US 36 Managed Lanes A Managed Toll Lane Proposal by the Colorado Tolling Enterprise

Regional Transportation Plan Amendment For a Colorado Tolling Enterprise Proposed Toll Facility Submitted to the Denver Regional Council of Governments March 2, 2009, pursuant to

HB 05-1148: MPO approval of tolling plans

Page 1 of 51

1. Description of proposed amendment

The Colorado Tolling Enterprise (CTE) submits this application to the Denver Regional Council of Governments (DRCOG) for approval of an amendment to the 2035 fiscally constrained Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) to include tolled managed lanes on US 36 between Boulder and Denver, pursuant to HB 05-1148 requirements. This request has full support from the US 36 Mayors and Commissioners Coalition (representing Westminster, Broomfield, Louisville, Superior, and Boulder) and the counties of Denver, Adams and Jefferson.

The Plan amendment would not alter the project location or length shown in the current RTP: “US 36: Foothills Parkway to I-25” and “18.2 miles”. It would only change the RTP description from “Add HOV lanes” to “Add Tolled Managed Lanes.” The Plan would still show two new lanes on US 36 (one in each direction), but they would be Managed lanes instead of the current High Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) lanes. The requested change to the Plan would add a dynamic tolling function within two new managed lanes on the US 36 facility and incorporate the funds to purchase required toll collection equipment.

The purpose of this project is to improve mobility and provide a sustainable alternative to congestion along the corridor. HOVs and buses would use the managed lanes free of charge, while Single Occupant Vehicles (SOV) would pay a toll to use the managed lane. The mixture of SOV tolled and Bus/HOV non-tolled vehicles using the lanes will be “managed” through variable pricing for SOV’s to maintain free flow conditions within the managed lanes, even during rush hours.

Toll revenues are not an essential or significant component of the finance plan to construct any of the other US 36 elements in the current RTP. The modest revenue generated from the toll will provide incremental revenues to help cover the long-term cost of operations, toll equipment maintenance, and enforcement of the managed lanes.

Managed lanes are proposed on US 36 primarily as a way to provide alternatives to congested travel through congestion pricing. The theory of congestion pricing is that charging a higher toll during the most congested periods of the day introduces economic incentives for travelers to choose the optimal time of day and mode in making their trip. The tolls on US 36 will be set to maximize person carrying capacity on the managed lane, allowing SOV drivers to use the lane only to the extent that the speed and reliability of the managed lanes for carpools and transit riders is not compromised. SOVs will be charged a fee for using the managed lanes at all times. The toll rates will be set, or “managed”, throughout the day to maintain the managed lanes at level of service C or better. Specifically, toll rates will vary by time of day based on the level of congestion in the managed lanes with higher tolls charged when congestion levels are higher. During those times, some SOV drivers will choose to avoid the higher toll and instead use another alternative to paying the toll; by joining a carpool, taking the bus, or using the general purpose lanes, thereby allowing the managed lane to continue to operate at free-flow volumes. In the future, adjustments of the definition of HOV from 2+ to 3+ passengers may also be made to maintain the desired operating conditions in the managed lanes.

Operation of the facility will be accomplished by applying proven tolling technology and traffic engineering criteria. The managed lanes will be fully interoperable with other existing toll facilities in the region. Locations of the three existing tolled facilities in the region are shown in Page 2 of 51 Figure 1 below (the North I-25 Express Lanes in pink; Northwest Parkway in yellow; and E-470 in green, blue, and red). This tolling proposal is for US 36 only, and is neither related to nor dependent upon any future tolling facilities that may be proposed by the CTE or other entities.

FIGURE 1

The proposed US 36 managed lanes will connect with the existing Express Lane facility located along the center of Interstate 25, south of US 36. Operation of the two facilities will be closely coordinated. The proposed US 36 managed lanes (in red), with the existing RTD park-n-Rides and its connection to the North I-25 Express Lanes (in blue), are shown in Figure 2.

FIGURE 2

Page 3 of 51

Like the I-25 facility, the US 36 managed lanes will be continuously monitored to ensure reliable traffic flow for buses, carpool vehicles, motorcycles, and toll-paying solo drivers. Unlike CDOT’s existing I-25 Express lane, however, which uses a single barrier-separated lane with reversible flow by time of day, the proposed US 36 improvements would add two buffer-separated managed lanes – one in each direction -- from the Table Mesa/Foothills Parkway to the Pecos Street interchange. The existing reversible-lane operation from Pecos to I-25 would be maintained and would connect to the new managed lanes. Traffic patterns in the US 36 corridor differ from those on the I-25 Express Lane in that US 36 sees a bidirectional rush hour – a factor that we believe will likely generate a greater demand for use of the managed lanes than we see on I-25. Access to the managed lanes on US 36 will be allowed between all interchanges, yet another distinguishing factor.

The overall operations system would consist of vehicle on-board components, roadside components, central control hardware and software, and a communication backbone. A vehicle on-board transponder would allow tolling a SOV driver electronically. The roadside system would use loop detectors, dynamic message signs (DMS), cameras, toll collection and process units and enforcement equipment to collect traffic data, disseminate real-time travel and toll pricing information to drivers, collect tolling information electronically and support enforcement. The central control hardware and software would monitor and operate the system and provide secured customer information and revenue management. The communication backbone would support information flow and data transmission for the system operations.

The managed lanes will be identified in the preferred alternative in the US 36 Final Environmental Impact Statement (EIS), which is currently being prepared for public review and comment in Summer 2009.

2. Description of benefits to be realized

The US 36 managed lanes are an important management tool that can improve travel conditions for a meaningful segment of the traveling public. Extension of the existing managed lanes on I-25 to US 36 offers the following benefits:

• Improves mobility for all travelers by providing a sustainable alternative to congestion along the corridor during peak periods. • Provides all travelers with choice of options -- carpooling, transit, or the option of a faster and more reliable trip to their destination by paying to use the managed lanes. • Allows transit vehicles, HOVs and paying SOV drivers to travel at a faster speed than vehicles on congested general-purpose lanes since traffic volumes on managed lanes are limited and maintained at LOS C as a minimum. • Improves efficient use of any excess capacity in the bus/HOV lanes. • Provides an incremental source of revenue to generate some additional funds for the operations and maintenance, and potentially for improvement, of the US 36 facility. • Encourages the use of transit and carpooling by providing reliable travel times and an uncongested travel way.

