Level 1 Traffic and Revenue Study Jefferson Parkway

Level 1 Traffic and Revenue Study Jefferson Parkway

Revised Final Report April 8

Jefferson Parkway Public Highway Authority (JPPHA)

i

Table of Contents

Executive Summary ....................................................................................................... ES-1 Project Description ........................................................................................................................................................ ES-1

Study Area ............................................................................................................................................................... ES-1

Existing Traffic Trends ................................................................................................................................................. ES-2

Study Area Traffic ................................................................................................................................................ ES-2

Historical Traffic Growth .................................................................................................................................. ES-3

Corridor Growth Assessment .................................................................................................................................... ES-3

Model Development ...................................................................................................................................................... ES-4

Roadway and Transit Network Review ...................................................................................................... ES-4

Vehicle Operating Costs ..................................................................................................................................... ES-4

Values of Time ....................................................................................................................................................... ES-5

Assumed Payment Types and ExpressToll Market Participation Rates ....................................... ES-5

Toll Rate Sensitivity ...................................................................................................................................................... ES-5

Toll Structure ................................................................................................................................................................... ES-6

Estimated Base Case Traffic and Revenue ........................................................................................................... ES-8

Sensitivity Tests .............................................................................................................................................................. ES-8

Disclaimer ....................................................................................................................................................................... ES-12

Chapter 1 - Introduction .................................................................................................. 1-1 Historical Background ................................................................................................................................................... 1-1

Project Description .......................................................................................................................................................... 1-2

Study Area ........................................................................................................................................................................... 1-3

Report Structure ............................................................................................................................................................... 1-4

Chapter 2 – Existing Traffic Trends ................................................................................... 2-1 Existing Traffic .................................................................................................................................................................. 2-1

Historical Traffic Growth .............................................................................................................................................. 2-4

Monthly Traffic Variations ........................................................................................................................................... 2-4

Daily Traffic Variations .................................................................................................................................................. 2-5

Hourly Distribution ......................................................................................................................................................... 2-6

Daily Speed Variation ..................................................................................................................................................... 2-8

Chapter 3 – Corridor Growth Assessment ......................................................................... 3-1 Historical Socioeconomic Trends .............................................................................................................................. 3-1

Population ................................................................................................................................................................. 3-1

Households ............................................................................................................................................................... 3-3

Employment ............................................................................................................................................................. 3-3

Median Household Income ................................................................................................................................ 3-4

Socioeconomic Forecasts .............................................................................................................................................. 3-5

Population ................................................................................................................................................................. 3-6

Households ............................................................................................................................................................... 3-6

Employment ............................................................................................................................................................. 3-7

Chapter 4 – Traffic and Revenue Analysis ......................................................................... 4-1 Model Development ........................................................................................................................................................ 4-1

DRAFT Table of Contents • Jefferson Parkway Level 1 Traffic and Revenue Study

ii

Land Use and Demographic Assumptions ................................................................................................... 4-2

Assumed Payment Types and ExpressToll Market Participation Rates ......................................... 4-2

Adaptation of Trip Tables ................................................................................................................................... 4-2

Roadway and Transit Network Review ........................................................................................................ 4-3

Vehicle Operating Costs ....................................................................................................................................... 4-8

Values of Time .......................................................................................................................................................... 4-8

Model Calibration ............................................................................................................................................................. 4-9

Traffic Diversion Analysis ............................................................................................................................................. 4-9

Projects Configuration and Toll Locations ............................................................................................................ 4-9

Toll Rate Sensitivity ......................................................................................................................................................... 4-9

Toll Structure .................................................................................................................................................................. 4-12

Basic Study Assumptions ........................................................................................................................................... 4-14

Estimated Base Case Traffic and Revenue .......................................................................................................... 4-15

Estimated Average Weekday Traffic Volumes ........................................................................................ 4-15

Estimated Weekday and Annual Transactions and Revenue ........................................................... 4-19

Scenario 1: Initial Build without the Northwest Parkway Extension ................................. 4-19

Scenario 2: Initial Build with the Northwest Parkway Extension ........................................ 4-26

Scenario 3: Ultimate Build without the Northwest Parkway Extension ............................ 4-26

Scenario 4: Ultimate Build with the Northwest Parkway Extension ................................... 4-27

Disclaimer ......................................................................................................................................................................... 4-27

Chapter 5 – Sensitivity Tests ............................................................................................ 5-1 Sensitivity Test 1: Long-Term Reduced Economic Growth ............................................................................ 5-1

Sensitivity Test 2: Long-Term Increased Economic Growth ......................................................................... 5-2

Sensitivity Test 3: Decreased Value of Time ......................................................................................................... 5-3

Sensitivity Test 4: Increased Value of Time .......................................................................................................... 5-5

Sensitivity Test 5: Combined “Low” Scenario ...................................................................................................... 5-6

Sensitivity Test 6: Accelerated Toll Rate Increases ........................................................................................... 5-7

Sensitivity Test 7: Combined “High” Scenario...................................................................................................... 5-9

List of Figures

Figure ES-1. Project Study Area......................................................................................................................................... ES-1

Figure ES-2. Average Weekday Traffic Volumes and Truck Percentages at Selected Count

Locations .......................................................................................................................................................... ES-2

Figure ES-3. Estimated Toll Sensitivity Curves ........................................................................................................... ES-6

Figure ES-4. Estimated Average Weekday Mainline Traffic Volumes ............................................................... ES-9

Figure 1-1. Project Study Area .............................................................................................................................................. 1-2

Figure 2-1. Average Weekday Traffic Volumes and Truck Percentages at Selected Count Locations ... 2-3

Figure 2-2. 2016 Average Monthly Weekday Traffic Variations ............................................................................ 2-5

Figure 2-3. 2016 Average Daily Traffic Variations ....................................................................................................... 2-6

Figure 2-4. Average Weekday Hourly Traffic Distribution ....................................................................................... 2-7

Figure 2-5. Average Speed Trend During AM Peak Period (6:30 AM – 9:00 AM) ........................................... 2-9

Figure 2-6. Average Speed Trend During PM Peak Period (3:00 PM – 7:00 PM) ........................................ 2-10

Figure 3-1. Regional Location of Jefferson Parkway and Adjacent Counties .................................................... 3-2


iii

Figure 4-1. Proposed Jefferson Parkway Configuration and Tolling Locations ............................................4-10

Figure 4-2. Estimated Toll Sensitivity Curves ..............................................................................................................4-11

Figure 4-3. Estimated Average Weekday Mainline Traffic Volumes, Scenario 1 and 2 – Initial Build 4-16

Figure 4-4. Estimated Average Weekday Mainline Traffic Volumes, Scenario 3 and 4 – Ultimate

Build .......................................................................................................................................................................4-17

List of Tables

Table ES-1. Forecasted Growth Trends in Population ............................................................................................. ES-3

Table ES-2. Forecasted Growth Trends in Employment ......................................................................................... ES-4

Table ES-3. Jefferson Parkway Passenger Car Toll Rate Assumptions ............................................................. ES-6

Table ES-4. Toll Rate Comparison of Selected Toll Road Agencies ..................................................................... ES-7

Table ES-5. Estimated Base Case Annual Transactions and Revenue (in Thousands) ........................... ES-10

Table ES-6. Comparison of Estimated Sensitivity Test Transactions and Net Toll Revenues .............. ES-11

Table 2-1. Average Weekday Hourly Traffic Volumes and Truck Percentages at Selected Locations .. 2-2

Table 2-2. Historical Traffic Growth at Available Count Locations ...................................................................... 2-4

Table 3-1. Historical Growth Trends in Population .................................................................................................... 3-2

Table 3-2. Historical Growth Trends in Households ................................................................................................... 3-3

Table 3-3. Historical Growth Trends in Employment ................................................................................................ 3-4

Table 3-4. Historical Growth Trends in Median Household Income (in 2016 Inflation-Adjusted

Dollars) ...................................................................................................................................................................... 3-5

Table 3-5. Forecasted Growth Trends in Population .................................................................................................. 3-6

Table 3-6. Forecasted Growth Trends in Households ................................................................................................ 3-7

Table 3-7. Forecasted Growth Trends in Employment .............................................................................................. 3-7

Table 4-1. Programmed Regional Highway Improvements..................................................................................... 4-4

Table 4-2. Estimated Vehicle Operating Costs ............................................................................................................... 4-8

Table 4-3. Estimated Average Values of Time ............................................................................................................... 4-8

Table 4-4. Jefferson Parkway Passenger Car Toll Rate Assumptions ................................................................4-12

Table 4-5. Toll Rate Comparison of Selected Toll Road Agencies .......................................................................4-13

Table 4-6. Estimated Average Weekday Transactions and Gross Toll Revenues, Scenarios 1 and 2

– Initial Build .......................................................................................................................................................4-20

Table 4-7. Estimated Average Weekday Transactions and Gross Toll Revenues, Scenarios 3 and 4

– Ultimate Build ..................................................................................................................................................4-21

Table 4-8. Estimated Annual Transactions and Revenue (in Thousands), Scenario 1: Jefferson

Parkway Initial Build without the Northwest Parkway Extension ...............................................4-22


Parkway Initial Build with the Northwest Parkway Extension ......................................................4-23


Parkway Initial Build without the Northwest Parkway Extension ............................................4-24


Parkway Ultimate Build with the Northwest Parkway Extension .............................................4-25

Table 5-1. Estimated Annual Transactions and Revenue (in Thousands), Sensitivity Test 1: Long-

Term Reduced Economic Growth .................................................................................................................. 5-2

Table 5-2. Estimated Annual Transactions and Revenue (in Thousands), Sensitivity Test 2: Long-

Term Increased Economic Growth ................................................................................................................ 5-3


iv

Table 5-3. Estimated Annual Transactions and Revenue (in Thousands), Sensitivity Test 3:

Reduced Value of Time ....................................................................................................................................... 5-4


Increased Value of Time .................................................................................................................................... 5-5


Combined “Low” Scenario (Lower Growth and Lower Value of Time) ......................................... 5-6

Table 5-6. Estimated Annual Transactions and Revenue Stream (in Thousands), Sensitivity Test 6:

Accelerated Toll Rate Increases ...................................................................................................................... 5-8


Accelerated Toll Rate Increases ...................................................................................................................... 5-9

Table 5-8. Estimated Annual Transactions and Revenue Stream (in Thousands), Sensitivity Test 7:

Combined “High” Scenario (Higher Growth and Accelerated Toll Rate Increases) .............. 5-10


Combined “High” Scenario (Higher Growth and Accelerated Toll Rate Increases) .............. 5-10

ES-1 April 16, 2018

Executive Summary

CDM Smith has been requested to provide the Jefferson Parkway Public Highway Authority (JPPHA)

with forecasts of traffic and revenue for the proposed Jefferson Parkway. These forecasts and the

methodology for their development are summarized in this report. This study is intended to assist

JPPHA in the planning and implementation of toll rates, project configurations, and construction

schedules associated with the proposed Jefferson Parkway. This Level-1 study is intended for use by

JPPHA for planning purposes and to solicit interest in the Jefferson Parkway. It does not constitute a

comprehensive study. A further, more detailed analysis would be required to support any financing

effort of the Jefferson Parkway.

As will be presented in this report, the traffic and revenue forecasts produced by this analysis were

based on a Level 1 analysis of the project that utilized the Denver Region Council of Governments’

(DRCOG) Focus 2 model. This model was updated with the latest socioeconomic and highway

improvement assumptions. Following a toll sensitivity analysis, preferred toll rates were selected in

cooperation with JPPHA that serve regional mobility interests as well as produce revenues in support

of the Jefferson Parkway. Forecasts of traffic and toll revenue were developed for a Base Case using

these preferred rates under four hypothetical scenarios. Additional sensitivity tests were also

performed to understand the impacts of various key input assumptions. All standard due-diligence

data review and analyses for this study were performed.

Project Description As shown in Figure ES-1, the proposed Jefferson

Parkway will be a 9.2 -mile toll road running along the

northwestern perimeter of the Denver Metro area,

forming a portion of the originally conceived I-470, the

outer circumferential highway around Denver. The

Jefferson Parkway will extend as a limited-access

expressway, with two lanes of travel in each direction,

from SH 128 south of US 36 to SH 93 south of SH 72. It

is assumed that the Jefferson Parkway will operate in a

cashless environment as an All Electronic Toll (AET)

facility. Customers will be charged a toll either

through the use of an ExpressToll transponder or

through the mail via License Plate Tolling (LPT).

Study Area Based on the proposed project limits, the project study

area is assumed to extend from US 36 in the north, to

SH 121 / Wadsworth Boulevard in the east, to I-70 in

the south and to SH 93 in the west. This study area

includes many roadways that may be affected by the

proposed Jefferson Parkway. These roadways include

US 36, SH 72, SH 93, SH 121, SH 128, 86th Parkway, W 88th Avenue and Indiana Street. Two major

Figure ES-1 Project Study Area

Jefferson Parkway Level 1 Traffic and Revenue Study • Executive Summary

ES-2 April 16, 2018

roadways, I-25 and the Northwest Parkway, lie outside this study area may also be impacted by the

Jefferson Parkway. A number of local roadways in the Interlocken area are also assumed to be

impacted by the proposed Jefferson Parkway based on the specific trips forecasted to use the project.

Existing Traffic Trends Historic and current traffic trends were assembled and reviewed in order to better understand the

existing regional traffic conditions. These include traffic volumes, hourly traffic variations, daily and

seasonal variations and truck traffic within the study area. Regional speed data were also reviewed.

Study Area Traffic The regional travel demand model used in

the traffic and revenue forecasting process

is based on annual average weekday traffic

(AWDT) volumes. Historical traffic data

were assembled from several sources,

including the Colorado Department of

Transportation (CDOT), the Denver

Regional Council of Governments (DRCOG),

and from several past studies. Additionally,

counts were collected at eight supplemental

locations in November 2017. Figure ES-2

summarizes and presents these data for

selected count locations as AWDT volumes

and truck percentages.

Two screenlines were developed to assist

the calibration of travel demand model. A

screenline is theoretical line across several

major roadways. Since volumes can vary by

location, a screenline can represent total

movements in the potential market area. In

general, the volumes across both

screenlines are relatively balanced

directionally. On an average weekday,

almost 75,600 vehicles cross Screenline 1

and 100,000 vehicles cross Screenline 2,

with SH 121 and SH 93 carrying the highest

volumes. Truck traffic across both

screenlines ranges between 3.1 and 7.9

percent and averages 6.0 percent.

The remaining traffic count data summarized in the figure are located near the proposed Jefferson

Parkway alignment. On an average weekday basis, 18.5 percent of traffic occurs during the AM Peak

Period and 32.3 percent of traffic occurs during the PM Peak Period. Truck traffic within the study

area averages 7.4 percent and ranges between 3.1 and 11.9 percent at individual count locations.

Figure ES-2 Average Weekday Traffic Volumes

and Truck Percentages at Selected Count Locations


ES-3 April 16, 2018

Historical Traffic Growth Historical average weekday traffic volumes were available at a limited number of count locations

through Department of Transportation (CDOT) website. Between 2006 and 2016, traffic growth

within the study area varied from -2.9 percent to 2.0 percent per year, with most corridors

experiencing positive traffic growth. The ten-year historical traffic growth within the region averaged

0.6 percent, with the major growth occurring on smaller volume roadways such as SH 93 and SH 128.

Corridor Growth Assessment Forecasts of employment, population and other relevant variables have been developed by DRCOG as

part of the regional travel demand model. These forecasts were recently reviewed and adjusted by

EPS as part of prior CDM Smith studies in the region. The growth assessment included a review of the

Base Year 2015 population, household and employment numbers, as well as an independent analysis

of regional and sub-regional projections and a consideration of major developments within the Denver

region. The result of the assessment was a set of updated forecasts of population, households, and

employment. These forecasts, referred to hereafter as the “EPS” forecasts and presented for

population and employment in Tables ES-1 and ES -2, were then used to develop updated trip

matrices using the DRCOG Focus 2 model process for the purposes of running traffic assignments in

the regional travel demand model.

For the current Level 1 analysis, the recent adjustments recommended by EPS were considered to still

be reasonable and to be relevant to the proposed Jefferson Parkway. These findings served as basic

inputs to the travel demand model which, in turn, was used to develop the traffic and revenue

forecasts for the proposed Jefferson Parkway.

Table ES-1 Forecasted Growth Trends in Population

2015 - 2035

Actual (1) AAPC (2) AAPC (2) AAPC (2) Avg. Annual Incr.

County 2005 '05 to '15 2015 '15 to '25 2025 '25 to '35 2035 Total Number Percent

Adams County 395,384 2.2 491,335 1.7 581,006 1.7 684,728 193,393 9,670 1.7

Arapahoe County 528,214 1.8 631,086 1.3 720,595 1.0 794,818 163,732 8,187 1.2

Boulder County 282,910 1.2 319,387 1.1 354,906 0.7 378,685 59,298 2,965 0.9

Broomfield County 48,251 3.0 65,065 2.4 82,699 1.9 99,582 34,517 1,726 2.2

Denver County 559,459 2.0 682,545 0.9 745,607 0.8 805,602 123,057 6,153 0.8

Douglas County 244,442 2.8 322,391 2.0 393,369 1.5 457,048 134,657 6,733 1.8

Jefferson County 523,517 0.8 565,524 0.8 612,867 0.7 655,166 89,642 4,482 0.7

7-County Total 2,582,177 1.8 3,077,333 1.3 3,491,049 1.1 3,875,629 798,296 39,915 1.2

Influence Area (3) 854,678 1.1 949,976 1.0 1,050,472 0.8 1,133,433 183,457 9,173 0.9

(1) U.S. Census Bureau.

(2) Average Annual Percent Change.

(3) Influence Area Includes Boulder County, Broomfield County and Jefferson County

Source: Economic & Planning Systems.


ES-4 April 16, 2018

Table ES-2 Forecasted Growth Trends in Employment

Model Development The travel demand modeling undertaken for this study utilized, as the basic modeling platform, the

Denver Regional Council of Governments’ (DRCOG) activity-based Focus 2 travel demand model. The

model area covers eleven counties within the Denver metropolitan area and was developed at an

average weekday level. A 2016 base year and future years 2022, 2035 and 2040, were included.

Roadway and Transit Network Review Beginning with the 2017 model, a thorough review of the road network, functional classifications, and

lanes was completed to ensure consistency with the existing network. The forecast year networks

included in the base DRCOG models were then reviewed and compared to the DRCOG 2040 Fiscally

Constrained Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) (Cycle 2, 2015). The RTP identifies new roadways,

additional lanes, and other capacity improvements included in the regional Metro Vision plan, as well

as additions to the transit network consistent with the current FasTracks regional rapid transit

expansion plans. A listing of the projects within the study area is provided in Chapter 4 of this report.

In addition to the RTP project listing, the Northwest Parkway Extension was included in the highway

network based on the project’s proximity to the study corridor. The assumed configuration was based

on the latest project information provided by the Northwest Parkway Toll Authority. Due to the

relative importance of the project, traffic assignments with and without the proposed Northwest

Parkway Extension were conducted in order to estimate the potential traffic and revenue impact to

the Jefferson Parkway.

Vehicle Operating Costs Past studies by CDM Smith have shown that drivers perceive fuel costs in decisions regarding trip

path, but also give some consideration to other usage-related costs, such maintenance, oil, and tires. A

vehicle operating cost of $0.161 per mile for passenger cars in 2016 was assumed. The 2016 vehicle

operating cost was then inflated for future years at an annual rate of 2.3 percent. These inflation rates

were based on an analysis of regional historical CPI data. Operating costs for trucks were assumed at

3.0 times those of passenger cars.

2015 - 2035



Adams County 147,682 2.7 191,878 2.3 239,871 1.8 287,844 95,966 4,798 2.0

Arapahoe County 271,270 1.6 316,496 1.5 368,751 1.3 418,489 101,993 5,100 1.4

Boulder County 154,367 1.1 172,698 1.0 190,760 0.9 208,525 35,827 1,791 0.9


Denver County 424,659 1.2 478,260 0.9 525,244 0.9 572,191 93,931 4,697 0.9

Douglas County 82,930 3.1 112,880 1.9 136,837 1.5 158,888 46,008 2,300 1.7


7-County Total 1,315,677 1.6 1,536,532 1.4 1,759,766 1.2 1,977,993 441,461 22,073 1.3

Influence Area (3) 389,136 1.2 437,018 1.1 489,063 1.0 540,581 103,563 5,178 1.1

(1) Bureau of Labor Statistics.





ES-5 April 16, 2018

Values of Time Motorists’ perception of their Value of Time (VOT) is another key component of the decision to use a

toll facility or an alternative route. People attach different values to their time depending on the

purpose of their trip. For the toll diversion analysis, where the relative advantage of driving on the

Jefferson Parkway toll road is weighed against taking a local route or an alternate route on a major

highway, values of time were developed by TAZ under prior analyses. For the current study effort, the

TAZ-level VOTs were adjusted on an aggregate level based on updated regional VOTs. These updated

regional VOTs were developed based on household income data from the U.S. Census and trip

purposes included in the Denver Regional Council of Governments (DRCOG) model.

The updated VOTs for the model area averaged $0.29 per mile, varying by time of day, method of

payment and vehicle class. The 2016 average VOTs were inflated by 2.3 percent per year based on the

regional ten-year historical average CPI inflation rates. This is a conservative assumption since it does

not assume any increases in VOT due to real income growth. The value of time for commercial vehicle

trips was assumed to be 3.0 times the value for passenger cars.

Assumed Payment Types and ExpressToll Market Participation Rates Consistent with other local toll roads, it was assumed that the Jefferson Parkway will employ a totally

cashless toll collection system, providing two methods of toll payment: ExpressToll and License Plate

Toll (LPT). For ExpressToll transactions, the customer is issued a transponder tag that is read by

overhead equipment at the toll gantries. With LPT, a picture of the customer’s license plate is taken

and connected to an address obtained from the Department of Motor Vehicles.

The assumed market share of ExpressToll and LPT customers was based on historic trends from other

Denver toll facilities and anticipated future increases. The assumed ExpressToll market share was

assumed to be 72 percent in 2022, and to increase to 75 percent for 2035. Beyond 2035, estimated

ExpressToll participation rates are assumed to remain relatively constant over the forecast period.

