Meeting Agenda of the TRANSPORTATION ADVIS ORY … · 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

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

ACTION REQUESTED: Review & Recommend

DATE: July 20, 2017

TO: PPACG Transportation Advisory Committee

FROM: Kevin Rayes, Transportation Planner

SUBJECT: FY 2017-2022 TIP Amendment 11

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

cORIN

PUBLIC WORKS

OLYMPIC CITY USA

June 29, 2017

Mr. Kenneth Prather15 South 7th StreetColorado, Springs, CO 80905

Dear Mr. Prather,

The City of Colorado Springs requests a TIP amendment to the PPACG 2017-2022 TransportationImprovement Program (TIP) as the City was awarded funding for the construction of a storm water basinat 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 ofPowers Boulevard and Research Parkway. This project is of great importance to both the City and CDOTas there are a number of forces driving this high priority project. First, is to fulfill the commitments madeby the City of Colorado Springs to the City of Pueblo in the recently approved IntergovernmentalAgreement (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 atPowers Boulevard and Research Parkway. The proposed CDOT interchange is a priority project thatcurrently 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 CottonwoodCreek through the construction of an approximate 12 acre-feet full spectrum basin. The proposed basinwould divert a portion of the flow from the Fairfax Tributary into the basin and allow those flows to slowlydrain over time. The treatment of the storm flows would also facilitate the sedimentation of totalsuspended solids (TSS), improving downstream water quality. In addition, the attenuation of peak flows inthe basin would lower the peak flows in Fairfax Tributary encountered in most storm events. This wouldreduce the amount of water flowing through the channel, therefore lowering the velocity of thewater in the channel and reducing downstream channel erosion. While there are several detention basinson the north side of Powers, there is no water quality infrastructure to treat the impervious area of eitherPowers Boulevard or Research Parkway around the intersection. The proposed location of the basin alsoallows 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 CDOTPermanent Water Quality Mitigation Pool funds. The City of Colorado Springs is providing matchingresources in the form of financial assistance, design and coordination totaling $2,140,000. Thepartnership with CDOT will facilitate the construction of a full spectrum basin that will meet the goals andobjectives for all parties.

Please let me know if you have any additional questions about the proposed TIP modification action.

Sincerely,

Tim RObcft5

Principal Transportation PlannerTraffic Engineering-Colorado Springs Public Works719-385-5481troberts @ springsgov.com

30 South Nevada Avenue, Suite 401 • TEL 719-385-5908

Mailing Address: Post Office Box 1575, Mail Code 410 • Colorado Springs, Colorado 80901-1575www.ColoradoSprings.gov

Agenda Item 6A Attachment 1




Agenda Item 6B

Page 1

ACTION REQUESTED: Review & Recommend

M E M O R A N D U M

DATE: July 20, 2017



SUBJECT: 2045 LONG RANGE TRANSPORTATION PLAN OBJECTIVES AND TARGETS

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 3 of 3

ATTACHMENTS 1) Chart of Goals, Objectives and Targets 2) Non-motorized Plan Improvement Corridors 3) PPACG Urbanized Area and MPO Boundary

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 Maintain or improve current roadway infrastructure condition.

Objective 2- Bridge Maintain or improve current bridge infrastructure

condition.

Objective 3- Transit Maintain or improve current fixed-route

vehicle infrastructure condition.

Objective 4- Non-Motorized Explore options for collecting

data/establishing baseline. Then work to maintain or improve non-motorized

infrastructure conditions.

2007 IRI Baseline

• 2.5 % in very good condition • 39% in good condition • 44.9% in fair condition • 10.7 % in poor condition • .1% in very poor condition • 1.6% no data

2014 IRI Baseline

• 1% in very good condition • 66% in good condition • 29% in fair condition • 3.5% in poor condition • .5% in very poor condition

2010 Bridge Condition Baseline

• 73% in good condition • 22% in fair condition • 5% in poor condition

Proposed Target

Greater than 90% of roads in good or better condition

Proposed Target

Greater than 90% of bridges in good or better condition

Proposed Target Maintain fixed-route vehicles in a SGR rating of at least 3.0 (adequate) on a scale of 1 (poor) to

5 (excellent).

2015 Bridge Condition Baseline

• 75.5% in good condition

• 22.2% in fair condition • 2.3% in poor condition

2015 State of Good Repair (SGR) Baseline

Fixed-route vehicles SGR rating= 3.24


Goal 2 – Mobility

Optimize the movement of people and goods.

Objective 2- Auto + Freight

Maintain or improve travel time by a variety of modes in the region.

Objective 3A- Transit Enhance fixed-route transit

Baseline data:

System-wide fixed-route on-time performance:

• 2016 Q1- 85.12% Q2- 85.51% Q3- 84.05% Q4-85.85%

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%

Objective 3B- Transit Ensure reliable transit time.

Objective 4- Non-Motorized

Baseline data:

• 2015 annual ridership- 3,001,246 • 2016 annual ridership- 3,120,334 • Change from 2015 to 2016- +3.8%

Baseline Data:

Between 4-6 pm on Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday in 2011: 23 miles in the region experienced congestion, 44 miles were becoming congested and 976 miles were free flow.

