak region’s designated Metropolitan Planning Organization, PPACG is responsible for managing state, local and federal transportation and transit funds through a document called the Transportation Improvement Program. The 2017 TIP is a short-range (4 – 6 year) planning program that implements the region’s long-range Regional Transportation Plan to accomplish regional transportation, mobility and air quality improvements and goals. The PPACG FY 2017-2022 TIP contains the PPACG region’s list of transportation projects for which state, local, and federal funds are being programmed.
The FY 2017-2022 TIP was developed in cooperation with our member agencies, CDOT and in conjunction with PPACG’s RTP and the State Transportation Improvement Program. All surface transportation projects requiring or using federal funding or a federal action to proceed must be included in the PPACG FY 2017-2022 TIP.
STAKEHOLDER PROCESS This proposal conforms to the PPACG public involvement process. This amendment will be presented to the CAC for recommendation and Board of Directors for approval.
ATTACHMENTS 1) City of Colorado Springs Amendment Request Letter 2) CDOT Critical Culvert Funding Amendment Request Letter 3) CDOT Federal Funding Pools Amendment Request Letter
Agenda Item 6A Attachment 1 cO PUBLIC WORKS RIN OLYMPICCITYUSA
June 29, 2017
Mr. Kenneth Prather 15 South 7th Street Colorado, Springs, CO 80905
Dear Mr. Prather,
The City of Colorado Springs requests a TIP amendment to the PPACG 2017-2022 Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) as the City was awarded funding for the construction of a storm water basin at the northwest corner of Powers Boulevard and Research Parkway.
The City will design, construct, and maintain a critical full spectrum basin at the northwest corner of Powers Boulevard and Research Parkway. This project is of great importance to both the City and CDOT as there are a number of forces driving this high priority project. First, is to fulfillthe commitments made by the City of Colorado Springs to the City of Pueblo in the recently approved Intergovernmental Agreement (IGA) to improve their stormwater quality infrastructure within the City of Colorado Springs. Second, is to meet recent requirements for the City by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Third, CDOT has imminent plans for the design and construction of a new grade separated interchange at Powers Boulevard and Research Parkway. The proposed CDOT interchange is a priority project that currently has no plans for water quality treatment, though it will be required to meet MS4 requirements.
The project will attenuate peak flows and provide water quality along the Fairfax tributary of Cottonwood Creek through the construction of an approximate 12 acre-feet full spectrum basin. The proposed basin would divert a portion of the flow from the Fairfax Tributary into the basin and allow those flows to slowly drain over time. The treatment of the storm flows would also facilitate the sedimentation of total suspended solids (TSS), improving downstream water quality. In addition, the attenuation of peak flows in the basin would lower the peak flows in Fairfax Tributary encountered in most storm events. This would reduce the amount of water flowing through the channel, therefore lowering the velocity of the water in the channel and reducing downstream channel erosion. While there are several detention basins on the north side of Powers, there is no water quality infrastructure to treat the impervious area of either Powers Boulevard or Research Parkway around the intersection. The proposed location of the basin also allows it to be located outside of the 100-year floodplain.
The funding for this project is being provided by a grant in the amount of $2,863,472 from the CDOT Permanent Water Quality Mitigation Pool funds. The City of Colorado Springs is providing matching resources in the form of financial assistance, design and coordination totaling $2,140,000. The partnership with CDOT willfacilitate the construction of a full spectrum basin that will meet the goals and objectives for all parties.
Please let me know if you have any additional questions about the proposed TIP modification action.
Sincerely,
Tim RObcft5
Principal Transportation Planner Traffic Engineering-Colorado Springs Public Works 719-385-5481 troberts @springsgov.com
30 South Nevada Avenue, Suite 401 • TEL 719-385-5908 Mailing Address: Post Office Box 1575, Mail Code 410 • Colorado Springs, Colorado 80901-1575 www.ColoradoSprings.gov Agenda Item 6A Attachment 2 Agenda Item 6A Attachment 3 Agenda Item 6A Attachment 3 Agenda Item 6B
M E M O R A N D U M
DATE: July 20, 2017 TO: PPACG Transportation Advisory Committee FROM: Kevin Rayes, Transportation Planner SUBJECT: 2045 LONG RANGE TRANSPORTATION PLAN OBJECTIVES AND TARGETS
ACTION REQUESTED: Review & Recommend
SUMMARY In May, the PPACG Board of Directors approved the goals for the 2045 regional long range transportation plan (LRTP). PPACG is now in the process of establishing the objectives and targets that will help achieve the goals. The objectives are intended to specify what the region wants to accomplish and the targets specify by how much. A TAC workshop was held on April 11 to establish objectives and a subsequent workshop was held on July 10 to establish targets.
Attachment 1 contains a chart of the draft objectives and targets established thus far. There are three objectives that will need further discussion among the TAC before a recommendation can be made: • The non-motorized objective, which branches from the connectivity and accessibility goal, will need further discussion to decide if it should be included as a target. If so, how will it be measured? The chart lists several possible ways to measure this objective. One of the possible measurements could be to use the list of improvement corridors identified in the non-motorized plan. Attachment 2 contains the list of corridors from the non-motorized plan. • The environmental objectives and targets relating to critical habitats, storm water and air quality which branch from the economic vitality goal will need further discussion. • The infill objective, which branches from the economic vitality goal, will need further discussion on how it will be measured. One possible measurement could be to focus investments in the urbanized area of the MPO region. Attachment 3 contains a map which shows the urbanized area as compared to the MPO area.
RECOMMENDATION(S) N/A
PROPOSED MOTION Recommend the draft objectives and targets for approval.
ALTERNATIVES The TAC has the following alternatives to consider: 1) Recommend approval of the item as presented. 2) Do not recommend approval of the item. 3) Refer the item back to staff.
Page 1 ATTACHMENTS 1) Chart of Goals, Objectives and Targets 2) Non-motorized Plan Improvement Corridors 3) PPACG Urbanized Area and MPO Boundary
Page 3 of 3 Item 6B Attachment 1
Goal 1 – Maintenance and Operations
Improve the efficiency, condition and economically sustainable operations of the existing transportation network, including roads, transit, and non-motorized facilities.
Objective 1- Road Objective 2- Bridge Objective 3- Transit Objective 4- Non-Motorized Maintain or improve current roadway infrastructure condition. Maintain or improve current bridge infrastructure Maintain or improve current fixed-route Explore options for collecting condition. vehicle infrastructure condition. data/establishing baseline. Then work to maintain or improve non-motorized infrastructure conditions. 2007 IRI Baseline 2014 IRI Baseline 2010 Bridge Condition 2015 Bridge Condition Baseline Baseline • 2.5 % in very good condition • 1% in very good condition 2015 State of Good Repair (SGR) Baseline • 39% in good condition • 66% in good condition • 73% in good condition • 75.5% in good Fixed-route vehicles SGR rating= 3.24 • 44.9% in fair condition • 29% in fair condition • 22% in fair condition condition • 10.7 % in poor condition • 3.5% in poor condition • 5% in poor condition • 22.2% in fair condition • .1% in very poor condition • .5% in very poor condition • 2.3% in poor condition
• 1.6% no data
Proposed Target Proposed Target Proposed Target Maintain fixed-route vehicles in a SGR rating of
Greater than 90% of roads in good or better condition at least 3.0 (adequate) on a scale of 1 (poor) to Greater than 90% of bridges in good or better condition 5 (excellent).
Item 6B Attachment 1
Goal 2 – Mobility
Optimize the movement of people and goods.
Objective 1- Auto + Freight Objective 2- Auto + Freight Objective 3A- Transit Objective 4- Non-Motorized Enhance fixed-route transit Maintain or improve resiliency and redundancy of Maintain or improve travel time by a variety of transportation system. modes in the region.