Toll Rate Sensitivity An analysis of hypothetical toll rate sensitivity was conducted to estimate the traffic and revenue

potential of the proposed Jefferson Parkway at various toll rate levels. Traffic assignments were run

at 2022 levels assuming mainline toll rates ranging from $2.65 to $4.10. The resulting toll sensitivity

curves are presented in Figure ES-3.

The toll sensitivity analysis indicates an estimated maximum toll rate in 2022 of $3.60 for ExpressToll

customers and $5.40 for LPT. A preferred toll rate of $2.65 for ExpressToll customers and $3.95 for

LPT was selected for 2022 following discussion with JPPHA staff. By 2040, an estimated maximum toll

rate of $5.25 is estimated for ExpressToll customers and $7.85 for LPT. A preferred toll rate of $4.00

for ExpressToll customers and $6.00 for LPT was selected for 2040. Commercial vehicles would be

levied proportionally higher tolls. The toll rates presented are below the estimated toll revenue

maximizing point on the curve. Higher tolls may be selected based on agreement between the JPPHA

and Concessionaires.


ES-6 April 16, 2018

Figure ES-3 Estimated Toll Sensitivity Curves

Toll Structure Following a review of the toll rate sensitivity results, the preferred toll rates for the Jefferson Parkway

were selected in coordination with the JPPHA staff. These toll rates are presented for 2022, 2035 and

2040 in Table ES-3. In the opening year of 2022, the toll rate at the mainline toll location was

assumed to be $2.65 for 2-axle ExpressToll customers, representing a cost of $0.288 per-mile for a 9.2-

mile full-length trip on the Jefferson Parkway. LPT customers were assumed to pay a 50 percent

surcharge to cover the additional costs of processing LPT transactions and to cover potential video toll

revenue leakage. Commercial vehicles were assumed to pay by the axle based on an “N-1” system.

Toll rates were escalated by 2.3 percent annually, in line with inflation assumptions.

Table ES-3 Jefferson Parkway Passenger Car Toll Rate Assumptions

Table 4-4Jefferson Parkway Passenger Car Toll Rate Assumptions

Passenger Car Toll Rates

2022 2035 2040

Location ExpressToll LPT ExpressToll LPT ExpressToll LPT

Simms St. Toll T/F North 1.10$ 1.70$ 1.50$ 2.30$ 1.70$ 2.60$

Toll Gantry Mainline 2.65 3.95 3.55 5.35 4.00 6.00

Candellas Pkwy. Toll T/F South 1.10 1.70 1.50 2.30 1.70 2.60

Coal Creek Canyon Rd. Toll T/F South 1.10 1.70 1.50 2.30 1.70 2.60

(1) Toll increases are assumed to be implemented on January 1.

T/F = to/from

Toll Type


ES-7 April 16, 2018

Table ES-4 compares the proposed Jefferson Parkway toll rates against other toll roads in Denver and

around the United States. For comparison purposes, only toll roads less than 50 miles were

considered. The toll rates provided in the table are current as of January 24, 2018 and are reported

for the "most common" peak period rate for full-length through trips. As shown in the table, average

per-mile ETC toll rates range from $0.04 per mile to $1.00 per mile and vary by region based on local

traffic congestion and regional income levels. The average toll rate for the listed toll agencies is $0.16

per mile. However, as shown in the table, per-mile toll rates for Colorado tolling agencies average

higher than the rest of the nation, with $0.31 per mile on E-470 and $0.41 per mile on the Northwest

Parkway. This puts the proposed Jefferson Parkway per-mile toll rates for 2022 above the national

average but below those of the other Colorado tolling agencies.

Table ES-4

Toll Rate Comparison of Selected Toll Road Agencies

State Agency Facility General LocationAgency

Type

Year Tolling

Began (Roads

& MLs)

Last Toll

Change

Total

Miles

Average

Electronic

PC Toll

Average

Cash PC

Toll

Average

Video PC

Toll

Per Mile

Electronic

PC Toll

UT Adams Avenue Parkway, Inc Adams Avenue Parkway Salt Lake City Private 2001 37069 1 $1.00 $1.00 $1.00

IL Skyway Concession Company Chicago Skyway Chicago Private 1958 43101 7.8 $5.20 $5.20 $0.67

TX Montgomery County Toll Road Authority SH 242 Direct Connector Houston Public 2015 42191 0.8 $0.50 $0.63

VA City of Chesapeake Chesapeake Expressway Chesapeake Public 2001 42511 16 $8.00 $8.00 $0.50

VA DBi Services Pocahontas Parkway Richmond Private 2002 43103 8.8 $4.30 $4.30 $0.49

CA Transportation Corridor Agencies San Joaquin Hills Toll Road Los Angeles Public 1996 42917 15 $7.08 $7.76 $0.47

CO Northwest Parkway, LLC Northwest Parkway Denver Private 2003 43101 9.5 $3.90 $4.50 $0.41

VA Toll Road Investors Partnership II Dulles Greenway Washington DC Suburbs Private 1995 42796 14 $5.50 $5.50 $0.39

DE Delaware Department of Transportation Delaware Turnpike - JFK Memorial Highway Newark to Wilmington Public 1963 39356 11 $4.00 $4.00 $0.36

CA Transportation Corridor Agencies Foothill Toll Road Los Angeles Public 1993 42917 12 $4.21 $6.21 $0.35

CO E-470 Public Highway Authority E-470 Denver Public 1991 43101 46.67 $14.25 $21.80 $0.31

TX Central Texas Regional Mobility Authority Various Expressways Austin Public 2007 to 2017 43108 19.1 $2.22 $2.96 $0.30

CA Transportation Corridor Agencies Eastern Toll Road Los Angeles Public 1998 42917 24 $7.06 $10.06 $0.29

CO Jefferson Parkway Public Highway Authority Jefferson Parkway Denver Public 9.2 $2.65 $3.95 $0.29

VA City of Chesapeake Dominion Boulevard Chesapeake Public 2017 42917 3.8 $1.05 $3.05 $0.28

CA San Diego Association of Governments South Bay Expressway (SR 125) San Diego Public 2007 41090 10 $2.75 $3.50 $5.50 $0.28

VA Metropolitan Washington Airports Authority Dulles Toll Road Washington DC Suburbs Public 1984 41640 13.4 $3.50 $3.50 $0.26

FL Osceola County Expressway Authority Poinciana Parkway Orlando Public 2016 42766 9.7 $2.50 $2.90 $0.26

FL Orchard Pond Greenway, LLC Orchard Pond Parkway Tallahassee Private 2016 42492 5.2 $1.19 $1.69 $0.23

MD Maryland Transportation Authority Inter County Connector Washington DC Public 2011 42186 17.5 $3.86 $5.78 $0.22

TX Harris County Toll Road Authority Various Expressways Houston Public 1987 to 2015 42569 41.4 $2.74 $1.75 $0.22

NC North Carolina Turnpike Authority Triangle Expressway Raleigh Public 2012 43101 18.5 $3.90 $6.00 $0.21

TX Fort Bend County Toll Road Authority Various Expressways Houston Public 2004 to 2014 43046 30 $2.11 $0.00 $0.21

VA Richmond Metropolitan Transportation Authority Downtown Expressway (SR 195) Richmond Public 1976 39699 3.4 $0.70 $0.70 $0.21

VA Richmond Metropolitan Transportation Authority Powhite Parkway Richmond Public 1973 39699 3.4 $0.70 $0.70 $0.21

IL Illinois State Toll Highway Authority IL 390 Chicago Suburbs Public 2016 43101 9.8 $1.90 $3.80 $0.19

FL Tampa-Hillsborough County Expressway Authority Lee Roy Selmon Crosstown Expressway Tampa Public 1976 42917 15 $2.90 $3.40 $0.19

TX Cameron County Regional Mobility Authority SH 550 Brownsville Public 2011 42189 7.9 $1.50 $2.01 $0.19

SC Connector 2000 Association Southern Connector Greenville Private 2001 42371 16 $3.00 $3.50 $0.19

TX North East Texas Regional Mobility Authority Toll 49 Tyler Public 2006 42736 26 $4.80 $6.39 $0.18

TX North Texas Tollway Authority Various Expressways Dallas / Fort Worth Public 1968 to 2009 42917 132.7 $5.46 $8.20 $0.18

TX Texas Department of Transportation Various Expressways Austin / Houston Public 1968 to 2009 43101 130.5 $8.43 $7.20 $0.18

TX SH 130 Concession Company, LLC SH-130 Extension Austin Private 2007 to 2011 42319 41 $7.39 $9.83 $0.18

FL Miami-Dade Expressway Authority Various Expressways Miami Public 1961 to 2010 41958 32.7 $1.52 $3.05 $0.17

FL Osceola County Osceola Parkway Orlando Public 1995 41918 12.4 $2.00 $2.00 $0.16

MA Massachusetts Department of Transportation Boston Extension Boston Public 1964 42671 12 $1.70 $3.55 $0.14

FL Central Florida Expressway Authority Various Expressways Orlando Public 1967 to 2017 42943 114.4 $3.15 $3.55 $4.21 $0.14

PA Pennsylvania Turnpike Commission Various Expressways Various Public 1991 to 2006 43107 84.9 $4.29 $7.28 $4.15 $0.13

IL Illinois State Toll Highway Authority Veterans Memorial Tollway Chicago Suburbs Public 1989 43101 29.8 $3.80 $7.60 $0.13

SC South Carolina Department of Transportation Cross Island Parkway Hilton Head Public 1998 39537 6.8 $0.75 $1.25 $0.11

FL Florida Turnpike Enterprise Various Expressways Various Public 1973 to 2016 43037 184.1 $2.76 $3.26 $4.42 $0.10

FL Mid-Bay Bridge Authority Walter Francis Spence Parkway Panhandle Public 2014 42278 15 $1.50 $2.00 $0.10

FL Florida Department of Transportation Sawgrass Expressway Fort Lauderdale Public 1986 43037 23 $2.14 $2.68 $0.09

NJ South Jersey Transportation Authority Atlantic City Expressway Philadelphia to Atlantic City Public 1964 40316 44 $3.75 $3.75 $0.09

OK Oklahoma Turnpike Authority Various Expressways Various Public 1969 to 1992 43101 162.9 $2.74 $2.95 $0.08

VA Virginia Department of Transportation Powhite Parkway Extension Richmond Public 1988 36342 10 $0.75 $0.75 $0.08

NY New York State Thruway Authority Niagara Thruway Buffalo Public 1959 39817 14 $0.95 $1.00 $0.07

MD Maryland Transportation Authority John F. Kennedy Memorial Highway Northeastern Maryland Public 1963 42186 50 $3.00 $4.00 $6.00 $0.06

NY New York State Thruway Authority New England Thruway New York City Public 1958 39817 15 $0.83 $0.88 $0.06

FL Florida Department of Transportation Pinellas Bayway System Tampa Public 1962 43037 15.2 $0.67 $1.38 $0.04

NH New Hampshire Department of Transportation Various Expressways Various Public 1950 to 1956 39995 88.9 $1.27 $1.81 $0.04


ES-8 April 16, 2018

Estimated Base Case Traffic and Revenue Following the year 2016 calibration process, future-year average weekday traffic assignments were

run for years 2022, 2035 and 2040. Four “Base Case” scenarios were modeled as part of this study

effort. These scenarios considered different interchange configurations and highway improvement

assumptions, as shown in Figure ES-4 and described in detail in Chapter 4. The scenarios are:

▪ Scenario 1: Jefferson Parkway - Initial Build without the Northwest Parkway Extension; ▪ Scenario 2: Jefferson Parkway - Initial Build with the Northwest Parkway Extension; ▪ Scenario 3: Jefferson Parkway – Ultimate Build without the Northwest Parkway Extension; and ▪ Scenario 4: Jefferson Parkway - Ultimate Build with the Northwest Parkway Extension.

Scenarios 1 and 2 assumed the Initial Build configuration, while Scenarios 3 and 4 assumed the

Ultimate Build configuration. Scenarios 2 and 4 assume the construction of the Northwest Parkway

Extension. Estimated AWDT volumes for each of the Jefferson Parkway mainline segments are

provided by scenario in Figure ES-4. All volumes are shown in thousands.

Annual transaction and gross toll revenue streams were developed for each scenario through 2061. In

order to estimate net toll revenues, adjustments for uncollectible and unpaid revenue were developed

based on the leakage experience of other Denver toll facilities. These adjustments account for non-

revenue vehicles, unbillable license plate toll images and unpaid license plate toll transactions. In

2022, total revenue leakage was estimated to be 31.3 percent of gross LPT revenues, or just over 10

percent of total gross revenues. This was estimated to decrease to 28.0 percent of gross LPT revenues,

or just under 9 percent of total gross revenues, by 2035 as a result of improvements in technology and

collections. After 2035, assumed leakage rates were held constant as a conservative assumption.

Lastly, the annual transactions and toll revenue forecasts were adjusted downward to reflect “ramp-

up” during the first three years of operation. Ramp-up is the phenomena whereby toll facility traffic is

less than would be expected during the first few years of operation as motorists become familiar with

the new toll facility. Based on experience with other “greenfield” toll facilities, the estimated annual

transactions and toll revenues for the Jefferson Parkway assumed ramp-up reductions of 15 percent,

10 percent and 5 percent in 2022, 2023 and 2024, respectively.

The resulting annual estimates of transactions and toll revenue for the four Base Case scenarios are

provided in Table ES-5. The transaction and revenue estimates are provided on an annual basis.

Sensitivity Tests As presented in Table ES-6, traffic assignments for seven hypothetical tests were run to estimate the

“sensitivity” of revenue forecasts to changes in certain basic assumptions:

1. Long-Term Reduced Economic Growth (25% Lower Trip Table Growth);

2. Long-Term Increased Economic Growth (25% Higher Trip Table Growth);

3. Decreased Value of Time (25% Lower Value of Time);

4. Increased Value of Time (25% Higher Value of Time);

5. Combined “Low” Scenario (25% Lower Trip Table Growth AND 25% Lower Value of Time);

6. Accelerated Toll Rate Increases (3.1% Annual Increase); and

7. Combined “High” Scenario (25% Higher Trip Table Growth AND 3.1% Annual Toll Increase).


ES-9 April 16, 2018

Figure ES-4 Estimated Average Weekday Mainline Traffic Volumes


ES-10 April 16, 2018

Table ES-5 Estimated Base Case Annual Transactions and Revenue (In Thousands)

Scenario 1 Scenario 2 Scenario 3 Scenario 4Partial Build w/o NWP Ext. Partial Build with NWP Ext. Ultimate Build w/o NWP Ext. Ultimate Build with NWP Ext.

Total Annual Total Annual Total Annual Total Annual Total Annual Total Annual Total Annual Total Annual

Transactions (000s) Net Toll Revenue Transactions (000s) Net Toll Revenue Transactions (000s) Net Toll Revenue Transactions (000s) Net Toll Revenue(000s) ($000s) (2) (000s) ($000s) (2) (000s) ($000s) (2) (000s) ($000s) (2)

2022(3)

4,832 12,585$ 5,566 14,914$ 5,363 13,092$ 6,444 15,975$

2023 (3) 5,235 14,019 6,041 16,633 5,832 14,613 7,011 17,830

2024(3)(4)

5,670 15,598 6,554 18,529 6,339 16,293 7,625 19,881

2025 6,091 17,203 7,053 20,460 6,835 18,007 8,226 21,971

2026 6,232 17,981 7,230 21,413 7,020 18,862 8,453 23,015

2027 6,378 18,795 7,411 22,411 7,210 19,758 8,687 24,109

2028(4)

6,544 19,700 7,618 23,519 7,425 20,753 8,951 25,324

2029 6,678 20,535 7,788 24,547 7,605 21,680 9,174 26,455

2030 6,834 21,465 7,984 25,691 7,811 22,710 9,428 27,713

2031 6,994 22,437 8,184 26,889 8,023 23,789 9,689 29,031

2032 (4) 7,176 23,517 8,413 28,219 8,263 24,988 9,984 30,495

2033 7,324 24,515 8,601 29,454 8,464 26,104 10,233 31,858

2034 7,495 25,626 8,818 30,828 8,694 27,344 10,517 33,374

2035 7,670 26,786 9,040 32,266 8,929 28,644 10,808 34,962

2036 (4) 7,854 28,053 9,296 33,946 9,134 29,962 11,124 36,785

2037 7,999 29,219 9,506 35,518 9,292 31,169 11,387 38,493

2038 8,168 30,517 9,749 37,265 9,478 32,514 11,687 40,390

2039 8,341 31,873 9,997 39,097 9,669 33,916 11,996 42,380

2040 (4) 8,542 33,380 10,280 41,133 9,890 35,476 12,347 44,591

2041 8,699 34,768 10,513 43,038 10,061 36,905 12,638 46,660

2042 8,883 36,312 10,780 45,154 10,263 38,498 12,972 48,960

2043 9,072 37,925 11,055 47,375 10,469 40,158 13,315 51,372

2044 (4) 9,264 39,610 11,337 49,705 10,680 41,891 13,666 53,904

2045 9,434 41,256 11,594 52,007 10,865 43,579 13,989 56,406

2046 9,634 43,089 11,889 54,565 11,083 45,459 14,359 59,186

2047 9,839 45,003 12,192 57,249 11,306 47,420 14,738 62,103

2048 (4) 10,047 47,003 12,502 60,064 11,533 49,465 15,127 65,163

2049 10,232 48,956 12,786 62,846 11,732 51,458 15,484 68,188

2050 10,340 50,032 12,948 64,373 11,850 52,557 15,687 69,848

2051 10,449 51,131 13,111 65,937 11,968 53,678 15,893 71,548

2052 (4) 10,559 52,255 13,277 67,539 12,088 54,824 16,102 73,290

2053 10,642 53,257 13,409 68,991 12,175 55,841 16,269 74,869

2054 10,754 54,427 13,578 70,667 12,297 57,033 16,482 76,692

2055 10,867 55,623 13,750 72,384 12,420 58,250 16,698 78,559

2056(4)

10,982 56,845 13,924 74,143 12,544 59,493 16,917 80,471

2057 11,067 57,935 14,062 75,737 12,635 60,597 17,093 82,205

2058 11,184 59,208 14,240 77,577 12,761 61,891 17,317 84,206

2059 11,302 60,509 14,420 79,462 12,889 63,211 17,544 86,256

2060 (4) 11,421 61,838 14,603 81,392 13,018 64,561 17,774 88,356

2061 11,510 63,024 14,747 83,142 13,112 65,758 17,958 90,260

(1) Gross Toll Revenue represents toll revenues not adjusted for uncollectible or unpaid toll revenue.

(2) Net Toll Revenue represents toll revenues adjusted for uncollectible and unpaid revenues.

(3) Ramp-up has been assumed during the first three years of operation. Transactions and toll revenues are estimated to be 85%, 90% and 95%

of full operations in 2022, 2023, and 2024 respectively.

(4) Leap Year.


ES-11 April 16, 2018

Table ES-6

Comparison of Estimated Sensitivity Test Transactions and Net Toll Revenues

It is important to recognize that all of the sensitivity tests assessed herein, and presented in Table ES-

6, are hypothetical conditions and represent departures from economic forecasts or assumptions used

in the Base Case traffic and revenue estimates. These tests are intended to show potential impacts on

traffic and revenue of these hypothetical changes from basic assumptions and should not be

considered as forecasts themselves.

Est. 2022 Transactions and Revenue (1) Est. 2040 Transactions and Revenue

Transactions (000s) Revenue ($000s) (2) Transactions (000s) Revenue ($000s) (2)

Estimate Difference Estimate Difference Estimate Difference Estimate Difference

Base Case

Scenario 1: Partial w/o NWP Ext. 4,832 --- 12,585$ --- 8,542 --- 33,380$ ---

Scenario 2: Partial with NWP Ext. 5,566 --- 14,914 --- 10,280 --- 41,133 ---

Scenario 3: Ultimate w/o NWP Ext. 5,363 --- 13,092 --- 9,890 --- 35,476 ---

Scenario 4: Ultimate with NWP Ext. 6,444 --- 15,975 --- 12,347 --- 44,591 ---

Sensitivity Test 1: Long-Term 25 Percent Reduction in Economic Growth

Scenario 1: Partial w/o NWP Ext. 4,520 (6.5) 11,796$ (6.3) 7,332 (14.2) 28,534$ (14.5)

Scenario 2: Partial with NWP Ext. 5,199 (6.6) 13,945 (6.5) 8,513 (17.2) 33,807 (17.8)

Scenario 3: Ultimate w/o NWP Ext. 4,975 (7.2) 12,189 (6.9) 8,507 (14.0) 30,488 (14.1)

Scenario 4: Ultimate with NWP Ext. 5,988 (7.1) 14,892 (6.8) 10,131 (17.9) 36,597 (17.9)

Sensitivity Test 2: Long-Term 25 Percent Increase in Economic Growth

Scenario 1: Partial w/o NWP Ext. 5,282 9.3 13,786$ 9.5 11,443 34.0 45,025$ 34.9

Scenario 2: Partial with NWP Ext. 6,098 9.5 16,317 9.4 14,388 40.0 57,993 41.0

Scenario 3: Ultimate w/o NWP Ext. 5,861 9.3 14,307 9.3 12,992 31.4 47,282 33.3

Scenario 4: Ultimate with NWP Ext. 7,144 10.9 17,574 10.0 17,194 39.3 62,286 39.7

Sensitivity Test 3: 25 Percent Decreased Value of Time





Sensitivity Test 4: 25 Percent Increased Value of Time





Sensitivity Test 5: Combined “Low” Scenario (25 Percent Lower Growth and 25 Percent Lower Value of Time)





Sensitivity Test 6: Accelerated Toll Rate Increases (3.1 Percent per Year)

Scenario 1: Partial w/o NWP Ext. 4,832 - 12,585$ - 8,130 (4.8) 37,844$ 13.4

Scenario 2: Partial with NWP Ext. 5,566 - 14,914 - 9,742 (5.2) 46,361 12.7

Scenario 3: Ultimate w/o NWP Ext. 5,363 - 13,092 - 9,333 (5.6) 40,271 13.5

Scenario 4: Ultimate with NWP Ext. 6,444 - 15,975 - 11,635 (5.8) 50,448 13.1

Sensitivity Test 7: Combined “High” Scenario (25 Percent Higher Growth and 3.1 Percent Toll Rate Growth)





(1) Ramp-up has been assumed during the first three years of operation. Transactions and revenues are estimated to be 85% of full operation in 2022.