• 94% of the roads were not congested (at least 80% free flow speed) • 4% were becoming congested (between 70-80% free flow speed) • 2% were congested (below 70% free flow speed)

Between 4-6 pm on Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday in 2015: 144 miles in the region experienced congestion, 168 miles were becoming congested and 735 miles were free flow.

• 70% of the roads were not congested (at least 80% free flow speed) • 16% were becoming congested (between 70-80% free flow speed) • 14% were congested (below 70% free flow speed)

Baseline Data:

The American Community Survey reported commuting patterns for the Colorado Springs MSA (all of El Paso and Teller counties). Below is the percent of residents in the area who walk or bike to work:

• 2010- o Walk-4.8% o Bike- 0.5%

• 2012- o Walk- 4.5% o Bike- 0.3%

• 2015- o Walk- 3.3% o Bike- 0.5%

How can we use this data?

• Set a target for increasing mode share for walking and biking.

Proposed Target

• 94% of the roads are not congested (at least 80% free flow speed) • 4% are becoming congested (between 70-80% free flow speed) • 2% are congested (below 70% free flow speed)

Proposed Target Maintain system-wide fixed-route on-time performance of at

least 85% annually.

Proposed Target Increase system-wide fixed-route ridership by 10%

Proposed Target

Increase mode share to 5% for walking to work

Increase mode share to 1% for biking to work

Objective 1- Auto + Freight

Maintain or improve resiliency and redundancy of transportation system.

----------------------------------------------------------------------


Goal 3 – Connectivity and Accessibility Ensure adequate and equitable access to destinations using a variety of modes

Objective 2- Non-Motorized Focus on closing gaps in the non-motorized system

Objective 3- Modal Integration

Increase modal connections in projects and ensure ADA accessibility

Objective 1A-Transit Enhance fixed-route transit

Baseline data 2016:

12/26 (46%) of routes have headways less than 60 minutes

Objective 1B- Transit Enhance fixed-route transit

Baseline data

Need to establish baseline

How can we measure this?

Baseline data:

There are several options for this target:

• The TAC workshop recommends exploring 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 improvement corridors cover a total of 626.3 miles. The region has a total of 1,463.34 miles of roads. The improvement corridors cover 42.8% of the regional road network.

• Percentage of major health care facilities that are served by more than one mode of transportation

• Percentage of top 50 employment sites that are served by more than one mode of transportation

• Percentage of top 50 employment sites within one mile of a bicycle facility or within ¼ mile of a transit line

Establishing a baseline and target may be difficult for this objective. PPACG suggests using modal integration

as a scoring criterion for projects and omit it as a target.

Proposed Target Maintain or increase the population within ¼

mile of a transit stop.

Proposed Target

Proposed Target Maintain or increase the percentage of

routes with headways less than 60 minutes.

--------------------------------------------------------


Goal 4 – Safety Reduce hazards for all modes of travel

Objective 1- Motorized Vehicles (vehicle-vehicle)

Add safety features to reduce hazards.

Objective 2- Non-Motorized (Vehicle-pedestrian/cyclist)

Add safety features to reduce hazards.

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).

Baseline Data 2011

• PDO- 7,061 • INJ- 3,084 • FAT- 40

2012 • PDO- 7,242 • INJ- 3,410 • FAT- 40

2013 • 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

Baseline Data

Vehicle-pedestrian cycle deaths:

• 2012- 13 regional/76 state • 2013- 6 regional /50 state • 2014- 5 regional/63 state • 2015- 8 regional/59 state • 2016- 7 regional • 2017- 6 regional (so far)


Goal 5 – Economic Vitality Improve competitiveness of the regional economy and residents’ quality of life through strategic transportation investments and integrated transportation technology

Objective 2- Tourism, Economy

Objective 3- Incentivize infill by focusing investments on existing infrastructure

Objective 1- Environment Improve or mitigate impacts to critical habitat,

storm-water runoff quantity and air quality.


The TAC workshop agreed that we are trying to achieve cost-effectiveness through infill. We need to decide how to measure this target:

• Lane miles per capita • Ratio of dollars invested in urbanized

area. • VMT per capita (or VMT growth per

capita) • Daily vehicle hours travelled per capita

Objective 4- Revenue and Cost Trends

(Use trends to set context for all targets and objectives)

Baseline Data

• Critical habitats o The region has 1,463.34 miles of roads. 314

miles of road are located in critical habitats. 21.5% of roads are located in critical habitats.

• Storm-water runoff o There are 83,309.25 square miles of roads

in the PPACG region (collector and above). • Air quality

o The Moves model will measure regional air quality


PPACG recommends using the following performance measures to monitor tourism and the economy only for reporting purposes

Tourism Indicators

• Total visitation to Pikes Peak Region in 2015- 20.5 million visitors (8.8 million overnight; 11.7 million day)

• Economic impact (visitor spending): $11.976 billion in the Pikes Peak region in 2015. Does not include multipliers

• Tourism employment in the region in 2015: 17,000

Economic Indicators

• Per capita real GDP for Pikes Peak Region- total income in the region divided by total population

• Gross metropolitan product (GMP)- same as GDP but on regional level

• Commercial vehicle delay on interstate system

• Combined index of cost of living and transportation (H+T)

Proposed Targets

The TAC workshop could not agree if the environmental components should be addressed as targets and scoring criteria. Several mentioned that because environmental regulations are addressed in NEPA, establishing PPACG performance measures would be redundant

• Critical habitats- PPACG recommends: maintain

or reduce the percentage of roads in critical habitats.