Page 4 of 51

3. Describe why the amendment must be made in this cycle

No Record of Decision (ROD) can be signed by the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) until the project is in the fiscally constrained Regional Transportation Plan (RTP). The ROD for the US 36 EIS is scheduled for FHWA approval in November 2009, which will be two months prior to the completion of DRCOG’s next RTP amendment cycle. Waiting until a future amendment cycle would delay the US 36 Record of Decision.

4. Describe effects on other DRCOG plans. List probable restrictions on improvements to other roadways or transit facilities (due to “no-compete” clauses).

Pursuant to the policy statement on tolling adopted by the Colorado Transportation Commission in November 2005: • Any tolling decision by the CTE should not reduce the allocation of Transportation Commission funding to the region in which the facility or system lies. • Tolling revenue should not be considered when calculating the proportion of state or federal highway funds received by a transportation planning region or CDOT region. • Toll facilities should not be included in the state highway inventory used for resource allocation purposes.

Consistent with that policy, no effects on other DRCOG plans are anticipated as a result of implementing this project. The cost to purchase tolling equipment and to operate and maintain the managed lane toll equipment would not impact resource allocation.

A non-compete clause is not particular to this type of managed lane facility, and would not apply. No restrictions on other improvements from “no-compete” clauses are anticipated.

5. Estimated project cost

The estimated capital costs and the annual operations/maintenance costs for the US 36 managed lane facility appear below. The $92 million needed for pavement is already included in DRCOG’s fiscally constrained 2035 RTP as part of earlier proposed US 36 corridor improvements. The $18.5 million estimated cost for tolling equipment is not yet in the Plan, and is the subject of this amendment request. Included in that estimate are the cost for sign bridges, variable message signs, fiber, cameras, tag readers and lane controllers. The estimate relies on assumptions and equipment needs outlined for an Urban Partnership Agreement proposal submitted in 2008.

The estimated annual operation and maintenance (O&M) and debt service costs for the managed lanes is $3.4 million. That estimate is based on the following assumptions:

• $150,000 / year for enforcement (Projected off actual per mile cost of enforcement on I-25 Express Lanes.); • $1.4 million / year for operations such as toll collection, toll equipment maintenance and processing (Projected based on actual I-25 Express Lane contract with E-470 for the same services which involves 4 toll collection sites at $100,000 / year cost for each site. This estimate assumes 14 collection sites on US 36 – 7 in each direction.)

Page 5 of 51 • Capital tolling equipment would be purchased upfront utilizing a loan from CDOT. The loan would be repaid over 20 years at a 6% interest rate resulting in an annual debt service payment of $1.6 M. • A 5% contingency was added to all costs.

Capital Costs of Managed Lane Components Pavement $ 92 M Tolling Equipment $ 18.5 M (to be paid by loan proceeds, $1.6 M annual debt service for 20 years) Total $110.5 M

Annual Operations, Maintenance, Enforcement and Debt Service Costs * Toll Violation Enforcement $ .2 M Managed Lane Operations /Toll Equipment Maintenance $ 1.5 M Annual Debt Service on Capital Equipment Loan $ 1.7 M Total $ 3.4 M * a 5% contingency was added to the base cost estimates.

6. Sources of funding for the project (attach documentation)

The long-term assumption for this facility is that toll revenues collected would fully cover all capital equipment, operating and maintenance costs for the tolling operation. The financial viability of this proposal then relies upon the ability of the system to collect sufficient toll revenue to cover: (1) the acquisition and deployment of tolling equipment ($18.5 million); and (2) the annual O&M and enforcement costs ($1.7 million).

Upfront funding for the toll equipment and ongoing O&M costs outlined above will likely come from some combination of:

• Toll revenues generated on the facility, • CTE cash, • Upfront Loan from CDOT to be repaid over time.

The current plan is to implement the managed lanes over an extended period of time, using the revenues generated by the earliest operating segments to repay loans and to cover ongoing costs. However, this analysis presents the worst case scenario in which the CTE would procure all the capital equipment in a single purchase of $18.5 million, and also pay its share of the operating expenses for the managed lanes including maintenance of the tolling equipment from day one. This analysis assumes that CTE will pay for the toll equipment utilizing a 20-year loan from the Transportation Commission at 6% interest (annual loan payment of $1.6 million).

This worst case scenario was analyzed because at this time it is not possible to determine the actual timing of when various segments will open and the revenue amounts that individual segments would generate.

As noted above, these assumptions indicate that the lanes would need to generate approximately $3.4 million per year. Exhibit B, attached, is an analysis of the financial feasibility for this project. Travel model results from the NEPA process were used along with current traffic data and project assumptions to answer the questions: 1. How many toll-paying SOVs

Page 6 of 51 are required to generate the $3.4 million per year?, 2. Is there enough excess capacity projected on the managed lane to allow the number of toll-paying SOVs we need?, and 3. Is the number of toll-SOV trips we need likely to occur?

We tested the reasonableness of our analysis using three different methods, and compared the results to actual toll volume on the existing I-25 Express Toll Lanes . All three support a conclusion that the facility could generate enough revenue to cover costs of the project. See appendix B for the detailed analysis.

7. Identify other entities that are directly impacted (attach concurrence documents)

Late in 2007, CDOT and the Regional Transportation District approached all municipalities and counties along the corridor to identify a preferred alternative and outline implementation phases in a collaborative manner. The US 36 Preferred Alternative Committee (PAC), a 21-member group of agency representatives, elected officials and technical staff from local, regional, and federal jurisdictions, was established to collaboratively develop a “Combined Alternative” for the corridor using project elements evaluated during the Draft EIS.