Sensitivity Test


ES-12 April 16, 2018

Disclaimer Current accepted professional practices and procedures were used in the development of these traffic

and revenue estimates. However, as with any forecast of the future, it should be understood that there

may be differences between forecasted and actual results caused by events and circumstances beyond

the control of the forecasters. In formulating its estimates, CDM Smith has reasonably relied upon the

accuracy and completeness of information provided (both written and oral) by the Jefferson Parkway

Public Highway Authority and other local and state agencies. CDM Smith also has relied upon the

reasonable assurances of some independent parties and is not aware of any facts that would make

such information misleading.

CDM Smith has made qualitative judgments related to several key variables in the development and

analysis of the traffic and revenue estimates that must be considered as a whole; therefore, selecting

portions of any individual result without consideration of the intent of the whole may create a

misleading or incomplete view of the results and the underling methodologies used to obtain the

results. CDM Smith gives no opinion as to the value or merit to partial information extracted from this

report.

All forecasts and projections reported herein are based on CDM Smith’s experience and judgment and

on a review of information obtained from multiple state and local agencies, including the Jefferson

Parkway Public Highway Authority, the Denver Regional Council of Governments, and by independent

third parties. These estimates and projections may not be indicative of actual or future values and are

therefore subject to substantial uncertainty. Future developments, economic conditions cannot be

predicted with certainty, and may affect the estimates or projections expressed in this report, such

that CDM Smith does not specifically guarantee or warrant any estimate or projection contained

within this report.

While CDM Smith believes that some of the projections or other forward-looking statements contained

within the report are based on reasonable assumptions as of the date in the report, such forward

looking statements involve risks and uncertainties that may cause actual results to differ materially

from the results predicted. Therefore, following the date of this report, CDM Smith will take no

responsibility or assume any obligation to advise of changes that may affect its assumptions contained

within the report, as they pertain to socioeconomic and demographic forecasts, proposed residential

or commercial land use development projects and/or potential improvements to the regional

transportation network.

The report and its contents are intended solely for use by the JPPHA and designated parties approved

by JPPHA and CDM Smith. Any use by third-parties, other than as noted above, is expressly prohibited.

In addition, any publication of the report for purposes of financing without the express written

consent of CDM Smith is prohibited.

CDM Smith is not, and has not been, a municipal advisor as defined in Federal law (the Dodd Frank Bill) to

the Jefferson Parkway Public Highway Authority and does not owe a fiduciary duty pursuant to Section 15B

of the Exchange Act to the Jefferson Parkway Public Highway Authority with respect to the information and

material contained in this report. CDM Smith is not recommending and has not recommended any action to

the Jefferson Parkway Public Highway Authority. The Jefferson Parkway Public Highway Authority should

discuss the information and material contained in this report with any and all internal and external

advisors that it deems appropriate before acting on this information.

1-1 April 16, 2018

Chapter 1

Introduction

CDM Smith has been requested to provide the Jefferson Parkway Public Highway Authority (JPPHA)

with forecasts of traffic and revenue for the proposed Jefferson Parkway. These forecasts and the

methodology for their development are summarized in this report. This study is intended to assist

JPPHA in the planning and implementation of toll rates, project configurations, and construction

schedules associated with the proposed Jefferson Parkway. This Level-1 “Level 1” study is intended

for use by JPPHA for planning purposes and to solicit interest in the Jefferson Parkway. It does not

constitute a comprehensive study. A further, more detailed analysis would be required to support any

financing effort of the Jefferson Parkway.

As will be reviewed in the remainder of this report, the traffic and revenue forecasts produced by this

analysis were based on a Level 1 analysis of the project that utilized the Denver Region Council of

Governments’ (DRCOG) Focus 2 model. Following a toll sensitivity analysis, preferred toll rates were

selected in cooperation with JPPHA that serve regional mobility interests as well as produce revenues

in support of the Jefferson Parkway. Forecasts of traffic and toll revenue were developed for a Base

Case using these preferred rates under four hypothetical scenarios. Additional sensitivity tests were

also performed to understand the impacts of various key input assumptions. All standard due-

diligence data review and analyses for this study were performed.

This chapter provides a summary of the historical, regional and economic environment in which the

Jefferson Parkway will be developed. In order to develop the long-term traffic and revenue forecasts

for the Jefferson Parkway Corridor, a clear understanding of this environment is key. Major roadways

within the study area are identified. Lastly, the structure for the report is summarized.

Historical Background Denver was established in 1858 following the discovery of gold at the confluence of Cherry Creek and

the South Platte River in what is today known as Lower Downtown (LoDo). The Denver metropolitan

area developed in a radial fashion out from the original industrial districts and rail yards along the

South Platte River. While development along the western edge of the Metro area is constrained by the

foothills of the Rocky Mountains, recently completed transit corridors, such as RTD’s Fastracks West

Line (light rail) to Golden, and the construction of the Gold Line (commuter rail) extending north to

Arvada have renewed prospects for increased residential and non-residential development and

density. Other parts of the Metro Area also continue to experience growth and development pressure,

including the US 36 Corridor between Denver and Boulder, the Northwest Parkway Corridor (and

generally the northern Metro Area), and the E-470 Corridor to the east.

As it relates to the proposed Jefferson Parkway, this additional pressure to develop the western Metro

Area also increases the demand to complete the circumferential highway network. At the moment,

there are many development plans in the Boulder and northern Metro Area, poised to add jobs and

grow the population over the next 20 years. According to the 2017 Economic and Fiscal Benefits of

Development in the Jefferson Parkway Area Study performed by Development Research Partners, the

Jefferson Parkway will stimulate nonresidential development in the area. Without completion of the

Jefferson Parkway, a portion of this development is likely to shift elsewhere in the Metro Area.

Chapter 1 • Introduction

1-2 April 16, 2018

Project Description As shown in Figure 1-1, the proposed Jefferson Parkway will be a 9.2 -mile toll road running along the

northwestern perimeter of the Denver Metro area, forming a portion of the originally conceived I-470,

the outer circumferential highway around Denver. The Jefferson Parkway will extend as a limited-

access expressway, with two lanes of travel in each direction, from SH 128 south of US 36 to SH 93

south of SH 72. It is assumed that the Jefferson Parkway will operate in a cashless environment as an

All Electronic Toll (AET) facility. Customers will be charged a toll either through the use of an

ExpressToll transponder or through the mail via License Plate Tolling (LPT).

Figure 1-1

Project Study Area


1-3 April 16, 2018

Study Area Based on the proposed project limits, the project study area is assumed to extend from US 36 in the

north, to SH 121 in the east, to I-70 in the south and to SH 93 in the west. This study area includes

many roadways that may be affected by the proposed Jefferson Parkway. These roadways include:

▪ US 36 - The relevant section of this roadway is the four-lane limited-access segment between

downtown Denver and Boulder. A tolled express lane is also available in each direction and is

tolled so as to maintain free-flow conditions. US 36 travels through Boulder and Broomfield

Counties, which host some of the highest income residents in the Denver Region;

▪ SH 72 – East of SH 93, SH 72 travels east-west as a two-lane arterial with a posted speed limit

up to60 MPH. Little development currently exists along this segment of the roadway. After

reaching Indiana Street and 86th Parkway, SH 93 turns south through various residential areas

of Arvada. SH 72 remains a two-lane arterial, with turning lanes at local intersections and

variations in posted speed limits. After turning east on W 64th Avenue for 1.5 miles, SH 72

continues south again towards 1-25;

▪ SH 93 – This roadway serves as a link between Golden and Boulder. The majority of SH 93

within the study area is two-lane high-speed arterial through sparsely developed areas.

Posted speed limits are 55 MPH due to various signals, curves and grades. SH 93 provides an

additional climbing lane for some grades;

▪ SH 121 – Located on the eastern end of the study corridor, SH 121 travels north-south

between US 36 and I-70. North of W 92nd Street, SH 121 is a four-lane arterial with a median.

South of W 92nd Street, SH 121 is a six-lane arterial with posted speed limits of 45 MPH. Most

segments include either a center median or center turning lanes. It travels through some of

the more densely population areas of Arvada and serves as an arterial bypass of US 36;

▪ SH 128 – SH 128 travels east-west between SH 93 and SH 121. West of Indiana Street it is a

two-lane arterial with a posted speed limit of 55 MPH. This segment travels through the

Rocky Flats National Wildlife Refuge. East of Indiana Street, SH 128 continues as a two-lane

arterial, with additional turning lanes near local intersections. Posted speed limited vary

through the more developed Interlocken area, as SH 128 provides access to corporate office

parks, residential developments and the Rocky Mountain Metropolitan Airport;

▪ SH 170 – The relevant segment of this roadway travels east and west between US 36 and SH

93. Between US 36 and Center Drive, SH 170 is a four-lane arterial with a posted speed limit

of 35 MPH. It provides access to local retailers in the vicinity of US 36. Further from US 36,

the roadway narrows to a two-lane arterial. Posted speed limits through to SH 93 are 50 MPH

as the road travels through open space and sparsely developed land. The roadway provides a

potential bypass of the proposed Jefferson Parkway for those in Superior and Louisville to SH

93 with its connection to SH 93;

▪ 86th Parkway and W 88th Avenue – These two roadways combine to connect SH 72 to US 36.

The roadways run east-west as a four-lane arterial, separated by a median, and provide access

to numerous residential developments, retail areas and Standley Lake Regional Park. Posted

speed limits on the roadways are 40 MPH; and


1-4 April 16, 2018

▪ Indiana Street – This roadway travels north south between SH 128 and SH 72 through the

Colorado Hills Open Space. In general, Indiana Street is two lanes with a posted speed limit of

50 MPH.

Two major roadways outside this study area may also be impacted by the Jefferson Parkway. These

roadways are:

▪ I-25 – This major interstate runs north-south through the heart of the Denver Metro Region.

Between downtown and E-470, I-25 has three through lanes per direction, with an additional

auxiliary lane between interchanges. Posted speed limits are 65 MPH. In order to ease traffic

congestion on this segment of the interstate, Express Toll Lanes are open between Speer and

120th Avenue. Additional Express Toll Lanes to E-470 are currently under construction; and

▪ Northwest Parkway – This toll facility extends west and south from I-25 to US 36 in the

northwest quadrant of the Denver Metro Area. It is a four-lane, limited-access toll facility with

posted speeds of 75 MPH. It extends approximately 9 miles from the I-25/E-470 interchange

to 96th Street. At 96th Street the Parkway extends south as a four- to six-lane major arterial

for two additional miles to SH 128 with intermediate access to US 36, Interlocken Business

Park and Flatiron Crossing Mall. In addition to the above-referenced interchange at I-25, the

Parkway currently has interchanges with full-directional access at Sheridan Boulevard and US

287.

A number of local roadways in the Interlocken area are also assumed to be impacted by the proposed

Jefferson Parkway. These include Interlocken Boulevard, Simms Street, Eldorado Boulevard,

Boulevard, Interlocken Loop and Candelas Parkway. Many of these roadways will connect to the

Jefferson Parkway at assumed interchanges. Thus, the impacts at these local roadways will vary based

on the specific trips forecasted to use the project.

Report Structure Chapter 2, Traffic Trends provides a profile of historical trends and variations of traffic on existing

roadways within the study area.

Chapter 3, Corridor Growth Assessment provides a summary of the historical growth within the

Denver Metro Region, as well as the socioeconomic forecasts used in the regional travel demand

model to develop the traffic and revenue forecasts.

Chapter 4, Traffic and Revenue Analysis provides a summary of the modeling methodology, future-

year highway network assumptions and the underlying base assumptions used in the modeling

process. The chapter also includes documentation of the toll rate sensitivity analyses along with a 30-

year forecast of traffic and revenue under four Base Case scenarios.

Chapter 5, Sensitivity Analyses provides 30-year traffic and revenue forecasts for six alternate

scenarios and compares each against the Base Case forecasts. The alternate scenarios include

hypothetical changes in future socioeconomic growth forecasts, value of time assumptions and

assumed highway improvements.

2-1

April 16, 2018

Chapter 2

Existing Traffic Trends

Historic and current traffic trends were assembled and reviewed in order to better understand the

existing regional traffic conditions. These include average weekday traffic volumes, hourly traffic

variations, daily and seasonal traffic variations and truck traffic within the study area. Regional speed

data were also reviewed on major arterials, as presented in this chapter. These data were used as part

of the model calibration process and provide a context for the transaction and revenue forecasts.

Existing Traffic The regional travel demand model used in the traffic and revenue forecasting process is based on

annual average weekday traffic (AWDT) volumes. As an aid in the model calibration process, traffic

data were collected at eight locations in November 2017. In addition, traffic data were collected at

various segments and intersections by Michael Baker International (MBI) as a part of Jefferson

Parkway Traffic Modeling Study in 2016, and by HDR and Atkin as a part of Jefferson Parkway

Supplementary Traffic Impact Study. Additional historical traffic counts were obtained from Colorado

Department of Transportation (CDOT) and the Denver Regional Council of Governments (DRCOG) for

major arterial roadways within the project corridor. Table 2-1 and Figure 2-1 summarize and

present these data for selected count locations as AWDT volumes and truck percentages.

Two screenlines were developed to assist the calibration of travel demand model, as illustrated in

Figure 2-1. A screenline is theoretical line across several major roadways. Since volumes can vary by

location, a screenline can represent total movements in the potential market area. Screenline 1 is

located south of SH 128 and Screenline 2 is located south of 82nd Avenue/80th Avenue. Three parallel

roads cross both Screenlines: SH 93, Indiana Street and SR 121. Traffic crossing these screenlines

represents the potential market for the Jefferson Parkway, as the project will draw from the existing

traffic within these corridors. The approximate location of the proposed Jefferson Parkway alignment

is shown in relation to these screenlines in the figure by the dashed red line.

Almost 75,600 vehicles cross Screenline 1 on an average weekday. The volumes across this screenline

are relatively balanced directionally, indicating that daily round trips are captured within the

screenline. The major roadway within the screenline is SH 121, which carried almost 35,000 vehicles

on the average weekday south of SH 128. For the total screenline, almost 20 percent of traffic occurs

during the AM Peak Period (6:30 – 9:00 AM) and 32.5 percent of traffic occurs during the PM Peak

Period (3:00 – 7:00 PM). Truck traffic across the screenline averages 6.4 percent of total average

weekday traffic and ranges between 3.1 and 7.9 percent at individual count locations. The greatest

percentage of trucks was observed at Simms Street.

The total AWDT is higher across the Screenline 2 when compared with Screenline 1, with volumes

totaling just over 100,000 vehicles. As with Screenline 1, the AWDT volumes across this screenline are

relatively balanced directionally and SH 121 carries the highest volume of traffic, with 46,000 vehicles

on an average weekday. The peak period traffic shares are also similar, with 17.6 percent of traffic

occurring during the AM Peak Period and 31.5 percent of traffic occurring during the PM Peak Period.

Truck traffic across Screenline 2 averages 6.0 percent and ranges between 4.8 and 7.9 percent at

individual count locations. The greatest percentage of trucks was observed at Indiana Street.

Chapter 2 • Existing Traffic Trends

2-2 April 16, 2018

Table 2-1

Average Weekday Hourly Traffic Volumes and Truck Percentages at Selected Locations

AM Peak Mid-Day PM Peak Nighttime Percent

Screenline Count ID Location Direction (6:30-9:00 AM) (9:00-3:00 PM) (3:00-7:00 PM) (7:00 6:30 AM) Total Truck

1 1 SH 93 s/o SH 128 (120th Avenue) NB 2,870 3,340 2,860 1,320 10,390 6.0

s/o SH 128 SB 1,290 2,970 4,060 1,380 9,690

2 Indiana Street s/o SH 128 (120th Avenue) NB 1,830 2,010 1,570 890 6,300 3.1

SB 800 1,780 2,830 1,040 6,440

3 Simms Street s/o SH 128 (120th Avenue) NB 1,000 1,260 1,150 450 3,860 7.9

SB 640 1,180 1,660 550 4,020

4 SH 121 (Wadsworth Parkway) s/o SH 128 (120th Avenue) NB 4,070 6,030 3,950 3,220 17,270 7.6

SB 2,340 5,540 6,550 3,280 17,720

Screenline 1 Total 14,840 24,110 24,630 12,130 75,690 6.4

2 5 SH 93 n/o 82nd Avenue NB 2,320 3,650 3,370 1,520 10,860 4.8

s/o 82nd Ave. SB 1,780 4,010 4,060 1,390 11,230

6 Indiana Street n/o 82nd Avenue NB 2,230 3,550 3,430 1,700 10,900 7.9

SB 2,020 3,350 3,930 1,790 11,090

7 Kipling Street n/o 80th Avenue NB 730 1,860 1,910 800 5,310 5.4

SB 1,100 1,750 1,810 750 5,400

8 SH 121 (Wadsworth Parkway) n/o 80th Avenue NB 3,960 8,310 6,680 4,580 23,540 5.8

SB 3,590 8,030 6,520 4,330 22,460

Screenline 2 Total 17,730 34,510 31,710 16,860 100,790 6.0

Additional 9 120th Ave e/o Interlocken Loop EB 1,070 1,740 1,850 730 5,390 6.2

Count Data WB 1,090 1,680 1,720 780 5,270

10 Interlocken Loop n/o 120th Ave NB 1,270 2,130 2,070 780 6,240 6.2

SB 1,050 1,940 1,910 980 5,870

11 Simms St s/o 120th Ave NB 990 1,200 1,250 440 3,870 3.8

SB 640 1,120 1,550 500 3,820

12 120th Ave w/o Simms St EB 1,360 1,970 2,450 840 6,620 8.4

WB 1,510 1,850 1,950 1,020 6,340

13 120th Ave w/o McCaslin Blvd EB 470 720 1,120 350 2,650 9.5

WB 700 810 740 330 2,580

14 McCaslin Blvd n/o 120th Ave NB 1,120 1,480 1,290 660 4,550 7.6

SB 660 1,470 1,690 660 4,470

15 Indiana St s/o 96th Ave NB 2,000 2,360 2,130 1,260 7,750 7.9

SB 890 2,100 2,940 1,390 7,320

16 Coal Creek Canyon w/o Candela's Pkwy EB 500 1,010 1,240 430 3,170 7.2

WB 660 890 790 500 2,840

17 SH 93 s/o 82nd Ave NB 2,530 3,810 3,690 1,980 12,010 11.9

SB 1,810 3,690 4,160 1,600 11,270

18 64th Ave e/o Virgil Way EB 490 1,170 1,500 710 3,870 10.6

WB 700 1,210 1,310 650 3,860

19 Indiana St s/o 72nd Ave NB 1,410 3,120 2,750 1,830 9,100 7.7

SB 1,770 3,400 2,760 1,860 9,790

20 SH 93 s/o Golden Gate Canyon NB 2,700 5,200 5,370 2,970 16,240 8.7

SB 2,980 5,400 4,910 2,430 15,720

21 6th Ave s/o 19th St NB 3,530 6,810 5,750 3,910 20,010 8.9

SB 2,990 6,150 5,940 4,200 19,280

22 SH 93 s/o 82nd Avenue NB 1,990 4,120 4,440 1,640 12,200 N/A

SB 2,690 4,290 3,880 2,090 12,940

23 SH 128 (120th Avenue) e/o Eldorado Boulevard EB 1,480 2,330 2,620 930 7,360 N/A

WB 1,500 2,100 2,100 1,070 6,760

24 Interlocken Loop s/o Eldorado Boulevard NB 1,460 2,600 2,420 920 7,400 N/A

SB 1,120 2,270 2,370 1,190 6,960

Source: 2016 Jefferson Parkway Supplementary Traffic Impact Study; Counts conducted November 2017.


2-3 April 16, 2018

Figure 2-1 Average Weekday Traffic Volumes and Truck Percentages at Selected Count Locations


2-4 April 16, 2018

The remaining traffic count data summarized in the table and figure are located near the proposed

Jefferson Parkway alignment. Observed AWDT volumes within the study area are relatively balanced

directionally. On an average weekday basis, 18.5 percent of traffic occurs during the AM Peak Period

and 32.3 percent of traffic occurs during the PM Peak Period. Truck traffic within the study area

averages 7.4 percent and ranges between 3.1 and 11.9 percent at individual count locations.

Historical Traffic Growth Historical average weekday traffic volumes were available at a limited number of count locations

through Department of Transportation (CDOT) website. Table 2-2 presents the available historical

traffic growth on major roads in the study area. Between 2006 and 2016, traffic growth within the

study area varied from -2.9 percent to 2.0 percent. With exception to SH 93 at north of SH 128 and US

287 at south of Miramonte Boulevard, all corridors experienced positive traffic growth between 2006

and 2016. The ten-year historical traffic growth within the region averaged 0.6 percent, with the

major growth occurring on smaller volume roadways such as SH 93 and SH 128.

Table 2-2 Historical Traffic Growth at Available Count Locations

Monthly Traffic Variations Figure 2-2 provides an index of available 2016 monthly traffic variations at relevant permanent count

locations within the study area. The dashed horizontal line reflects the typical average weekday

volume or an index value of 1.00. In general, average traffic volumes from November through April

were below the annual average, with indexes ranging from 0.88 to 0.95. January and February traffic

volumes would likely be further below the annual average without winter tourism in the region. May

through October were above the annual average with indexes ranging from 1.02 to 1.08. These

monthly variations are consistent with most urban areas, with higher volumes observed during the

summer months and lower volumes during the winter months. Moreover, these observed variations

will likely also be observed on the proposed Jefferson Parkway.

