COMMUNITY ADVISORY COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA … · Agenda Item 2B COMMUNITY ADVISORY COMMITTEE...

COMMUNITY ADVISORY COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA

February 28, 2018 3:00 - 5:00 p.m.

Main Conference Room

Indicates that additional materials are included in the packet

1. Regular Meeting - Call To Order/Establish a Quorum/Introductions [3:00-3:05]

2. Consent items [3:05-3:10] A. Agenda B. Minutes C. Board Report

3. Public Comments [3:10-3:15]

4. Action Items A. FY 2017-2022 TIP Amendment #16 [3:15-3:30]

Ken Prather, Acting Transportation Director

B. 2045 Plan Scoring Criteria [3:30-4:30] Ken Prather, Acting Transportation Director

5. Information Items

A. Small Area Forecast Update [4:30-4:40] Jennifer Valentine, Senior Transportation Planner

B. Legislative Update [4:40-4:45] Jessica McMullen, Policy and Communications Manager

6. Discussion Items A. Weighing of 2045 Plan Scoring Criteria [4:45-4:55]

Ken Prather, Acting Transportation Director

7. Member Announcements

8. Items for next CAC Meeting

9. PPACG Meeting Schedule

10. Adjournment

Agenda Item 2B

COMMUNITY ADVISORY COMMITTEE MEETING MINUTES

January 31, 2018 3:00 - 5:00 p.m.

Main Conference Room

1. Regular Meeting - Call To Order/Establish a Quorum/Introductions- Chair Jim Moore called the meeting to order at 3:01 p.m. and established a quorum. Introductions were made.

2. Consent items – Ms. Julie Ott moved approval of the consent items, seconded by Ms. Sharon Brown. The motion carried unanimously. A. Agenda B. Minutes C. Board Report

3. Public Comments- There were none.

4. Discussion Items

A. Hyperloop Technology Information- This item was postponed from the agenda.

5. Action Items A. FY 2019-2022 TIP Release for Public Comment- Committee members discussed and reviewed

projects to be funded and included in the FY 2019-2022 TIP. Ms. Michelle Day made a motion to add the following projects to the Draft 2019-2022 TIP and to release the Draft TIP for public comment:

• Route 12, Phase 4 Enhancements • 30th St. Roadway and Safety Improvements • Fountain Creek Regional Trail Extension Through Downtown Fountain • Charter Oak Ranch Rd. • I-25 Gap project

Mr. Jon DeVaux seconded the motion. The motion carried unanimously. Committee members shared concern over using the term managed lanes to define the I-25 Gap project but agreed making the public aware of the fact that this project is a priority is important. Ms. Dipner requested the public be made aware that the language about managed lanes is just a draft, and at this point the lanes could either be general or managed. A final decision on whether the lanes will be managed or general purpose has not been made.

B. Election of Officers for 2018- Ms. Tamara Dipner read a letter from Ms. Jen Knellinger, Chair of the nominating committee, regarding the reasoning behind the nominating committee’s recommendation. After thorough consideration the nominating committee reccomended the following slate:

• Ms. Michelle Day, Chair, • Mr. Jim Moore, 1st Vice Chair • Ms. Sharon Brown, 2nd Vice Chair

Ms. Sharon Brown made a motion to recommend the following slate of officers:

• Mr Jim Moore, Chair

Agenda Item 2B • Ms. Michelle Day, 1st Vice Chair • Ms. Sharon Brown, 2nd Vice Chair

The motion was not seconded. Mr. DeVaux made a motion to approve the nominating subcommittee’s reccomendation for officers, seconded by Ms. Dipner. The motion carried. Ms. Brown opposed.

6. Information Items A. Legislative Update- Ms. Jessica McMullen, Policy and Communications Manage, reviewed state

legislation that could have an impact on PPACG’s programs. She stated she would send the CAC an invitation to the future Legislative Committee meetings.

7. Member Announcements – Committee members shared highlights and upcoming events from their respective entities.

8. Items for next CAC Meeting- Scoring, Small Area Forecast Update, TIP Amendment

9. PPACG Meeting Schedule

10. Adjournment- Mr. Jim Moore adjourned the meeting at 4:23 p.m.

Community Advisory Committee Member Attendance January 31, 2018

Present Name Agency/Affiliation X Aubrey Day Citizen-At-Large X Jim Moore, Chair Citizen-At-Large X Michelle Day 2nd Vice Chair Citizen-At-Large X Courtney Stone Citizen-At-Large X Kevin Walker, 1st Vice Chair Citizen-At-Large X Tamara Dipner City of Colorado Springs X Terri Hayes Town of Monument X Sharon Brown City of Fountain X Roy Rosenthal City of Manitou Springs

X Carly Hoff COS Chamber and EDC X Tim O’Donnell CONO X Harold Moffat El Paso County Jen Knellinger El Paso County