Within the six months between January and July 2008, the PAC reached full agreement on a recommendation that defined the preferred alternative for the Final EIS. PAC members have further agreed to remain engaged to complete the Final EIS and reach a Record of Decision (ROD) for the US 36 corridor by the end of 2009. They “will aggressively pursue financing options in partnership with CDOT and RTD…to accelerate implementation.” The mayors of Boulder, Superior, Louisville, Broomfield, and Westminster; Commissioners of Boulder, Jefferson, and Adams County; and high ranking officials of Denver, CDOT, RTD, FHWA, and FTA are all signatories to the July 9, 2008 recommendation that contains the above commitments. The PAC’s recommendation appears in Appendix A.

Business Support Another member and signatory to the PAC’s recommendation is the 36 Commuting Solutions -- one of six transportation management associations (TMA) operating in the Denver metropolitan area. Created in 1998 to reduce traffic congestion, improve air quality, and offer commuting options along the US 36 corridor, this TMA operates today as a not-for-profit, public- private membership organization. Its coalition includes nearly fifty businesses and seven municipal governments between Westminster and Longmont.

Public Sector Members Boulder County City of Boulder City and County of Broomfield City of Westminster City of Louisville Town of Superior City of Longmont

Current Private Sector Members Arista Level (3) Communications Ball Corporation Louisville Chamber of Commerce Boulder Area Realtor Association Macerich/FlatIron Crossing

Page 7 of 51 Boulder Chamber of Commerce McKesson Broomfield Chamber of Commerce Northwest Parkway LLC Broomfield Economic Development Corporation Omni Interlocken Resort CH2M Hill Passantino Andersen Communications Centura Avista Adventist Hospital Residence Inn Church Ranch Corporate Center Roche Colorado Colorado Business Bank Rocky Mountain Metropolitan Airport ConocoPhillips Superior Chamber of Commerce Courtyard by Marriott Sun Microsystems Gaiam/Conscious Media Ten West at Westmoor Technology Park Great Western Business Park University of Colorado at Boulder FlatIron Improvement District URS Corporation Hunter Douglas Wells Fargo Bank, Broomfield Interlocken Owners Association Westin Hotel Jacobs Engineering WhiteWave Foods Kaiser Permanente Xcel Energy Key National Finance

The mission of 36 Commuting Solutions is to enhance the mobility of commuters along the US 36 corridor today and for the future. Collectively, its membership coalition represents thousands of employers, businesses, employees, residents, municipal governments, and those passing through the US 36 corridor between Boulder and Denver, Colorado. Members of the 36 Commuting Solutions expressed their support during the PAC’s deliberations in defining the Combined Alternative, citing that the proposed managed lanes could provide a time-saving value to businesses served by US 36. 36 Commuting Solutions’ support for this project is a testament to the widespread and significant regional support for the proposed improvements.

8. Documentation of appropriate “1601” approval must be provided

No 1601 approvals by CDOT will be needed to add tolling because the introduction of access points between the general purpose and the Express lanes are not changing the interchanges or ramps. The US 36 EIS project team will complete the 1601 process during development of the Final EIS in 2009.

9. Requirements for travel and land use modeling associated with AQ conformity:

9.1 Facility type, number of lanes, posted speeds: US 36 currently has six general purpose lanes from east of Sheridan Blvd (SH 95) to I-25 and four lanes from west of Sheridan to Boulder. Current HOV lanes include the left lane on the eastbound segment between Sheridan and Federal and in both directions between Federal and Pecos. A reversible HOT Lane has been in place on US 36 between Pecos and I-25 as part of the I-25 Express Lane facility. Posted speeds are currently set at 65 miles per hour between Table Mesa and Sheridan, and at 55 miles per hour from Sheridan to I-25. Posted speeds are not proposed to be changed at this time.

This proposal would extend buffer-separated managed lanes throughout the US 36 corridor between Pecos Street and Boulder (pending Final EIS and ROD approval). The northern terminus of the existing Express Lane at US 36 and Federal Boulevard will be the southern

Page 8 of 51 terminus of this proposed project. Specifically, the proposed US 36 managed lane facility would include the following elements:

• Proposed cross sections from Pecos Street to the Table Mesa/ Foothills Parkway interchange include the existing number of general purpose lanes plus one additional buffer-separated managed lane in the far left lane each direction. • The existing reversible Express Lane operation would be maintained as is from Pecos to I-25; • There would be an inside shoulder next to the median barrier and a striped buffer separation from the general purpose lanes; • Access to the managed lane would be via separate buffer openings for entering and exiting traffic between each interchange;

9.2 Model staging year for completion (or other staging sequences)

An estimate of the funding included in the current Fiscally Constrained 2035 RTP for US 36 corridor improvements is $737 Million, as shown in the table below. The addition of managed lanes from Table Mesa Drive/Foothills Parkway to I-25 is the largest line item in the table, and funding is estimated to be available between the years 2016 and 2030. The additional cost of adding the proposed tolling equipment to the HOV lanes and for operation of the tolling facility is not in the Plan. That tolling equipment cost is estimated at $18.5 million. We are requesting that the $3.4 million annual cost and funding to support the project be added to the fiscally constrained plan beginning in the year 2016.

Depending on when funding becomes available, the managed lanes may have to be constructed in phased segments along the corridor. Implementation of managed toll lanes would of course depend on that same phasing schedule, because it would share the same new lanes.