Baseline Data: Baseline data: Baseline Data:
Between 4-6 pm on Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday in 2011: 23 miles in the region experienced • 2015 annual ridership- 3,001,246 The American Community Survey reported commuting congestion, 44 miles were becoming congested and 976 miles were free flow. • 2016 annual ridership- 3,120,334 patterns for the Colorado Springs MSA (all of El Paso • Change from 2015 to 2016- +3.8% and Teller counties). Below is the percent of residents in • 94% of the roads were not congested (at least 80% free flow speed) the area who walk or bike to work: • 4% were becoming congested (between 70-80% free flow speed) • 2% were congested (below 70% free flow speed) Proposed Target • 2010-
Increase system-wide fixed-route ridership by 10% o Walk-4.8% Between 4-6 pm on Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday in 2015: 144 miles in the region experienced Bike- 0.5% o congestion, 168 miles were becoming congested and 735 miles were free flow. • 2012- Walk- 4.5% • 70% of the roads were not congested (at least 80% free flow speed) ------o Bike- 0.3% • 16% were becoming congested (between 70-80% free flow speed) o • 2015- • 14% were congested (below 70% free flow speed) Objective 3B- Transit Ensure reliable transit time. o Walk- 3.3% Bike- 0.5% Proposed Target o Baseline data: How can we use this data? • 94% of the roads are not congested (at least 80% free flow speed) System-wide fixed-route on-time performance: • 4% are becoming congested (between 70-80% free flow speed) • Set a target for increasing mode share for • 2% are congested (below 70% free flow speed) • 2016 Q1- 85.12% Q2- 85.51% Q3- 84.05% Q4- walking and biking. 85.85%
o Avg. annual- 85.13
• 2017- Q1- 88.49% Q2- 87.41% o Avg. annual- 87.95% • Change- Q1- 3.96% Q2- 2.22%
o Avg. change- 3.09% Proposed Target
Proposed Target Maintain system-wide fixed-route on-time performance of at Increase mode share to 5% for walking to work least 85% annually. Increase mode share to 1% for biking to work
Item 6B Attachment 1
Goal 3 – Connectivity and Accessibility Ensure adequate and equitable access to destinations using a variety of modes
Objective 1A-Transit Objective 2- Non-Motorized Objective 3- Modal Integration Enhance fixed-route transit Focus on closing gaps in the non-motorized system Increase modal connections in projects and ensure ADA accessibility Baseline data 2016:
12/26 (46%) of routes have headways less Baseline data: Establishing a baseline and target may be difficult for than 60 minutes this objective. PPACG suggests using modal integration There are several options for this target: as a scoring criterion for projects and omit it as a Proposed Target • target. Maintain or increase the percentage of The TAC workshop recommends exploring
routes with headways less than 60 minutes. options for collecting data/establishing baseline. Then work to maintain or improve
non-motorized infrastructure conditions. • The non-motorized plan has a list of ------improvement corridors for the region. The
Objective 1B- Transit improvement corridors cover a total of 626.3 Enhance fixed-route transit miles. The region has a total of 1,463.34 miles of roads. The improvement corridors cover Baseline data 42.8% of the regional road network. • Percentage of major health care facilities that Need to establish baseline are served by more than one mode of transportation How can we measure this? • Percentage of top 50 employment sites that are served by more than one mode of Proposed Target transportation Maintain or increase the population within ¼ • Percentage of top 50 employment sites within mile of a transit stop. one mile of a bicycle facility or within ¼ mile of a transit line
Proposed Target
Item 6B Attachment 1
Goal 4 – Safety Reduce hazards for all modes of travel
Objective 1- Motorized Vehicles Objective 2- Non-Motorized (vehicle-vehicle) (Vehicle-pedestrian/cyclist) Add safety features to reduce hazards. Add safety features to reduce hazards.
Baseline Data Baseline Data 2011 • PDO- 7,061 Vehicle-pedestrian cycle deaths: • INJ- 3,084 • 2012- 13 regional/76 state • FAT- 40 • 2012 2013- 6 regional /50 state • PDO- 7,242 • 2014- 5 regional/63 state • INJ- 3,410 • 2015- 8 regional/59 state • FAT- 40 • 2016- 7 regional 2013 • 2017- 6 regional (so far) • PDO-7,672 • INJ- 3,575 • FAT- 55 2014 • PDO- 7,882 • INJ- 3,623 • FAT- 50 2015 • PDO- 8,236 • INJ-3,557 • FAT-45 How can we measure this? There are 5 measures that must be addressed: o Fatalities o Fatality rate o Serious injuries o Serious injury rate o Non-motorized fatalities
Proposed Target
Federal law requires that states establish safety targets using the five measures listed above. MPOs’ are required to set targets that are as good, or better than the state targets. The TAC workshop agreed to set the same target as the state (CDOT will be coming out with its targets in the coming weeks).
Item 6B Attachment 1
Goal 5 – Economic Vitality Improve competitiveness of the regional economy and residents’ quality of life through strategic transportation investments and integrated transportation technology
Objective 1- Environment Objective 2- Tourism, Economy Objective 3- Incentivize infill by focusing Objective 4- Revenue and Cost Trends Improve or mitigate impacts to critical habitat, investments on existing infrastructure (Use trends to set context for all targets storm-water runoff quantity and air quality. and objectives) Baseline Data How can we measure this? How can we measure this?
• Critical habitats PPACG recommends using the following The TAC workshop agreed that we are trying o The region has 1,463.34 miles of roads. 314 performance measures to monitor tourism and to achieve cost-effectiveness through infill. miles of road are located in critical habitats. the economy only for reporting purposes We need to decide how to measure this 21.5% of roads are located in critical target: Tourism Indicators habitats. • Lane miles per capita • Storm-water runoff • Total visitation to Pikes Peak Region in • Ratio of dollars invested in urbanized o There are 83,309.25 square miles of roads 2015- 20.5 million visitors (8.8 million area. in the PPACG region (collector and above). overnight; 11.7 million day) • VMT per capita (or VMT growth per • Air quality • Economic impact (visitor spending): capita) o The Moves model will measure regional air $11.976 billion in the Pikes Peak region in • Daily vehicle hours travelled per capita quality 2015. Does not include multipliers
• Tourism employment in the region in
Proposed Targets 2015: 17,000
The TAC workshop could not agree if the Economic Indicators environmental components should be addressed as targets and scoring criteria. Several mentioned that • Per capita real GDP for Pikes Peak Region- because environmental regulations are addressed in total income in the region divided by total NEPA, establishing PPACG performance measures population would be redundant • Gross metropolitan product (GMP)- same as GDP but on regional level • Critical habitats- PPACG recommends: maintain • Commercial vehicle delay on interstate or reduce the percentage of roads in critical system habitats. • Combined index of cost of living and • Storm-water- PPACG suggests omitting storm transportation (H+T) water as a target but maybe use impervious surface as a scoring criterion • Air quality- do not violate national ambient air quality standards
Agenda Item 6B Attachment 2 Corridor Identification 09 2 Methodology