CDOT

Count ID Location 2006 2016

AAPC (1)

(2006 - 2016)

103275 SH 72 Indiana Street n/o 82nd Avenue 16,600 19,400 1.6

103927 SH 93 Foothills Road s/o SH 72 Coal Creek Canyon Road 19,000 23,000 1.9

103929 SH 93 Foothills Road n/o SH 128 18,100 13,500 (2) -2.9

104417 SH 121 Wadsworth Boulevard s/o Pomona Drive 45,000 54,600 (2) 2.0

104422 SH 121 Wadsworth Parkway s/o 104th Avenue 35,900 36,500 (2) 0.2

104523 SH 128 120th Avenue e/o Indiana Street 11,200 12,600 1.2

104524 SH 128 Interlocken Loop ne/o Simms Street 14,800 16,500 1.1

105247 US 287 s/o Miramonte Boulveard 44,500 38,900 -1.4

105248 US 287 n/o Dill Road and Northwest Pkwy 40,500 49,100 2.0

000004 US 36 se/o SH 170 McCaslin Boulevard 77,500 78,700 0.1


(2) Average Weekday Daily volume estimated based on data from prior years.

Source: Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT) count data.


2-5 April 16, 2018

Figure 2-2 2016 Average Monthly Weekday Traffic Variations

Daily Traffic Variations Figure 2-3 provides a summary of 2017 daily traffic variations at relevant permanent count locations

within the study area. The index value of 1.0 represents the annual average daily traffic (AADT)

volume. Weekday indexes range from roughly 1.00 to 1.12, with the highest volumes observed on

Fridays and the lowest volumes observed on Mondays. Mondays tend to have lower traffic volumes

on average due to the number of holidays that occur on Monday. Fridays tend to have higher volumes

because they combine the commuting patterns of the average weekday with the recreations patterns

of the weekend. These patterns are typical of most urban areas. Weekend volumes fall below the

average day, with Saturdays averaging roughly 92 percent of the average day and Sundays averaging

75 percent of the average day. Saturday traffic tends to be the higher of the two weekend days due to

the fact that weekend work-related trips are greater on Saturday than on Sunday.

0.95 0.92 0.88 1.00 1.03 1.04 1.06 1.08 1.08 1.09 0.95 0.94

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

1.2

Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec

US 36 Southeast of SH 121

Month

Average Weekday Traffic

0.93 0.94 0.98 0.97 1.02 1.05 1.01 1.07 1.05 1.05 0.97 0.95

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

1.2

Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec

US 36 South of SH 170

Month

Average Weekday Traffic


2-6 April 16, 2018

Figure 2-3

2016 Average Daily Traffic Variations

Hourly Distribution Figure 2-4 represents typical hourly traffic volumes at six locations along the project screenlines

previously identified. Given that the proposed Jefferson Parkway will draw traffic from these

roadways, the peaking patterns along these screenlines will likely be reflected on the Jefferson

Parkway itself. Additionally, congestion during peak hours will encourage motorists to pay the toll to

take advantage of the potential time savings of the project.

As shown in the figure, the AM peak occurs primarily between 7:00 and 9:00 AM for both screenlines,

while the PM Peak occurs during the four-hour 3:00 to 7:00 PM period. The locations along Screenline

1 indicate an AM Peak in the northbound direction and a PM Peak in the southbound direction. A

smaller southbound AM Peak and northbound PM Peak are also revealed in the figure along

Screenline 1. The locations along Screenline 2 show relatively even directional distribution of traffic.

0.75 0.99 1.05 1.08 1.07 1.12 0.930

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

1.2

Sunday Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday Saturday

US 36 Southeast of SH 121

Day

Average Daily Traffic

0.76 1.00 1.05 1.08 1.08 1.12 0.910

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

1.2

Sunday Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday Saturday

US 36 South of SH 170

Day

Average Daily Traffic


2-7

April 16, 2018

Figure 2-4 Average Weekday Hourly Traffic Distribution


2-8 April 16, 2018

Daily Speed Variation CDM Smith obtained travel time and speed data from INRIX on major routes within the study area.

INRIX is a database of speed information collected passively via GPS-linked devices in car dashboards

and cellular telephones. The data is aggregated by segment and period. Figure 2-5 and Figure 2-6

represents a summary of the average observed weekday speeds for 2016 during the AM Peak (6:30 -

9:00 AM) and PM Peak (3:00 - 7:00 PM) Periods, respectively.

During AM Peak Period, speed conditions tend to be worse in the southern and eastern portions of the

study area. The greatest congestion was observed on SH 72 and McIntyre Street south of 86th

Parkway. Average speeds of 20 to 25 MPH were observed on these segments, with worse conditions

observed near major intersections. Speeds on 30 to 35 MPH were observed on SH 121. SH 93 was

generally free-flow, with speeds observed over 45 MPH except at the intersection with SH 72. Major

congestion was also observed near the US 36 and Interlocken Loop interchange.

PM Peak Period speed conditions were generally observed to similar to those of the AM Peak Period.

However, additional congestion was observed on SH 72 and SH 121. As with the AM Peak Period, the

greatest congestion during the PM Peak Period was observed on SH 72 and McIntyre Street south of

86th Parkway. SH 93 remained generally free-flow during the PM Peak Period, with some congestion

observed at the intersection with SH 72. Conditions observed near the US 36 and Interlocken Loop

interchange appear to be worse during the PM Peak Period.


2-9 April 16, 2018

Figure 2-5 Average Speed Trend During AM Peak Period (6:30 AM - 9:00 AM)


2-10 April 16, 2018

Figure 2-6 Average Speed Trend During PM Peak Period (3:00 PM - 7:00 PM)

3-1

April 16, 2018

Chapter 3

Corridor Growth Assessment

Forecasts of employment, population and household have been developed by the Denver Regional

Council of Governments (DRCOG) as part of the regional travel demand model. These forecasts were

reviewed and adjusted in 2017 by Economic & Planning Systems (EPS) as part of prior studies in the

region performed by CDM Smith. The purpose of the review by EPS was to account for economic and

demographic conditions in a dynamic regional market that continues to change and expand. For the

current Level 1 analysis, the recent adjustments recommended by EPS were considered to still be

reasonable and to be relevant to the proposed Jefferson Parkway.

Presented in this chapter is a summary of the historical socioeconomic variables used in the modeling

process. Additionally, an overview is provided of the work performed to review and update the 2015

to 2035 employment, population and household projections of the Denver Regional Council of

Governments (DRCOG). The findings summarized in this chapter were used as a basic input to the

travel demand model which, in turn, aided in the forecasting of the traffic and revenue potential for

the proposed Jefferson Parkway.

Historical Socioeconomic Trends This section presents the historical socioeconomic growth trends in the study area, concentrating on

the four key variables in the travel demand model: total population, households, employment, and

income. In addition to the relevant counties and the entire State of Colorado, socioeconomic growth is

also shown in the tables for the entire Nation for comparative purposes. Figure 3-1 represents the

regional location of the proposed corridor and adjacent counties. The sources from which this

historical data was collected include: the U.S. Census Bureau for population, household and median

household income data, and the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) for employment data.

Population The population growth trends for the 7-County Denver Metro Region are provided in Table 3-1. The

population data is shown by county for 2000, 2005, 2010 and 2016 based on the latest information

available from the U.S. Census Bureau. It should be noted that Broomfield County was not

consolidated as a county until November 2001. As a result, the total shown for Broomfield County

prior to that date represents the Census blocks currently located with Broomfield County.

As presented in the table, population growth for the 7-County Area has ranged between 1.3 percent

per year and 1.8 percent per year over the last 16 years. Among the seven counties, from 2010

through 2016, Broomfield County exhibited the fastest population growth (2.8 percent) and Jefferson

County exhibited the slowest population growth (1.1 percent). High-growth counties such as Douglas

County and Broomfield County have generally seen a reduction in the rate of growth, bringing them in

line with other counties in the region during recent years. The Jefferson Parkway influence area,

which includes Boulder, Broomfield and Jefferson Counties, grew at an average rate of 0.8 per year

over the last 16 years, which is slower than the overall region. However, the rate of population

growth in the influence area increased in recent years, reaching 1.3 percent per year since 2010.

Chapter 3 • Corridor Growth Analysis

3-2 April 16, 2018

Figure 3-1 Regional Location of Jefferson Parkway and Adjacent Counties

Table 3-1 Historical Growth Trends in Population

AAPC (1) AAPC (1) AAPC (1) AAPC (1)

County 2000 2000 - 2005 2005 2005 - 2010 2010 2010 - 2016 2016 2000 - 2016

Adams County 351,735 2.4 395,384 2.3 443,711 1.9 497,673 2.2

Arapahoe County 490,722 1.5 528,214 1.7 574,819 1.7 637,254 1.6

Boulder County 276,255 0.5 282,910 0.9 295,605 1.4 321,989 1.0

Broomfield County 38,544 4.6 48,251 3.1 56,107 2.8 66,252 3.4

Denver County 556,738 0.1 559,459 1.6 604,879 2.3 693,292 1.4

Douglas County 180,510 6.3 244,442 3.3 287,124 2.3 328,330 3.8

Jefferson County 526,718 -0.1 523,517 0.5 535,651 1.1 571,711 0.5

7-County Total 2,421,222 1.3 2,582,177 1.6 2,797,896 1.8 3,116,501 1.6

Influence Area (2) 841,517 0.3 854,678 0.8 887,363 1.3 959,952 0.8

Colorado Statewide 4,301,261 1.2 4,562,244 1.4 4,887,061 1.5 5,359,295 1.4

US Total 281,421,906 0.5 288,378,137 1.1 303,965,272 0.8 318,558,162 0.8



Source: U.S. Census Bureau

Denver

Int’l

Airport

Golden


3-3 April 16, 2018

The average population growth in the 7-County Area was 1.6 percent per year from 2000 through

2016, increasing from 2.4 million in 2000 to 3.1 million in 2016. This exceeded the Colorado

statewide growth rate of 1.4 percent and the national growth rate of 0.8 percent.

Households Growth in the number of households has historically shown a similar trend to that of population. The

household growth trends for the 7-County Denver Metro Region are provided in Table 3-2. Although

the U.S. Census provides population estimates for Broomfield County prior to the 2010 Census, it does

not do so for other socioeconomic and demographic variables. As a result, households in what is

currently Broomfield County are incorporated into the totals for neighboring counties prior to 2010.

Among the seven counties, from 2010 through 2016, Douglas County exhibited the fastest household

growth (4.0 percent) and Boulder County exhibited the slowest household growth (0.5 percent). The

historical household growth rate in the 7-County Area averaged 1.3 percent per annum, with little

variation over the sixteen-year period. The Jefferson Parkway influence area has increased its number

of households at an average rate of 1.0 per year since 2000, which is just below that of the overall

region. These growth rates would suggest an increase in population density since 2005 given the

faster rate of population increase in the region. Total households in the region increased from 0.9

million in 2000 to 1.2 million in 2016.

Table 3-2 Historical Growth Trends in Households

Average household growth in the 7-County Area and Colorado statewide household growth were

roughly similar in aggregate, but only as a result of higher growth at the state level between 2000 and

2005. Household growth for both the 7-County Area and Colorado exceeded the national household

growth rate of 0.7 percent between 2000 and 2016.

Employment The employment data was obtained from BLS by county for 2000, 2005, 2010 and 2016 based on the

latest information available from the U.S. Census Bureau. Employment data for Broomfield County are

unavailable prior to its consolidation in 2001. Employment in what is currently Broomfield County is

incorporated into the totals for neighboring counties prior to 2001.


County 2000 2000 - 2005 2005 2005 - 2010 2010 2010 - 2016 2016 2000 - 2016

Adams County 128,156 2.0 141,383 0.9 147,951 1.2 158,748 1.3

Arapahoe County 190,909 1.6 206,250 1.2 218,909 1.0 231,844 1.2

Boulder County 114,680 -0.2 113,405 0.7 117,629 0.8 123,669 0.5

Broomfield County - N/A - N/A 20,116 3.4 24,581 N/A

Denver County 239,235 0.2 241,579 1.0 254,181 1.7 281,072 1.0

Douglas County 60,924 7.5 87,654 2.4 98,725 2.4 114,017 4.0

Jefferson County 206,067 0.5 211,394 0.5 217,018 0.6 225,320 0.6

7-County Total 939,971 1.3 1,001,665 1.4 1,074,529 1.3 1,159,251 1.3

Influence Area (2) 320,747 0.3 324,799 1.8 354,763 0.9 373,570 1.0

Colorado Statewide 1,658,238 1.9 1,819,037 1.1 1,918,959 1.1 2,051,616 1.3

US Total 105,480,101 1.0 111,090,617 0.6 114,235,996 0.5 117,716,237 0.7





3-4 April 16, 2018

The employment trends, presented in Table 3-3, resemble the overall economic cycle with relatively

lower growth in the 2000s and a recovery after 2010. For the 7-County Area, employment decreased

by an average of 0.4 percent per year between 2000 and 2005 and then remained flat through 2010.

Since 2010 and as part of the overall economic recovery following the Great Recession of 2008-2009,

the 7-County Area has experienced employment growth averaging 3.1 percent per year. Sixteen-year

employment growth has averaged 1.0 percent per year, with total employment increasing from 1.3

million in 2000 to 1.6 million in 2016. Among the seven counties, between 2010 and 2016, Adams

County and Douglas County exhibited the greatest annual growth in employment, and Boulder County

exhibited the slight decreases in employment. Within the Jefferson Parkway influence area,

employment increased at an average rate of 0.9 per year since 2000, with the majority of the growth

occurring between 2010 and 2016.

Table 3-3 Historical Growth Trends in Employment

Average employment growth in the 7-County Area and Colorado statewide employment growth were

roughly similar in aggregate, with the State of Colorado averaging 0.9 percent growth per year

between 2000 and 2016. Employment growth for both the 7-County Area and Colorado exceeded the

national employment growth rate of 0.5 percent over the same period.

Median Household Income Median Household Income is an important socioeconomic factor as it relates to how much motorists

are willing to pay in tolls in order to obtain travel time savings over congested arterials. The median

household income for the 7-County Area in 2016 inflation-adjusted dollars is provided in Table 3-4.

Again, socioeconomic variables for Broomfield County are unavailable prior to the 2010 Census.

Overall, Douglas County exhibits the highest median household income ($105,759) and Denver County

exhibits the lowest median income ($56,258) among the seven counties. After 2010, all counties

except Douglas and Jefferson County exhibited positive growth in median household income. With the

exception of Denver County, median household income showed a declining trend between 2000 and

2016, with an average annual decrease of 0.3 percent per year. This is primarily due to the

recessionary pressures experienced between 2000 and 2010 in the regional and nationwide.


County 2000 2000 - 2005 2005 2005 - 2010 2010 2010 - 2016 2016 2000 - 2016

Adams County 144,502 0.4 147,682 0.0 147,987 5.0 198,368 2.0

Arapahoe County 283,927 -0.9 271,270 -0.1 270,339 2.9 321,758 0.8

Boulder County 179,599 -3.0 154,367 -0.3 152,118 2.5 176,652 -0.1

Broomfield County - N/A 28,738 0.8 29,919 3.6 36,968 N/A

Denver County 468,995 -2.0 424,659 -0.2 420,505 2.8 494,890 0.3

Douglas County 56,656 7.9 82,930 1.6 89,826 4.5 116,821 4.6

Jefferson County 210,315 -0.4 206,031 -0.3 202,557 2.4 233,337 0.7

7-County Total 1,343,994 -0.4 1,315,677 0.0 1,313,251 3.1 1,578,794 1.0

Influence Area (2) 389,914 0.0 389,136 -0.2 384,594 2.5 446,957 0.9

Colorado Statewide 2,185,010 0.0 2,189,516 -0.1 2,176,986 2.7 2,558,997 1.0

US Total 129,879,584 0.3 131,571,623 -0.6 127,820,442 1.7 141,546,742 0.5



Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics


3-5 April 16, 2018

Table 3-4 Historical Growth Trends in Median Household Income (in 2016 Inflation-Adjusted Dollars)

As shown in the table, trends for the Jefferson Parkway influence area were comparable to those of the

7-County Area. Average median household income growth in the 7-County Area and Colorado

statewide household growth were roughly similar in aggregate, and have mirrored national trends.

Over the last 16 years, median household income has declined by 0.3 percent at all analysis levels.

Socioeconomic Forecasts Forecasts of employment, population and household have been developed by DRCOG as part of the

regional travel demand model. These forecasts were recently reviewed and adjusted by EPS as part of

prior CDM Smith studies in the region. The methodology for this growth assessment incorporated a

review and analysis of the model input variables from both a macroscopic (county) and microscopic

(Transportation Analysis Zone [TAZ]) perspective. This included a review of the Base Year 2015

population, household and employment numbers, an independent analysis of regional and sub-

regional projections and a TAZ-level assessment of the major developments within the Denver region.

The result of this review was a set of updated forecasts of population, households, and employment.

These forecasts, referred to hereafter as the “EPS” forecasts, were then used to develop updated trip

matrices using the DRCOG Focus 2 model process for the purposes of running traffic assignments in

the regional travel demand model.

It should be noted that Development Research Partners prepared a recent study, “The Economic Fiscal

Benefits of Development in the Jefferson Parkway Area”, for Jefferson County Economic Development

Corporation, October 2017. The report presents the development and net benefits associated with the

Jefferson Parkway. Based on the EPS methodology, the current Level 1 analysis of the proposed

Jefferson Parkway considered the developments identified by the Development Research Partners

report as part of the socioeconomic inputs to the extent that those developments were currently

scheduled for construction or were likely to be constructed.

For the current Level 1 analysis, the recent adjustments recommended by EPS were considered to still

be reasonable and to be relevant to the proposed Jefferson Parkway. The following sections present

the EPS forecasts by county and it should be noted that forecasted growth rates presented in this


County 2000 2000 - 2005 2005 2005 - 2010 2010 2010 - 2016 2016 2000 - 2016

Adams County 65,810$ -1.1 62,255$ -0.7 60,163$ 0.4 61,444$ -0.4

Arapahoe County 74,390 -2.0 67,403 -0.8 64,624 0.4 66,288 -0.7

Boulder County 77,606 -1.9 70,677 0.2 71,359 0.2 72,282 -0.4

Broomfield County - N/A - N/A 83,191 0.0 83,334 N/A

Denver County 54,801 -1.0 52,078 -0.8 50,077 2.0 56,258 0.2

Douglas County 115,100 -1.3 107,757 0.3 109,174 -0.5 105,759 -0.5

Jefferson County 79,553 -1.2 74,908 -0.6 72,720 -0.2 72,017 -0.6

7-County Total 72,397$ -1.1 68,466$ -0.3 67,382$ 0.4 69,189$ -0.3

Influence Area (2) 78,857$ -1.4 73,431$ -0.2 72,862$ 0.0 72,849$ -0.5

Colorado Statewide 65,523$ -1.0 62,257$ 0.0 62,133$ 0.1 62,520$ -0.3

US Total 58,333$ -0.5 56,837$ 0.1 57,135$ -0.5 55,322$ -0.3





3-6 April 16, 2018

chapter reflect long-term rates, and that actual year-over-year growth may be higher or lower than

projected, as growth does not often occur linearly.

Population The forecasted population growth trends for the 7-County Denver Metro Region are provided in Table

3-5, along with the actual 2005 population data for historical context. Among the seven counties, all

counties are estimated to experience population growth from 2015 through 2035. Under the EPS

forecasts, Adams County is estimated to add the most people (193,400) by 2035, followed by

Arapahoe (163,700) and Douglas (134,700) Counties. Broomfield County is estimated to add the least

population (35,400) by 2035. In terms of the forecasted growth rate, Broomfield County is estimated

to have the fastest population growth and Jefferson County is estimated to have the slowest. As per

the EPS forecasts, the average population growth in the Jefferson Parkway influence area is estimated

to be 0.9 percent per year from 2015 through 2035, increasing from 0.9 million in 2015 to 1.1 million

in 2035. This is slightly lower than the 7-County Area average growth rate of 1.2 percent.

Table 3-5 Forecasted Growth Trends in Population

Households As was observed historically, the growth in the number of households is expected to follow a similar

growth trend to that of population. The forecasted growth trends for households, along with the

actual 2005 data. in the 7-County Denver Metro Region are provided in Table 3-6. As with

population, all counties are estimated to experience growth in the number of households between

2015 and 2035. Under the EPS forecasts, Adams County is estimated to add the most households

(82,500) by 2035, while Broomfield County is estimated to add the least (14,500). Broomfield County

is estimated to have the fastest household growth and Jefferson County is estimated to have the

slowest. Similar to the population forecast, households in the Jefferson Parkway influence area are

estimated to increase at a slightly slower rate (0.3 percent per year) than the 7-County Area.

2015 - 2035



Adams County 395,384 2.2 491,335 1.7 581,006 1.7 684,728 193,393 9,670 1.7

Arapahoe County 528,214 1.8 631,086 1.3 720,595 1.0 794,818 163,732 8,187 1.2

Boulder County 282,910 1.2 319,387 1.1 354,906 0.7 378,685 59,298 2,965 0.9


Denver County 559,459 2.0 682,545 0.9 745,607 0.8 805,602 123,057 6,153 0.8

Douglas County 244,442 2.8 322,391 2.0 393,369 1.5 457,048 134,657 6,733 1.8


7-County Total 2,582,177 1.8 3,077,333 1.3 3,491,049 1.1 3,875,629 798,296 39,915 1.2

Influence Area (3) 854,678 1.1 949,976 1.0 1,050,472 0.8 1,133,433 183,457 9,173 0.9






3-7 April 16, 2018

Table 3-6 Forecasted Growth Trends in Households

Employment The forecasted employment growth trends for the 7-County Denver Metro Region are provided in

Table 3-7, along with actual 2005 employment data for historical context. Among the seven counties,

all counties are estimated to experience employment growth from 2015 through 2035. Under the EPS

forecasts, Arapahoe County is estimated to add the most jobs (102,000) by 2035, followed by Adams

(96,000) and Denver (93,900) Counties. Broomfield County is estimated to add the least number of

jobs (14,500) by 2035. In terms of the forecasted growth rate, Broomfield County is estimated to have

the fastest household growth and Jefferson County is estimated to have the slowest. According to the

EPS forecasts, the average employment growth in the Jefferson Parkway influence area will be 1.1

percent per year from 2015 through 2035, increasing from 0.4 million in 2015 to 0.5 million in 2035.

This is just below the 7-County Area growth rate of 1.3 percent.