Current Funding Scenario

Projects RelatedProject to No. US NH36 0361-070(14133)2035 Plan Funding 2035 Fiscally Funding Funding Funding US 36 MobilityFunding Par tnershipLocal/Other FEIS Scope Source Assumed in Constrained Plan Now to 2016 -2020 2021 -2030 2031 -2035 Assumed Funding Constraint Finding Funding 2015

Reconstruct Interchange at STP -M / Local 9.2 5.6 3.6 McCaslin Blvd Reconstruction I -25 at US 36 0.0 / Broadway Interchange

Add through -lanes: 96 th St R4 CDOT 47.0 47.0 to Interlocken East

Reconstruct Sheridan Blvd R6 CDOT / Local 54.0 48.5 5.5 Interchange

Add through -lanes: 0.0 Wadsworth to Sheridan

US 36 Wadsworth R6 CDOT / Local 153.5 138.5 15.0 interchange construction

Add HOV lanes: Foothills $114 CMAQ/ $63 R4 252.0 30.0 210.0 12.0 Parkway to I -25 (Region 4 CDOT/ $63 R6 and 6 contributions) CDOT/ Local FasTracks $ - BRT Phase II RTD FasTracks 214.0 208.0 6.0 (2007 $)

RTD $ - US 36 bike RTD 8.0 8.0 Balance assumed improvements (2007 $) FasTracks /Other to be covered with regional bike pool revenues Total 737.7 221.6 36.0 258.8 185.5 1 36.1

Page 9 of 51

9.3 Specific connections with the existing/planned roadway and transit network (ramps, access/egress pts.)

Access to the one managed lane in each direction would be provided between each interchange along US 36 via at-grade openings in the painted buffer that will serve entering and exiting traffic. The openings would be located and designed to minimize operational impacts to both the managed and the general purpose lanes. Access to the managed lanes will be limited to specific access points using both signing and pavement markings, based on the standards defined in the federal and state manuals on uniform traffic control devices (MUTCD). These access points will be provided to accommodate the traffic entering to and exiting from the buffer- separated managed lanes, to improve traffic throughput and increase usage of the managed lanes.

The openings in the painted buffer would also provide access for emergency vehicles . Once in the managed lane, emergency vehicles would use the inside median shoulder to pass stopped traffic and get to the incident site.

A traffic model using the Year 2035 conditions analyzed merging and weaving behavior and did not identify any failures. It is possible that some access configurations could be refined during the Final EIS process.

Impact on connecting local streets and at the entrance/exit points in Denver at 19 th Street and Boulder at Foothills Parkway are not anticipated to be substantial. First, trips originating along US 36 and destined for downtown already have the opportunity to use the Express Lane on I-25 for the end of their trip. With the extension of managed lanes on US 36, those same vehicles destined for downtown will simply now have the ability to use the managed lane for a larger portion of their trip. Likewise, those trips originating along the corridor and destined for Boulder will simply have a chance to use the managed lane for a longer piece of their trip.

Second, we believe the primary increase in vehicles using the managed lane will be from localized trips along the Denver-Boulder corridor. Since many of those vehicles are already using local streets in order to avoid congestion on US 36, the negative impact on local streets should be minimal. We may even see some positive impact on the local street network as some drivers choose to use the uncongested managed lane instead of local arterials for local trips.

9.4 Ancillary improvements committed

None.

9.5 Unique operational characteristics (as applicable): toll rates (and variation by vehicle type or times); type of separation from GP lanes; time of day restrictions- hours of operation; transit routes using HOV/HOT facilities (vehicle headways, etc)

The proposed buffer-separated managed lanes would operate 24 hours per day and 7 days a week. The consistent hours of operation would simplify enforcement and help avoid any possible confusion or misunderstanding in using the managed lanes due to various toll rates.

Page 10 of 51 Pricing policy for the US 36 managed lanes would be similar to what is in place in the I-25 Express Lanes. Tolls would be charged only for single occupant vehicles (SOVs). The fee charged in the peak hours for the entire Denver to Boulder trip that includes the existing I-25 segment would be no less than RTD’s Denver-Boulder express bus fare – currently $4.50.

Except as provided in the paragraph below, all vehicles using the managed lanes would either have to have two or more passengers or pay a toll. All HOVs (including public transit vehicles, commercial and private buses and vans) would be allowed to use the managed lanes for free. The toll rates and/or the definition for HOV (e.g. from 2+ to 3+ or 4+) would be adjusted when necessary to maintain a LOS C in either the eastbound or westbound managed lane on US 36. The permission for SOV access may be restricted or prohibited at future times, as necessary to ensure adequate speeds for transit and multi-occupant travel. CDOT will work with its regional partners if there is a need to consider changing the definition of an HOV from two or more (2+) to three or more passengers, or from 3+ to 4+ at whatever point in time traffic volumes warrant it.

As prescribed by federal law, motorcyclists would also be allowed to use the lanes for free. Federal law only allows hybrids in HOV/HOT lanes as long as travel speeds in the HOV/HOT lanes are not degraded. The Colorado Transportation Commission has recently approved the issuance of a limited number of permits for certain hybrid-electric vehicles to use HOV and managed lanes in Colorado for free regardless of occupancy.

As on the North I-25 Express Lanes, trucks with three or more axles would pay the current toll plus an additional fee (which currently is $18 for use of the Express Lanes). This fee has resulted in no negative operational impacts from heavy trucks in the I-25 Express Lanes.

By the time the US 36 managed lanes are built, the CTE fully expects that it will have moved to a dynamic pricing model (real time based on actual traffic) on both I-25 and US 36. Dynamic pricing will not only allow for real time price adjustment during weekday peak hours based on traffic conditions, it will also allow the charge to vary whenever special events affect normal traffic flows (such as CU football games). For purposes of this application and required demand modeling, we propose the following assumptions be used for toll rates. These rates assume an agreement with RTD that the peak segmental toll rate will be no less than the equivalent bus fare. At the time that the tolling function is implemented higher toll rates may be imposed.

Time: Midnight- 5:30am Rate: $ .50 5:30am- 7:00am $2.25 7:00am- 10:00am $4.50 10:00am- 3:30pm $2.25 3:30pm- 6:30pm $4.50 6:30pm- 8:00pm $2.25 8:00pm- Midnight $ .50

Weekend trips and major holidays for this exercise are presumed to use the off peak rate, but on specific weekends (such as CU football games) it may be necessary to modify the structure to ensure smooth traffic flow in the managed lanes.

CDOT will own, operate, and maintain the future system, but will contract out the tolling customer service and revenue management, as it does for North I-25. In addition to ensuring

Page 11 of 51 interoperability requirements are met, contracting out these services will take advantage of efficiencies from operations currently in place for other toll facilities such as E-470 and the Northwest Parkway. It is currently presumed that the Colorado State Patrol will be responsible for enforcement.