This chapter identifies the collected datasets that • Employees place of work and home – Using data form the basis of the corridor identification analysis. from the 2010 U.S. Census to provide information The chapter also describes the rationale used to on the places people work and live (only the active identify each corridor, based on the data collected. workforce in the region). This data is combined with military personnel employment data, as this is not For more detailed information regarding any of currently included in the ‘On the Map’ dataset. the datasets below, please refer to the Existing Nonmotorized Conditions document, which can • Source: On the Map, 2013 (www. be downloaded from www.walkbikeconnect.org. onthemap.ces.census.gov) • School locations – Shows the location of each Data collection and Mapping elementary, middle, and high school in the region. The following datasets were collected for • Source: Open Street Map, 2013 (openstreetmap.org) existing conditions and identification of • Other destination locations – Shows the location nonmotorized corridors: of other destinations, including parks, civic • Pedestrian and cyclist accidents over the past 10 buildings, churches, medical centers, police years (2003 through to 2012) – Shows accidents on stations, fire stations and recreational centers. the transportation network involving pedestrians • Source: Open Street Map, 2013 (openstreetmap.org) and cyclists in the region from 2002 to 2012. • Existing nonmotorized trails – Shows the • Source: Department of Revenue, the City existing nonmotorized trails in the region. of Colorado Springs Police Department • Source: Existing trails provided as GIS layers and the City of Woodland Park, 2013 from El Paso County, the City of Colorado • The network ‘levels’ mapping (please see cycling Springs and the City of Woodland Park. competency levels as detailed in the ‘Existing • PPACG Regional Nonmotorized Transportation Plan Conditions Report’ document) – Shows the Areas: Shows the areas included in this project. competency level required to use each section • Source: Areas were designated by the of the network, from level 1 (off road) to level PMT team, 2013. Please refer to Figure 2.1 4 (traffic over 35 mph with no cyclist space). below for a breakdown of these areas. • Source: Analysis completed by project team, 2013 • Proposed nonmotorized trails – Shows the • Rates of cycling, walking and transit to work – proposed nonmotorized trails in the region. Shows the rates of using cycling, walking and • Source: Contributions by El Paso County, the City of transit to work per population by census tract. Colorado Springs and the City of Woodland Park, 2013 • Source: Data taken from the 2011 ACS (American Community Survey) five-year estimation and shows • Existing on-road cycle infrastructure – Shows walk, bicycle and transit commuters per square any on-road cycle infrastructure in the region. mile. The data is shown by census tract, 2011 • Source: Contributions by El Paso County, the City of Colorado Springs and the City of Woodland Park, 2013 • Existing sidewalk coverage – Shows the existing sidewalks in the region. • Source: Contributions by El Paso County, the City of Colorado Springs and the City of Woodland Park, 2014
PPACG REGIONAL NONMOTORIZED TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM PLAN Agenda Item 6B Attachment 2 10
• Transit stops – Shows all transit stops in the region. • Source: Contributions by El Paso County, the City of Colorado Springs and the City of Woodland Park, 2013 • Individual area analysis – These maps, the region split into the 38 areas, show the analysis of nonmotorized movement between and within each area. Each area is shown on an individual map, with a description of the current network and access to neighboring areas. • Source: Analysis by project team, 2013 • Individual trail analysis - The urban trails are a key part of the nonmotorized network in the region. An urban trail is an off road link used by nonmotorized transportation that connects origins and destinations. These trails break down barriers created by the roadway network to nonmotorized movements and facilitate nonmotorized movements in and around the region. • Source: Analysis by project team, 2013
FIGURE 2.1 – PPACG Regional Nonmotorized Transportation Plan Areas
PPACG REGIONAL NONMOTORIZED TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM PLAN Agenda Item 6B Attachment 2 11
Methodology To develop a nonmotorized network that will attract the most use requires understanding the distance Using the data and mapping listed above, a regional most people are willing to travel by active modes. This analysis was conducted to identify corridors throughout is a key difference in comparison to all other modes, the region that would meet the following conditions: as people are required to use their own resources • Fill in nonmotorized network gaps. (energy) to use active modes as transportation. Therefore, people are more likely to regularly use • Attract the heaviest use by nonmotorized active modes of transportation if travel distances modes through connecting people to are shorter than for other, motorized, modes. places via the shortest corridor. Nationally, 81% of nonmotorized transportation • Remove major barriers to trips are less than 5 miles (2002 National Survey of nonmotorized transportation. Pedestrian and Bicyclist Attitudes and Behaviors). The • Improve cyclist and pedestrian safety. average bicycle trip length for transportation purposes is 2.2 miles (2002 National Survey of Pedestrian and • Provide a regional link. Bicyclist Attitudes and Behaviors). The distance is • In addition to the above listed conditions, even shorter for walking trips, as 85% of walking the Project Team included corridors trips are less than 2 miles (2002 National Survey of recommended by local jurisdictions. Pedestrian and Bicyclist Attitudes and Behaviors). The following sections explain the analysis used to With these active mode patterns in mind, identify corridors that met the above listed conditions. infrastructure that connects origins and destinations via the shortest corridor will be the most attractive to users. Therefore, the Project Team identified Fill in nonmotorized network gaps corridors that connect a number of destinations The gaps analysis included overlaying the by short distances to encourage use. following data to understand where there are There are a number of key regional destinations, gaps in the current nonmotorized network: these include (but are not limited to): • Current nonmotorized trails. • Downtown Colorado Springs • Current on-road cycle infrastructure. • City of Woodland Park • Cycling competency levels (illustrates where • City of Manitou Springs key barriers to nonmotorized transportation exist, such as major roadways that are difficult • Old Colorado City (and along West Colorado Avenue) to cross or navigate) these barriers produce • Town of Monument gaps in the network where nonmotorized transportation cannot be easily used. • Town of Palmer Lake • Other barriers such as railroads and drainages. • City of Fountain Attract the heaviest use by nonmotorized • Falcon modes through connecting people to • Town of Green Mountain Falls places via the shortest corridor • Military Installations • Residential areas
PPACG REGIONAL NONMOTORIZED TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM PLAN Agenda Item 6B Attachment 2 12
Remove major barriers to nonmotorized transportation Provide regional links Major barriers to nonmotorized transportation differ The nonmotorized regional network should be than motorized transportation barriers. Motorized connected to link as many origins and destinations transportation uses the motorized network, as possible. For instance, the existing Pikes Peak with few external effects to their journey. Active Greenway is an excellent corridor that can serve as the modes are different as the number of external backbone of a more connected regional network. effects are much greater and create barriers that do not exist for motorized transportation. These differences include, but are not limited to: Recommendations from Member Jurisdictions
• Perception of safety/actual safety – Proximity Each of the member jurisdictions on the project and speed of motorized transportation has (PPACG, El Paso County, the City of Colorado Springs, a much greater impact on nonmotorized and the City of Woodland Park) added suggestions transport than that of motorized transport. and considerations to the identified corridors. • Physical barriers – The motorized network These recommendations were taken into account creates barriers to the nonmotorized and produced both amendments to the identified network (e.g. I-25). Other physical barriers corridors as well as new identified corridors. include railroads and drainage systems.
Improve cyclist and pedestrian safety Areas where cyclist and pedestrian accidents have occurred over the past 10 years likely indicate where nonmotorized transportation may be most hazardous; and where remedial work would improve nonmotorized network safety. Accident data is also an indication of areas throughout the region where cyclists and pedestrians are traveling.
• Perception of safety/actual safety – Proximity and speed of motorized transportation has a much greater impact on nonmotorized transport than that of motorized transport. • Physical barriers – The motorized network creates barriers to the nonmotorized network (e.g. I-25). Other physical barriers include railroads and drainage systems.