Table 3-7 Forecasted Growth Trends in Employment

2015 - 2035



Adams County 141,383 1.2 159,313 2.4 202,496 1.8 241,809 82,496 4,125 2.1

Arapahoe County 206,250 1.3 233,947 1.4 269,460 1.1 300,271 66,324 3,316 1.3

Boulder County 113,405 0.9 124,615 1.3 141,594 0.8 153,568 28,953 1,448 1.1

Broomfield County - N/A 25,553 2.6 32,872 2.0 40,062 14,509 725 2.3

Denver County 241,579 1.7 287,070 1.0 317,890 0.9 349,027 61,957 3,098 1.0

Douglas County 87,654 3.1 118,609 2.4 149,659 1.8 178,302 59,693 2,985 2.1


7-County Total 1,001,665 1.6 1,176,036 1.5 1,364,916 1.2 1,533,597 357,561 17,878 1.3

Influence Area (3) 324,799 1.5 377,097 1.2 425,411 0.9 464,188 87,091 4,355 1.0





2015 - 2035



Adams County 147,682 2.7 191,878 2.3 239,871 1.8 287,844 95,966 4,798 2.0

Arapahoe County 271,270 1.6 316,496 1.5 368,751 1.3 418,489 101,993 5,100 1.4

Boulder County 154,367 1.1 172,698 1.0 190,760 0.9 208,525 35,827 1,791 0.9


Denver County 424,659 1.2 478,260 0.9 525,244 0.9 572,191 93,931 4,697 0.9

Douglas County 82,930 3.1 112,880 1.9 136,837 1.5 158,888 46,008 2,300 1.7


7-County Total 1,315,677 1.6 1,536,532 1.4 1,759,766 1.2 1,977,993 441,461 22,073 1.3

Influence Area (3) 389,136 1.2 437,018 1.1 489,063 1.0 540,581 103,563 5,178 1.1

(1) Bureau of Labor Statistics.




4-1

April 16, 2018

Chapter 4

Traffic and Revenue Analysis

Chapter 4 provides a summary of the traffic and revenue forecasts for the proposed Jefferson

Parkway. The chapter details the proposed project configuration and proposed toll rates, as well as

the assumptions underlying these forecasts, such as values of time, vehicle operating costs and toll

revenue leakage. The following text presents the analytical methodology, study assumptions, steps

taken to reflect the latest socioeconomic forecasts, and the results of an analysis of a toll sensitivity

analysis. The final products of the study, as summarized in this chapter, are the estimates of annual

traffic and toll revenue for the Jefferson Parkway. Additional sensitivity tests were also conducted to

estimate the impacts of various future year highway improvements or of modifying input

assumptions, such as value of time.

Model Development As part of this Level 1 traffic and revenue study, a regional travel demand model was employed to

assist with the estimation of the future year transactions and toll revenue estimates. The travel

demand modeling undertaken for this study utilized, as the basic modeling platform, the Denver

Regional Council of Governments’ (DRCOG) Focus 2 travel demand model. The model area covers

eleven counties within the Denver metropolitan area and is divided into approximately 2,800 traffic

analysis zones (TAZ). The Focus 2 travel demand model used in this study was developed at an

average weekday level and included a 2016 base year and future years: 2022, 2035 and 2040.

Unlike prior models developed by DRCOG, the Focus 2 model is an activity-based model. This

modeling process differs from the traditional four-step modeling process in that it seeks to estimate

trips and travel patterns based on the likely decisions and travel behaviors of individuals over the

course of a typical weekday, as opposed to using trip generation assumptions based on aggregate

socioeconomic and demographic estimates. This process is an improvement over the traditional four-

step modeling process in that it links together and adjusts trips based on changes in socioeconomic

assumptions and time-of-day preferences. Based on the trips generated through the synthesized

population process, the model then develops a traditional origin and destination trip table matrix

linked to the TAZs. These trip table matrices, which are provided by time period, serve as inputs to

the final traffic assignment step used to develop estimates of traffic volumes by roadway link across

the model highway network.

CDM Smith has utilized the DRCOG Focus 2 model during prior studies within the region. Additional

refinements were made to the model as part of these prior analyses, including a review of the regional

socioeconomic input variables (as described in Chapter 3), a review of the regional highway network

and assumed highway improvements, origin-destination travel patterns based on recent survey data,

and additional calibration adjustments. Given these additional refinements and updates, the modified

DRCOG model was deemed appropriate for use in this Level 1 study of the Jefferson Parkway. The

following section describes the major refinements made to the DRCOG Focus 2 model as part of prior

efforts, as well as the additional adjustments made specifically as part of this study.

Chapter 4 • Traffic and Revenue Analysis

4-2 April 16, 2018

Land Use and Demographic Assumptions A summary of the socio-economic forecast assumptions for years 2015, 2025, and 2035 were

provided in Chapter 3. As part of a recent prior study, independent economist Economic & Planning

Systems (EPS) reviewed the DRCOG forecasts for population, household and employment and

provided recommended updates based on their review of regional development. These

recommendations were ultimately used by DRCOG staff to generate new trip table matrices based on

the updated forecasts. The traffic and revenue estimates developed in this study were based on these

updated forecasts and trip tables.

Assumed Payment Types and ExpressToll Market Participation Rates Consistent with other local toll roads, it was assumed that the Jefferson Parkway will employ a totally

cashless toll collection system, providing two methods of toll payment: ExpressToll and License Plate

Toll (LPT). For ExpressToll transactions, the customer is issued a transponder tag that is read by

overhead equipment at the toll gantries. The appropriate toll is then automatically debited from their

ExpressToll account, which is replenished as needed automatically for credit card accounts and via

mailed invoice for check paying customers. With LPT, a picture of the customer’s license plate is taken

and connected to an address obtained from the Department of Motor Vehicles.

The market share of ExpressToll and LPT customers for this analysis was based on historic trends

from other Denver toll facilities and anticipated future increases. The ExpressToll market share was

assumed to be 72 percent in 2022, and to increase to 75 percent for 2035. Beyond 2035, estimated

ExpressToll participation rates are forecasted to remain relatively constant over the forecast period.

These assumptions were used as input to the traffic modeling process for each model year and

represent the total ExpressToll market participation for the model area.

Adaptation of Trip Tables For the purposes of the travel demand model, the updated trip matrices were disaggregated into the

ExpressToll and LPT payment types. This was done in order to perform traffic assignments based on

method of toll payment using CDM Smith’s proprietary toll diversion algorithms. Based on prior study

experience, this adjustment improves the modeling, calibration and traffic and revenue forecasts and

produces results that more accurately reflect actual traffic conditions.

Additionally, the regional travel demand trip tables were split between passenger cars and commercial vehicles. Commercial vehicles were estimated to represent 4 percent of all trips within the model area, based on the vehicle type split assumed by DRCOG and the observed percent of truck traffic on other Denver toll facilities.

The Focus 2 model also employs a time-of-day model, meaning that the average weekday model is run

separately for various time periods. Since hourly traffic volumes were not necessary at this level of

analysis, four time periods were developed in order to model peak and off-peak travel patterns:

▪ AM peak period (6:30 AM – 9:00 AM);

▪ Midday period (9:00 AM – 3:00 PM);

▪ PM peak period (3:00 PM - 7:00 PM); and

▪ Nighttime period (7:00 PM – 6:30 AM).

This adjustment allowed for a simplification of the modelling process while maintaining a distinction

in hourly variations in congestion typical of urban toll facilities.


4-3 April 16, 2018

Roadway and Transit Network Review A thorough review was completed of the roadway and transit networks included in the base DRCOG

travel demand models for the base and future years. Beginning with the 2016 model, a thorough

review of the road network, functional classifications, and lanes was completed to ensure consistency

with the existing network. The forecast year networks included in the base DRCOG models were then

reviewed and compared to the DRCOG 2040 Fiscally Constrained Regional Transportation Plan (RTP)

(Cycle 2, 2015). The planning document identifies new roadways, additional lanes, and additions to

the transit network consistent with the current FasTracks regional rapid transit expansion plans. A

listing of the regional Metro Vision projects within the study area is included as Table 4-1.

The toll forecasting process was designed to provide traffic revenue forecasts for interim years

between the available travel demand model years (2016, 2022, 2035 and 2040). In order to develop

forecasts for the Jefferson Parkway that were more representative of existing travel demands

throughout the system, the RTP was reviewed to determine if any projects have already been

completed since the models were established in 2015. Several key projects were identified, and the

improvements were added into the base 2016 travel demand model. Specific key projects identified

are listed below.

▪ I-25 Widening – Widening between Ridge Gate Parkway and County Line Road was

completed in 2016. This project increased the number of through lanes from six to eight.

▪ I-25 Managed Lanes – A single new managed lane in each direction was added between US

36 and 120th Avenue, with the improvement opening in 2016.

▪ US 36 Managed Lanes – A single new managed lane in each direction was added between I-

25 and Table Mesa Drive, with the improvement opening in 2015.

Besides the Jefferson Parkway itself, three specific future-year corridor improvements were explored

based on their relation to the RTP listing. These improvements represent significant improvements

within the region and were incorporated into the future year highway networks.

▪ I-70 East Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) – The I-70 East EIS included a

Record of Decision and the resulting improvements were included in the RTP. Improvements

to I-70 between I-25 and Chambers Road have been scheduled for completion by 2024 and

include the addition of a new managed lane in each direction.

▪ C-470 Toll Express Lanes – The C-470 Corridor Coalition completed the environmental

planning process and improvements were included in the RTP. Anticipated opening day of the

first stage, which includes a single managed lane between Wadsworth Boulevard and I-25 in

each direction, is expected during 2018. A second stage of development extends the single

managed lane to Kipling Street and provides a second managed lane for the eastern portion of

the corridor. This second stage is expected to be complete by 2034.

▪ I-25 Managed Lanes Extension – The RTP listing includes the extension of the single

managed lanes in each direction along I-25 between 120th Avenue and SH 7.


4-4 April 16, 2018

Faci

lity

Nam

eFr

om

ToIm

pro

vem

en

tLe

ngt

hC

ou

nti

es

20

22

E-4

70

Par

ker

Rd

.Q

uin

cy A

ve.

Wid

en f

rom

4 t

o 6

lan

es8

.1A

rap

aho

e/D

ou

glas

20

22

E-4

70

48

th A

ve.

Ad

d N

ew In

terc

han

geA

dam

s

20

22

E-4

70

88

th A

ve.

Ad

d N

ew In

terc

han

geA

dam

s

20

35

10

4th

Ave

.G

ran

dvi

ew P

on

ds

McK

ay R

d.

Wid

en f

rom

2 t

o 4

Lan

es0

.7A

dam

s2

03

51

04

th A

ve.

US-

85

SH-2

Wid

en f

rom

2 t

o 4

Lan

es1

.8A

dam

s2

03

51

44

th A

ve.

US-

28

7Zu

ni S

t.W

iden

fro

m 2

to

4 L

anes

3.5

Bro

om

fiel

d2

03

51

44

th A

ve.

Was

hin

gto

n S

t.Yo

rk S

t.W

iden

fro

m 2

to

4 L

anes

1.0

Ad

ams

20

35

14

4th

Ave

.Yo

rk S

t.C

olo

rad

o B

lvd

.W

iden

fro

m 2

to

4 L

anes

1.0

Ad

ams

20

35

16

0th

Ave

.Lo

wel

l Blv

d.

Sher

idan

Pkw

y.N

ew 2

Lan

es1

.0B

roo

mfi

eld

20

35

48

th A

ve.

Pic

adill

y R

d.

Po

wh

ato

n R

d.

New

6 L

anes

3.0

Ad

ams

20

35

56

th A

ve.

Du

nki

rk S

t.H

imal

aya

St.

Wid

en f

rom

4 t

o 6

Lan

es0

.5D

enve

r2

03

55

6th

Ave

.E-

47

0Im

bo

den

Rd

.W

iden

fro

m 2

to

6 L

anes

7.0

Ad

ams

20

35

56

th A

ve.

Hav

ana

St.

Pen

a B

lvd

.W

iden

fro

m 2

to

6 L

anes

4.3

Den

ver

20

35

56

th A

ve.

Him

alay

a St

.P

icad

illy

Rd

.W

iden

fro

m 2

to

6 L

anes

1.0

Den

ver

20

35

56

th A

ve.

Pen

a B

lvd

.To

wer

Rd

.W

iden

fro

m 4

to

6 L

anes

0.7

Den

ver

20

35

56

th A

ve.

Pic

adill

y R

d.

E-4

70

Wid

en f

rom

2 t

o 6

Lan

es1

.0A

dam

s2

03

56

4th

Ave

.D

enve

r/A

uro

ra C

ity

Lim

itH

imal

aya

St.

Wid

en f

rom

2 t

o 6

Lan

es0

.5A

dam

s2

03

56

4th

Ave

.H

arve

st R

d.

Po

wh

ato

n R

d.

New

2 L

anes

1.0

Ad

ams

20

35

64

th A

ve.

Him

alay

a R

d.

Har

vest

Rd

.W

iden

fro

m 2

to

4 L

anes

3.0

Ad

ams

20

35

64

th A

ve.

Po

wh

ato

n R

d.

Mo

nag

han

Rd

.N

ew 4

Lan

es1

.0A

dam

s2

03

56

4th

Ave

.To

wer

Rd

.D

enve

r/A

uro

ra C

ity

Lim

its

Wid

en f

rom

2 t

o 4

Lan

es0

.5D

enve

r2

03

56

th A

ve.

Air

po

rt B

lvd

.To

wer

Rd

.W

iden

fro

m 2

to

6 L

anes

1.0

Ara

pah

oe

20

35

6th

Ave

./6

th P

kwy.

6th

Pkw

y.H

arve

st R

d.

Wid

en f

rom

2 t

o 6

Lan

es0

.4A

rap

aho

e2

03

56

th A

ve./

SH 3

0To

wer

Rd

.6

th P

kwy.

Wid

en f

rom

2 t

o 6

Lan

es1

.6A

rap

aho

e2

03

56

th P

kwy

SH-3

0E-

47

0N

ew 2

Lan

e R

oad

1.3

Ara

pah

oe

20

35

6th

Pkw

y.E-

47

0G

un

Clu

b R

d.

Wid

en f

rom

2 t

o 6

Lan

es0

.3A

rap

aho

e2

03

59

6th

St.

96

th S

t. a

t N

ort

hw

est

Pkw

y.SH

-12

8A

dd

To

ll La

nes

2.3

Bro

om

fiel

d2

03

5A

rap

aho

e R

d.

Pin

ey C

reek

Cir

cle

Him

alay

a St

.W

iden

fro

m 4

to

6 L

anes

1.3

Ara

pah

oe

20

35

Bro

nco

s P

kwy.

Jord

an R

d.

Par

ker

Rd

.W

iden

fro

m 4

to

6 L

anes

0.8

Ara

pah

oe

20

35

Bro

nco

s P

kwy.

(Ea

ster

Ave

.)H

avan

a St

.P

eori

a St

.W

iden

fro

m 4

to

6 L

anes

1.0

Ara

pah

oe

20

35

Bu

ckle

y R

d.

11

8th

Ave

.C

amer

on

Dr.

Wid

en f

rom

2 t

o 6

Lan

es1

.3A

dam

s2

03

5B

uck

ley

Rd

.1

36

th A

ve.

Bro

mle

y Ln

.W

iden

fro

m 2

to

4 la

nes

2.0

Ad

ams

20

35

C-4

70

Co

lora

do

Blv

d.

Wad

swo

rth

Blv

d.

WB

: A

dd

New

Man

aged

Lan

es8

.2D

ou

glas

/Jef

fers

on

20

35

C-4

70

I-2

5C

olo

rad

o B

lvd

.W

B:

Ad

d N

ew M

anag

ed L

anes

4.1

Do

ugl

as2

03

5C

-47

0W

adsw

ort

h B

lvd

.I-

25

EB:

Ad

d N

ew M

anag

ed L

anes

10

.8D

ou

glas

/Jef

fers

on

20

35

Ch

amb

ers

Rd

.M

ain

Str

eet

Lin

coln

Ave

.W

iden

fro

m 2

to

4 L

anes

1.4

Do

ugl

as2

03

5E.

Bro

mle

y Ln

.To

wer

Rd

.I-

76

Wid

en f

rom

4 t

o 6

Lan

es1

.1A

dam

s2

03

5E-

47

0I-

76

So

uth

Ram

ps

Ad

d N

ew In

terc

han

geA

dam

s

Ne

two

rk Y

ear

of

Imp

rove

me

nt

Tab

le 4

-1

Pro

gram

med

Reg

ion

al H

igh

way

Imp

rove

men

ts


4-5 April 16, 2018

Faci

lity

Nam

eFr

om

ToIm

pro

vem

en

tLe

ngt

hC

ou

nti

es

20

35

E-4

70

Po

tom

acA

dd

New

Inte

rch

ange

Ad

ams

20

35

Gre

en V

alle

y R

anch

Blv

d.

Ch

amb

ers

Rd

.Te

lluri

de

St.

Wid

en f

rom

4 t

o 6

Lan

es1

.5D

enve

r2

03

5G

reen

Val

ley

Ran

ch B

lvd

.C

ham

ber

s R

d.

Pen

a B

lvd

.W

iden

fro

m 2

to

4 L

anes

1.0

Den

ver

20

35

Gre

en V

alle

y R

anch

Blv

d.

Tellu

rid

e St

.To

wer

Rd

.W

iden

fro

m 4

to

6 L

anes

0.5

Den

ver

20

35

Gu

n C

lub

Rd

.1

.5 M

iles

s/o

f Q

uin

cy A

ve.

Qu

incy

Ave

.W

iden

fro

m 2

to

6 L

anes

1.6

Ara

pah

oe

20

35

Ham

pd

en A

ve.

Pic

adill

y R

d.

Gu

n C

lub

Rd

.W

iden

fro

m 2

to

4 L

anes

1.1

Ara

pah

oe

20

35

Har

vest

Rd

.5

6th

Ave

.6

4th

Ave

.N

ew 3

Lan

es1

.0A

dam

s2

03

5H

arve

st R

d.

6th

Ave

.I-

70

New

6 L

anes

1.1

Ad

ams

20

35

Har

vest

Rd

.A

lam

eda

Ave

.6

th A

ve.

Wid

en f

rom

3 t

o 6

Lan

es1

.0A

rap

aho

e2

03

5H

arve

st R

d.

I-7

05

6th

Ave

.N

ew 6

Lan

es4

.1A

dam

s2

03

5H

arve

st R

d.

Mis

siss

ipp

i Ave

.A

lam

eda

Ave

.N

ew 6

Lan

es1

.0A

rap

aho

e2

03

5H

uro

n S

t.1

50

th A

ve.

16

0th

Ave

.W

iden

fro

m 2

to

4 la

nes

1.3

Bro

om

fiel

d2

03

5H

uro

n S

t.1

60

th A

ve.

SH-7

Wid

en f

rom

2 t

o 4

lan

es1

.2B

roo

mfi

eld

20

35

I-2

51

20

th A

ve.

SH-7

Ad

d 1

To

ll/M

anag

ed L

ane

each

dir

ecti

on

6.0

Ad

ams/

Bro

om

fiel

d2

03

5I-

25

US-

36

Tho

rnto

n P

kwy.

Ad

d 1

New

SB

Lan

e2

.8A

dam

s2

03

5I-

70

Har

vest

Rd

.A

dd

New

Inte

rch

ange

Ad

ams/

Ara

pah

oe

20

35

I-7

0I-

25

Ch

amb

ers

Rd

.A

dd

2 N

ew M

anag

ed L

anes

3.8

Den

ver/

Ad

ams

20

35

I-7

0P

icad

illy

Rd

.A

dd

New

Inte

rch

ange

Ad

ams

20

35

Jew

ell A

ve.

E-4

70

Gu

n C

lub

Rd

.W

iden

fro

m 2

to

6 L

anes

0.5

Ara

pah

oe

20

35

Jew

ell A

ve.

Gu

n C

lub

Rd

.H

arve

st R

d.

Wid

en f

rom

2 t

o 6

Lan

es1

.0A

rap

aho

e2

03

5Je

wel

l Ave

.H

imal

aya

Rd

.E-

47

0W

iden

fro

m 3

to

6 L

anes

1.4

Ara

pah

oe

20

35

Lin

coln

Ave

.K

eyst

on

e B

lvd

.P

arke

r R

d.

Wid

en f

rom

4 t

o 6

Lan

es1

.6D

ou

glas

20

35

Lin

coln

Ave

.P

eori

a St

.1

st A

ve.

Wid

en f

rom

4 t

o 6

Lan

es0

.7D

ou

glas

20

35

Pen

a B

lvd

.Ja

ckso

n G

ap S

t. W

est

Ram

ps

DIA

Ter

min

alW

iden

fro

m 6

to

8 L

anes

1.7

Den

ver

20

35

Pen

a B

lvd

.To

wer

Rd

.A

dd

on

-ram

p t

o W

B P

ena

Den

ver

20

35

Pen

a B

lvd

.I-

70

E-4

70

Wid

en f

rom

4 t

o 8

Lan

es6

.4D

enve

r2

03

5P

eori

a St

.E-

47

0.7

5 m

iles

s/o

Lin

coln

Ave

.W

iden

fro

m 2

to

4 L

anes

1.9

Do

ugl

as2

03

5P

icad

illy

Rd

.4

8th

Ave

.5

6th

Ave

.W

iden

fro

m 2

to

6 la

nes

1.2

Ad

ams

20

35

Pic

adill

y R

d.

56

th A

ve.

70

th A

ve./

Au

rora

Cit

y Li

mit

sN

ew 6

Lan

es1

.7A

dam

s2

03

5P

icad

illy

Rd

.6

th A

ve.

Co

lfax

Ave

.W

iden

fro

m 2

to

6 L

anes

1.6

Ara

pah

oe

20

35

Pic

adill

y R

d.

70

th A

ve.

82

nd

Ave

.N

ew 6

Lan

es1

.5D

enve

r2

03

5P

icad

illy

Rd

.C

olf

ax A

ve.

I-7

0N

ew 6

Lan

es0

.3A

dam

s2

03

5P

icad

illy

Rd

.Je

wel

l Ave

.6

th P

kwy.