9.6 Relation to UGB/A (reviewed by DRCOG staff and discussed with sponsor)

The addition of a tolling function to the planned HOV lanes is consistent with the DRCOG Metro Vision 2035 Plan. It is compatible with the land use and transportation elements at the regional level, and includes the multimodal improvements consistent with the Plan’s key multimodal corridor concept for US 36. US 36 is not entirely within DRCOG’s Urban Growth Boundary (preserved open space such as Davidson Mesa is outside of it), but US 36 does connect Urban Centers.

Page 12 of 51 In addition, HB-05-1148 requires that five categories be addressed in CTE toll submittals to Metropolitan Planning Organizations. Those items are: operation, technology, project feasibility, project financing and any other federally required information. The following information addresses those items as a supplement to the information above.

1. Toll Facility Operation – all items listed under #1 – Information requested and process to support roadway amendments requests for the Fiscally Constrained 2035 RTP will be addressed.

See Sections 9.3 – 9.5 above.

2. Technology – DRCOG will assume that the system will use transponders (no stopping to pay cash) and will be interoperable with E-470, I-25 and NW Parkway unless stated otherwise in the plan amendment submittal.

DRCOG’s assumptions are correct, except that other electronic toll collection technology (e.g. video tolling) may be used.

3. Project Feasibility – • Summarize technical feasibility including the context for the project and the implementation opportunities and constraints at a planning level of information and provide planning level information for facility usage. The project scope envisioned with this plan amendment is simple: purchase and install toll collection equipment, and operate the planned HOV lanes on US 36 as managed express toll lanes.

No additional right-of-way will be needed to complete this project. We don’t anticipate any constraints in installing the necessary equipment. CTE will utilize proven technology, processes and organizational arrangements to operate this facility, building off of its experience with the highly successful I-25 Express Toll lanes.

4. Project Financing – the following will be provided: • Capital costs for the project with major components and key assumptions including inflation and contingencies . The $18.5 million capital costs for the project are outlined in section 5 and assume a 5% contingency. No inflation assumptions on the cost of capital equipment were used. While capital, operating and maintenance costs will surely rise over time, the toll rates charged will also be adjusted over time and are assumed to offset any increased costs due to inflation.

• Operation and maintenance add-ons – costs that are in addition to normal CDOT O&M – and inflation assumptions All costs for operating and maintaining the toll equipment are included in the estimate provided in section 5. As noted above, no inflation was assumed.

• Financial assumptions including non-traditional financing sources and innovative financing The proposal as presented does not assume any non-traditional funding sources. We’ve assumed a worst case scenario that the CTE will need to purchase all equipment upfront

Page 13 of 51 in the current year. Actual implementation may involve partnerships with other entities.

• Identification of public sector financial responsibility if revenue is not sufficient to meet annual costs after toll facility is built and operating . There is little risk to the public sector associated with this project. The cost to purchase and maintain toll equipment required to implement this project is very small and we think the probability of not generating sufficient revenues to cover the costs is very low. However, the CTE or CDOT would be responsible for covering any costs in the event that revenues were insufficient.

• Identification of how excess revenues would be spent in the (same) corridor (as required by HB 1148) Excess revenues from the proposed managed lanes could be used to help pay for the cost of operating, maintaining and improving all modes in the corridor .

• Relationship to a system, if applicable . This proposal is for US 36 only, and is not related to nor is dependent upon any future toll facilities that may or may not be proposed by the CTE or other entities. It does complement the existing I-25 Express Lanes.

5. Any other federally required information None at the time of plan amendment submittal.

6. Other Information (A summary of the environmental examinations and other studies completed to date and those anticipated in the future with key milestones and timeline. )

The subject of this plan amendment request – operating the planned HOV lanes on US 36 as managed lanes – is one element of the preferred alternative being studied in the US 36 Corridor EIS. The Final EIS is anticipated to be released for public review in mid-2009 with a goal of securing a Record of Decision before the end of the calendar year.

Because the proposed managed lanes on US 36 would have no spatial requirements beyond those for the HOV lanes that are in the current RTP, impacts resulting from the proposal would be limited to potential air quality and social impacts of the new tolled facility.

Air Quality Impacts The projections for air quality emissions reflected in the Draft EIS Air Quality section are derived from total vehicle miles traveled, which would not change as a result of adding managed lanes to the project. With the addition of managed lanes, it is reasonable to expect improved traffic flows overall along US 36 which should have a beneficial impact on air quality. Therefore CDOT, with concurrence from the Air Pollution Control Division, does not expect that this facility would negatively affect regional or local air quality conformity. The conclusions in the Draft EIS remain current and will be verified and updated in the FEIS.

Social Impacts In the United States, growing interest in express lanes and the fairness issues implicit in them has prompted some research on the equity of tolled facilities. Equity concerns about express lanes in general include their impact on low-income drivers, that any new toll facility may present a new cost burden that will further limit travel options for them. Various studies of the very few tolled express lane projects in the United States (I-15 in San Diego County, California; SR 91 in Orange County, California; and the Quick Ride Program on I-10 in Houston, Texas) have focused on the use of express lanes by low-income populations.

Page 14 of 51 These evaluations found that low-income drivers use the express lanes and approve of these lanes as much as higher-income drivers. The majority of commuters who use the toll lanes, even those from higher-income households, do not use the tolled lanes for every trip, but selectively use the tolled lanes for those trips where arriving at their destination at a particular time is critical. For example, if a lower income person is running late and must get to a second job or wants to avoid paying a late fee when picking up a child at daycare, paying a toll to arrive on time may be the best choice financially for that trip. These studies support the idea that express lanes provide more efficient choices for all users (transit, carpooling, paying a toll for a congestion-free trip) -- and that people can make the right choice for each trip.

A recent random sample of people in the North I-25 Express lanes in Denver did show greater use by higher-income drivers. Use of those lanes is likely a combination of geography and economics, in that the destination locations for the Express Lanes tend to have higher average incomes.

Even if individuals choose not to pay a toll to use the express lanes as an SOV, they may experience benefits from the additional lane by traveling via BRT or HOV. For example, based on 2035 traffic forecasting, BRT and HOVs using the new managed lanes between Boulder’s Table Mesa Station and the Denver Union Station (DUS) for the AM peak hours are expected to experience significant time savings over the general purpose lanes depending on direction and route times.