PPACG REGIONAL NONMOTORIZED TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM PLAN Agenda Item 6B Attachment 2 3 Regional Corridor Summary 13
This chapter provides an overview of the regional corridors identified through the planning Corridor 15: City of Fountain to process, and their associated attributes. Colorado Springs Airport
Table 1 lists the corridor numbers and names. Corridor 16: City of Fountain to Fort Carson
Corridor 17: University of Colorado - Colorado Table 1 - Identified Corridors And Names Springs to the Pikes Peak Greenway
Corridor 1: Black Forest to U.S. Air Force Academy Corridor 18: Manitou Springs to Downtown Colorado Springs via Old Colorado City Corridor 2: Falcon to Black Forest via proposed trails Corridor 19: Pine Creek to the Pikes Peak Greenway Corridor 3: Brittney's Park to Sand Creek-Pikes Peak Greenway Corridor 20: Venetian Village to Pine Creek
Corridor 4: The Broadmoor to Old Colorado City Corridor 21: Northgate to the Colorado Christian University (via Voyager Parkway) Corridor 5: Cascade Avenue (downtown Colorado Springs) to Pikes Peak Greenway Corridor 22: Oak Valley Ranch Park to the Pikes Peak Greenway (via the North Corridor 6: Colorado Technical University Douglas Creek drainage way) Colorado Springs to Woodstone Park Corridor 23: Peterson Air Force Base Corridor 7: Colorado Technical to Downtown Colorado Springs University to Midland Trail Corridor 24: Pine Creek High School Corridor 8: Fountain to south of to Colorado Christian University Downtown Colorado Springs Corridor 25: Pikes Peak Greenway Corridor 9: Downtown Colorado Springs to to Colorado Springs Airport Fort Carson Gate via Pikes Peak College Corridor 26: Pikes Peak Greenway to Corridor 10: Briargate to Highway 24 via Palmer Park (via Templeton Gap Road) Briargate Parkway/Stapleton Road Corridor 27: Homestead trail to the Sand Creek Trail Corridor 11: Falcon to Black Forest via Meridian Road Corridor 28: Cottonwood Trail to Corridor 12: Falcon to Pikes Peak Greenway via the Widefield-Security via Chelton Road Rock Island Trail (Includes split corridors 12a and 12b) Corridor 29: Air Force Academy to Maizeland Road Corridor 13: Falcon to the Pikes Peak via Academy Boulevard (includes split Corridor Greenway via Woodmen Road 29a from Maizeland Road to US Highway 85/87)
Corridor 14: Fountain to Stratmoor via Corridor 30: The Broadmoor Hotel to West the Fountain Creek Regional Trail Colorado Avenue via South 8th Street
PPACG REGIONAL NONMOTORIZED TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM PLAN Agenda Item 6B Attachment 2 14
Corridor 31: Westside (N 31st St) to Corridor 47: Pikes Peak Greenway to Garden Cimarron Hills (Peterson Air Force Base) of the Gods Road via Mesa Road
Corridor 32: Red Rocks Park to Ute Corridor 48: Red Canon Place to Valley Park/Garden of the Gods Garden of the Gods Visitor Center
Corridor 33: Downtown Colorado Springs to CORRIDOR 49: CORRIDOR NOT USED Crews Gulch Trail via Security-Widefield Corridor 50: Gold Camp Road to Old Colorado City Corridor 34: Widefield to Woodmen Road via Sand Creek Trail Alignment Corridor 51: Norad Road to Big Stratton Reservoir
Corridor 35: Woodland Park to Manitou Springs Corridor 52: New Horizons School to The Broadmoor Hotel Corridor 36: Eastern Communities Connect (parallel to North Powers Boulevard) Corridor 53: Homestead Trail to new developments at Black Forest and Woodmen Road Corridor 37: Woodmoor to Palmer Lake via Monument Corridor 54: Woodmen Road/Marksheffel Road to Voyager Parkway via Research Parkway Corridor 38: Woodmoor to Northgate (parallel with I-25) Corridor 55: Wilson Road (Chilcotte Canal) to Fountain Corridor 39: Downtown Colorado Springs to the Sand Creek trail Corridor 56: Rock Island Trail to University of Colorado - Colorado Springs Corridor 40: New Developments by North Powers Boulevard to Templeton Gap Trail Corridor 57: Security-Widefield to Schriever Air Force Base (via new developments) Corridor 41: Fort Carson to Downtown Colorado Springs Corridor 58: New developments (Thunderhead Drive, Fountain) to Security-Widefield CORRIDOR 42: CORRIDOR NOT USED. Corridor 59: Eastonville Road (Black Forest) Corridor 43: Gold Camp Reservoir to Shooks Run Trail to Lindbergh Road (via Hodgen Road)
CORRIDOR 44: CORRIDOR NOT USED Corridor 60: Black Forest Road/Shoup Road to Walker Road/US Highway 83 Corridor 45: Flying Ranch Road to the New Santa Fe Regional Trail via both South Rockrimmon Corridor 61: Pikes Peak Community College Boulevard and East Rockrimmon Boulevard – Falcon to the Pikes Peak Greenway
Corridor 46: Colorado Christian Corridor 62: Pikes Peak Community University to North Nevada Avenue College – Falcon to Stapleton Drive
PPACG REGIONAL NONMOTORIZED TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM PLAN Agenda Item 6B Attachment 2 15
Identified Corridor Attributes Corridor 63: Woodman Road/Marksheffel Road to Fountain Mesa Road Table 2 shows the summary of each corridor, and a number of key attributes, described below.3.2 Corridor 64: Fountain to the County Line • Length (miles) – Shows the total Corridor 65: Schriever Air Force Base to Cimarron approximate length of the corridor. Hills via US Highway 94/Enoch Road Attributes within the corridor
Corridor 66: Schriever Air Force Base • Schools – Number of schools within the corridor. to Falcon via Curtis Road • Employment centers – Areas of employment within the corridor. These ‘areas’ can be clusters Corridor 67: Fort Carson to the County of employment. Where an employment area Line/Beaver Creek State Wildlife Area is split by a level 3+ or 4 road, it is considered two employment areas. Any buildings that Corridor 68: US Highway 83/North Gate Boulevard could provide employment are considered. to North Gate Boulevard/Stadium Boulevard • Parks - Number of parks within the corridor. Corridor 69: Falcon to Evans Road • Other - Number of other within the corridor. Corridor 70: North Powers Boulevard/ Other destinations include places of worship, civic US Highway 83 to the County Line buildings (e.g. libraries, museums etc.) and hospitals • Land use – The general density and land uses Corridor 71: Garden of the Gods Road within the corridor alignment. There are 3 to North Union Boulevard levels of density, low, medium and high. The attribute is analyzed using general land use and general number of buildings from observing the mapped corridors on aerial maps. • Major motorized barriers – The number of competency level 3+ and level 4 roads within the corridor. • Accident levels – The number of bicycle and pedestrian accidents from 2002 – 2012 within the corridor, calculated in terms of total accidents per mile of corridor. The 3 Accident Levels are defined as: • Low – 0.1-7.9 accidents per mile within the corridor • Medium – 8-14.9 accidents per mile within the corridor • High – Over 15 accidents per mile within the corridor
Please note, corridors 42, 44 and 49 are not included in this section, as they were removed during the corridor identification process.
PPACG REGIONAL NONMOTORIZED TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM PLAN Agenda Item 6B Attachment 2 16
Table 2 - Corridor Summary
Major Length Accident Corridor name Destinations Land Use Motorized (Miles) levels Barriers
Schools 2 Low density area: Corridor 1: Black Forest to Employment Centers 3 9.9 Residential and 4 Low U.S. Air Force Academy Parks 3 open space Other 0
Schools 2 Low density area: Corridor 2: Falcon to Black Employment Centers 3 9.7 Residential and 5 Low Forest via proposed trails Parks 1 open space Other 4
Schools 4 Corridor 3: Brittney's Park to Employment Centers 5 Medium density area: 12.2 5 Medium Sand Creek-Pikes Peak Greenway Parks 8 Predominantly residential Other 10
Schools 6 Employment Centers: 6 Medium density area: Corridor 4: The Broadmoor 9.8 Parks: (including 3 Residential, retail 2 Medium Hotel to Old Colorado City GOTGs) and open space Other 8
Schools (including 4 Corridor 5: Cascade Avenue Colorado College) High density area: (downtown Colorado Springs) 4.8 Employment Centers 9 Employment centers, 1 High to Pikes Peak Greenway Parks 3 residential Other 24
Schools 4 Low density area: Corridor 6: Colorado Employment Centers 4 Residential, open Technical University Colorado 4.6 2 Low Parks 5 space and some Springs to Woodstone Park Other 4 employment centers