• Storm-water- PPACG suggests omitting storm water as a target but maybe use impervious surface as a scoring criterion

• Air quality- do not violate national ambient air quality standards

PPACG REGIONAL NONMOTORIZED TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM PLAN

09

This chapter identifies the collected datasets that form the basis of the corridor identification analysis. The chapter also describes the rationale used to identify each corridor, based on the data collected.

For more detailed information regarding any of the datasets below, please refer to the Existing Nonmotorized Conditions document, which can be downloaded from www.walkbikeconnect.org.

Data collection and Mapping

The following datasets were collected for existing conditions and identification of nonmotorized corridors:

• Pedestrian and cyclist accidents over the past 10years (2003 through to 2012) – Shows accidents onthe transportation network involving pedestriansand cyclists in the region from 2002 to 2012.

• Source: Department of Revenue, the City of Colorado Springs Police Department and the City of Woodland Park, 2013

• The network ‘levels’ mapping (please see cyclingcompetency levels as detailed in the ‘ExistingConditions Report’ document) – Shows thecompetency level required to use each sectionof the network, from level 1 (off road) to level4 (traffic over 35 mph with no cyclist space).

• Source: Analysis completed by project team, 2013

• Rates of cycling, walking and transit to work –Shows the rates of using cycling, walking andtransit to work per population by census tract.

• Source: Data taken from the 2011 ACS (American Community Survey) five-year estimation and shows walk, bicycle and transit commuters per square mile. The data is shown by census tract, 2011

Corridor IdentificationMethodology

• Employees place of work and home – Using datafrom the 2010 U.S. Census to provide informationon the places people work and live (only the activeworkforce in the region). This data is combined withmilitary personnel employment data, as this is notcurrently included in the ‘On the Map’ dataset.

• Source: On the Map, 2013 (www.onthemap.ces.census.gov)

• School locations – Shows the location of eachelementary, middle, and high school in the region.

• Source: Open Street Map, 2013 (openstreetmap.org)

• Other destination locations – Shows the locationof other destinations, including parks, civicbuildings, churches, medical centers, policestations, fire stations and recreational centers.

• Source: Open Street Map, 2013 (openstreetmap.org)

• Existing nonmotorized trails – Shows theexisting nonmotorized trails in the region.

• Source: Existing trails provided as GIS layers from El Paso County, the City of Colorado Springs and the City of Woodland Park.

• PPACG Regional Nonmotorized Transportation PlanAreas: Shows the areas included in this project.

• Source: Areas were designated by the PMT team, 2013. Please refer to Figure 2.1 below for a breakdown of these areas.

• Proposed nonmotorized trails – Shows theproposed nonmotorized trails in the region.

• Source: Contributions by El Paso County, the City of Colorado Springs and the City of Woodland Park, 2013

• Existing on-road cycle infrastructure – Showsany on-road cycle infrastructure in the region.


• Existing sidewalk coverage – Shows theexisting sidewalks in the region.


2 Agenda Item 6B Attachment 2


10

• Transit stops – Shows all transit stops in the region.


• Individual area analysis – These maps, the region splitinto the 38 areas, show the analysis of nonmotorizedmovement between and within each area. Each areais shown on an individual map, with a description ofthe current network and access to neighboring areas.

• Source: Analysis by project team, 2013

• Individual trail analysis - The urban trails are akey part of the nonmotorized network in theregion. An urban trail is an off road link usedby nonmotorized transportation that connectsorigins and destinations. These trails breakdown barriers created by the roadway networkto nonmotorized movements and facilitatenonmotorized movements in and around the region.

• Source: Analysis by project team, 2013

FIGURE 2.1 – PPACG Regional Nonmotorized Transportation Plan Areas

Agenda Item 6B Attachment 2


11

Methodology

Using the data and mapping listed above, a regional analysis was conducted to identify corridors throughout the region that would meet the following conditions:

• Fill in nonmotorized network gaps.

• Attract the heaviest use by nonmotorizedmodes through connecting people toplaces via the shortest corridor.

• Remove major barriers tononmotorized transportation.

• Improve cyclist and pedestrian safety.

• Provide a regional link.

• In addition to the above listed conditions,the Project Team included corridorsrecommended by local jurisdictions.

The following sections explain the analysis used to identify corridors that met the above listed conditions.

Fill in nonmotorized network gaps

The gaps analysis included overlaying the following data to understand where there are gaps in the current nonmotorized network:

• Current nonmotorized trails.

• Current on-road cycle infrastructure.

• Cycling competency levels (illustrates wherekey barriers to nonmotorized transportationexist, such as major roadways that are difficultto cross or navigate) these barriers producegaps in the network where nonmotorizedtransportation cannot be easily used.

• Other barriers such as railroads and drainages.

Attract the heaviest use by nonmotorized modes through connecting people to places via the shortest corridor

To develop a nonmotorized network that will attract the most use requires understanding the distance most people are willing to travel by active modes. This is a key difference in comparison to all other modes, as people are required to use their own resources (energy) to use active modes as transportation. Therefore, people are more likely to regularly use active modes of transportation if travel distances are shorter than for other, motorized, modes.