Additional information on the proposed proposed use of toll revenues for US 36 will be included in the Final EIS. Following implementation of the project, RTD and CDOT would continue to conduct periodic use surveys and evaluate tolling impacts to adjust operational procedures if warranted.

• A commitment to follow CDOT environmental stewardship guide during project development including the identification of impacts and mitigation measures. All impacts of tolling will be addressed in the Final EIS for US 36, being completed consistent with the Environmental Stewardship Guide and all NEPA requirements. The Final EIS is expected to be released for public review in Summer 2009.

• A summary of consultation with local governments completed to date, with issues and resolution; a plan for future additional consultation with local governments during project development, and the relationship of the project to local transportation plans. See previous discussion in Section 7 of the collaborative process undertaken with the US 36 Preferred Alternative Committee (PAC). See also Appendix A – the PAC recommendation that came out of discussions with that group of affected local agencies. That plan has been endorsed as the local plan for priority improvements on US 36. The PAC continues to meet regularly to discuss and advise CDOT and RTD on funding and staging of corridor improvements. CDOT will continue to engage members of the PAC in the future as this project is developed.

• Assistance to DRCOG staff with response to public comment as needed. CTE and CDOT staff will be available to assist DRCOG staff with response to public comment as needed.

Page 15 of 51

Appendix A

US 36 Preferred Alternative Committee Recommendation for a Combined Alternative

Page 16 of 51

US 36 Preferred Alternative Committee Recommendation for a Combined Alternative

July 9, 2008

The US 36 Preferred Alternative Committee (PAC), a 21-member group comprised of agency representatives, elected officials and technical staff from local jurisdictions, was charged with collaboratively developing a ‘combination’ alternative for the U.S. 36 Corridor using elements evaluated during the Draft Environmental Impact Statement that, after additional analysis to verify that the selected elements effectively perform and achieve the project’s goals, would be adopted as a Preferred Alternative that will be carried through the requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act.

BACKGROUND

The Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT) and the Regional Transportation District (RTD), in conjunction with the Federal Highway Administration and the Federal Transit Administration, have been studying multi-modal transportation improvements between Denver and Boulder in the U.S. 36 Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) since 2003. A Draft EIS was released in August 2007 that evaluated a variety of transportation solutions within two “build” packages and a “no build” alternative for the U.S. 36 Corridor. The majority of public comments received during the Draft EIS sought a transportation solution that further reduced the community and environmental impacts, decreased project cost, and that still provided for increased mobility improvements.

Given the next step in the EIS process - to incorporate public comments, identify a preferred alternative and outline implementation phases, the agencies approached corridor municipalities in 2007 to complete this step in a collaborative manner. The U.S. 36 PAC was established to consider public comment, and identify an alternative consisting of elements outlined in the Draft EIS that would be advanced through the National Environmental Policy Act process in the Final Environmental Impact Statement (Final EIS) to a Record of Decision.

RECOMMENDATION

The U.S. 36 PAC is recommending a ‘combination’ alternative that is responsive to public comments and long-term transportation needs that, after additional analysis, is expected to be adopted as the Preferred Alternative. The following describes the components of this multi-modal recommendation:

Transit

Page 17 of 51 • Ramp and side-loading stations supported by parking facilities and local transit services, with specific premium components to support Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) operations. This could include, but is not limited to: special vehicles, prepayment technology to facilitate efficient loading, service image and identity treatments such as bus wraps, signal pre-emption, specialized marketing and transportation demand management. Facilities should include multi-modal connections to the existing and planned transportation infrastructure.

• BRT Access to Table Mesa that consists of a transition of the Express Lane to a General Purpose Lane at a point west of Cherryvale Road. This lane would change the regulatory designation from Express to General Purpose and would result in a continuous through lane to 28 th Street. This access requires only a one-lane traffic weave to the westbound 36 BRT side-platform ramp.

Multimodal • One buffer-separated managed lane in each direction of U.S. 36 from Pecos Street to the Table Mesa/Foothills Parkway interchange. Maintain existing reversible managed lane operations on U.S. 36 from Pecos to Interstate 25. While this lane is open to High Occupancy Vehicles and Single Occupancy Vehicle toll users, buses will have the highest priority, followed by HOV users. SOV toll and HOV use will be managed to ensure free flow conditions for bus travel.

• Access to the new managed lanes will have separate, at-grade buffer openings between each interchange for entering and exiting traffic.

Highway • Ramp-to-Ramp auxiliary lanes for most segments of U.S. 36 from McCaslin Boulevard to I-25.

• One new continuous eastbound general-purpose lane from Sheridan Boulevard to I-25.

• One new climbing lane in each direction of U.S. 36 (westbound begins at McCaslin Boulevard; eastbound begins at Table Mesa) to the top of Davidson Mesa.

Bikeway • Adopt the west-end corridor alignment identified as the ‘U.S. 36 Bikeway Option’ in the Draft EIS public comments, which places the bikeway along the south side of the highway from Table Mesa to South Boulder Creek before traveling along the north side of U.S. 36 to McCaslin Boulevard.

• From McCaslin to Sheridan, the bikeway aligns along the north side of the highway from McCaslin to Coal Creek, crosses to the south side of the highway and follows an access road under U.S. 36 to cross to the north side to Flatirons West, before returning along the south side through Broomfield.

• From Sheridan Boulevard to Broadway, the bikeway remains on the south side of U.S. 36 until Bradburn Boulevard, then travels south on Bradburn to 72nd Avenue, where it connects to the Little Dry Creek Trail.

• Grade-separated bike crossings will be incorporated as interchanges are rebuilt. Additional connections to streets, trails and new developments also would be encouraged and supported as appropriate.

Additional Analysis Recognizing that this alternative will undergo additional analysis to verify consistency with the project’s purpose and need, design and safety standards, financial feasibility, regulatory requirements and local municipality requests, the PAC recognizes that additional refinements may be necessary prior to declaring this alternative as the Preferred for the FEIS:

Page 18 of 51 • Develop traffic simulation model at select locations across the corridor.