X Julie Ott League of Women Voters X Ellen Haase Teller County X Jessica McMullen PPACG

Laura Nelson El Paso County X Jon DeVaux City of Woodland Park X Thomas Pfeifle City of Colorado Springs Patti Akkola City of Colorado Springs

X Kim Mutchler Citizen-At-Large X PPACG staff and guests

Agenda Item 2C

CAC Report from PPACG Board Meeting February 14, 2018

PUBLIC COMMENT o None

MAIN MEETING

• ACTION ITEMS: The Board approved o Mobility Coordinating Committee Bylaws Amendment o Legislative Update and proposed PPACG actions [Support, Oppose, Monitor] o FY 2017-2022 TIP Amendment adding the portion of I-s5 widening in northern el

Paso County. o Draft FY2019-2022 TIP released for public comment, including the I-25 widening

segment in el Paso County.

REPORTS

• Military updates: o Fort Carson –

Community Day scheduled for February 22 No update yet on military transportation funds for Charter Oak Road. Significant rail activity in conjunction with recent and projected

deployments: 2nd Infantry Brigade; 1st Stryker Brigade; Headquarters Group, and Combat Aviation Brigade.

o USAFA – No representative attended

o Peterson AFB – Col Moore reported the 21st Space Wing had three teams deployed “far

forward.” Working with appropriate officials to update off-base signage regarding

primary gate access to Peterson. • Executive Director Report:

o Reported receiving the notice for Bethany Schoemer’s resignation – last day Friday, February 16.

o New ED – Andy Gunning – in place Tuesday, February 20.

2

• Statewide Transportation Advisory Committee – o Teller County Commissioner Steen briefed that the STAC is focusing on the Tier 1

project list for the anticipated ballot initiative. o The STAC released its electric vehicle plan, with funding from the Volkswagen

settlement. • CDOT:

o Current projects include Ridge Road, 21st Street, the Fiber Project between woodland Park and Manitou Springs, and the Rock retention project along Highway 24 through Ute Pass.

o Work continues and getting close to “a shelf ready” list of projects for the prospective ballot measure.

OTHER ITEMS

• The Board received a briefing from Herman Stockinger, Director, office of Policy and Government Relations & Acting Executive Director, CDOT, about the development of the project list for potential 2018 new revenue. The briefing noted the considerable between the estimated costs of identified projects ($6.2B) and currently identified funding ($1.8B) through SB 17-267. Follow-on discussion centered on the I-25 widening and public opposition to tolling in any form. Commissioner Waller asked about the likelihood of incorporating “tolling” in future capacity projects. Commissioner Vanderwerf asked for more rationale for tolling on the proposed project. Commissioner Littleton urged adding a 4th lane in each direction as part of the project.

Respectfully submitted,

Jim Moore, 1st Vice-Chair

*Second Term 1/18

COMMUNITY ADVISORY COMMITTEE MEMBERS

Thirty percent of the current voting committee membership (rounded up to the nearest whole number) shall constitute a quorum.

CITIZENS-AT-LARGE Kim Mutchler Expires Nov 30, 2020 Jim Moore, 1st Vice Chair Expires May 31, 2020 Michelle Day, Chair* Expires May 31, 2019 Courtney Stone Expires May 31, 2018 Kevin Walker Expires May 31, 2018 Aubrey Day Expires Nov 30, 2019 CITY OF COLORADO SPRINGS Tamara Dipner* Expires Nov 30, 2020 Thomas Pfeifle Expires Nov 30, 2020 Vacant CITY OF FOUNTAIN Sharon Brown, 2nd Vice Chair Expires Nov 30, 2019 Phillip Thomas (Alternate) Expires Nov 30, 2019 CITY OF MANITOU SPRINGS Roy Rosenthal Expires Nov 30, 2020 CITY OF WOODLAND PARK Jon DeVaux Expires Nov 30, 2020 Colorado Springs Chamber and EDC Rachel Beck Expires Nov 30, 2019 COUNCIL OF NEIGHBORS AND ORGANIZATIONS Tim O’Donnell Expires Nov 30, 2020

EL PASO COUNTY Harold Moffat* Expires May 31, 2019 Jen Knellinger* Expires Nov 30, 2018 Laura Nelson Expires Nov 30, 2020 LEAGUE OF WOMEN VOTERS Julie Ott Expires Nov 30, 2019 TELLER COUNTY Ellen Haase* Expires May 31, 2019 TOWN OF GREEN MOUNTAIN FALLS Vacant TOWN OF MONUMENT Terri Hayes Expires November 30, 2020 TOWN OF PALMER LAKE Vacant TOWN OF RAMAH Vacant

PIKES PEAK AREA COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENTS Jessica McMullen (Non-Voting)

*Second Term 1/18

COMMUNITY ADVISORY COMMITEE

The Community Advisory Committee serves as the formal mechanism for the active participation of citizens in the planning, promotion, and evaluation of activities of the Pikes Peak Area Council of Governments. The CAC is a non-technical body comprised of volunteers who offer a citizen’s perspective on issues such as transportation, the environment, economic development and military impact planning in the Pikes Peak region. The CAC also ensures the responsiveness and accountability of government, helps create better plans and activities, and generates support for regional cooperation.