Nationally, 81% of nonmotorized transportation trips are less than 5 miles (2002 National Survey of Pedestrian and Bicyclist Attitudes and Behaviors). The average bicycle trip length for transportation purposes is 2.2 miles (2002 National Survey of Pedestrian and Bicyclist Attitudes and Behaviors). The distance is even shorter for walking trips, as 85% of walking trips are less than 2 miles (2002 National Survey of Pedestrian and Bicyclist Attitudes and Behaviors).

With these active mode patterns in mind, infrastructure that connects origins and destinations via the shortest corridor will be the most attractive to users. Therefore, the Project Team identified corridors that connect a number of destinations by short distances to encourage use.

There are a number of key regional destinations, these include (but are not limited to):

• Downtown Colorado Springs

• City of Woodland Park

• City of Manitou Springs

• Old Colorado City (and along West Colorado Avenue)

• Town of Monument

• Town of Palmer Lake

• City of Fountain

• Falcon

• Town of Green Mountain Falls

• Military Installations

• Residential areas



12

Remove major barriers to nonmotorized transportation

Major barriers to nonmotorized transportation differ than motorized transportation barriers. Motorized transportation uses the motorized network, with few external effects to their journey. Active modes are different as the number of external effects are much greater and create barriers that do not exist for motorized transportation. These differences include, but are not limited to:

• Perception of safety/actual safety – Proximityand speed of motorized transportation hasa much greater impact on nonmotorizedtransport than that of motorized transport.

• Physical barriers – The motorized networkcreates barriers to the nonmotorizednetwork (e.g. I-25). Other physical barriersinclude 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 – Proximityand speed of motorized transportation hasa much greater impact on nonmotorizedtransport than that of motorized transport.

• Physical barriers – The motorized networkcreates barriers to the nonmotorizednetwork (e.g. I-25). Other physical barriersinclude railroads and drainage systems.

Provide regional links

The nonmotorized regional network should be connected to link as many origins and destinations as possible. For instance, the existing Pikes Peak Greenway is an excellent corridor that can serve as the backbone of a more connected regional network.

Recommendations from Member Jurisdictions

Each of the member jurisdictions on the project (PPACG, El Paso County, the City of Colorado Springs, and the City of Woodland Park) added suggestions and considerations to the identified corridors.

These recommendations were taken into account and produced both amendments to the identified corridors as well as new identified corridors.



13

This chapter provides an overview of the regional corridors identified through the planning process, and their associated attributes.

Table 1 lists the corridor numbers and names.

Table 1 - Identified Corridors And Names

Regional Corridor Summary3

Corridor 1: Black Forest to U.S. Air Force Academy

Corridor 2: Falcon to Black Forest via proposed trails

Corridor 3: Brittney's Park to Sand Creek-Pikes Peak Greenway

Corridor 4: The Broadmoor to Old Colorado City

Corridor 5: Cascade Avenue (downtown Colorado Springs) to Pikes Peak Greenway

Corridor 6: Colorado Technical University Colorado Springs to Woodstone Park

Corridor 7: Colorado Technical University to Midland Trail

Corridor 8: Fountain to south of Downtown Colorado Springs

Corridor 9: Downtown Colorado Springs to Fort Carson Gate via Pikes Peak College

Corridor 10: Briargate to Highway 24 via Briargate Parkway/Stapleton Road

Corridor 11: Falcon to Black Forest via Meridian Road

Corridor 12: Falcon to Pikes Peak Greenway via the Rock Island Trail (Includes split corridors 12a and 12b)

Corridor 13: Falcon to the Pikes Peak Greenway via Woodmen Road

Corridor 14: Fountain to Stratmoor via the Fountain Creek Regional Trail

Corridor 15: City of Fountain to Colorado Springs Airport

Corridor 16: City of Fountain to Fort Carson

Corridor 17: University of Colorado - Colorado Springs to the Pikes Peak Greenway

Corridor 18: Manitou Springs to Downtown Colorado Springs via Old Colorado City

Corridor 19: Pine Creek to the Pikes Peak Greenway

Corridor 20: Venetian Village to Pine Creek

Corridor 21: Northgate to the Colorado Christian University (via Voyager Parkway)

Corridor 22: Oak Valley Ranch Park to the Pikes Peak Greenway (via the North Douglas Creek drainage way)

Corridor 23: Peterson Air Force Base to Downtown Colorado Springs

Corridor 24: Pine Creek High School to Colorado Christian University

Corridor 25: Pikes Peak Greenway to Colorado Springs Airport

Corridor 26: Pikes Peak Greenway to Palmer Park (via Templeton Gap Road)

Corridor 27: Homestead trail to the Sand Creek Trail

Corridor 28: Cottonwood Trail to Widefield-Security via Chelton Road

Corridor 29: Air Force Academy to Maizeland Road via Academy Boulevard (includes split Corridor 29a from Maizeland Road to US Highway 85/87)

Corridor 30: The Broadmoor Hotel to West Colorado Avenue via South 8th Street



14

Corridor 31: Westside (N 31st St) to Cimarron Hills (Peterson Air Force Base)

Corridor 32: Red Rocks Park to Ute Valley Park/Garden of the Gods

Corridor 33: Downtown Colorado Springs to Crews Gulch Trail via Security-Widefield

Corridor 34: Widefield to Woodmen Road via Sand Creek Trail Alignment

Corridor 35: Woodland Park to Manitou Springs

Corridor 36: Eastern Communities Connect (parallel to North Powers Boulevard)

Corridor 37: Woodmoor to Palmer Lake via Monument

Corridor 38: Woodmoor to Northgate (parallel with I-25)

Corridor 39: Downtown Colorado Springs to the Sand Creek trail

Corridor 40: New Developments by North Powers Boulevard to Templeton Gap Trail

Corridor 41: Fort Carson to Downtown Colorado Springs

CORRIDOR 42: CORRIDOR NOT USED.