New

4 L

anes

2.7

Ara

pah

oe

20

35

Pic

adill

y R

d.

l-7

0Sm

ith

Rd

.W

iden

fro

m 2

to

6 L

anes

0.5

Ad

ams

20

35

Pic

adill

y R

d.

Smit

h R

d.

48

th A

ve.

Wid

en f

rom

2 t

o 6

Lan

es2

.2A

dam

s2

03

5Q

ueb

ec S

t.1

20

th A

ve.

12

8th

Ave

.W

iden

fro

m 2

to

4 L

anes

1.0

Ad

ams

20

35

Qu

ebec

St.

13

2n

d A

ve.

16

0th

Ave

.W

iden

fro

m 2

to

4 L

anes

3.S

Ad

ams

20

35

Qu

incy

Ave

.P

lain

s P

kwy.

/Co

pp

erle

af B

lvd

.G

un

Clu

b R

d.

Wid

en f

rom

2 t

o 6

Lan

es0

.6A

rap

aho

e

Ne

two

rk Y

ear

of

Imp

rove

me

nt

Tab

le 4

-1 (

Co

nti

nu

ed)

Pro

gram

med

Reg

ion

al H

igh

way

Imp

rove

men

ts


4-6 April 16, 2018

Faci

lity

Nam

eFr

om

ToIm

pro

vem

en

tLe

ngt

hC

ou

nti

es

20

35

Rid

gega

te P

kwy.

(M

ain

stre

et)

Hav

ana

St.

Lon

e Tr

ee E

. Cit

y Li

mit

Wid

en f

rom

2 t

o 4

Lan

es1

.8D

ou

glas

20

35

SH-2

72

nd

Ave

.I-

76

Wid

en f

rom

2 t

o 4

Lan

es7

.5A

dam

s2

03

5SH

-7B

ou

lder

Co

un

ty L

ine

Sher

idan

Pkw

y.W

iden

fro

m 2

to

4 L

anes

2.5

Bro

om

fiel

d2

03

5SH

-7Sh

erid

an P

kwy.

I-2

5W

iden

fro

m 2

to

6 L

anes

1.5

Bro

om

fiel

d2

03

5Sh

erd

an P

kwy.

NW

Pkw

y.SH

-7W

iden

fro

m 2

to

4 L

anes

1.3

Bro

om

fiel

d2

03

5Sh

erid

an B

lvd

.Lo

wel

l Blv

d.

NW

Pkw

y.W

iden

fro

m 2

to

4 L

anes

1.1

Bro

om

fiel

d2

03

5To

wer

Rd

.3

8th

/40

th A

ve.

Gre

en V

alle

y R

anch

Blv

d.

Wid

en f

rom

2/4

to

6 L

anes

1.0

Den

ver

20

35

Tow

er R

d.

48

th A

ve.

56

th A

ve.

Wid

en f

rom

4 t

o 6

Lan

es1

.0D

enve

r2

03

5To

wer

Rd

.5

6th

Ave

.P

ena

Blv

d.

Wid

en f

rom

4 t

o 6

Lan

es2

.4D

enve

r2

03

5To

wer

Rd

.6

th A

ve.

Co

lfax

Ave

.N

ew 2

Lan

es1

.0A

rap

aho

e2

03

5To

wer

Rd

.C

olf

ax A

ve.

Smit

h R

d.

Wid

en f

rom

2 t

o 6

Lan

es1

.0A

dam

s2

03

5To

wer

Rd

.P

ena

Blv

d.

10

4th

Ave

.W

iden

fro

m 2

to

4 L

anes

3.8

Ad

ams

20

35

Tow

er/B

uck

ley

Rd

.1

05

th A

ve.

11

8th

Ave

.N

ew 4

Lan

es2

.0A

dam

s2

03

5W

ash

ingt

on

St.

14

4th

Ave

.1

52

Ave

.W

iden

fro

m 2

to

4 L

anes

0.7

Ad

ams

20

35

Was

hin

gto

n S

t.1

52

nd

Ave

.1

60

Ave

.W

iden

fro

m 2

to

4 L

anes

1.4

Ad

ams

20

35

York

St.

16

0th

Ave

. (SH

-7)

16

8th

Ave

.W

iden

fro

m 2

to

4 L

anes

1.0

Ad

ams

20

35

York

St.

E-4

70

SH-7

Wid

en f

rom

2 t

o 4

Lan

es0

.7A

dam

s2

03

51

04

th A

ve.

Mar

ion

St.

Co

lora

do

Blv

d.

Wid

en f

rom

4 t

o 6

Lan

es1

.6A

dam

s2

03

51

04

th A

ve.

McK

ay R

oad

US-

85

Wid

en f

rom

2 t

o 4

Lan

es1

.9A

dam

s2

03

51

20

th A

ve.

E-4

70

Pic

adill

y R

d.

Wid

en f

rom

2 t

o 6

Lan

es2

.6A

dam

s2

03

51

20

th A

ve.

Sab

le B

lvd

.E-

47

0W

iden

fro

m 2

to

6 L

anes

2.0

Ad

ams

20

35

15

2n

d A

ve.

Was

hin

gto

n S

t.Yo

rk S

t.W

iden

fro

m 2

to

4 L

anes

1.2

Ad

ams

20

35

48

th A

ve.

Imb

od

en R

d.

Qu

ail R

un

Rd

.W

iden

fro

m 2

to

6 L

anes

1.0

Ad

ams

20

35

48

th A

ve.

Po

wh

ato

n R

d.

Mo

nag

han

Rd

.N

ew 6

Lan

es1

.0A

dam

s2

03

56

4th

Ave

.H

arve

st R

d.

Po

wh

ato

n R

d.

Wid

en f

rom

2 t

o 4

Lan

es1

.0A

dam

s2

03

56

th P

kwy.

SH-3

0E-

47

0W

iden

fro

m 2

to

6 L

anes

1.3

Ara

pah

oe

20

35

96

th A

ve.

SH-2

Tow

er R

oad

Wid

en f

rom

2 t

o 4

Lan

es5

.0A

dam

s2

03

59

6th

Ave

.To

wer

Rd

.P

icad

illy

Rd

.W

iden

fro

m 2

to

6 L

anes

2.0

Ad

ams

20

35

Ara

pah

oe

Rd

.H

imal

aya

Way

Live

rpo

ol S

t.W

iden

fro

m 4

to

6 la

nes

0.5

Ara

pah

oe

20

35

C-4

70

Bro

adw

ayI-

25

EB:

Ad

d 1

To

ll/M

anag

ed L

ane

6.6

Do

ugl

as2

03

5C

-47

0C

olo

rad

o B

lvd

.Lu

cen

t B

lvd

.W

B:

Ad

d 1

To

ll/M

anag

ed L

ane

3.7

Do

ugl

as2

03

5C

-47

0S.

Kip

ling

Pkw

y.W

adsw

ort

h B

lvd

.EB

: A

dd

1 T

oll/

Man

aged

Lan

e3

.0Je

ffer

son

20

35

C-4

70

Wad

swo

rth

Blv

d.

S. K

iplin

g P

kwy.

WB

: A

dd

1 T

oll/

Man

aged

Lan

e1

.4Je

ffer

son

20

35

Co

lora

do

Blv

d.

14

4th

Ave

.1

68

th A

ve.

Wid

en f

rom

0/2

to

4 L

anes

3.7

Ad

ams

20

35

E. B

rom

ley

Ln.

Hw

y 8

5Sa

ble

Blv

d.

Wid

en f

rom

4 t

o 6

Lan

es0

.5A

dam

s2

03

5E-

47

0I-

25

So

uth

Par

ker

Rd

.W

iden

fro

m 6

to

8 L

anes

5.5

Ara

pah

oe

20

35

E-4

70

I-2

5 N

ort

hI-

76

Wid

en f

rom

4 t

o 6

Lan

es1

1.0

Ad

ams

20

35

E-4

70

I-7

0P

ena

Blv

d.

Wid

en f

rom

4 t

o 6

Lan

es7

.4A

dam

s/D

enve

r

Ne

two

rk Y

ear

of

Imp

rove

me

nt

Tab

le 4

-1 (

Co

nti

nu

ed)

Pro

gram

med

Reg

ion

al H

igh

way

Imp

rove

men

ts


4-7 April 16, 2018

Faci

lity

Nam

eFr

om

ToIm

pro

vem

en

tLe

ngt

hC

ou

nti

es

20

35

E-4

70

Pen

a B

lvd

.I-

76

Wid

en f

rom

4 t

o 6

an

es7

.6A

dam

s/D

enve

r2

03

5E-

47

0Q

uin

cy A

ve.

I-7

0W

iden

fro

m 4

to

6 L

anes

7.0

Ara

pah

oe

20

35

E-4

70

Par

ker

Rd

.Q

uin

cy A

ve.

Wid

en f

rom

6 t

o 8

lan

es8

.1A

rap

aho

e/D

ou

glas

20

35

Gu

n C

lub

Rd

.Ya

le A

ve.

Mis

siss

ipp

i Ave

.W

iden

fro

m 2

/4 t

o 6

Lan

es2

.1A

rap

aho

e2

03

5H

amp

den

Ave

./H

avan

a St

. (SH

- Fl

ore

nce

St.

s/o

Yal

e A

ve.

Wid

en f

rom

5 t

o 6

Lan

es1

.4D

enve

r2

03

5H

arve

st R

d.

56

th A

ve.

64

th A

ve.

Wid

en f

rom

3 t

o 6

Lan

es1

.0A

dam

s2

03

5H

arve

st R

d.

Jew

ell A

ve.

Mis

siss

ipp

i Ave

.W

iden

fro

m 2

to

6 la

nes

1.0

Ara

pah

oe

20

35

I-2

25

I-2

5Yo

sem

ite

St.

Inte

rch

ange

Cap

acit

yD

enve

r2

03

5I-

70

E-4

70

Inte

rch

ange

Cap

acit

yA

dam

s/A

rap

aho

e2

03

5Im

bo

den

Rd

.4

8th

Ave

.5

6th

Ave

.W

iden

fro

m 2

to

6 L

anes

1.0

Ad

ams

20

35

Lin

coln

Ave

.1

st S

t.K

eyst

on

e B

lvd

.W

iden

fro

m 4

to

6 L

anes

1.8

Do

ugl

as2

03

5M

ain

Str

eet

Lon

e Tr

ee E

. Cit

y Li

mit

Ch

amb

ers

Rd

.W

iden

fro

m 2

to

4 la

nes

0.9

Do

ugl

as2

03

5M

on

agh

an R

d.

Qu

incy

Ave

.Ya

le A

ve.

New

6 L

anes

2.0

Ara

pah

oe

20

35

Par

ker

Rd

. (SH

-83

)Q

uin

cy A

ve.

Ham

pd

en A

ve.

Wid

en f

rom

6 t

o 8

Lan

es1

.0A

rap

aho

e2

03

5P

eori

a St

..7

5 m

iles

s/o

Lin

coln

Ave

.M

ain

Str

eet

Wid

en f

rom

2 t

o 4

Lan

es0

.5D

ou

glas

20

35

Pic

adill

y R

d.

82

nd

Ave

.9

6th

Ave

.N

ew 6

Lan

es1

.8A

dam

s2

03

5P

icad

illy

Rd

.9

6th

Ave

.1

20

th A

ve.

New

6 L

anes

3.0

Ad

ams

20

35

Po

wh

ato

n R

d.

Smo

ky H

ill R

d.

Co

un

ty L

ine

Rd

.W

iden

fro

m 2

to

6 L

anes

1.0

Ara

pah

oe

20

35

Qu

ail R

un

Rd

.I-

70

48

th A

ve.

New

6 L

anes

3.0

Ad

ams

20

35

Qu

incy

Ave

.H

ayes

mo

un

t R

d.

Wat

kin

s R

d.

Wid

en f

rom

2 t

o 6

Lan

es2

.0A

rap

aho

e2

03

5Q

uin

cy A

ve.

Mo

nag

han

Rd

.H

ayes

mo

un

t R

d.

Wid

en f

rom

2 t

o 6

Lan

es1

.1A

rap

aho

e2

03

5SH

-7R

iver

dal

e R

d.

US-

85

Wid

en f

rom

2 t

o 4

Lan

es1

.1A

dam

s2

03

5SH

-71

64

th A

ve.

Dah

lia S

t.W

iden

fro

m 2

to

4 L

anes

2.2

Ad

ams

20

35

Smo

ky H

ill R

d.

Ph

easa

nt

Ru

n P

kwy.

Ver

saill

es P

kwy.

Wid

en f

rom

4 t

o 6

Lan

es4

.4A

rap

aho

e2

03

5To

wer

Rd

.6

th A

ve.

Co

lfax

Ave

.W

iden

fro

m 2

to

6 L

anes

1.0

Ara

pah

oe

20

35

Tow

er R

d.

Pen

a B

lvd

.1

04

th A

ve.

Wid

en f

rom

4 t

o 6

Lan

es3

.8A

dam

s2

03

5W

atki

ns

Rd

.Q

uin

cy A

ve.

I-7

0W

iden

fro

m 2

to

6 L

anes

7.1

Ara

pah

oe

20

35

Yale

Ave

.M

on

agh

an R

d.

Hay

esm

ou

nt

Rd

.W

iden

fro

m 2

to

6 L

anes

1.1

Ara

pah

oe

20

35

York

St.

15

2n

d A

ve.

E-4

70

Wid

en f

rom

2 t

o 4

Lan

es0

.2A

dam

s

Ne

two

rk Y

ear

of

Imp

rove

me

nt

Tab

le 4

-1 (

Co

nti

nu

ed)

Pro

gram

med

Reg

ion

al H

igh

way

Imp

rove

men

ts


4-8 April 16, 2018

In addition to the RTP project listing, the Northwest Parkway Extension was included in the highway

network based on the project’s proximity to the study corridor. The assumed configuration was based

on the latest project information provided by the Northwest Parkway Toll Authority. The Northwest

Parkway Extension will be a two-lane limited-access facility constructed between 96th Street and SH

128. Access to US 36 from 96th Street and Flatiron Crossing Drive will be provided via free local

frontage roadways. Additional interchanges will be constructed at 96th Street, Interlocken Boulevard

and El Dorado Boulevard. Local access to Flatiron Boulevard and Environmental Way will be retained.

Due to the relative importance of the project, traffic assignments with and without the proposed

Northwest Parkway Extension were conducted in order to estimate the potential traffic and revenue

impact to the Jefferson Parkway.

Vehicle Operating Costs Past studies by CDM Smith have shown that drivers perceive primarily the fuel cost in decisions

regarding trip path, but also give some consideration to other usage-related costs, such maintenance,

oil, and tires at a discounted level. Factors such as depreciation and insurance are not included in the

operating cost estimate. A vehicle operating cost of

$0.161 per mile for passenger cars in 2016 was

assumed. The 2016 vehicle operating cost was

then inflated for future years at an annual rate of

2.3 percent. These inflation rates were based on an

analysis of regional historical CPI data. Operating

costs for trucks were assumed at 3 times those of

passenger cars. The estimated vehicle operating

costs used in this study are shown in Table 4-2.

Values of Time Motorists’ perception of their Value of Time (VOT) is another key component of the decision to use a

toll facility or an alternative route. People attach different values to their time depending on the

purpose of their trip. For the toll diversion analysis, where the relative advantage of driving on the

Jefferson Parkway toll road is weighed against taking a local route or an alternate route on a major

highway, values of time were developed by TAZ under prior analyses. For the current study effort, the

TAZ-level VOTs were adjusted on an aggregate level based on updated regional VOTs. These updated

regional VOTs were developed based on household income data from the U.S. Census and trip

purposes included in the Denver Regional Council of Governments (DRCOG) model.

The updated VOTs for the model area averaged

$0.29 per mile, varying by time of day, method of

payment and vehicle class. The resulting average

model area VOTs are provided in Table 4-3. The

2016 average VOTs were inflated by 2.3 percent per

year based on the regional ten-year historical

average CPI inflation rates. This is a conservative

assumption since it does not assume any increases

in VOT due to real income growth. The value of

time for commercial vehicle trips was assumed to

be 3.0 times the value for passenger cars.

Estimated Vehicle Operating Costs

Model Year Passenger Car Truck

2016 0.161$ 0.480$

2022 0.176 0.526

2035 0.237 0.707

2040 0.266 0.792

Table 4-2

Estimated Vehicle Operating Costs

Table 4-3

Estimated Average Values of Time

Value of Time

Model Year Per Minute Per Hour

2016 0.290$ 17.40$

2022 0.318 19.06

2035 0.427 25.61

2040 0.478 28.70


4-9 April 16, 2018

Model Calibration Following the development of trip tables based on the revised socioeconomic and highway

improvement inputs, as well as the adjustments previously described, traffic assignments at 2016

levels were run. These assignments served as starting point for the model calibration process, which

included a comparison of network speeds, non-toll road volumes and volumes within the Jefferson

Parkway corridor against available actual traffic counts from CDOT. As calibration progressed,

additional minor adjustments and corrections to the model inputs were made in an attempt to obtain

a better fit between the actual 2016 AWDT volumes and the assigned volumes. These adjustments

included the correction of highway network errors, minor capacity or input speed changes, and

adjustments to specific movements within the trip tables. These adjustments were based upon

observed count and speed data, as well as professional judgment based on experience with traffic

modeling in the Denver region.

Traffic Diversion Analysis Following calibration of the model, future trip tables incorporating the calibration adjustments were

developed at 2022, 2035 and 2040 levels and traffic assignments were run for those years. The traffic

assignments were generated using CDM Smith’s proprietary diversion assignment technique. This

process involves comparing travel times and distances for each movement using the Jefferson

Parkway (if appropriate) with the best available toll-free alternate route. The traffic estimated to use

Jefferson Parkway is a function of travel time and distance savings, the assumed monetary value of

these savings, and the toll rate being tested in any given assignment. In general, as the total cost to use

the Jefferson Parkway increases, the traffic on it decreases. Based on this methodology, a series of

traffic assignments were run incorporating the modeling adjustments and input assumptions

previously described. The results of these traffic assignments served as the basis for the toll

sensitivity analysis, as well as the development of the future year transaction and revenue forecasts.

Project Configuration and Toll Locations Two project configurations were run as part of this analysis: an Initial Build and an Ultimate Build

scenario. The two project configurations are shown in Figure 4-1.

The Initial Build assumes the construction of the four-lane Jefferson Parkway between SH 128 and SH

93. A full interchange is assumed at SH 72 / Coal Creek, with toll gantries on the ramps to and from

the south. Partial interchanges are assumed at Candelas Parkway and Indiana Street. A mainline toll

location is assumed between Candelas Parkway and Indiana Street.

The Ultimate Build assumes the same alignment as the Initial Build and includes full interchanges at

Candelas Parkway and a future realignment of Simms Street. Additional toll locations are assumed at

these interchanges as well. Both termini at SH 128 and SH 93 are assumed to be developed as full

interchanges as opposed to arterial intersections. As with the Initial Build, a mainline toll location is

assumed between Candelas Parkway and Indiana Street.

Toll Rate Sensitivity An analysis of hypothetical toll rate sensitivity was conducted to provide an indication of the traffic

and revenue potential at various toll rate levels of the proposed Jefferson Parkway. Toll sensitivity

traffic assignments were run at 2022 and 2040 levels. The resulting toll sensitivity curves are

presented for all vehicles an average weekday in Figure 4-2.


4-10 April 16, 2018

Figu

re 4

-1

Pro

po

sed

Jef

fers

on

Par

kway

Co

nfi

gura

tio

n a

nd

To

llin

g Lo

cati

on

s


4-11 April 16, 2018

Figu

re 4

-2

Esti

mat

ed T

oll

Sen

siti

vity

Cu

rves


4-12 April 16, 2018

In theory, the absolute optimum toll rate would be that which produces the maximum revenue.

However, CDM Smith recommends a rate which is below the maximum point on the curve. This will

allow for some latitude in the rate structure adjustments in the future. Also, the forecasting process

itself is based on a range of assumptions, such as estimates of values of time and perceived operating

costs, etc. While the technical approach and assumptions are reasonable, selecting a toll rate below

the maximum point on the curve helps to mitigate the potential uncertainty inherent in any forecast.

The toll sensitivity analysis shows an estimated maximum toll rate in 2022 of $3.60 for ExpressToll


LPT was selected for 2022 following discussion with the Jefferson Parkway Public Highway Authority

(JPPHA) staff. By 2040, an estimated maximum toll rate of $5.25 is estimated for ExpressToll


LPT was selected for 2040. The toll rate presented is below the estimated revenue maximizing point

on the curve. Proportionally higher toll rates would be levied for commercial vehicles.

Toll Structure Following a review of the toll rate sensitivity results, the preferred toll rates for the Jefferson Parkway

were selected in coordination with the JPPHA staff. These toll rates are presented for 2022, 2035 and

2040 in Table 4-4. In the opening year of 2022, the toll rate at the mainline toll location was assumed

to be $2.65 for 2-axle ExpressToll customers, representing a cost of $0.288 per-mile for a 9.2-mile full-

length trip on the Jefferson Parkway. By comparison, the current tolls on E-470 and Northwest

Parkway represent per-mile toll rates of $0.31 per mile and $0.41 per mile, respectively. This

represents a nominal toll cost and per-mile rate comparable to other Denver toll facilities. At ramp

toll locations, the toll rate in 2022 was assumed to be $1.10 for ExpressToll customers. LPT customers

were assumed to pay a 50 percent surcharge to cover the additional costs of processing LPT

transactions and to cover potential video toll revenue leakage. Commercial vehicles were assumed to

pay by the axle based on an “N-1” system. Higher tolls may be selected based on agreement between

the JPPHA and Concessionaires.

Toll rates were escalated by 2.3 percent annually, in line with inflation assumptions. This produced a

mainline toll rate of $3.55 in 2035 and $4.00 in 2040. The resulting per-mile toll rate in 2035 and

2040, respectively, were $0.386 and $0.435per mile. Ramp toll locations were assumed to increase to

$1.50 in 2035 and to $1.70 in 2040.