Schools 3 Medium density area: Corridor 7: Colorado Technical Employment Centers 3 Residential, open 4.7 1 High University to Midland Trail Parks 4 space and some Other 5 employment centers
Schools 3 Low density area: Corridor 8: Fountain to south Employment Centers 7 12.9 Open space, 6 Low of Downtown Colorado Springs Parks 7 employment centers Other 11
PPACG REGIONAL NONMOTORIZED TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM PLAN Agenda Item 6B Attachment 2 17
Major Length Accident Corridor name Destinations Land Use Motorized (Miles) levels Barriers
Schools 4 Corridor 9: Downtown High density Employment Centers 9 Colorado Springs to Fort Carson 6.7 area: Residential, 5 High Parks 2 Gate via Pikes Peak College employment centers Other 13
Schools 4 Corridor 10: Briargate to Medium density area: Employment Centers 8 Highway 24 via Briargate 13.2 Residential, retail 9 Low Parks 4 Parkway/Stapleton Road and open space Other 10
Schools 1 Low density area: Open Corridor 11: Falcon to Black Employment Centers 2 11.4 Space, residential, some 4 Low Forest via Meridian Road Parks 1 employment centers Other 7
Schools Low and High density Corridor 12: Falcon to Pikes Peak 6 4 (12a: 4; 12b: (12a: 6; 12b: 0) area: Open space, Greenway via the Rock Island Trail 1 – both Low (12a: 16.3 (12a: Employment Centers 6 residential and (Corridor 12a: Pikes Peak Greenway routes share Medium; 10; 12b: 6.3) (12a: 5; 12b:1) employment centers to Marksheffel Road; Corridor Marksheffel 12b: Low) Parks (12a: 5; 12b: 1) 6 (12a: High density; 12b: Marksheffel Road to Falcon) Road). Other (12a: 15; 12b: 2) 17 12b: Low density)
Schools 1 Corridor 13: Falcon to Medium density area: Employment Centers 5 the Pikes Peak Greenway 12.2 Open space, residential 8 Low Parks 1 via Woodmen Road and employment centers Other 7
Schools 1 Corridor 14: Fountain to Low density area: Employment Centers 4 Stratmoor via the Fountain 8.8 Open space, 3 Low Parks 2 Creek Regional Trail employment centers Other 3
Schools 3 Medium density area: Corridor 15: City of Fountain Employment Centers 3 11.3 Open space, residential 5 Low to Colorado Springs Airport Parks 3 and employment centers Other 4
Schools 0 Low density area: Corridor 16: City of Employment Centers 3 9.0 Open space and 2 Low Fountain to Fort Carson Parks 0 employment centers Other 0
PPACG REGIONAL NONMOTORIZED TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM PLAN Agenda Item 6B Attachment 2 18
Major Length Accident Corridor name Destinations Land Use Motorized (Miles) levels Barriers
Schools 9 Corridor 17: University of High density area: Employment Centers 7 Colorado - Colorado Springs 6.9 Employment centers 5 Medium Parks 6 to the Pikes Peak Greenway and residential Other 13
Schools 6 Corridor 18: Manitou Springs High density area: Employment Centers 8 to Downtown Colorado Springs 5.9 Employment centers 2 High Parks 5 via Old Colorado City and residential Other 22
Schools 3 Corridor 19: Pine Creek to Employment Centers 15 Medium density area: 6.2 2 Medium the Pikes Peak Greenway Parks 3 Employment centers Other 8
Schools 1 Corridor 20: Venetian Employment Centers 8 Medium density area: 4.3 3 Low Village to Pine Creek Parks 0 Employment centers Other 5
Schools 1 Corridor 21: Northgate to the Low density area: Employment Centers 7 Colorado Christian University 6.2 Residential and 6 Low Parks 2 (via Voyager Parkway) Employment centers Other 7
Corridor 22: Oak Valley Schools 0 Medium density Ranch Park to the Pikes Peak Employment Centers 6 4.6 area: Residential and 3 Low Greenway (via the North Parks 2 Employment centers Douglas Creek drainage way) Other 6
Schools 3 Corridor 23: Peterson Air High density area: Employment Centers 9 Force Base to Downtown 7.1 Residential and 3 High Parks 7 Colorado Springs Employment centers Other 14
Schools 5 Corridor 24: Pine Creek High density area: Employment Centers 6 High School to Colorado 4.8 Residential and 7 Low Parks 2 Christian University Employment centers Other 9
Schools 1 Medium density Corridor 25: Pikes Peak Greenway Employment Centers 5 5.8 area: Residential and 5 Low to Colorado Springs Airport Parks 3 Employment centers Other 2
PPACG REGIONAL NONMOTORIZED TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM PLAN Agenda Item 6B Attachment 2 19
Major Length Accident Corridor name Destinations Land Use Motorized (Miles) levels Barriers
Schools 8 Corridor 26: Pikes Peak High density area: Employment Centers 10 Greenway to Palmer Park (via 10.8 Residential and 2 Medium Parks 5 Templeton Gap Road) Employment centers Other 9
Schools 5 Medium density Corridor 27: Homestead Employment Centers 7 5.0 area: Residential and 2 Medium Trail to the Sand Creek trail Parks 6 Employment centers Other 9
Schools 6 High density area: Corridor 28: Cottonwood Employment Centers 10 Residential and Trail to Widefield-Security 11.7 9 Medium Parks 13 Employment centers, via Chelton Road Other 8 some open space.
5 (6) High density area: Corridor 29: U.S. Air Force Schools 25 Residential and Academy to Maizeland Road via Employment Centers (24) Employment centers High Academy Boulevard (Corridor 29a: 7.9 (6.97) 8 (13) Parks 4 (7) (High density area: (High) Maizeland Road to US Highway Other 16 Residential and 85/87 via Academy Boulevard) (15) Employment centers)
Schools 2 Corridor 30: The Broadmoor Medium density area: Employment Centers 10 Hotel to West Colorado 4.1 Open space with 1 Medium Parks 1 Avenue via South 8th Street Employment centers Other 5
Schools 8 Corridor 31: Westside (N High density area: Employment Centers 11 31st St) to Cimarron Hills 10.9 Mostly residential and 4 High Parks 8 (Peterson Air Force Base) Employment centers Other 16
Schools 1 Medium density area: Corridor 32: Red Rocks Employment Centers 4 Open space with Park to Ute Valley Park/ 4.3 2 Medium Parks 2 some residential and Garden of the Gods Other 6 Employment centers
Schools 1 Corridor 33: Downtown Employment Centers 10 Medium density area: Colorado Springs to Crews Gulch 12.1 7 Low Parks 4 Employment centers Trail via Security-Widefield Other 8
PPACG REGIONAL NONMOTORIZED TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM PLAN Agenda Item 6B Attachment 2 20
Major Length Accident Corridor name Destinations Land Use Motorized (Miles) levels Barriers
Schools 4 Corridor 34: Widefield to Medium density area: Employment Centers 13 Woodmen Road via Sand 13.1 Open space with 8 Low Parks 9 Creek Trail Alignment Employment centers Other 8
Schools 3 Medium to low density Corridor 35: Woodland Employment Centers 8 area: Open space 14.0 1 Low Park to Manitou Springs Parks 4 with residential and Other 11 employment centers
Schools 4 Corridor 36: Eastern Medium density area: Employment Centers 13 Communities Connect (parallel 17.7 Employment centers 7 Low Parks 8 to North Powers Boulevard) and some residential Other 10
Schools 2 Low density area: Corridor 37: Woodmoor to Employment Centers 3 9.3 Employment centers 2 Low Palmer Lake via Monument Parks 3 and some residential Other 10
Schools 2 Low density area: Corridor 38: Woodmoor to Employment Centers 4 8.3 Employment centers 2 Low Northgate (Parallel to I-25) Parks 2 and residential Other 6
Schools 5 Corridor 39: Downtown High density area: Employment Centers 13 Colorado Springs to the 4.8 Employment centers 1 High Parks 4 Sand Creek trail and residential Other 20
Schools 5 Corridor 40: New Developments Employment Centers 4 High density area: by North Powers Boulevard 8.1 5 Low Parks 10 Residential to Templeton Gap Trail Other 9
Schools 3 High density area: Corridor 41: Fort Carson to Employment Centers 15 5.0 Employment centers 10 High Downtown Colorado Springs Parks 6 and residential Other 17
Schools 2 Medium density area: Corridor 43: Gold Camp Employment Centers 6 Open Space 3.8 1 High Reservoir to Shooks Run Trail Parks 4 Residential Other 2 Employment Centers
PPACG REGIONAL NONMOTORIZED TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM PLAN Agenda Item 6B Attachment 2 21
Major Length Accident Corridor name Destinations Land Use Motorized (Miles) levels Barriers
Corridor 45: Flying Ranch Road Schools 4 Medium density area: to the New Santa Fe Regional Employment Centers 5 Open Space 1.9 4 Low Trail via both South and East Parks 5 Employment centers Rockrimmon Boulevard Other 6 Residential