The CAC nominates citizens-at-large, and member governments and community organizations nominate their respective representatives. The Board of Directors approves all nominations.

CAC members are expected to:

• Identify problems and needs within their respective communities that relate to PPACG programs

• Generate new ideas and alternatives for PPACG action

• Review and evaluate PPACG planning products and activities

• Recommend priorities for allocation of PPACG program funds

• Share information about PPACG programs with respective communities and organizations

• Advise PPACG on appropriate public involvement strategies and activities

• Advocate a regional perspective for problem-solving

• Ensure a broad-based, inclusive committee environment

Agenda Item 4A

ACTION REQUESTED: Review & Recommend

DATE: February 28, 2018

TO: PPACG Community Advisory Committee

FROM: Ken Prather, Acting Transportation Director

SUBJECT: FY 2017-2022 TIP Amendment 16

SUMMARY CDOT is requesting the 2017-2022 Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) be amended to add the El Paso County portion of the I-25 Gap project (Attachment #1). Attachment #2 shows the project as it will appear in the TIP. The Environmental Assessment of the I-25 Gap project is expected to be completed in May. In order to be able to move the project forward as soon as possible, FHWA is urging PPACG and DRCOG to add the project to their current TIPs. Because the exact scope of the project has not been determined, the wording of the amendment is such that either general purpose or managed lanes could be accommodated. Once the final scope of the project is determined, the TIP will need to be amended but this can be done without delaying the project. A teleconference with FHWA, CDOT Regions 1 and 2, DRCOG, El Paso County and PPACG was held on Jan. 30 to determine the verbiage of the TIP amendments that would be appropriate for the two MPOs and the current status of the Environmental Assessment process, and acceptable to FHWA. The goal was to strike a balance between having an adequate description in the TIP while also not presupposing the outcome of the Environmental Assessment process. The Board released the amendment for public comment on Feb. 14. Any comments received before the CAC meeting will be brought to CAC. Comments received after the CAC meeting will be shared with CAC members and presented to the Board. PROPOSED MOTION Recommend the Board of Directors approve FY 2017-FY 2022 TIP Amendment 16.

PREVIOUS BOARD ACTION The I-25 Gap project was amended into the 2040 Regional Transportation Plan in October 2017. ATTACHMENTS

1. CDOT Letter dated Jan. 31, 2018 2. FY 2017-2022 TIP Amendment 16 Funding Table

Agenda Item 4A Attachment 1

TIP # STIP # Project Title Project Sponsor Description

Amendment or Administrative

Change #Funding Source 2017

(Roll Forward)2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 Total

17.048 SPP7008I-25 North to theEl Paso County

LineCDOT

Construction of northbound and southbound lanes from Monument to Douglas County. This is the PPACG portion of a larger $350,000,000 project extending north to Castle Rock.

16 Federal (INFRA Grant) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

State 0 0 25000.000 0 0 0 25000.000Local (El Paso County, PPRTA 0 0 25000.000 0 0 0 25000.000Total 0 0 50000.000 0 0 0 50000.000

Regional Priorities

PIKES PEAK AREA COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENTS

DRAFT FY 2017 through FY 2022 Transportation Improvement Program Amendment #16

Agenda item 4A attachment 2

Agenda Item 4B

ACTION REQUESTED: Review & Recommend




SUBJECT: 2045 Plan Scoring Criteria

SUMMARY In previous PPACG long range transportation plans, there has been a linear relationship between goals, objectives, targets, and scoring criteria. This arrangement resulted in 13 scoring criteria for the 2040 Regional Transportation Plan. For the 2045 Regional Transportation Plan, the Board of Directors has approved five goals, 18 objectives, and 18 targets (Attachment 1). PPACG staff is proposing nine scoring criteria capturing the most significant and measurable components of the approved targets. The proposed criteria are summarized below along with a brief indication of how each will be evaluated in the scoring process:

1. Maintenance – Points assigned based on the need/current condition of the relevant infrastructure (by facility type).

2. Mobility - Points assigned to projects (by mode) based on reducing VHT, transit service characteristics, or mode share.

3. Connectivity/Accessibility - Points assigned to transit and non-motorized projects based on impacts/effectiveness.

4. Modal Integration/ADA - Points assigned to projects affecting modal connections or incorporating ADA improvements on existing facilities.