Corridor 43: Gold Camp Reservoir to Shooks Run Trail

CORRIDOR 44: CORRIDOR NOT USED

Corridor 45: Flying Ranch Road to the New Santa Fe Regional Trail via both South Rockrimmon Boulevard and East Rockrimmon Boulevard

Corridor 46: Colorado Christian University to North Nevada Avenue

Corridor 47: Pikes Peak Greenway to Garden of the Gods Road via Mesa Road

Corridor 48: Red Canon Place to Garden of the Gods Visitor Center

CORRIDOR 49: CORRIDOR NOT USED

Corridor 50: Gold Camp Road to Old Colorado City

Corridor 51: Norad Road to Big Stratton Reservoir

Corridor 52: New Horizons School to The Broadmoor Hotel

Corridor 53: Homestead Trail to new developments at Black Forest and Woodmen Road

Corridor 54: Woodmen Road/Marksheffel Road to Voyager Parkway via Research Parkway

Corridor 55: Wilson Road (Chilcotte Canal) to Fountain

Corridor 56: Rock Island Trail to University of Colorado - Colorado Springs

Corridor 57: Security-Widefield to Schriever Air Force Base (via new developments)

Corridor 58: New developments (Thunderhead Drive, Fountain) to Security-Widefield

Corridor 59: Eastonville Road (Black Forest) to Lindbergh Road (via Hodgen Road)

Corridor 60: Black Forest Road/Shoup Road to Walker Road/US Highway 83

Corridor 61: Pikes Peak Community College – Falcon to the Pikes Peak Greenway

Corridor 62: Pikes Peak Community College – Falcon to Stapleton Drive



15

Corridor 63: Woodman Road/Marksheffel Road to Fountain Mesa Road

Corridor 64: Fountain to the County Line

Corridor 65: Schriever Air Force Base to Cimarron Hills via US Highway 94/Enoch Road

Corridor 66: Schriever Air Force Base to Falcon via Curtis Road

Corridor 67: Fort Carson to the County Line/Beaver Creek State Wildlife Area

Corridor 68: US Highway 83/North Gate Boulevard to North Gate Boulevard/Stadium Boulevard

Corridor 69: Falcon to Evans Road

Corridor 70: North Powers Boulevard/US Highway 83 to the County Line

Corridor 71: Garden of the Gods Road to North Union Boulevard

Identified Corridor Attributes

Table 2 shows the summary of each corridor, and a number of key attributes, described below.3.2

• Length (miles) – Shows the totalapproximate length of the corridor.

Attributes within the corridor

• Schools – Number of schools within the corridor.

• Employment centers – Areas of employmentwithin the corridor. These ‘areas’ can be clustersof employment. Where an employment areais split by a level 3+ or 4 road, it is consideredtwo employment areas. Any buildings thatcould provide employment are considered.

• Parks - Number of parks within the corridor.

• Other - Number of other within the corridor.Other destinations include places of worship, civicbuildings (e.g. libraries, museums etc.) and hospitals

• Land use – The general density and land useswithin the corridor alignment. There are 3levels of density, low, medium and high. Theattribute is analyzed using general land use andgeneral number of buildings from observingthe mapped corridors on aerial maps.

• Major motorized barriers – The numberof competency level 3+ and level4 roads within the corridor.

• Accident levels – The number of bicycle andpedestrian accidents from 2002 – 2012 within thecorridor, calculated in terms of total accidents permile 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.



16

Corridor nameLength (Miles)

Destinations Land UseMajor

Motorized Barriers

Accident levels

Corridor 1: Black Forest to

U.S. Air Force Academy9.9

Schools

Employment Centers

Parks

Other

2

3

3

0

Low density area:

Residential and

open space

4 Low

Corridor 2: Falcon to Black

Forest via proposed trails9.7

Schools

Employment Centers

Parks

Other

2

3

1

4

Low density area:

Residential and

open space

5 Low

Corridor 3: Brittney's Park to

Sand Creek-Pikes Peak Greenway12.2

Schools

Employment Centers

Parks

Other

4

5

8

10

Medium density area:

Predominantly residential5 Medium

Corridor 4: The Broadmoor

Hotel to Old Colorado City9.8

Schools

Employment Centers:

Parks: (including

GOTGs)

Other

6

6

3

8


Residential, retail

and open space

2 Medium

Corridor 5: Cascade Avenue

(downtown Colorado Springs)

to Pikes Peak Greenway

4.8

Schools (including

Colorado College)

Employment Centers

Parks

Other

4

9

3

24

High density area:

Employment centers,

residential

1 High

Corridor 6: Colorado

Technical University Colorado

Springs to Woodstone Park

4.6

Schools

Employment Centers

Parks

Other

4

4

5

4

Low density area:

Residential, open

space and some

employment centers

2 Low

Corridor 7: Colorado Technical

University to Midland Trail4.7

Schools

Employment Centers

Parks

Other

3

3

4

5


Residential, open

space and some

employment centers

1 High

Corridor 8: Fountain to south

of Downtown Colorado Springs12.9

Schools

Employment Centers

Parks

Other

3

7

7

11

Low density area:

Open space,

employment centers

6 Low

Table 2 - Corridor Summary



17



Motorized Barriers

Accident levels

Corridor 9: Downtown

Colorado Springs to Fort Carson

Gate via Pikes Peak College

6.7

Schools

Employment Centers

Parks

Other

4

9

2

13

High density

area: Residential,

employment centers

5 High

Corridor 10: Briargate to

Highway 24 via Briargate

Parkway/Stapleton Road

13.2

Schools

Employment Centers

Parks

Other

4

8

4

10


Residential, retail

and open space

9 Low

Corridor 11: Falcon to Black

Forest via Meridian Road11.4

Schools

Employment Centers

Parks

Other

1

2

1

7

Low density area: Open

Space, residential, some

employment centers

4 Low

Corridor 12: Falcon to Pikes Peak

Greenway via the Rock Island Trail

(Corridor 12a: Pikes Peak Greenway

to Marksheffel Road; Corridor

12b: Marksheffel Road to Falcon)

16.3 (12a:

10; 12b: 6.3)

Schools

(12a: 6; 12b: 0)

Employment Centers

(12a: 5; 12b:1)

Parks (12a: 5; 12b: 1)

Other (12a: 15; 12b: 2)

6

6

6

17

Low and High density

area: Open space,

residential and

employment centers

(12a: High density;

12b: Low density)

4 (12a: 4; 12b:

1 – both

routes share

Marksheffel

Road).

Low (12a:

Medium;

12b: Low)

Corridor 13: Falcon to

the Pikes Peak Greenway

via Woodmen Road

12.2

Schools

Employment Centers

Parks

Other

1

5

1

7


Open space, residential

and employment centers

8 Low

Corridor 14: Fountain to

Stratmoor via the Fountain

Creek Regional Trail

8.8

Schools

Employment Centers

Parks

Other

1

4

2

3

Low density area:

Open space,

employment centers

3 Low

Corridor 15: City of Fountain

to Colorado Springs Airport11.3

Schools

Employment Centers

Parks

Other

3

3

3

4


Open space, residential

and employment centers

5 Low

Corridor 16: City of

Fountain to Fort Carson9.0

Schools

Employment Centers

Parks

Other

0

3

0

0

Low density area:

Open space and

employment centers

2 Low



18



Motorized Barriers

Accident levels

Corridor 17: University of

Colorado - Colorado Springs

to the Pikes Peak Greenway

6.9

Schools

Employment Centers

Parks

Other

9

7

6

13

High density area:

Employment centers

and residential

5 Medium

Corridor 18: Manitou Springs

to Downtown Colorado Springs

via Old Colorado City

5.9

Schools

Employment Centers

Parks

Other

6

8

5

22

High density area:

Employment centers

and residential

2 High

Corridor 19: Pine Creek to

the Pikes Peak Greenway6.2

Schools

Employment Centers

Parks

Other

3

15

3

8


Employment centers2 Medium

Corridor 20: Venetian

Village to Pine Creek 4.3

Schools

Employment Centers

Parks

Other

1

8

0

5


Employment centers3 Low

Corridor 21: Northgate to the

Colorado Christian University

(via Voyager Parkway)

6.2

Schools

Employment Centers

Parks

Other

1

7

2

7

Low density area:

Residential and

Employment centers

6 Low

Corridor 22: Oak Valley

Ranch Park to the Pikes Peak

Greenway (via the North

Douglas Creek drainage way)

4.6

Schools

Employment Centers

Parks

Other

0

6

2

6

Medium density

area: Residential and

Employment centers

3 Low

Corridor 23: Peterson Air

Force Base to Downtown

Colorado Springs

7.1

Schools

Employment Centers

Parks

Other

3

9

7

14

High density area:

Residential and

Employment centers

3 High

Corridor 24: Pine Creek

High School to Colorado

Christian University

4.8

Schools

Employment Centers

Parks

Other

5

6

2

9

High density area:

Residential and

Employment centers

7 Low

Corridor 25: Pikes Peak Greenway

to Colorado Springs Airport5.8

Schools

Employment Centers

Parks

Other

1

5

3

2

Medium density


Employment centers

5 Low



19



Motorized Barriers

Accident levels

Corridor 26: Pikes Peak

Greenway to Palmer Park (via

Templeton Gap Road)

10.8

Schools

Employment Centers

Parks

Other

8

10

5

9

High density area:

Residential and

Employment centers

2 Medium

Corridor 27: Homestead

Trail to the Sand Creek trail5.0

Schools

Employment Centers

Parks

Other

5

7

6

9

Medium density


Employment centers

2 Medium

Corridor 28: Cottonwood

Trail to Widefield-Security

via Chelton Road

11.7

Schools

Employment Centers

Parks

Other

6

10

13

8

High density area:

Residential and

Employment centers,

some open space.