Table 4-4Jefferson Parkway Passenger Car Toll Rate Assumptions

Passenger Car Toll Rates

2022 2035 2040

Location ExpressToll LPT ExpressToll LPT ExpressToll LPT

Simms St. Toll T/F North 1.10$ 1.70$ 1.50$ 2.30$ 1.70$ 2.60$

Toll Gantry Mainline 2.65 3.95 3.55 5.35 4.00 6.00

Candellas Pkwy. Toll T/F South 1.10 1.70 1.50 2.30 1.70 2.60

Coal Creek Canyon Rd. Toll T/F South 1.10 1.70 1.50 2.30 1.70 2.60

(1) Toll increases are assumed to be implemented on January 1.

T/F = to/from

Toll Type


4-13 April 16, 2018

Table 4-5 compares the proposed Jefferson Parkway toll rates against other toll roads in Denver and

around the United States. For comparison purposes, only toll roads less than 50 miles were

considered. The toll rates provided in the table are current as of January 24, 2018 and are reported

for the "most common" peak period rate for full-length through trips. Discount rates based on special

program membership or frequent use have not been included. The agencies are ordered based on the

per-mile electronic toll collection (ETC) toll rate. The proposed 2022 toll rates for the Jefferson

Parkway are shaded blue, while the 2018 toll rates for other Colorado tolling agencies are shown in

bold.

As shown in the table, average per-mile ETC toll rates for toll roads 50 miles or less range from $0.04

per mile (Florida Department of Transportation and New Hampshire Department of Transportation)

to $1.00 per mile (Adams Avenue Parkway, Inc.) and vary by region based on local traffic congestion

and regional income levels. The average per-mile ETC toll rate for the listed toll agencies is $0.16 per

mile. This puts the proposed 2022 Jefferson Parkway ETC per-mile toll rates slightly above the

current national average. However, as shown in the table, per-mile toll rates for Colorado tolling

agencies are above the national average, with $0.31 per mile being charged on E-470 and $0.41 per

mile being charged on the Northwest Parkway. This puts the proposed Jefferson Parkway per-mile

toll rates for 2022 below those of the other Colorado tolling agencies in the current year.

Table 4-5 Toll Rate Comparison of Selected Toll Road Agencies

State Agency Facility General LocationAgency

Type

Year Tolling

Began (Roads

& MLs)

Last Toll

Change

Total

Miles

Average

Electronic

PC Toll

Average

Cash PC

Toll

Average

Video PC

Toll

Per Mile

Electronic

PC Toll

UT Adams Avenue Parkway, Inc Adams Avenue Parkway Salt Lake City Private 2001 37069 1 $1.00 $1.00 $1.00

IL Skyway Concession Company Chicago Skyway Chicago Private 1958 43101 7.8 $5.20 $5.20 $0.67

TX Montgomery County Toll Road Authority SH 242 Direct Connector Houston Public 2015 42191 0.8 $0.50 $0.63

VA City of Chesapeake Chesapeake Expressway Chesapeake Public 2001 42511 16 $8.00 $8.00 $0.50

VA DBi Services Pocahontas Parkway Richmond Private 2002 43103 8.8 $4.30 $4.30 $0.49

CA Transportation Corridor Agencies San Joaquin Hills Toll Road Los Angeles Public 1996 42917 15 $7.08 $7.76 $0.47

CO Northwest Parkway, LLC Northwest Parkway Denver Private 2003 43101 9.5 $3.90 $4.50 $0.41

VA Toll Road Investors Partnership II Dulles Greenway Washington DC Suburbs Private 1995 42796 14 $5.50 $5.50 $0.39

DE Delaware Department of Transportation Delaware Turnpike - JFK Memorial Highway Newark to Wilmington Public 1963 39356 11 $4.00 $4.00 $0.36

CA Transportation Corridor Agencies Foothill Toll Road Los Angeles Public 1993 42917 12 $4.21 $6.21 $0.35

CO E-470 Public Highway Authority E-470 Denver Public 1991 43101 46.67 $14.25 $21.80 $0.31

TX Central Texas Regional Mobility Authority Various Expressways Austin Public 2007 to 2017 43108 19.1 $2.22 $2.96 $0.30

CA Transportation Corridor Agencies Eastern Toll Road Los Angeles Public 1998 42917 24 $7.06 $10.06 $0.29

CO Jefferson Parkway Public Highway Authority Jefferson Parkway Denver Public 9.2 $2.65 $3.95 $0.29

VA City of Chesapeake Dominion Boulevard Chesapeake Public 2017 42917 3.8 $1.05 $3.05 $0.28

CA San Diego Association of Governments South Bay Expressway (SR 125) San Diego Public 2007 41090 10 $2.75 $3.50 $5.50 $0.28

VA Metropolitan Washington Airports Authority Dulles Toll Road Washington DC Suburbs Public 1984 41640 13.4 $3.50 $3.50 $0.26

FL Osceola County Expressway Authority Poinciana Parkway Orlando Public 2016 42766 9.7 $2.50 $2.90 $0.26

FL Orchard Pond Greenway, LLC Orchard Pond Parkway Tallahassee Private 2016 42492 5.2 $1.19 $1.69 $0.23

MD Maryland Transportation Authority Inter County Connector Washington DC Public 2011 42186 17.5 $3.86 $5.78 $0.22

TX Harris County Toll Road Authority Various Expressways Houston Public 1987 to 2015 42569 41.4 $2.74 $1.75 $0.22

NC North Carolina Turnpike Authority Triangle Expressway Raleigh Public 2012 43101 18.5 $3.90 $6.00 $0.21

TX Fort Bend County Toll Road Authority Various Expressways Houston Public 2004 to 2014 43046 30 $2.11 $0.00 $0.21

VA Richmond Metropolitan Transportation Authority Downtown Expressway (SR 195) Richmond Public 1976 39699 3.4 $0.70 $0.70 $0.21

VA Richmond Metropolitan Transportation Authority Powhite Parkway Richmond Public 1973 39699 3.4 $0.70 $0.70 $0.21

IL Illinois State Toll Highway Authority IL 390 Chicago Suburbs Public 2016 43101 9.8 $1.90 $3.80 $0.19

FL Tampa-Hillsborough County Expressway Authority Lee Roy Selmon Crosstown Expressway Tampa Public 1976 42917 15 $2.90 $3.40 $0.19

TX Cameron County Regional Mobility Authority SH 550 Brownsville Public 2011 42189 7.9 $1.50 $2.01 $0.19

SC Connector 2000 Association Southern Connector Greenville Private 2001 42371 16 $3.00 $3.50 $0.19

TX North East Texas Regional Mobility Authority Toll 49 Tyler Public 2006 42736 26 $4.80 $6.39 $0.18

TX North Texas Tollway Authority Various Expressways Dallas / Fort Worth Public 1968 to 2009 42917 132.7 $5.46 $8.20 $0.18

TX Texas Department of Transportation Various Expressways Austin / Houston Public 1968 to 2009 43101 130.5 $8.43 $7.20 $0.18

TX SH 130 Concession Company, LLC SH-130 Extension Austin Private 2007 to 2011 42319 41 $7.39 $9.83 $0.18

FL Miami-Dade Expressway Authority Various Expressways Miami Public 1961 to 2010 41958 32.7 $1.52 $3.05 $0.17

FL Osceola County Osceola Parkway Orlando Public 1995 41918 12.4 $2.00 $2.00 $0.16

MA Massachusetts Department of Transportation Boston Extension Boston Public 1964 42671 12 $1.70 $3.55 $0.14

FL Central Florida Expressway Authority Various Expressways Orlando Public 1967 to 2017 42943 114.4 $3.15 $3.55 $4.21 $0.14

PA Pennsylvania Turnpike Commission Various Expressways Various Public 1991 to 2006 43107 84.9 $4.29 $7.28 $4.15 $0.13

IL Illinois State Toll Highway Authority Veterans Memorial Tollway Chicago Suburbs Public 1989 43101 29.8 $3.80 $7.60 $0.13

SC South Carolina Department of Transportation Cross Island Parkway Hilton Head Public 1998 39537 6.8 $0.75 $1.25 $0.11

FL Florida Turnpike Enterprise Various Expressways Various Public 1973 to 2016 43037 184.1 $2.76 $3.26 $4.42 $0.10

FL Mid-Bay Bridge Authority Walter Francis Spence Parkway Panhandle Public 2014 42278 15 $1.50 $2.00 $0.10

FL Florida Department of Transportation Sawgrass Expressway Fort Lauderdale Public 1986 43037 23 $2.14 $2.68 $0.09

NJ South Jersey Transportation Authority Atlantic City Expressway Philadelphia to Atlantic City Public 1964 40316 44 $3.75 $3.75 $0.09

OK Oklahoma Turnpike Authority Various Expressways Various Public 1969 to 1992 43101 162.9 $2.74 $2.95 $0.08

VA Virginia Department of Transportation Powhite Parkway Extension Richmond Public 1988 36342 10 $0.75 $0.75 $0.08

NY New York State Thruway Authority Niagara Thruway Buffalo Public 1959 39817 14 $0.95 $1.00 $0.07

MD Maryland Transportation Authority John F. Kennedy Memorial Highway Northeastern Maryland Public 1963 42186 50 $3.00 $4.00 $6.00 $0.06

NY New York State Thruway Authority New England Thruway New York City Public 1958 39817 15 $0.83 $0.88 $0.06

FL Florida Department of Transportation Pinellas Bayway System Tampa Public 1962 43037 15.2 $0.67 $1.38 $0.04

NH New Hampshire Department of Transportation Various Expressways Various Public 1950 to 1956 39995 88.9 $1.27 $1.81 $0.04


4-14 April 16, 2018

Basic Study Assumptions Traffic and toll revenue estimates for the Jefferson Parkway are predicated upon the following

assumptions, which are considered reasonable:

1. The Jefferson Parkway will be constructed under the assumed configuration(s) as a four-lane

limited-access facility with a posted speed limit of 65 MPH and will be well-maintained and

effectively signed.

2. Improvements to the present highway and local road system in the travel corridor will be

limited to those described in this report. No other competing facilities, or capacity expansions,

will occur in the forecast period.

3. Vehicle operating costs (VOC) and values of time (VOT) will occur as assumed in this chapter.

4 The share of commercial vehicles for the Denver region and using the Jefferson Parkway will

generally occur as previously described in this chapter.

5. The Jefferson Parkway will operate as an all-electronic toll facility, with both ExpressToll and

LPT will be employed. The percentage share of ExpressToll and LPT customers will occur as

previously described in this chapter.

6. The toll collection concept and toll schedules for the Jefferson Parkway will be implemented as

shown in this report.

7. Revenue leakage due to unreadable plates or uncollectable ExpressToll or LPT transactions will

happen and will occur at the rates described in this chapter.

8. The phenomenon of “ramp-up” will occur, and will have the effect of reducing annual

transactions and toll revenues by 15, 10 and 5 percent in 2022, 2023 and 2024, respectively.

9. The comparative relationship between average weekday and average daily transactions will

occur such that a full year will be generally equivalent to 323 weekdays for ExpressToll

transactions and 328 for LPT transactions.

10. Inflation will average 2.3 percent during the study period, in line with prior historical trends.

11. Regional and corridor growth will be generally as forecast by DRCOG as reviewed and refined

for use in this study, as discussed in Chapter 3.

12. No major recession or significant economic restructuring will occur which would substantially

reduce traffic in the region.

13. Over the long-term, motor fuel will remain in adequate supply, and future increases in fuel price

will not significantly exceed the overall rate of inflation.

14. No natural disasters will occur that could significantly alter travel patterns through the area.

15. No local, regional, or national emergency will arise that would abnormally restrict the use of

motor vehicles.


4-15 April 16, 2018

Any significant departure from these basic assumptions could materially affect estimated traffic and

toll revenue for the Jefferson Parkway.

Estimated Base Case Traffic and Revenue Following the year 2016 calibration process, future-year average weekday traffic assignments were

run for years 2022, 2035 and 2040. The preferred toll rates identified as part of the toll sensitivity

analysis were assumed, with toll rates increasing annually at the assumed 2.3 percent per year rate of

inflation. Values of time were also assumed to increase at the 2.3 percent per year rate of inflation.

Four “Base Case” scenarios were modeled as part of this study effort. These scenarios considered

different interchange configurations and highway improvement assumptions. The scenarios are:

▪ Scenario 1: Jefferson Parkway - Initial Build without the Northwest Parkway Extension;

▪ Scenario 2: Jefferson Parkway - Initial Build with the Northwest Parkway Extension;

▪ Scenario 3: Jefferson Parkway – Ultimate Build without the Northwest Parkway Extension; and

▪ Scenario 4: Jefferson Parkway - Ultimate Build with the Northwest Parkway Extension.

The interchange and tolling configurations assumed for these scenarios were previously depicted in

Figure 4-1. Scenarios 1 and 2 assumed the Initial Build configuration, while Scenarios 3 and 4

assumed the Ultimate Build configuration. Scenarios 2 and 4 assume the construction of the

Northwest Parkway Extension.

Estimated Average Weekday Traffic Volumes Estimated AWDT volumes for each of the Jefferson Parkway mainline segments are provided by

scenario in Figures 4-3 and Figure 4-4. AWDT estimates are shown for model years 2022, 2035 and

2040. All volumes are shown in thousands.

Under Scenario 1, which assumes the Initial Build configuration without the Northwest Parkway

Extension, mainline volumes range from 10,400 to 15,100 vehicles per average weekday in 2022 and

from 17,400 to 23,500 vehicles per average weekday in 2040. As shown in Figure 4-3, The greatest

traffic volumes are located at the proposed mainline toll gantry north of Candelas Parkway. This is

likely due to the lack of competing roadways in this section of the proposed Jefferson Parkway

alignment. Estimated 2022 volumes are 15,100 vehicles for the average weekday under Scenario 1,

increasing to 23,500 vehicles per average weekday by 2040. This represents an average annual

increase of 2.5 percent per year between 2022 and 2040, consistent with historical traffic growth

trends on other Denver toll facilities. At the proposed SH 72 toll ramps, average weekday traffic

volumes are estimated to increase from 2,500 vehicles in 2022 to 2,900 vehicles in 2040.

Average weekday volumes are estimated to be greater at all mainline locations under Scenario 2, as a

result of the additional traffic feeding into the project from the assumed Northwest Parkway

Extension. This is demonstrated by the fact that the estimated mainline volumes differ most between

Scenarios 1 and 2 closest to the proposed Northwest Parkway Extension. As illustrated in Figure 4-3,

Mainline volumes range from 14,500 to 18,400 vehicles per average weekday in 2022 and from

23,200 to 29,800 vehicles per average weekday in 2040. This is a difference over Scenario 1 of

between 1,000 and 5,400 vehicles per average weekday in 2022 and 2,900 to 8,700 vehicles in 2040.

At the mainline toll location, estimated weekday traffic volumes in 2022 are 18,400 under Scenario 2,

a 21.9 percent or 3,300-vehicle increase over Scenario 1 as a result of the assumed Northwest


4-16 April 16, 2018

Figu

re 4

-3

Esti

mat

ed A

vera

ge W

eekd

ay M

ain

line

Traf

fic

Vo

lum

es

Sce

nar

ios

1 a

nd

2 –

Init

ial B

uild


4-17 April 16, 2018

Figu

re 4

-4

Esti

mat

ed A

vera

ge W

eekd

ay M

ain

line

Traf

fic

Vo

lum

es

Sce

nar

ios

3 a

nd

4 –

Ult

imat

e B

uild


4-18 April 16, 2018

Parkway Extension. Estimated weekday traffic volumes at the mainline toll location under Scenario 2

increase to 29,800 by 2040, representing an average annual increase of 2.7 percent. Average weekday

volumes at the mainline toll location are estimated to be 26.8 percent greater in 2040 under Scenario

2 as a result of the assumed Northwest Parkway Extension, or 6,300 vehicles per weekday. In contrast

to the differences at the mainline locations, volumes are estimated to be lower at the proposed SH 72

toll ramps, with 1,800 vehicles per average weekday estimated in 2022 and 2,000 vehicles estimated

in 2040. As evidenced by the similar mainline volumes south of SH 72, the lower ramp volumes are

the result of an estimated shift of vehicles from competing routes to the Jefferson Parkway mainline as

a result of the time savings offered by the Northwest Parkway Extension.

Figure 4-4 (previously shown) illustrates the estimated average weekday volumes for the Jefferson

Parkway for the Ultimate Build scenarios. Under Scenario 3, which does not assume the Northwest

Parkway Extension, mainline volumes range from 10,200 to 14,800 vehicles per average weekday in

2022 and from 17,300 to 23,100 vehicles per average weekday in 2040. This is slightly lower than

under Scenario 1, since the additional interchange locations allow motorists to reduce their total trip

length on the Jefferson Parkway. As with the Initial Build scenarios, the greatest traffic volumes are

located at the proposed mainline toll gantry north of Candelas Parkway. Estimated 2022 volumes are

14,800 vehicles for the average weekday under Scenario 3, increasing to 23,100 vehicles per average

weekday by 2040. This represents an average annual increase of 2.5 percent per year between 2022

and 2040, comparable to that of Scenario 1. Average weekday volumes at the proposed Simms Street,

Candelas Parkway and SH 72 toll ramps are estimated to be 2,200 vehicles, 500 vehicles and 2,100

vehicles in 2022, respectively. Those volumes are estimated to increase to 3,800 vehicles, 900

vehicles and 2,800 vehicles per average weekday by 2040

As a result of the additional traffic carried by the assumed Northwest Parkway Extension, mainline

volumes under Scenario 4 are estimated to increase over those of Scenario 3. As shown in Figure 4-4

(previously shown), estimated mainline volumes range from 14,500 to 18,800 vehicles per average

weekday in 2022 and from 23,200 to 31,600 vehicles per average weekday in 2040. In 2022,

estimated weekday traffic volumes at the mainline toll location are 18,400 under Scenario 4, a 24.3

percent or 3,600-vehicle increase over Scenario 3 as a result of the assumed Northwest Parkway

Extension. Estimated weekday traffic volumes at the mainline toll location increase to 29,500 by 2040

under Scenario 4, representing an average annual increase of 2.7 percent. This represents an

estimated 6,400 more vehicles per average weekday than under Scenario 2, or 27.7 percent, as a

result of the assumed Northwest Parkway Extension. These differences are consistent with those

estimated between Scenarios 1 and 2, indicating that the impacts of the Northwest Parkway Extension

are similar under both the Initial and Ultimate Build configurations. Additionally, the estimated traffic

growth at the mainline toll gantry are similar across all four Base Case scenarios.

Scenario 4 is the only one of the Base Case scenarios where the estimated volume south of the

assumed Northwest Parkway Extension exceed those of at the proposed mainline toll gantry.

Moreover, the volumes at the proposed Simms Street toll ramps are the only toll ramp volumes to

increase as a result of the Northwest Parkway Extension. This is because traffic entering the project

from the assumed Northwest Parkway Extension uses the Simms Street to avoid the mainline toll

location and/or to access local destinations. Average weekday volumes at the proposed Simms Street,

Candelas Parkway and SH 72 toll ramps under Scenario 4 are estimated to be 3,000 vehicles, 400

vehicles and 1,700 vehicles in 2022, respectively. Those volumes are estimated to increase to 6,000

vehicles, 800 vehicles and 1,900 vehicles per average weekday by 2040.


4-19 April 16, 2018

Estimated Weekday and Annual Transactions and Revenue Although previously discussed on a total basis, average weekday volumes were estimated for the

project by method of payment and vehicle class. The volumes at each toll location were multiplied by

the assumed toll rates (previously shown in Table 4-4) to develop estimates of average weekday

transactions and gross toll revenue. These estimates are summarized for the Initial Build scenarios in

Table 4-6 and for the Ultimate Build Scenarios is Table 4-7.

In order to reflect the relationship between an average weekday and the annual total, the average

weekday transaction estimates were factored using an annualization factor. This was done by method

of payment in order to recognize the differences in trip frequency between ExpressToll and LPT

customers. Based on actual 2016 data provided by other Denver toll facilities and adjusted for the

impacts of the leap year, annualization factors of 316.6 and 344.0 were calculated for ExpressToll and

LPT transactions, respectively. Annualization factors were also similarly calculated for toll revenue,

recognizing the different mix of vehicle types between weekday and weekend traffic.

Based on the annualized transaction and revenue estimates, and adjustments for leap years, an annual

transaction and gross toll revenue streams were developed for each scenario through 2061. In order

to estimate net toll revenues, adjustments for uncollectible and unpaid revenue were developed based

on the leakage experience of other Denver toll facilities. These adjustments account for non-revenue

vehicles, unbillable license plate toll images and unpaid license plate toll transactions. Based on

historical reductions in leakage rates for the other Denver toll facilities since 2009, CDM Smith

assumed the 2022 leakage rates would be reduced slightly over the forecast period as toll collection

technology and enforcement improve. In 2022, total revenue leakage was estimated to be 31.3

percent of gross LPT revenues, or just over 10 percent of total gross revenues. This was estimated to

decrease to 28.0 percent of gross LPT revenues, or just under 9 percent of total gross revenues, by

2035 as a result of improvements in technology and collections. After 2035, assumed leakage rates

were held constant as a conservative assumption.

Lastly, the annual transactions and toll revenue forecasts were adjusted downward to reflect “ramp-

up” during the first three years of operation. Ramp-up is the phenomena whereby toll facility traffic is

less than would be expected during the first few years of operation as motorists become familiar with

the new toll facility and “test the waters” regarding its usage. Based on experience with other

“greenfield” toll facilities, the estimated annual transactions and toll revenues for the Jefferson

Parkway assumed ramp-up reductions of 15 percent, 10 percent and 5 percent in 2022, 2023 and

2024, respectively.

The resulting annual estimates of transactions and toll revenue for the four Base Case scenarios are

provided in Tables 4-8 through 4-11. The transaction and revenue estimates are provided by

method of payment.