5. Safety - Points assigned based on severity of safety problem and crash reduction factors. 6. Environment - Points assigned based on impacts to critical habitat, stormwater and air quality. 7. Economic Competitiveness - Points assigned for changing congestion on a CMP corridor. 8. Infill - Points assigned based on project location. 9. Benefit/Cost Effectiveness - Points assigned based on benefit/cost ratio.

Staff is proposing to use a scoring range from -9 to 9. This range is wide enough to adequately differentiate between project impacts, and should also be familiar to those involved with previous long range plan cycles, where a 0 to 9 scale was used. Extending the range to -9 will help staff adequately reflect negative impacts in scoring. Since PPACG is not required to adopt a preferred scenario for the 2045 RTP, the Board has approved three scenarios that will be used in scoring. Scoring details, with comments from the TAC meeting of Jan. 15, are shown in Attachment 2. The TAC decided to hold a special meeting for additional discussion before making a recommendation. The Committee’s recommendation will be brought to the CAC meeting.

Agenda Item 4B

After the Board approves scoring criteria, a weighting scheme will be developed by the Community Advisory Committee for review and approval by the Board of Directors. This is in accordance with the 2045 RTP framework approved by the Board in December 2016. ACTION REQUESTED Recommend Board of Directors approve scoring criteria for the 2045 RTP. ATTACHMENTS

1) Approved Goals, Objectives and Targets 2) Draft Scoring Criteria

Agenda Item 4B attachment 1

Baseline Data

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.

*Includes collector and above

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 Maintain or improve NM infrastructure

condition.

2007 IRI Baseline

• 2.5 % in very good condition • 39% in good condition • 44.9% in fair condition • 10.7 % in poor condition • 0.1% 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 • 0.5% in very poor condition

Baseline Data

2010 Bridge Condition Baseline

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

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

Baseline Data

Baseline Data

N/A

Approved Target

Greater than 90% of roads in good or better condition

Approved Target

Greater than 90% of bridges in good or better condition

Approved Target

Meet or exceed an SGR rating of at least 3.0 (adequate) for all fixed-route vehicles on a

scale of 1 (poor) to 5 (excellent).

Approved Target

Explore options for collecting data/establishing baseline by 2021.

Then work to maintain or improve non-motorized infrastructure condition.


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.

Objective 3B- Transit Maintain or improve transit time

reliability.

Objective 4- Non-Motorized Maintain or increase bike and walk mode share.

Objective 1- Auto + Freight Maintain or improve resiliency and

redundancy of transportation system.

Baseline Data

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)

• 2015 annual ridership- 3,001,246

• 2016 annual ridership- 3,120,334

• Change from 2015 to 2016- +3.8%

Approved 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)

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%

Baseline Data

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%

Approved Target

Meet or exceed system-wide fixed-

route ridership by at least 10%

Approved Target

Meet or exceed system-wide fixed-route on-time performance of at least

85% annually.

Approved Target

• Increase mode share to 5% for walking to work

• Increase mode share to 1% for biking to work


Goal 3 – Connectivity and Accessibility

Ensure adequate and equitable access to destinations using a variety of modes

Objective 2- Non-Motorized Enhance NM facilities according to attributes identified in the regional non-motorized plan.

Objective 3- Modal Integration

Enhance modal connections and improve existing ADA accessibility.

Objective 1A-Transit Enhance fixed-route transit frequency.

Objective 1B- Transit Enhance fixed-route transit access.

Baseline Data

Baseline data 2016:

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

Approved Target Meet or exceed the percentage of routes

with headways less than 60 minutes.

Baseline Data

Baseline Data

Baseline Data

Use parcel data by census block group

(Data to be provided by Mountain Metro Transit)

Approved Target Meet or exceed the population served

within ¼ mile of a transit stop.

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 1,148.5 miles of roads. The improvement corridors cover 54.5%

of the regional road network.

N/A

Approved Target Reduce the number of miles identified in the

NM improvement corridors still needing improvements.

Approved Target Explore options for collecting

data/establishing baseline by 2021. Ensure that new projects meet or exceed ADA

accessibility standards.


Goal 4 – Safety Reduce hazards for all modes of travel.

Objective 1- Motorized Vehicles (vehicle-vehicle)

Enhance safety features to reduce hazards.

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

Enhance safety features to reduce hazards.

Approved Target

Federal law requires that states establish safety targets using the five measures listed below. MPOs’ are required to set targets that are consistent with, or better than the state targets. PPACG recommends setting the same target as the state (CDOT will be coming out with its targets in the coming weeks).

There are 5 measures that must be addressed: o Fatalities o Fatality rate o Serious injuries o Serious injury rate o Non-motorized fatalities

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

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)

Baseline Data


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 and Economy Enhance key corridor infrastructure that supports tourism and economic

competiveness.