Schools 2 Medium density area: Corridor 46: Colorado Employment Centers 9 Employment centers Springs Christian University 3.4 3 Medium Parks 2 Residential to North Nevada Avenue Other 4 Open Space
Schools 2 Low density area: Corridor 47: Pikes Peak Employment Centers 4 Open Space Greenway to Garden of the 4.9 3 Low Parks 3 Residential Gods Road via Mesa Road Other 4 Employment Centers
Schools 0 Low density area: Corridor 48: Red Canon Place to Employment Centers 3 Open Space 2.3 1 Low Garden of the Gods Visitor Center Parks 2 Residential Other 1 Employment Centers
Schools 1 Low density area: Corridor 50: Gold Camp Employment Centers 4 Open Space 5.3 1 Low Road to Old Colorado City Parks 5 Employment Centers Other 15 Residential
Schools 1 Low density area: Corridor 51: Norad Road Employment Centers 2 5.9 Open Space 0 Low to Big Stratton Reservoir Parks 4 Residential Other 2
Schools 4 High density area: Corridor 52: New Horizons Employment Centers 8 3.7 Employment centers 4 Medium School to The Broadmoor Hotel Parks 2 Residential Other 7
Schools 4 Medium density area: Corridor 53: Homestead Trail Employment Centers 8 Residential to new developments at Black 10.8 6 Low Parks 2 Open Space Forest and Woodmen Road Other 7 Employment centers
Schools 5 Low density area: Corridor 54: Woodmen Road/ Employment Centers 4 Employment centers Marksheffel Road to Voyager 7.8 11 Low Parks 2 Residential Parkway via Research Parkway Other 9 Open space
PPACG REGIONAL NONMOTORIZED TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM PLAN Agenda Item 6B Attachment 2 22
Major Length Accident Corridor name Destinations Land Use Motorized (Miles) levels Barriers
Schools 2 Medium density area: Corridor 55: Wilson Road Employment Centers 3 Residential 2.8 0 Low (Chilcotte Canal) to Fountain Parks 4 Employment centers Other 4 Open space
Schools 5 Corridor 56: Rock Island High density area: Employment Centers 7 Trail to University of Colorado 2.4 Residential 2 High Parks 3 - Colorado Springs Employment centers Other 4
Schools 6 Low density area: Corridor 57: Security-Widefield Employment Centers 2 Open Space to Schriever Air Force Base 14.6 3 Low Parks 2 Residential (via new developments) Other 2 Employment centers
Schools 7 Medium density area: Corridor 58: New developments Employment Centers 2 Residential (Thunderhead Drive, Fountain) 5.9 3 Low Parks 1 Employment centers to Security-Widefield Other 3 Open Space
Schools 0 Corridor 59: Eastonville Road Low density area: Employment Centers 1 (Black Forest) to Lindbergh 17.8 Open Space 7 Low Parks 0 Road (via Hodgen Road) Residential Other 1
Schools 3 Corridor 60: Black Forest Low density area: Employment Centers 1 Road/Shoup Road to Walker 8.9 Open Space 5 Low Parks 2 Road/US Highway 83 Residential Other 1
Schools 6 Medium density area: Corridor 61: Pikes Peak Employment Centers 9 Employment centers Community College – Falcon 12.2 7 Low Parks 8 Open Space to the Pikes Peak Greenway Other 7 Residential
Schools 5 Medium density area: Corridor 62: Pikes Peak Employment Centers 2 Employment centers Community College – Falcon 8.4 3 Low Parks 2 Open Space to Stapleton Drive Other 6 Residential
Schools 2 Low density area: Corridor 63: Woodman Employment Centers 5 Employment centers Road/Marksheffel Road to 18.9 5 Low Parks 6 Open Space Fountain Mesa Road Other 6 Residential
PPACG REGIONAL NONMOTORIZED TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM PLAN Agenda Item 6B Attachment 2 23
Major Length Accident Corridor name Destinations Land Use Motorized (Miles) levels Barriers
Schools / Low density area: Corridor 64: Fountain Employment Centers / Employment centers 12.6 1 Low to the County Line Parks / Open Space Other / Residential
Schools 0 Corridor 65: Schriever Air Low density area: Employment Centers 3 Force Base to Cimarron Hills via 12.0 Open Space 4 Low Parks 1 US Highway 94/Enoch Road Employment centers Other 1
Schools 1 Low density area: Corridor 66: Schriever Air Force Employment Centers 2 13.7 Open Space 3 None Base to Falcon via Curtis Road Parks 0 Employment centers Other 0
Schools 5 Corridor 67: Fort Carson Low density area: Employment Centers 1 to the County Line/Beaver 16.4 Residential 3 Low Parks 2 Creek State Wildlife Area Open Space Other 0
Corridor 68: US Highway Schools 0 Low density area: 83/North Gate Boulevard Employment Centers 3 Residential 4.2 4 Low to North Gate Boulevard/ Parks 1 Open Space Stadium Boulevard Other 1 Employment centers
Schools 2 Low density area: Employment Centers 2 Residential Corridor 69: Falcon to Evans Road 12.4 2 Low Parks 3 Open Space Other 2 Employment centers
Schools 0 Corridor 70: North Powers Low density area: Employment Centers 0 Boulevard/US Highway 9.7 Open Space 6 Low Parks 1 83 to the County Line Residential Other 0
Schools 8 High density area: Corridor 71: Garden of the Gods Employment Centers 21 Employment centers 19.0 6 Medium Road to North Powers Boulevard Parks 2 Residential Other 10
PPACG REGIONAL NONMOTORIZED TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM PLAN Agenda Item 6B Attachment 3
Smoothed Urban Boundaries Based upon 2040 TAZ Population Density
PALMER RAMAH LAKE
MONUMENT
CALHAN WOODLAND PARK Iu
Iu WXYZÒ GREEN MTN. 21 FALLS WXYZh COLORADO !"`$ SPRINGS MANITOU SPRINGS WXYZq Comparison of Census 2010 Urbanized Areas & 2040 Smoothed Urban Area (based upon TAZ analysis) EL PASO CO.
TELLER CO.
CRIPPLE CREEK
VICTOR
FOUNTAIN
WXYZ¢ Explanation 2010 Census UA/UC Major Roads Urban Cluster Urbanized Area Counties Smoothed Urban Area Year 2040 Projected Urban Area (based upon TAZ analysis) 2010 MPO Boundary
Transportation Analysis Zones (TAZ's) with projected 2040 household populations ¶ greater than or equal to a population density 0 2.5 5 10 15 20 25 30 of 1,000 per square mile. Miles
2010 MPO Boundary Agenda Item 7A
M E M O R A N D U M
DATE: July 20, 2017 TO: PPACG Transportation Advisory Committee FROM: Kevin Rayes, Transportation Planner SUBJECT: PPACG FY 2017-2022 TIP: TIP PROJECT DELAY POLICY
ACTION REQUESTED: Discussion
SUMMARY The PPACG TIP Delay policy states that the TIP will be reviewed twice a year to identify and address any project delays. The policy was developed to meet federal requirements and maximize the use of federal funding encumbered each fiscal year. The procedure enables the PPACG Board of Directors to redirect funds to different projects from inactive or delayed projects. The Delay policy applies to all federally funded projects in the TIP, including Transportation Alternatives Program (TAP), Surface Transportation Program- Metro (Metro), and Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement (CMAQ) funding programs. (See attachment 1 for a full explanation of the TIP Delay Policy)
The Delay Policy requires PPACG staff review the status of all projects programmed in a fiscal year. Information to be gathered during the review includes project status, contracting milestones, and status of encumbered funds. This information is to be used to provide project status updates to PPACG’s various committees as well as providing a status update to the Board of Directors. Additionally this information will be used in the development of PPACG’s Annual List of Federally Obligated Projects.
Attachment 2 contains the list of projects experiencing delays that have funds programmed in the FY 2017- 2022 TIP.
ATTACHMENT(S) 1. TIP Delay Policy Explanation 2. Delayed Projects Programmed In The FY 2017-2022 TIP
Page 1 of 1 Item 7A Attachment 1 PPACG TIP Project Delay Policy
Introduction The goal of the PPACG TIP Project Delay Policy (the “Delay Policy”) for the Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) is to meet federal requirements and maximize the use of federal funding encumbered each fiscal year. The procedure will enable the Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) PPACG Board of Directors to redirect funds to different projects from inactive or delayed projects. The Delay Policy applies to all federally funded projects in the TIP, including Transportation Enhancements (TE), Surface Transportation Program-Metro (Metro), and Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement (CMAQ) funding programs (or their successors/equivalents in any upcoming multi-year federal surface transportation legislation).