• Evaluate and consider impacts of combined alternative on local arterials and other resources identified in DEIS.

• Examine feasibility of aligning U.S. 36 bikeway along the south side of highway from Sheridan Boulevard to Broadway Boulevard provided there are no additional right-of-way takes.

• Evaluate the benefit, cost and impacts of an 88th Street drop ramp to the managed lanes and local roads to improve access to and from the municipalities of Louisville and Superior.

• Examine design refinements at Table Mesa to improve transit operations.

• Evaluate inclusion of a Broadway slip ramp from southbound I-25 to westbound U.S. 36.

• Examine additional measures to reduce right-of-way impacts.

• Evaluate ramp volumes from Sheridan Boulevard to I-25.

• Evaluate water quality and conveyance from U.S. 36 and opportunities to partner with jurisdictions to address problem areas.

• Evaluate extension of climbing lanes on U.S. 36 between McCaslin Boulevard and Table Mesa to bus-only lanes as well as the use of shoulders for transit during peak travel periods. Identify ‘triggers’ for when this design approach would be considered.

• Examine low cost options to connect U.S. 36 managed lanes to north I-25 bi-directional HOT lanes. Evaluate opportunities to facilitate travel time savings for buses not able to operate in managed lanes.

• Assess specific premium components to support BRT transit operations. This assessment would consider, but would not be limited to, special vehicles, service image and identify treatments such as bus wraps, signal priority strategies (such as queue jump lanes) at interchanges, prepaid boarding, boarding and alighting all doors, specialized marketing, transportation demand management, adequate parking and local transit service and connections.

• Identify logical projects with independent utility based on available funding.

• Research, analyze, and seek alternate funding mechanisms and project delivery methods to maximize the construction of identified logical projects as early as possible.

• Examine the feasibility of retaining the westbound I-270 access to Broadway.

Page 19 of 51 PHASING AND IMPLEMENTATION STEPS

The PAC has placed a high priority on congestion relief through the extension of the managed lanes in the initial phase of construction. Accordingly, the phasing and financing plan will focus on initially constructing useful components that improve transit time consistent with the preferred alternative. All implementation phases will be developed concurrently with the engineering, design, and construction analysis on the preferred alternative. These phases will be developed consistent with community priorities, agency approval, and the availability, eligibility and appropriate uses of reasonably available funding sources.

Stakeholders will aggressively pursue financing options in partnership with CDOT and RTD. Alternative financing options and project delivery methods such as design-build will be considered to accelerate implementation. The phasing plan should be sufficiently flexible to accommodate the requirements of specific funding sources as they become available.

FUTURE STAKEHOLDER ENGAGEMENT

Future stakeholder engagement is necessary to complete the FEIS and reach a Record of Decision for the U.S. 36 Corridor. As the PAC’s combined alternative advances through the FEIS analysis, the agencies will meet with stakeholders at established project milestones to share findings, gather input, and address concerns. The PAC will be an important forum for evaluation, communication and public involvement in development and analysis of the phased ROD. Regular project updates will also be provided through established stakeholder meetings, project newsletters, project website and public meetings.

Page 20 of 51 U.S. 36 PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE COMMITTEE

We, the members of the U.S. 36 Preferred Alternative Committee, are committed to implementing the recommendations outlined above.

Page 21 of 51

U.S. 36 PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE COMMITTEE

We, the members of the U.S. 36 Preferred Alternative Committee, are committed to implementing the recommendations outlined above.

Page 22 of 51

Appendix B

Financial Feasibility Analysis US 36 Managed Toll Lanes

Page 23 of 51 Financial Feasibility Analysis for the US 36 Managed Toll Lanes

The long-term assumption for this facility is that toll revenues collected would fully cover all capital equipment, operating and maintenance costs for the tolling operation. The financial viability of this proposal then relies upon the ability of the system to collect sufficient toll revenue to cover: (1) the acquisition and deployment of tolling equipment ($18.5 million); and (2) the annual O&M and enforcement costs ($1.7 million).

This analysis presents the worst case scenario in which the CTE would procure all the capital equipment in a single purchase of $18.5 million, and also cover the entire $1.7 million annual operating expenses for the managed lanes including maintenance of the tolling equipment from day one. This analysis assumes that CTE will pay for the toll equipment utilizing a 20-year loan from the Transportation Commission at 6% interest and annual loan payment of $1.6 million. The analysis also used the lowest possible peak toll rate – again allowing for a worst case scenario evaluation.

In total, then, the managed lanes would need to generate approximately $3.4 million per year. Travel model results from the NEPA process were used along with current traffic data and project assumptions to answer the following key questions about the project: 1. How many toll- paying SOVs are required to generate the $3.4 million per year?, 2. Is there enough excess capacity projected on the managed lane to allow the number of toll-paying SOVs we need?, and 3. Is the number of toll-SOV trips we need likely to occur?

Several methods were used to test the reasonableness of these assumptions and the results were compared to actual toll-SOV volumes on the existing I-25 Express Toll Lanes as a benchmark. Since the traffic patterns in the US 36 corridor and the full time bidirectional design of these additional managed lanes will likely generate a greater demand for use of the managed lanes than we see on I-25, the use of the data from the I-25 express lanes as a benchmark again is a worst case assumption. The analysis supports a conclusion that the facility could generate enough revenue to cover costs of the project.

Additional assumptions used in this analysis are as follows. 1. The SOV toll for use of the lane would be $4.50 per peak hour trip, regardless of length. This amount is equal to the currently approved RTD regional bus fare for 2009 and is the minimum toll the CTE may charge based upon current policy. 2. SOVs may only use the lanes to the extent that capacity is made available to them within the operational constraint of maintaining LOS C (no more than 1,500 vehicles per hour per managed lane) as discussed earlier in this document. 3. The toll for non peak hour trips would be $2.25 on the shoulder hours, and $0.50 from 8:00 pm to 5:30 am. Appendix C contains travel model data from the 2035 travel model for US 36, including projected volumes in the proposed managed lanes. Appendix D contains summary information on the I-25 Express Lane operation for November and December 2008.