Objective 3- Infill Increase transportation investments in infill areas, with a focus on

existing infrastructure.

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

runoff quantity and air quality.

• Commercial vehicle delay on interstate system o Between 4-6 pm on Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday in 2011: X miles

on the significant and strategic corridors experienced congestion, X miles were becoming congested and X miles were free flow.

o Between 4-6 pm on Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday in 2015: X miles on the significant and strategic corridors experienced congestion, X miles were becoming congested and X miles were free flow.

Baseline Data

• Critical habitats o The region has 696,936 acres (1,089 square miles) of

critical habitat. The region has a total of 1,148.5 miles of road (collector and above). 315 miles of those roads run through the habitat areas

• Air quality o In 2007, there were 319 tons/day of mobile emissions

in the region (vehicles only) • Storm water

o There are 81,928 square miles of road (collector and above) in the PPACG region

Baseline Data

Baseline Data

• Start a baseline at the next call for projects by quantifying the number of projects invested in the urbanizing areas based on the 2045 TAZ population density.

• From 2040 plan 114/132 were located inside the urbanizing area (93% in & 7% out)

• Combined index of cost of living and transportation (H+T) o The average household spends 29% of income on

housing (Average monthly housing cost is $1,364) o The average household spends 22% of income on

transportation ($12,751/year)

Approved Target Critical habitats

• Mitigate impacts to critical habitats as determined through the NEPA process

Air quality • Meet or exceed state and national ambient air quality

standards Storm water

• Comply with storm water best management practices

Approved Target • Commercial vehicle delay on significant and strategic corridors

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

Approved Target • At least 95% of projects in the 2045 Long Range

Transportation Plan fiscally constrained project list should be located within the 2015 Population and Employment Boundary, or provide connecting infrastructure to major population and/or employment centers.

Agenda Item 4B Attachment 2

Projects will be scored under all three 2045 land use scenarios and results averaged together for the final score.

GOAL 1 – MAINTENANCE A project will only receive one score under the maintenance criteria.

ROAD (based on predominant IRI classification of the segment or segments) 0 - not a maintenance project

1 – 0 to 99.9 2 – 100 to 199.9

3 – 200 to 299.9 4 – 300 to 399.9 5 - 400 to 499.9

6 – 500 to 599.9 7 – 600 to 699.9 8 – 700 to 799.9 9 – 800 and above BRIDGE (based on average sufficiency rating of bridges if multiple bridges in project)

0 – 90-100 1 – 80-89.9 2 – 70-79.9 3 – 60-69.9 4 – 50-59.9 5 – 40-49.9 6 – 30-39.9 7 – 20-29.9 8 – 10-19.9 9 – 0-9.9

TRANSIT (use MMT Asset Management Plan conditions) (based on average condition of items if multiple items are in a project)

0 – condition 4.51 to 5.00 or not a maintenance project 1 – condition 4.01 to 4.50 2 – condition 3.51 to 4.00 3 – condition 3.01 to 3.50 4 – condition 2.51 to 3.00 5 – condition 2.01 to 2.50 6 – condition 1.51 to 2.00 7 – condition 1.01 to 1.50 8 – condition 0.51 to 1.00 9 - condition 0 to 0.50


GOAL 2 – MOBILITY AUTO AND FREIGHT (based on regional PM peak Vehicle Hours of Travel)

0- No change 1- Reduces 1 – 1,111.11 PM Peak VHT 2- Reduces 1,111.12 – 2,222.22 PM Peak VHT 2- Reduces 2,222.23 – 3,333.34 PM Peak VHT 4- Reduces 3,333.35 – 4,444.46 PM peak VHT 5 - Reduces 4,444.47 – 5,555.58 PM peak VHT 6 - Reduces 5,555.59 – 6,666.7 PM peak VHT 7- Reduces 6,666.71 – 7,777.82 PM peak VHT 8- Reduces 7,777.83 – 8,889.94 PM peak VHT 9- Reduces 8,889.95 – 10,000 PM peak VHT

TRANSIT

0- No change to ridership 1- 0 – 1.11% increase in ridership 2- 1.12 – 2.23% increase in ridership 3- 2.24 – 3.35% increase in ridership 4- 3.36 – 4.47% increase in ridership 5- 4.48 – 5.59% increase in ridership 6- 5.60 – 6.71% increase in ridership 7- 6.72 – 7.83% increase in ridership 8- 7.84 – 8.95% increase in ridership 9- 8.96 – 10% increase in ridership

(For improvements other than new routes, applicant must justify how/why it will increase ridership).