Both the MPO and the Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT) have received direction from the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) to strengthen project development processes so that federal funds get fully and effectively utilized each year. The intent of the Delay Policy is to provide an incentive for local agency sponsors to develop their projects according to a detailed schedule and, thereby, to encumber the federal funds programmed to each project within the timeframes initially shown in the TIP. The Delay Policy and the information gathered periodically in support of it are primarily focused on projects that involve construction or provide transportation improvements that are handled through purchasing procedures. However, non-construction projects are also to be reviewed periodically, using different benchmarks to ensure that funds are actively put to use.
The TIP development process expects that funding that will be expended reasonably soon after it is encumbered. Whether projects involve construction or not, information about the status of obligating their funds will be reviewed at least twice each year by the PPACG’s Transportation Advisory Committee (TAC) and staff and presented to the PPACG Board. Project status information for these reviews will be provided by project sponsors and is in addition to the information provided each year from CDOT to the PPACG for the preparation of the PPACG Annual Listing of Federally Obligated Projects.
In the context of this Delay Policy, a “delay” occurs when a construction-related project does not get advertised during the fiscal year in which its construction-phase funding was originally programmed in the TIP. For non-construction projects and programs, a “delay” occurs when the “Notice to Proceed” is not issued during the fiscal year in which its implementation was originally programmed in the TIP. The consequence of a delay may be the withdrawal of a project’s funds from the TIP as approved by the PPACG Board.
Because a significant proportion of the available funding in these programs is typically assigned to project phases for the implementation of improvements, this Delay Policy tracks contracting milestones and uses project construction advertisement dates or purchase dates as key indicators of the timely encumbrance of funds. For non-construction programs and activities, a “Notice to Proceed” date is to be tracked in lieu of an advertisement date.
Projects involving Construction or Purchase/Installation of Improvements There are two phases for construction projects - project development (PD) and construction. The PD phase includes the following categories: • Environmental clearance; • Preliminary design; • Final design; • Utilities (if separate from design); • Right-of-way (ROW) acquisition; Page 1 Item 7A Attachment 1 • A preliminary breakdown of costs for the above categories in the PD phase, as applicable.
If ROW is included, a minimum of 2 years is allowed for the PD phase. There will be one application for each project, with detailed information including cost and schedule specified by each phase. The application schedule will include advertisement dates.
For construction projects, either the advertisement date or the authorization date for purchase, as appropriate for each project, is the key metric for triggering actions associated with the Delay Policy by the MPO. In subsequent paragraphs in this section - for ease in wording - the actions associated with an “advertisement date” are also intended to apply to the authorization date for purchases.
The actual encumbrance date of federal funds for any project’s construction phase is managed by CDOT and is essentially driven by the project’s advertisement date. During each semi-annual review, comparisons between the advertisement dates of projects and the scheduled advertisement date will be examined by the TAC, the Community Advisory Committee (CAC), and PPACG staff. When reviewing each project’s schedule towards the end of the fiscal year, adequate time needs to be provided to allow for TIP and STIP amendments that might become necessary because of project delays. Thus, deadlines for specific activities toward the end of each fiscal year are cooperatively set by CDOT and the MPO. Each year, the PPACG staff ensures that project sponsors are informed about these deadlines by notifying the TAC.
In a worst-case scenario under the Delay Policy, a project sponsor that misses or ignores a year-end deadline can lose funding for the project and be made to pay back any funding that was already expended on the project. Project sponsors are required to outline (and the MPO is required to document in its project application files) a schedule of target dates for the preconstruction activities (the PD categories noted above) and the construction advertisement dates for each new project. This schedule is required prior to the programming of funds, year-by-year, source-by-source, to each project in the TIP. PPACG staff will provide written instructions about the target dates and the way funding is to be characterized for various phases. The instructions will provide forms to be used for these purposes. The instructions will be periodically reviewed and may be updated prior to each new call for projects.
The preconstruction-related target dates are important for tracking each project’s progress and are expected to be reported during the semi-annual reviews. If a project will not meet the advertisement date identified in the original project application, the project may be given a one-year extension by the Board of Directors, as long as the project can be accommodated by CDOT in the context of commitment of project funds statewide. CDOT’s ability to accommodate a one-year extension may sometimes involve the cooperation of one or more planning organizations in other areas of the state. During this extra year, the project would be expected to be made ready for advertisement as soon as possible. Considering the PD/preconstruction phases of these projects, it is anticipated that there will be few, if any scheduling difficulties in getting funds encumbered for environmental clearance and/or preliminary design during the fiscal year in which funds are initially programmed.
However, for subsequent preconstruction phases, which are often dependent on the successful completion of initial phases, if funds programmed in the TIP are not obligated for one or more such phases during the fiscal year intended, a one-year extension can be requested of the PPACG Board (as long as it can be accommodated by CDOT). In such an instance, however, PPACG would be expecting the project sponsor and the funding agency to analyze and report whether or not the originally submitted advertisement date can still be met during the intended fiscal year. If not, then opportunities to amend the TIP and redirect funds that year to projects which might be closer to being “ready to go”, and rolling back the project that
Page 2 Item 7A Attachment 1 is not ready to go will be explored by the project sponsors, CDOT and the PPACG staff, with the PPACG Board making the final decision.
If a project is granted a one-year extension from the PPACG Board beyond its original advertisement date but does not get advertised within that additional (2nd) year, a TIP amendment removing the project’s funding will be initiated by PPACG staff. However, the project sponsor can appeal to the PPACG Board for reinsertion into the TIP if the project delay can be shown to be caused by extenuating circumstances clearly beyond the control of the project sponsor. The project sponsor first needs to explain these circumstances to the TAC and CAC.
1. External delays (beyond the control of the project sponsor) such as, but not limited to, those resulting from the intergovernmental agreement (IGA) process, funding transfers to CDOT, changes in state or federal law, and the weather are deemed among the valid reasons for a delay.
2. Internal delays (within the control of the project sponsor) include: staff turnover, shifting priorities, insufficient funding, clerical errors, lack of certification acceptance status, road classification issues, waiting for permits, and underestimating NEPA or ROW requirements.
The TAC, CAC, and PPACG staff then consider these circumstances and other projects that could be funded and provide the Board with a combined recommendation or separate recommendations. Even when circumstances are clearly beyond control of the sponsor, extensions will not be approved unless delays can be mitigated to being within a short time period and by a specific date. It is allowable for a project to be “rolled back” and another project accelerated in order to efficiently utilize funding. If the project sponsors identify issues early and provide a clear timeline for the project, then it is not expected that the project be removed from the TIP. Instead the TIP will be amended and the new schedule used.
The Delay Policy is intended to encourage the active management of funds and project schedules in ways that avoid the need to withdraw funds from any project. In the event funds for the construction phase of a project are withdrawn by the PPACG Board due to delays, the project sponsor needs to consider options to avoid having to reimburse the funding agency for any funds already expended in the PD/preconstruction phases. There may be a need to discontinue spending on already approved preconstruction phases.
The project sponsor can explore options like the following:
1. Paying for the construction phase with the sponsor’s own funds so that the project can be completed 2. Resubmitting the project as a candidate for MPO-programmed funding during the next (or some future) call for TIP projects 3. Securing alternative sources of funds so that the project can be completed.
It is generally expected that federal funding expended on PD/preconstruction categories will have to be paid back by the project sponsor to the funding agency within ten years if the project has not been implemented by then. Depending on circumstances, the withdrawal of funds for the construction phase might also immediately trigger the need for a project sponsor to reimburse the funding agency for preconstruction phases. This would need to be addressed by a project sponsor in coordination with PPACG (and with CDOT and FHWA’s oversight and cooperation, for federal funds).
Non-Construction Projects and Programs Projects and programs that are not associated with either construction or the purchase/installation of materials or equipment will be reviewed using different benchmarks. Instead of an advertisement date,
Page 3 Item 7A Attachment 1 these projects typically involve IGAs between the project sponsor and CDOT followed by the completion of a contract for professional services, arranged by the project sponsor. The professional services contract calls for issuance of a “Notice to Proceed” prior to the initiation of the work. Work cannot proceed prior to the authorization for spending federal funds, which is essentially controlled by CDOT in partnership with FHWA.