How many toll-paying SOVs are required for the project to be feasible?: As noted above, approximately $3.4 M per year would need to be collected in order to make this project financially viable. An average of 2,600 weekday peak period tolled trips (440 in each of six peak hours) would have to occur on a typical weekday to generate $3.0 million in annual revenue .

Page 24 of 51 Approximately 600 toll SOVs per day would be needed on weekday off-peak hours and weekends to generate the remaining $400,000. Based on actual volumes on the I-25 Express Lane facility, we assumed that the majority of tolled trips (75%) would occur during the two 3- hour peak travel periods in each of the 254 non-major-holiday weekdays per year. (In November and December 2008, peak period toll trips accounted for between 76% and 82% of total tolled vehicles.) A weighted average toll of $1.80 was assumed for off-peak hours based on the assumption that 75% of off-peak tolled vehicles would be using the lane during the shoulder hours of the day rather than late nights or early mornings. (A spot check of data on I-25 Express Toll lanes indicates that between 75% and 80% of off peak toll SOVs use the lanes during shoulder hours). In the typical 7 day week, this translates to a total of 17,200 tolled SOVs (2,425 tolled trips per day) needed to cover the $3.4 M annual facility costs .

How much tolled capacity exists? OR Is there enough excess capacity to allow the number of toll-paying SOVs we need?: Transportation demand modeling for Year 2035 conditions was conducted as part of the EIS process and provides data about the amount of HOV-only demand in the managed lane. We used the model data to answer the question, “How much ‘excess’ capacity is there to sell?” CDOT, CTE, and RTD have agreed to use pricing and other strategies to maintain a Level of Service of C in the managed lane, which corresponds to a limit of about 1,500 vehicles per hour in each of the two lanes (3000 in both directions). Model data predicts that peak-hour, bi-directional HOV demand in the corridor can reasonably be expected to be between 1000 and 2000 vehicles per hour. This analysis would suggest that excess “tollable” capacity in the peak hour in both directions is at least 1000 tolled SOV vehicles (3000 total capacity less high end estimate of 2000 HOV vehicles per hour) – significantly more than the 440 peak hour toll vehicles we would need. In the off-peak hours and directions, fewer HOVs would use the managed lane, and more capacity would be available for use by tolled SOVs.

Is the number of tolled SOV trips we need likely to occur? We tested the reasonableness of our assumptions using three different methods, and compared the results to actual toll volume on the existing I-25 Express Toll Lanes . All three support a conclusion that the facility could generate enough revenue to cover costs of the project.

The first method estimates toll paying vehicles in the peak hour as a percentage of projected peak hour volumes in the managed lanes . 2035 Year model results project that total bi- directional peak hour vehicles in the managed lane (including HOV, Bus and SOV-Tolled vehicles) would vary between 690 and 2,040 in the am peak hour, and between 1,100 and 2,560 for the pm peak hour. In the I-25 Express Lane facility, 45% of the vehicles in the average am peak hour and 34% of the vehicles in the typical pm peak hour using the managed lane are toll-SOVs. Based on that experience, we assumed 45% of all managed lane vehicles in the am peak and 34% in the pm peak periods will be toll SOVs. Applying that to very conservative am and pm peak managed lane volumes of 1000 and 1500 respectively, an average of 480 tolled vehicles would use the managed lanes per peak hour – nearly 10% more than the 440 toll vehicles needed in the peak hours to support the project.

The second method of evaluating our assumptions also relies on projected daily traffic volumes produced during the EIS process, but focuses on average daily volumes in the managed lanes rather than peak hour . Roughly 30% of all vehicles in the I-25 Express Lane, all hours of the day 7 days a week, are tolled. Applying that experience, 30% of the average daily vehicle counts projected by the traffic model on US 36 managed lanes yields over 3200 projected toll

Page 25 of 51 SOVs using the managed lanes on a typical day – about 1/3 more than the average daily toll trips needed to generate $3.4 M in toll revenue annually.

Finally, we estimated the volume of peak hour toll trips as a percentage of design hourly volume on all lanes of the facility . The I-25 Express Lanes carry about 450 peak hour tolled vehicles on a typical weekday (based on June - November 2008 data) which represents 2.8 % of design hourly volume on all lanes of that facility. Current US 36 design hourly volume based on the existing 4 lane facility is 6,800 vehicles. If the design volume is adjusted upward by a conservative 20% to reflect the additional capacity being added with the two new lanes, 440 hourly tolled trips would be 5.4% of total hourly volume, a bit less than double the percentage carried by the I-25 facility. Given that the US 36 facility will include two managed lanes (one in each direction) as compared to the single reversible lane on I-25, it’s not unreasonable to expect that the percentage of tolled trips to total trips on US 36 would be twice that of the percentage of tolled trips on I-25. In fact, since the US 36 lanes will be operational at all hours of the day in both directions, without the need to close for reversal of directional flow, it’s conceivable that they could carry more than twice the relative percentage of tolled trips as compared to the number of toll trips on the I-25 Express Lanes. In the off-peak less than 1% of all off-peak trips during the rest of the year would need to be tolled in order to generate the $400,000 balance needed to fully support the facility -- a goal that the CTE does not anticipate any difficulty meeting. (For comparison, in November and December 2008, between 6% and 7% of all off-peak trips in the I-25 managed lane only were toll SOVs.)

Page 26 of 51

Appendix C

US 36 Corridor 2035 Traffic Model Results Including Managed Toll Lane Operation

Page 27 of 51

Page 28 of 51

Appendix D

I-25 Express Lanes – Monthly Progress Reports November and December 2008

Page 29 of 51

Page 30 of 51

Page 31 of 51

Page 32 of 51

Page 33 of 51

Page 34 of 51

Page 35 of 51

Page 36 of 51

Page 37 of 51

Page 38 of 51

Page 39 of 51

Page 40 of 51

Page 41 of 51

Page 42 of 51

Page 43 of 51

Page 44 of 51

Page 45 of 51

Page 46 of 51

Page 47 of 51

Page 48 of 51

Page 49 of 51

Page 50 of 51

Page 51 of 51