NON-MOTORIZED 0- No change to non-motorized mode share 1- 0 – 1.11% increase 2- 1.12 – 2.23% increase 3- 2.24 – 3.35% increase 4- 3.36 – 4.47% increase 5- 4.48 – 5.59% increase 6- 5.60 – 6.71% increase 7- 6.72 – 7.83% increase 8- 7.84 – 8.95% increase 9- 8.96 – 10% increase


GOAL 3 – CONNECTIVITY AND ACCESSIBILITY TRANSIT: The TAC recommended removing headways as a scoring criterion. Population served within ¼ mile

0 - No change 3 - Increases population served within ¼ mile of transit stops by 10% 6 - Increases population served within ¼ mile of transit stops by 20% 9 - Increases population served within ¼ mile of transit stops by 30%

NON-MOTORIZED Based on reduction in the number of miles of corridors identified in the Improvement Corridors Report of PPACG’s Regional Nonmotorized Transportation System Plan.

0 - no change 1 - 0 to 0.5 mile reduction 2 - 0.51 to 1 mile reduction 3 – 1.01 to 1.5 mile reduction 4 - 1.51 to 2 mile reduction 5 – 2.01 to 2.5 mile reduction 6 - 2.51 to 3 mile reduction 7 – 3.01 to 3.5 mile reduction 8 - 3.51 to 4 mile reduction 9 - more than 4 mile reduction

MODAL INTEGRATION AND ADA ACCESSIBILITY Enhances modal connections and/or removes ADA barriers. Missing links connect existing pedestrian, bicycle or transit facilities (e.g. trails, sidewalks, bike lanes, park and ride, trailhead parking). Barriers may be physical, economic, or ADA in nature.

0 - completes/removes 0 missing links or barrier types (including ADA) or creates a barrier 3 - completes/removes 1 missing links or barrier types (including ADA) 6 - completes/removes 2 missing links or barrier types (including ADA) 9 - completes/removes 3 missing links or barrier types (including ADA)


GOAL 4 – SAFETY Use Level of Service Safety (LOSS) and FHWA crash reduction factors for fatalities and injuries.

LOSS I - Indicates low potential for crash reduction; LOSS II - Indicates low to moderate potential for crash reduction; LOSS III - Indicates moderate to high potential for crash reduction; and LOSS IV - Indicates high potential for crash reduction.

MOTORIZED OR NON-MOTORIZED Use Level of Service Safety (LOSS) and FHWA crash reduction factors for fatalities and injuries.

LOSS I - Indicates low potential for crash reduction; LOSS II - Indicates low to moderate potential for crash reduction; LOSS III - Indicates moderate to high potential for crash reduction; and LOSS IV - Indicates high potential for crash reduction.

-9 - LOSS Q4 and increases risk of crashes 67% to 100% -7.5 - LOSS Q4 and increases risk of crashes 33% to 66.99% -6 - LOSS Q4 and increases risk of crashes 0 to 32.99% -4.5 - LOSS Q3 and increases risk of crashes 67% to 100% -3 - LOSS Q3 and increases risk of crashes 33% to 66.99% -1.5 - LOSS Q3 and increases risk of crashes 0 to 32.99% 0 – no change or in LOSS 1 or 2 1.5 - LOSS Q3 and crash reduction factor 0 to 32.99% 3 - LOSS Q3 and crash reduction factor 33% to 66.99% 4.5 - LOSS Q3 and crash reduction factor 67% to 100% 6 - LOSS Q4 and crash reduction factor 0 to 32.99% 7.5 - LOSS Q4 and crash reduction factor 33% to 66.99% 9 - LOSS Q4 and crash reduction factor 67% to 100%

GOAL 5 – ECONOMIC VITALITY

ENVIRONMENT (Project score is the sum of the individual scores for Critical Habitat, Air Quality and Stormwater.)

Critical Habitat (Project influence areas: roadway project - 1 mile radius; pedestrian, bicycle or transit project - ½ mile radius)

-3 - negative impact 0 - no impact (including mitigated) 3 - positive impact


Air Quality (based on travel model/VMT/emissions. Projects not modelable but expected to change emissions will receive a score of plus or minus 0.1) -3 - negative impact 0 - no impact 3 - positive impact

Stormwater

-3 - negative impact (increases impervious surface) 0 - no impact (no change in impervious surface area, projects such as traffic signal

timing, maintenance, striping, bus purchases) 3 - positive impact (reduces impervious surface)

VEHICLE DELAY (Defined as a change greater than 0.1 in the PM peak volume/capacity ratio. Projects will be divided into three groups based on effectiveness and scored on a combination of which group they fall into and which corridors they impact.)