In terms of the Delay Policy and the MPO’s granting of any extensions for encumbering funds, the date of the “Notice to Proceed” will be considered comparable to the “advertisement date” on construction, or purchase-related projects. In other words, if a “Notice to Proceed” does not get issued within the fiscal year identified in the original project/program application, the project may be given a one-year extension if the extenuating circumstances are clearly beyond control of the project sponsor and these are explained to the PPACG Board. During this extra year, the project would be expected to be made ready for issuance of the “Notice to Proceed” as soon as possible. If, at the end of the second year, the project has not commenced, funding is automatically withdrawn from the project. At this point the project sponsor can appeal to the Board of Directors for reinsertion into the TIP for one final year. As with construction- related projects, however, each one-year extension depends on the funding agency’s ability to accommodate the change in year-by-year funding commitments. Deadlines established by the funding agencies and the MPO for amending the TIP prior to the end of each State fiscal year apply.
Crucial Administrative Considerations The following are considered to be critical to the effectiveness of the Delay Policy:
1. Project sponsors need to have the training and information necessary to develop a reasonable project schedule as part of the project application process. 2. Project sponsors are required to provide semi-annual project status reviews to the TAC and PPACG (each March and September or as otherwise scheduled by PPACG in cooperation with the funding agencies). 3. The funding agencies and project sponsors need to reach agreements about what is considered a reasonable schedule for each project and need to support the semi-annual reviews by providing objective information about the status of each project.
Page 4 Item 7A Attachment 2
Projects with Delays
The City of Colorado Springs
1. Platte Avenue Bridge Replacements TIP 13-32 STIP SPP6726.019 The IGA for this project was approved September 12, 2016 by CDOT and Notice to Proceed with design was authorized September 14, 2016. A Request for Proposal for design services was advertised on Jan. 9th, 2017 with a Feb. 3, 2017 closing date. The selected consultant HDR was given a NTP dated June 16, 2017. The design window is expected to be one year at a minimum in anticipation of a rigorous environmental review. Construction is targeted to begin Fall of 2018 with completion in 2019. This project is not delayed but approval of the IGA late in 2016 did not allow work to commence in 2016
2. Cheyenne Canon Road Bridge Replacements TIP 13-1 STIPP SPP7003.001 Funding for this project was available in 2016 but the IGA was not approved until May 5, 2017 and NTP on May 10, 2017. The IGA was delayed as this grant was converted from federal funds to state funds. An RFP for design will advertise the week of July 3, with award of a contract in late September. The design window is expected to be one year at a minimum in anticipation of a rigorous environmental review. Construction is targeted to begin Fall of 2018 with completion in 2019. This project has been delayed a bit in getting started but should get completed in the scheduled funding timeline.
3. Intersection Improvements at Platte Ave. and Tejon St. TIP 10-47 STIPP SR26644.049 Funding for this project was available in 2013 with the IGA approved April 18, 2013 and NTP on April 18, 2013. Due to the smaller dollar amount of this grant the City originally planned to design it with in-house staff. In the 2014-2015 time frame the engineering department had staff leave which affected the schedule of in house designed projects. The Tejon/ Platte project was put on hold for part of this time. In late 2015 and 2016 the project was again on hold as we worked to get environmental and historic clearances. The State Historic Preservation Office/ City of Colorado Springs and CDOT spent about eight months clarifying impacts to the sidewalk and parkway were part of the roadway Right –of-Way and not historic parkland. De Minimus clearance approved and signed on 5/23/16. This allowed design to be finalized and the remaining CDOT clearances to be pursued. Currently we expect to get authorization to bid in August 2017 and finish construction by December 2017. Item 7A Attachment 2
4. Van Buren Street Walk and Bike to School Access Project TIP 13-55 STIPP SR26868.022 Funding for this project was available in 2014 with the IGA approved August 12, 2015 and NTP on August 14, 2015. Due to the smaller dollar amount of this grant the City originally planned to design it with in-house staff. In the 2014-2015 timeframe the engineering department had staff leave which affected the schedule of in house designed projects. The Van Buren project was put on hold for part of this time. In late 2015 the design was restarted. Currently we expect to finish the design and get authorization to bid in September 2017 and finish construction by mid-2018.
5. Pikes Peak Greenway TIP 16-200 STIP SPP6516.027 This project currently needs additional ROW and Temporary Easement prior to moving forward with reconstruction.
6. Sand Creek Trail: Palmer Park Blvd to Constitution Avenue TIP 13-201 STIPP 6516.034 This project currently needs additional ROW before construction can proceed.
7. Rock Island Trail: Sand Creek Trail to Constitution TIP 13-14 STIP SPP6516.029 This project is currently under design and should be completed by the end of August.
8. Traffic System Upgrades TIP 13-6 STIP SPP7004.001 This project is partially funded with STP-Metro and CMAQ. The CMAQ award was unknown to the project manager who only moved forward with STP-Metro dollars. A change order to the STP-Metro contract will be made to accommodate the CMAQ projects.
City of Fountain
1. Indiana Ave/BNSF Crossing Improvement TIP 13-30 STIP SPP6726.024 This project is delayed due to the NEPA documentation not being submitted CDOT for review, a consultant taking five months to complete a set of right-of-way plans and the length of the NEPA Item 7A Attachment 2
process itself. Provided the NEPA process is complete by the end of the summer, the plan is to begin utility relocation in 2017 and road construction in 2018.
El Paso County
1. Fontaine Blvd. Sidewalks TIP 13-61 STIP SR25079.062 The construction phase is substantially complete. Most of the sidewalks are installed. We are working to complete an intersection. The project will be closed out by the end of the year.
2. Walker Rd.(SH 105) Corridor TIP 13-34 STIP SPP6726.021 This project is in final design. We currently have design funding in an IGA with CDOT. We anticipate construction for 2018.
3. Arnold Ave. Bridge Replacement TIP 13-3 STIP SPP7003.003 Due to inflation, this project was one many that received additional funding in late 2016. We will be working with CDOT to execute an IGA. Construction funding is in 2018 in the TIP.
4. Elbert Road Bridge Rehabilitation TIP 13-5 STIP SPP7003.005 Due to inflation, this project was one of many that received additional funding in late 2016. We will be working with CDOT to execute an IGA. Construction funding is in 2018 in the TIP.
5. Struthers Water Mitigation (I-25 @ North Gate) TIP 16-101 This project is in process. We received the draft IGA from CDOT on June 9th. The project is in preliminary design. We are working through the Air Force Academy approval process.
Item 7A Attachment 2
CDOT
1. US 24 at 21st Street Intersection Improvements TIP 13-70 STIP SR27002.032 Initial design meeting will take place late August or early September. This project is scheduled to have an advertisement in early 2018.
2. US 24 at 31st Street Intersection Improvements TIP 13-71 STIP SR26867.070 Initial design meeting will take place late August or early September. This project is scheduled to have an advertisement in early 2018.
Agenda Item 8A
DATE: July 20, 2017 TO: PPACG Transportation Advisory Committee FROM: Jennifer Valentine, Transportation Planner SUBJECT: 2045 Long Range Transportation Plan: Activities Update
ACTION REQUESTED: Information Only
SUMMARY Scenario Planning – PPACG staff has been attending events throughout the Pikes Peak region over the past few weeks to get public input about three potential scenarios for the 2045 LRTP. The three draft scenarios are Infill, New Centers, and Dispersed Development. We are asking people to tell us which contributing factors (e.g. demographics and lifestyle preferences; technology and travel choices; regulatory environment; and natural environment) they believe will play a significant role under each land use scenario.
So far we are hearing that water quality and availability is a major concern under all scenarios, and that many people see a role for enhanced transit service provision in the Infill and New Centers scenarios. We will be bringing proposed story lines for each land use scenario to the TAC, CAC and PPACG Board of Directors for review and approval in August and September of this year. These story lines will be based on feedback we received during our June 8 Scenario Planning Workshop and the community events we have been attending in June and July.
Needs Identification – PPACG just released an interactive, online mapping program to request public input on transportation needs in the Pikes Peak region, now and in the future. We are asking our committee members and partner organizations to help spread the word about this new resource. The map is available at www.mapping.ppacg.org.
ATTACHMENTS None.