9 Medium

Corridor 29: U.S. Air Force

Academy to Maizeland Road via

Academy Boulevard (Corridor 29a:

Maizeland Road to US Highway

85/87 via Academy Boulevard)

7.9 (6.97)

Schools

Employment Centers

Parks

Other

5 (6)

25

(24)

4 (7)

16

(15)

High density area:

Residential and

Employment centers

(High density area:

Residential and

Employment centers)

8 (13)High

(High)

Corridor 30: The Broadmoor

Hotel to West Colorado

Avenue via South 8th Street

4.1

Schools

Employment Centers

Parks

Other

2

10

1

5


Open space with

Employment centers

1 Medium

Corridor 31: Westside (N

31st St) to Cimarron Hills

(Peterson Air Force Base)

10.9

Schools

Employment Centers

Parks

Other

8

11

8

16

High density area:

Mostly residential and

Employment centers

4 High

Corridor 32: Red Rocks

Park to Ute Valley Park/

Garden of the Gods

4.3

Schools

Employment Centers

Parks

Other

1

4

2

6


Open space with

some residential and

Employment centers

2 Medium


Colorado Springs to Crews Gulch

Trail via Security-Widefield

12.1

Schools

Employment Centers

Parks

Other

1

10

4

8


Employment centers7 Low



20



Motorized Barriers

Accident levels

Corridor 34: Widefield to

Woodmen Road via Sand

Creek Trail Alignment

13.1

Schools

Employment Centers

Parks

Other

4

13

9

8


Open space with

Employment centers

8 Low

Corridor 35: Woodland

Park to Manitou Springs14.0

Schools

Employment Centers

Parks

Other

3

8

4

11

Medium to low density

area: Open space

with residential and

employment centers

1 Low

Corridor 36: Eastern

Communities Connect (parallel

to North Powers Boulevard)

17.7

Schools

Employment Centers

Parks

Other

4

13

8

10


Employment centers

and some residential

7 Low

Corridor 37: Woodmoor to

Palmer Lake via Monument9.3

Schools

Employment Centers

Parks

Other

2

3

3

10

Low density area:

Employment centers

and some residential

2 Low

Corridor 38: Woodmoor to

Northgate (Parallel to I-25)8.3

Schools

Employment Centers

Parks

Other

2

4

2

6

Low density area:

Employment centers

and residential

2 Low


Colorado Springs to the

Sand Creek trail

4.8

Schools

Employment Centers

Parks

Other

5

13

4

20

High density area:

Employment centers

and residential

1 High

Corridor 40: New Developments

by North Powers Boulevard

to Templeton Gap Trail

8.1

Schools

Employment Centers

Parks

Other

5

4

10

9

High density area:

Residential5 Low

Corridor 41: Fort Carson to

Downtown Colorado Springs 5.0

Schools

Employment Centers

Parks

Other

3

15

6

17

High density area:

Employment centers

and residential

10 High

Corridor 43: Gold Camp

Reservoir to Shooks Run Trail3.8

Schools

Employment Centers

Parks

Other

2

6

4

2


Open Space

Residential

Employment Centers

1 High



21



Motorized Barriers

Accident levels

Corridor 45: Flying Ranch Road

to the New Santa Fe Regional

Trail via both South and East

Rockrimmon Boulevard

1.9

Schools

Employment Centers

Parks

Other

4

5

5

6


Open Space

Employment centers

Residential

4 Low

Corridor 46: Colorado

Springs Christian University

to North Nevada Avenue

3.4

Schools

Employment Centers

Parks

Other

2

9

2

4


Employment centers

Residential

Open Space

3 Medium


Greenway to Garden of the

Gods Road via Mesa Road

4.9

Schools

Employment Centers

Parks

Other

2

4

3

4

Low density area:

Open Space

Residential

Employment Centers

3 Low

Corridor 48: Red Canon Place to

Garden of the Gods Visitor Center2.3

Schools

Employment Centers

Parks

Other

0

3

2

1

Low density area:

Open Space

Residential

Employment Centers

1 Low

Corridor 50: Gold Camp

Road to Old Colorado City5.3

Schools

Employment Centers

Parks

Other

1

4

5

15

Low density area:

Open Space

Employment Centers

Residential

1 Low

Corridor 51: Norad Road

to Big Stratton Reservoir5.9

Schools

Employment Centers

Parks

Other

1

2

4

2

Low density area:

Open Space

Residential

0 Low

Corridor 52: New Horizons

School to The Broadmoor Hotel3.7

Schools

Employment Centers

Parks

Other

4

8

2

7

High density area:

Employment centers

Residential

4 Medium

Corridor 53: Homestead Trail

to new developments at Black

Forest and Woodmen Road

10.8

Schools

Employment Centers

Parks

Other

4

8

2

7


Residential

Open Space

Employment centers

6 Low

Corridor 54: Woodmen Road/

Marksheffel Road to Voyager

Parkway via Research Parkway

7.8

Schools

Employment Centers

Parks

Other

5

4

2

9

Low density area:

Employment centers

Residential

Open space

11 Low



22



Motorized Barriers

Accident levels

Corridor 55: Wilson Road

(Chilcotte Canal) to Fountain 2.8

Schools

Employment Centers

Parks

Other

2

3

4

4


Residential

Employment centers

Open space

0 Low

Corridor 56: Rock Island

Trail to University of Colorado

- Colorado Springs

2.4

Schools

Employment Centers

Parks

Other

5

7

3

4

High density area:

Residential

Employment centers

2 High

Corridor 57: Security-Widefield

to Schriever Air Force Base

(via new developments)

14.6

Schools

Employment Centers

Parks

Other

6

2

2

2

Low density area:

Open Space

Residential

Employment centers

3 Low

Corridor 58: New developments

(Thunderhead Drive, Fountain)

to Security-Widefield

5.9

Schools

Employment Centers

Parks

Other

7

2

1

3


Residential

Employment centers

Open Space

3 Low

Corridor 59: Eastonville Road

(Black Forest) to Lindbergh

Road (via Hodgen Road)

17.8

Schools

Employment Centers

Parks

Other

0

1

0

1

Low density area:

Open Space

Residential

7 Low

Corridor 60: Black Forest

Road/Shoup Road to Walker

Road/US Highway 83

8.9

Schools

Employment Centers

Parks

Other

3

1

2

1

Low density area:

Open Space

Residential

5 Low


Community College – Falcon

to the Pikes Peak Greenway

12.2

Schools

Employment Centers

Parks

Other

6

9

8

7


Employment centers

Open Space

Residential

7 Low


Community College – Falcon

to Stapleton Drive

8.4

Schools

Employment Centers

Parks

Other

5

2

2

6


Employment centers

Open Space

Residential

3 Low

Corridor 63: Woodman

Road/Marksheffel Road to

Fountain Mesa Road

18.9

Schools

Employment Centers

Parks

Other

2

5

6

6

Low density area:

Employment centers

Open Space

Residential

5 Low



23



Motorized Barriers

Accident levels

Corridor 64: Fountain

to the County Line12.6

Schools

Employment Centers

Parks

Other

/

/

/

/

Low density area:

Employment centers

Open Space

Residential

1 Low

Corridor 65: Schriever Air

Force Base to Cimarron Hills via

US Highway 94/Enoch Road

12.0

Schools

Employment Centers

Parks

Other

0

3

1

1

Low density area:

Open Space

Employment centers

4 Low

Corridor 66: Schriever Air Force

Base to Falcon via Curtis Road13.7

Schools

Employment Centers

Parks

Other

1

2

0

0

Low density area:

Open Space

Employment centers

3 None

Corridor 67: Fort Carson

to the County Line/Beaver

Creek State Wildlife Area

16.4

Schools

Employment Centers

Parks

Other

5

1

2

0

Low density area:

Residential

Open Space

3 Low

Corridor 68: US Highway

83/North Gate Boulevard

to North Gate Boulevard/

Stadium Boulevard

4.2

Schools

Employment Centers

Parks

Other

0

3

1

1

Low density area:

Residential

Open Space

Employment centers

4 Low

Corridor 69: Falcon to Evans Road 12.4

Schools

Employment Centers

Parks

Other

2

2

3

2

Low density area:

Residential

Open Space

Employment centers

2 Low

Corridor 70: North Powers

Boulevard/US Highway

83 to the County Line

9.7

Schools

Employment Centers

Parks

Other

0

0

1

0

Low density area:

Open Space

Residential

6 Low

Corridor 71: Garden of the Gods

Road to North Powers Boulevard19.0

Schools

Employment Centers

Parks

Other

8

21

2

10

High density area:

Employment centers

Residential6 Medium


CRIPPLE CREEK

VICTOR

RAMAH

CALHAN

COLORADOSPRINGS

FOUNTAIN

GREEN MTN. FALLS

WOODLAND PARK

MANITOUSPRINGS

PALMER LAKE

MONUMENT

EL PASO CO.TELLER CO.

Smoothed Urban Boundaries Based upon 2040 TAZ Population Density

Iu

Iu

WXYZq

WXYZ¢

WXYZh

!"̀$

¶0 5 10 15 20 25 302.5

Miles

Comparison of Census 2010 Urbanized Areas & 2040 SmoothedUrban Area (based upon TAZ analysis)

WXYZÒ21

2010 Census UA/UC Urban ClusterUrbanized Area

Smoothed Urban Area

2010 MPO Boundary

ExplanationMajor RoadsCounties

Year 2040 Projected Urban Area(based upon TAZ analysis)

2010 MPO Boundary

Transportation Analysis Zones (TAZ's)with projected 2040 household populationsgreater than or equal to a population densityof 1,000 per square mile.


Agenda Item 7A

Page 1 of 1

ACTION REQUESTED: Discussion

M E M O R A N D U M

DATE: July 20, 2017



SUBJECT: PPACG FY 2017-2022 TIP: TIP PROJECT DELAY POLICY

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

Item 7A Attachment 1

Page 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 2

• 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 3

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 4

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.


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.


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


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.


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

ACTION REQUESTED: Information Only

DATE: July 20, 2017


FROM: Jennifer Valentine, Transportation Planner

SUBJECT: 2045 Long Range Transportation Plan: Activities Update

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.

http://www.mapping.ppacg.org/

Meeting Agenda of the TRANSPORTATION ADVIS ORY … · 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

Documents