-9 - increases congestion on a Strategic corridor (top 3rd) -8 - increases congestion on a Strategic corridor (middle 3rd) -7 - increases congestion on a Strategic corridor (bottom 3rd) -6 - increases congestion on a Regional corridor (top 3rd) -5 - increases congestion on a Regional corridor (middle 3rd) -4 - increases congestion on a Regional corridor (bottom 3rd) -3 - increases congestion on an NHS corridor (top 3rd) -2 - increases congestion on an NHS corridor (middle 3rd) -1 - increases congestion on an NHS corridor (bottom 3rd) 0 - no congestion reduction or not on a CMP corridor 1 - reduces congestion on an NHS corridor (bottom 3rd) 2 - reduces congestion on an NHS corridor (middle 3rd) 3 - reduces congestion on an NHS corridor (top 3rd) 4 - reduces congestion on a Regional corridor (bottom 3rd) 5 - reduces congestion on a Regional corridor (middle 3rd) 6 - reduces congestion on a Regional corridor (top 3rd) 7 - reduces congestion on a Strategic corridor (bottom 3rd) 8 - reduces congestion on a Strategic corridor (middle 3rd) 9 - reduces congestion on a Strategic corridor (top 3rd)


INFILL -9 - majority of project 12.01 to 18 miles beyond the 2045 Population and Employment

Boundary -6 - majority of project 6.01 to 12 miles beyond the 2045 Population and Employment

Boundary -3 - majority of project up to six miles beyond the 2045 Population and Employment

Boundary 3 - majority of project within the 2045 Population and Employment Boundary or provides

connecting infrastructure to a major population and/or employment center 6 - majority of project within the 2015 Population and Employment Boundary or provides

connecting infrastructure to a major population and/or employment center 9 - majority of project within the 2010 Census Urbanized Area Boundary

GOAL INDEPENDENT

COST BENEFIT (score based on project’s benefit/cost ratio compared to the best ratio).

9 – benefit/cost values of 91% to 100% of best ratio 8 – benefit/cost values of 81% to 90% of best ratio 7 – benefit/cost values of 71% to 80% of best ratio 6 – benefit/cost values of 61% to 70% of best ratio 5 – benefit/cost values of 51% to 60% of best ratio 4 – benefit/cost values of 41% to 50% of best ratio 3 – benefit/cost values of 31% to 40% of best ratio 2 – benefit/cost values of 21% to 30% of best ratio 1 – benefit/cost values of 11% to 20% of best ratio 0 – benefit/cost values of 0 to 10% of best ratio

Agenda Item 5A

ACTION REQUESTED: Information Only



FROM: Jennifer Valentine, Senior Transportation Planner

SUBJECT: Small Area Forecast Update

SUMMARY In November of 2017, PPACG staff provided an update on Small Area Forecast activities, including a proposed schedule through early summer of 2018. Outlining this timeframe was intended to provide structure to and transparency about upcoming work tasks and outreach. The proposed schedule is included below for reference, and is still a realistic representation of ongoing and upcoming activities. The only proposed change to the schedule is building in an extra month for review and comments by the TAC and CAC before seeking a recommendation in June. Materials will be provided to the committees at least one week in advance of meetings to allow adequate time for review. Throughout this process, PPACG staff will be providing regular updates about Small Area Forecast activities to the TAC, CAC, and Board of Directors. Step 1 – Conduct simulation runs using varying development capacities and planned development projects to create three distinct scenarios, based on the three approved land use scenarios – Infill, New Centers, and Dispersed Development. Timeframe: November - December 2017 (COMPLETE) Step 2 – Share simulation results with land use planners from each member entity for review and comments on their respective area. Timeframe: late January - early February 2018 (ONGOING) Step 3 – Refine model to reflect feedback from local entities. Timeframe: February 2018 Step 4 – Share with regional economic experts for high-level review. Timeframe: early March 2018 Step 5 – Refine model to reflect feedback from local economic experts. Timeframe: late March 2018 Step 6 – Begin sharing model results with TAC and CAC (information item). Incorporate committee feedback. Timeframe: April 2018 Step 7 – Further discuss model results with TAC and CAC (discussion item), possibly bring to Board as an information or discussion item. Incorporate committee feedback. Timeframe: May 2018 Step 8 – Formal presentation of small area forecast to the TAC, CAC and Board of directors for recommendation and approval. Timeframe: June - July 2018

Agenda Item 5B

ACTION REQUESTED: Information Only

M E M O R A N D U M



FROM: Jessica McMullen, Policy and Communications Manager

SUBJECT: State Legislation Update

SUMMARY: PPACG tracks legislation that could potentially affect our programs. The Board’s Legislative Subcommittee meets weekly to review and recommend positions to the Executive Committee. For 2018, PPACG hired Furman Strategies lobbying firm to assist in our relationships and ability to impact legislation. With Loren Furman’s participation in the legislative committee, the following bills were reviewed and positions suggested by the Legislative Committee. The PPACG BOD has taken a Monitor position on the following bills:

• SB18-001 Transportation Infrastructure Funding • SB18-002 Financing Rural Broadband Deployment • HB 1119 – Highway Building and Maintenance Funding • HB18-1178 - Hold Colorado Governments Accountable Sanctuary Jurisdictions • HB18-1191 - Local Government Alter Speed Limits • SB18-015 - Protecting Homeowners And Deployed Military • SB18-104 - Federal Funds For Rural Broadband Deployment

There are no bill currently pending review by the PPACG Legislative Committee. Attachments

1) Legislative Tracking Page

http://www.statebillinfo.com/SBI/index.cfm?fuseaction=Public.Dossier&id=25138&pk=143&style=pinstripe

Agenda Item 6A

ACTION REQUESTED: Discussion




SUBJECT: Weighting of 2045 Plan Scoring Criteria

SUMMARY After the Board approves scoring criteria, a weighting scheme will be developed by the Community Advisory Committee for review and approval by the Board of Directors. This is in accordance with the 2045 RTP framework approved by the Board in December 2016. In previous PPACG long range transportation plans, there has been a linear relationship between goals, objectives, targets, and scoring criteria. The weight of a scoring criterion, which equaled a goal, was a reflection of the priority for that goal. For the 2045 Regional Transportation Plan, the Board of Directors has approved five goals and 18 targets (Attachment 1) and nine scoring criteria are being proposed. This difference between the number of goals, targets and scoring criteria will make the weighting process more complex. Should the CAC prioritize the goals or the scoring criteria, or develop a hybridized approach since some goals have more targets/criteria than others? PPACG staff is proposing nine scoring criteria capturing the most significant and measurable components of the approved targets. The proposed criteria are summarized below along with a brief indication of how each will be evaluated in the scoring process:

1. Maintenance – Points assigned based on the need/current condition of the relevant infrastructure (by facility type).

2. Mobility - Points assigned to projects (by mode) based on reducing VHT, transit service characteristics, or mode share.

3. Connectivity/Accessibility - Points assigned to transit and non-motorized projects based on impacts/effectiveness.

4. Modal Integration/ADA - Points assigned to projects affecting modal connections or incorporating ADA improvements on existing facilities.

5. Safety - Points assigned based on severity of safety problem and crash reduction factors. 6. Environment - Points assigned based on impacts to critical habitat, stormwater and air quality. 7. Economic Competitiveness - Points assigned for changing congestion on a CMP corridor. 8. Infill - Points assigned based on project location. 9. Benefit/Cost Effectiveness - Points assigned based on benefit/cost ratio.

Agenda Item 6A

ACTION REQUESTED Discussion on weighting of scoring criteria. ATTACHMENTS

1) Approved Goals and Targets

Item 6A Attachment 1

PPACG 2045 GOALS AND TARGETS

Goal 1 – Maintenance and Operations Approved Target – Greater than 90% of roads in good or better condition Approved Target – Greater than 90% of bridges in good or better condition Approved Target – Meet or exceed a state of good repair rating of at least 3.0 (adequate) for all fixed-

route vehicles on a scale of 1 (poor) to 5 (excellent). Approved Target – Explore options for collecting data/establishing baseline by 2021. Then work to

maintain or improve non-motorized infrastructure condition.

Goal 2 – Mobility

Approved 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)

Approved Target – Meet or exceed system-wide fixed-route ridership by at least 10% Approved Target – Meet or exceed system-wide fixed-route on-time performance of at least 85%

annually. Approved Target – Increase mode share to 5% for walking to work

Increase mode share to 1% for biking to work

Goal 3 – Connectivity and Accessibility

Approved Target – Meet or exceed the percentage of routes with headways less than 60 minutes. Approved Target – Meet or exceed the population served within ¼ mile of a transit stop. Approved Target – Reduce the number of miles identified in the NM improvement corridors still needing

improvements. Approved Target – Explore options for collecting data/establishing baseline by 2021. Ensure that new

projects meet or exceed ADA accessibility standards.

Goal 4 – Safety Approved Target – Same target as the state. There are 5 measures that must be addressed:

• Fatalities • Fatality rate • Serious injuries • Serious injury rate • Non-motorized fatalities

Item 6A Attachment 1

Goal 5 – Economic Vitality

Approved Target – Critical habitats - Mitigate impacts to critical habitats as determined through the NEPA process Air quality - Meet or exceed state and national ambient air quality standards Storm water - Comply with storm water best management practices

Approved Target – Commercial vehicle delay on significant and strategic corridors

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)

Approved Target – At least 95% of projects in the 2045 Long Range Transportation Plan fiscally

constrained project list should be located within the 2015 Population and Employment Boundary, or provide connecting infrastructure to major population and/or employment centers.

COMMUNITY ADVISORY COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA … · Agenda Item 2B COMMUNITY ADVISORY COMMITTEE...

Documents

Transcript of COMMUNITY ADVISORY COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA … · Agenda Item 2B COMMUNITY ADVISORY COMMITTEE...