Scenario 1: Initial Build without the Northwest Parkway Extension

Under Scenario 1, 3.6 million ExpressToll transactions are estimated in the assumed opening year of

2022 and 1.2 million LPT transactions. As shown in Table 4-8, total annual transactions are

estimated at 4.8 million, which includes the estimated impacts of ramp-up. These transactions are

estimated to generate ExpressToll and LPT gross toll revenues of $9.4 million and $4.7 million,

respectively. Thus, ExpressToll transactions are estimated to represent 74.5 percent of total


4-20 April 16, 2018

SCEN

AR

IO 1

: Je

ffe

rso

n P

arkw

ay In

itia

l Bu

ild w

ith

ou

t N

WP

Ext

en

sio

nSC

ENA

RIO

2:

Jeff

ers

on

Par

kway

Init

ial B

uild

wit

h N

WP

Ext

en

sio

n

20

22

Avg

. We

ekd

ay T

ran

sact

ion

s2

02

2 A

vg. W

ee

kday

Gro

ss T

oll

Re

ven

ue

(1

)2

02

2 A

vg. W

ee

kday

Tra

nsa

ctio

ns

20

22

Avg

. We

ekd

ay G

ross

To

ll R

eve

nu

e (

1)

Toll

Loca

tio

nTo

ll Ty

pe

Exp

ress

Toll

LPT

Tota

lEx

pre

ssTo

llLP

TTo

tal

Exp

ress

Toll

LPT

Tota

lEx

pre

ssTo

llLP

TTo

tal

Sim

ms

St.

Ram

ps

t/f

No

rth

-

-

-

-

$

-$

-

$

-

-

-

-

$

-$

-

$

N o

f C

and

elas

Pkw

y.M

ain

line

11

,54

0

3

,53

0

15

,07

0

3

2,2

20

14

,78

0

4

7,0

00

14

,12

0

4

,30

0

18

,43

0

3

9,2

60

17

,94

0

5

7,2

10

Can

del

as P

kwy.

Ram

ps

t/f

Sou

th-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

SR 7

2R

amp

s t/

f So

uth

1,8

30

6

90

2,5

20

2

,17

0

1,2

20

3

,38

0

1,3

40

5

00

1,8

40

1

,58

0

88

0

2

,46

0

Tota

l We

ekd

ay1

3,3

70

4,2

20

1

7,5

90

34

,38

0$

1

6,0

00

$

50

,38

0$

1

5,4

60

4,8

00

2

0,2

60

40

,84

0$

1

8,8

20

$

59

,67

0$

An

nu

aliz

atio

n F

acto

r3

16

.6

34

4.0

3

23

.2

32

0.6

3

44

.0

32

8.0

3

16

.6

34

4.0

3

23

.1

32

0.6

3

44

.0

32

8.0

Tota

l An

nu

al4

,23

3,0

00

1,4

52

,00

0

5

,68

5,0

00

11

,02

4,0

00

$

5

,50

3,0

00

$

16

,52

7,0

00

$

4

,89

5,0

00

1,6

53

,00

0

6

,54

8,0

00

13

,09

5,0

00

$

6

,47

6,0

00

$

19

,57

1,0

00

$

20

35

Avg

. We

ekd

ay T

ran

sact

ion

s2

03

5 A

vg. W

ee

kday

Gro

ss T

oll

Re

ven

ue

(1

)2

03

5 A

vg. W

ee

kday

Tra

nsa

ctio

ns

20

35

Avg

. We

ekd

ay G

ross

To

ll R

eve

nu

e (

1)

Toll

Loca

tio

nTo

ll Ty

pe

Exp

ress

Toll

LPT

Tota

lEx

pre

ssTo

llLP

TTo

tal

Exp

ress

Toll

LPT

Tota

lEx

pre

ssTo

llLP

TTo

tal

Sim

ms

St.

Ram

ps

t/f

No

rth

-

-

-

-

$

-$

-

$

-

-

-

-

$

-$

-

$

N o

f C

and

elas

Pkw

y.M

ain

line

16

,40

0

4

,60

0

21

,00

0

5

9,6

00

25

,24

0

8

4,8

40

20

,35

0

5

,61

0

25

,96

0

7

3,6

40

30

,68

0

1

04

,32

0

Can

del

as P

kwy.

Ram

ps

t/f

Sou

th-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

SR 7

2R

amp

s t/

f So

uth

2,0

70

7

00

2,7

70

3

,20

0

1,6

10

4

,81

0

1,5

40

5

20

2,0

60

2

,38

0

1,1

90

3

,57

0

Tota

l We

ekd

ay1

8,4

70

5,3

00

2

3,7

70

62

,81

0$

2

6,8

50

$

89

,66

0$

2

1,8

90

6,1

30

2

8,0

20

76

,02

0$

3

1,8

70

$

10

7,8

90

$

An

nu

aliz

atio

n F

acto

r3

16

.6

34

4.0

3

22

.7

32

0.6

3

44

.0

32

7.6

3

16

.6

34

4.0

3

22

.6

32

0.6

3

44

.0

32

7.5

Tota

l An

nu

al5

,84

8,0

00

1,8

22

,00

0

7

,67

0,0

00

20

,13

7,0

00

$

9

,23

6,0

00

$

29

,37

2,0

00

$

6

,93

2,0

00

2,1

08

,00

0

9

,04

0,0

00

24

,37

2,0

00

$

1

0,9

63

,00

0$

35

,33

6,0

00

$

20

40

Avg

. We

ekd

ay T

ran

sact

ion

s2

04

0 A

vg. W

ee

kday

Gro

ss T

oll

Re

ven

ue

(1

)2

04

0 A

vg. W

ee

kday

Tra

nsa

ctio

ns

20

40

Avg

. We

ekd

ay G

ross

To

ll R

eve

nu

e (

1)

Toll

Loca

tio

nTo

ll Ty

pe

Exp

ress

Toll

LPT

Tota

lEx

pre

ssTo

llLP

TTo

tal

Exp

ress

Toll

LPT

Tota

lEx

pre

ssTo

llLP

TTo

tal

Sim

ms

St.

Ram

ps

t/f

No

rth

-

-

-

-

$

-$

-

$

-

-

-

-

$

-$

-

$

N o

f C

and

elas

Pkw

y.M

ain

line

18

,30

0

5

,20

0

23

,49

0

7

4,2

80

31

,57

0

1

05

,85

0

23

,32

0

6

,47

0

29

,79

0

9

4,1

90

39

,14

0

1

33

,33

0

Can

del

as P

kwy.

Ram

ps

t/f

Sou

th-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

SR 7

2R

amp

s t/

f So

uth

2,1

70

7

30

2,9

00

3

,71

0

1,8

70

5

,58

0

1,4

90

5

00

1,9

90

2

,53

0

1,2

70

3

,81

0

Tota

l We

ekd

ay2

0,4

60

5,9

30

2

6,3

90

77

,99

0$

3

3,4

50

$

11

1,4

40

$

2

4,8

10

6,9

70

3

1,7

70

96

,72

0$

4

0,4

10

$

13

7,1

40

$

An

nu

aliz

atio

n F

acto

r3

16

.6

34

4.0

3

22

.8

32

0.6

3

44

.0

32

7.6

3

16

.6

34

4.0

3

22

.6

32

0.6

3

44

.0

32

7.5

Tota

l An

nu

al6

,47

9,0

00

2,0

40

,00

0

8

,51

8,0

00

25

,00

4,0

00

$

1

1,5

06

,00

0$

36

,51

0,0

00

$

7

,85

4,0

00

2,3

97

,00

0

1

0,2

52

,00

0

31

,01

0,0

00

$

1

3,9

02

,00

0$

44

,91

3,0

00

$

(1)

Gro

ss T

oll

Rev

enu

e re

pre

sen

ts t

oll

reve

nu

es n

ot

adju

sted

fo

r u

nco

llect

ible

or

un

pai

d t

oll

reve

nu

e.

Tab

le 4

-6

Esti

mat

ed A

vera

ge W

eekd

ay T

ran

sact

ion

s an

d G

ross

To

ll R

eve

nu

es

Sce

nar

ios

1 a

nd

2 –

Init

ial B

uild


4-21 April 16, 2018

SCEN

AR

IO 3

: Je

ffe

rso

n P

arkw

ay U

ltim

ate

Bu

ild w

ith

ou

t N

WP

Ext

en

sio

nSC

ENA

RIO

4:

Jeff

ers

on

Par

kway

Ult

imat

e B

uild

wit

h N

WP

Ext

en

sio

n

20

22

Avg

. We

ekd

ay T

ran

sact

ion

s2

02

2 A

vg. W

ee

kday

Gro

ss T

oll

Re

ven

ue

(1

)2

02

2 A

vg. W

ee

kday

Tra

nsa

ctio

ns

20

22

Avg

. We

ekd

ay G

ross

To

ll R

eve

nu

e (

1)

Toll

Loca

tio

nTo

ll Ty

pe

Exp

ress

Toll

LPT

Tota

lEx

pre

ssTo

llLP

TTo

tal

Exp

ress

Toll

LPT

Tota

lEx

pre

ssTo

llLP

TTo

tal

Sim

ms

St.

Ram

ps

t/f

No

rth

1,7

80

4

60

2,2

40

2

,15

0$

82

0$

2

,97

0$

2,3

60

6

20

2,9

80

2

,83

0$

1,0

90

$

3

,92

0$

N o

f C

and

elas

Pkw

y.M

ain

line

11

,30

0

3

,45

0

14

,75

0

3

1,5

70

14

,44

0

4

6,0

00

14

,12

0

4

,30

0

18

,42

0

3

9,2

60

17

,93

0

5

7,1

80

Can

del

as P

kwy.

Ram

ps

t/f

Sou

th3

40

11

0

4

50

39

0

1

90

59

0

2

80

90

3

80

32

0

1

60

48

0

SR 7

2R

amp

s t/

f So

uth

1,5

10

5

70

2,0

80

1

,79

0

1,0

10

2

,80

0

1,2

30

4

60

1,7

00

1

,46

0

82

0

2

,28

0

Tota

l We

ekd

ay1

4,9

30

4,6

00

1

9,5

30

35

,89

0$

1

6,4

70

$

52

,36

0$

1

8,0

00

5,4

70

2

3,4

70

43

,87

0$

2

0,0

00

$

63

,87

0$

An

nu

aliz

atio

n F

acto

r3

16

.6

34

4.0

3

23

.1

32

0.6

3

44

.0

32

8.0

3

16

.6

34

4.0

3

23

.0

32

0.6

3

44

.0

32

7.9

Tota

l An

nu

al4

,72

8,0

00

1,5

81

,00

0

6

,30

9,0

00

11

,50

8,0

00

$

5

,66

5,0

00

$

17

,17

3,0

00

$

5

,69

8,0

00

1,8

83

,00

0

7

,58

1,0

00

14

,06

5,0

00

$

6

,88

0,0

00

$

20

,94

5,0

00

$

20

35

Avg

. We

ekd

ay T

ran

sact

ion

s2

03

5 A

vg. W

ee

kday

Gro

ss T

oll

Re

ven

ue

(1

)2

03

5 A

vg. W

ee

kday

Tra

nsa

ctio

ns

20

35

Avg

. We

ekd

ay G

ross

To

ll R

eve

nu

e (

1)

Toll

Loca

tio

nTo

ll Ty

pe

Exp

ress

Toll

LPT

Tota

lEx

pre

ssTo

llLP

TTo

tal

Exp

ress

Toll

LPT

Tota

lEx

pre

ssTo

llLP

TTo

tal

Sim

ms

St.

Ram

ps

t/f

No

rth

2,8

60

6

80

3,5

50

4

,54

0$

1,5

80

$

6

,12

0$

4,1

60

1

,00

0

5,1

60

6

,50

0$

2,2

90

$

8

,79

0$

N o

f C

and

elas

Pkw

y.M

ain

line

16

,20

0

4

,54

0

20

,74

0

5

8,9

00

24

,93

0

8

3,8

40

20

,21

0

5

,57

0

25

,78

0

7

3,1

40

30

,47

0

1

03

,61

0

Can

del

as P

kwy.

Ram

ps

t/f

Sou

th5

50

16

0

7

00

83

0

3

50

1,1

80

4

80

14

0

6

20

73

0

3

10

1,0

40

SR 7

2R

amp

s t/

f So

uth

2,0

00

6

80

2,6

80

3

,11

0

1,5

60

4

,67

0

1,4

70

4

90

1,9

60

2

,26

0

1,1

30

3

,39

0

Tota

l We

ekd

ay2

1,6

20

6,0

60

2

7,6

80

67

,38

0$

2

8,4

30

$

95

,81

0$

2

6,3

20

7,2

00

3

3,5

10

82

,63

0$

3

4,1

90

$

11

6,8

30

$

An

nu

aliz

atio

n F

acto

r3

16

.6

34

4.0

3

22

.6

32

0.6

3

44

.0

32

7.6

3

16

.6

34

4.0

3

22

.5

32

0.6

3

44

.0

32

7.5

Tota

l An

nu

al6

,84

5,0

00

2,0

85

,00

0

8

,92

9,0

00

21

,60

3,0

00

$

9

,78

0,0

00

$

31

,38

3,0

00

$

8

,33

2,0

00

2,4

76

,00

0

1

0,8

08

,00

0

26

,49

3,0

00

$

1

1,7

63

,00

0$

38

,25

5,0

00

$

20

40

Avg

. We

ekd

ay T

ran

sact

ion

s2

04

0 A

vg. W

ee

kday

Gro

ss T

oll

Re

ven

ue

(1

)2

04

0 A

vg. W

ee

kday

Tra

nsa

ctio

ns

20

40

Avg

. We

ekd

ay G

ross

To

ll R

eve

nu

e (

1)

Toll

Loca

tio

nTo

ll Ty

pe

Exp

ress

Toll

LPT

Tota

lEx

pre

ssTo

llLP

TTo

tal

Exp

ress

Toll

LPT

Tota

lEx

pre

ssTo

llLP

TTo

tal

Sim

ms

St.

Ram

ps

t/f

No

rth

3,0

40

7

30

3,7

60

5

,33

0$

1,8

90

$

7

,21

0$

4,8

20

1

,17

0

5,9

80

8

,31

0$

2,9

90

$

1

1,2

90

$

N o

f C

and

elas

Pkw

y.M

ain

line

17

,98

0

5

,11

0

23

,08

0

7

3,0

10

31

,04

0

1

04

,05

0

23

,11

0

6

,42

0

29

,54

0

9

3,3

80

38

,87

0

1

32

,25

0

Can

del

as P

kwy.

Ram

ps

t/f

Sou

th7

00

20

0

9

00

1,1

70

5

10

1,6

80

5

90

17

0

7

70

1,0

00

4

30

1,4

30

SR 7

2R

amp

s t/

f So

uth

2,1

10

7

10

2,8

20

3

,60

0

1,8

30

5

,43

0

1,4

20

4

70

1,8

90

2

,41

0

1,2

10

3

,62

0

Tota

l We

ekd

ay2

3,8

10

6,7

50

3

0,5

70

83

,11

0$

3

5,2

60

$

11

8,3

70

$

2

9,9

40

8,2

40

3

8,1

80

10

5,1

00

$

4

3,4

90

$

14

8,5

90

$

An

nu

aliz

atio

n F

acto

r3

16

.6

34

4.0

3

22

.7

32

0.6

3

44

.0

32

7.6

3

16

.6

34

4.0

3

22

.5

32

0.6

3

44

.0

32

7.5

Tota

l An

nu

al7

,54

0,0

00

2,3

23

,00

0

9

,86

3,0

00

26

,64

6,0

00

$

1

2,1

30

,00

0$

38

,77

6,0

00

$

9

,48

0,0

00

2,8

33

,00

0

1

2,3

13

,00

0

33

,69

7,0

00

$

1

4,9

61

,00

0$

48

,65

8,0

00

$

(1)

Gro

ss T

oll

Rev

enu

e re

pre

sen

ts t

oll

reve

nu

es n

ot

adju

sted

fo

r u

nco

llect

ible

or

un

pai

d t

oll

reve

nu

e.

Tab

le 4

-7

Esti

mat

ed A

vera

ge W

eekd

ay T

ran

sact

ion

s an

d G

ross

To

ll R

eve

nu

es

Sce

nar

ios

3 a

nd

4 –

Ult

imat

e B

uild


4-22 April 16, 2018

Table 4-8 Estimated Annual Transactions and Revenue (In Thousands)

SCENARIO 1: Jefferson Parkway Initial Build without the Northwest Parkway Extension

Total AnnualTotal Annual Transactions (000s) Total Annual Gross Toll Revenue ($000s) (1) Uncollectible Unpaid Net Toll Revenue

ExpressToll LPT Total AAPC ExpressToll LPT Total AAPC Revenue Revenue ($000s) (2) AAPC

2022(3)

3,598 1,234 4,832 - 9,370$ 4,678$ 14,048$ - 982$ 480$ 12,585$ -

2023(3)

3,906 1,330 5,235 8.3 10,392 5,154 15,546 10.7 1,031 497 14,019 11.4

2024(3)(4)

4,238 1,432 5,670 8.3 11,521 5,677 17,198 10.6 1,086 515 15,598 11.3

2025 4,561 1,530 6,091 7.4 12,668 6,202 18,870 9.7 1,136 531 17,203 10.3

2026 4,675 1,557 6,232 2.3 13,269 6,454 19,723 4.5 1,193 548 17,981 4.5

2027 4,793 1,584 6,378 2.3 13,899 6,716 20,615 4.5 1,252 567 18,795 4.5

2028 (4) 4,927 1,617 6,544 2.6 14,598 7,008 21,606 4.8 1,318 588 19,700 4.8

2029 5,037 1,641 6,678 2.1 15,248 7,273 22,521 4.2 1,380 606 20,535 4.2

2030 5,164 1,670 6,834 2.3 15,972 7,568 23,540 4.5 1,449 626 21,465 4.5

2031 5,294 1,699 6,994 2.3 16,729 7,876 24,605 4.5 1,521 647 22,437 4.5

2032 (4) 5,442 1,734 7,176 2.6 17,571 8,218 25,789 4.8 1,601 671 23,517 4.8

2033 5,564 1,760 7,324 2.1 18,354 8,529 26,883 4.2 1,676 692 24,515 4.2

2034 5,704 1,791 7,495 2.3 19,225 8,875 28,100 4.5 1,760 715 25,626 4.5

2035 5,848 1,822 7,670 2.3 20,137 9,236 29,372 4.5 1,847 739 26,786 4.5

2036 (4) 5,985 1,869 7,854 2.4 21,086 9,677 30,763 4.7 1,935 774 28,053 4.7

2037 6,092 1,906 7,999 1.8 21,958 10,084 32,043 4.2 2,017 807 29,219 4.2

2038 6,219 1,950 8,168 2.1 22,930 10,538 33,468 4.4 2,108 843 30,517 4.4

2039 6,347 1,994 8,341 2.1 23,945 11,011 34,956 4.4 2,202 881 31,873 4.4

2040 (4) 6,496 2,045 8,542 2.4 25,073 11,537 36,610 4.7 2,307 923 33,380 4.7

2041 6,613 2,086 8,699 1.8 26,111 12,023 38,134 4.2 2,405 962 34,768 4.2

2042 6,750 2,133 8,883 2.1 27,266 12,563 39,830 4.4 2,513 1,005 36,312 4.4

2043 6,889 2,182 9,072 2.1 28,473 13,128 41,601 4.4 2,626 1,050 37,925 4.4

2044 (4) 7,032 2,232 9,264 2.1 29,733 13,718 43,451 4.4 2,744 1,097 39,610 4.4

2045 7,158 2,276 9,434 1.8 30,964 14,295 45,259 4.2 2,859 1,144 41,256 4.2

2046 7,306 2,328 9,634 2.1 32,334 14,938 47,272 4.4 2,988 1,195 43,089 4.4

2047 7,458 2,381 9,839 2.1 33,765 15,609 49,374 4.4 3,122 1,249 45,003 4.4

2048(4)

7,612 2,435 10,047 2.1 35,259 16,310 51,569 4.4 3,262 1,305 47,003 4.4

2049 7,748 2,484 10,232 1.8 36,719 16,997 53,716 4.2 3,399 1,360 48,956 4.2

2050 7,828 2,512 10,340 1.1 37,522 17,375 54,897 2.2 3,475 1,390 50,032 2.2

2051 7,909 2,540 10,449 1.1 38,344 17,761 56,104 2.2 3,552 1,421 51,131 2.2

2052 (4) 7,990 2,569 10,559 1.1 39,183 18,155 57,338 2.2 3,631 1,452 52,255 2.2

2053 8,050 2,591 10,642 0.8 39,931 18,508 58,439 1.9 3,702 1,481 53,257 1.9

2054 8,133 2,621 10,754 1.1 40,805 18,920 59,724 2.2 3,784 1,514 54,427 2.2

2055 8,217 2,650 10,867 1.1 41,698 19,340 61,038 2.2 3,868 1,547 55,623 2.2

2056 (4) 8,302 2,680 10,982 1.1 42,610 19,770 62,380 2.2 3,954 1,582 56,845 2.2

2057 8,364 2,703 11,067 0.8 43,424 20,154 63,578 1.9 4,031 1,612 57,935 1.9

2058 8,450 2,734 11,184 1.1 44,374 20,602 64,976 2.2 4,120 1,648 59,208 2.2

2059 8,537 2,765 11,302 1.1 45,346 21,060 66,405 2.2 4,212 1,685 60,509 2.2

2060 (4) 8,625 2,796 11,421 1.1 46,338 21,528 67,866 2.2 4,306 1,722 61,838 2.2

2061 8,690 2,820 11,510 0.8 47,223 21,946 69,169 1.9 4,389 1,756 63,024 1.9





(4) Leap Year.


4-23 April 16, 2018


SCENARIO 2: Jefferson Parkway Initial Build with the Northwest Parkway Extension



2022(3)

4,161 1,405 5,566 - 11,131$ 5,504$ 16,635$ - 1,156$ 565$ 14,914$ -

2023(3)

4,525 1,516 6,041 8.5 12,363 6,069 18,432 10.8 1,214 585 16,633 11.5

2024(3)(4)

4,920 1,635 6,554 8.5 13,726 6,689 20,415 10.8 1,279 606 18,529 11.4

2025 5,304 1,748 7,053 7.6 15,114 7,312 22,426 9.9 1,340 626 20,460 10.4

2026 5,448 1,781 7,230 2.5 15,854 7,614 23,468 4.6 1,408 647 21,413 4.7

2027 5,596 1,815 7,411 2.5 16,629 7,929 24,559 4.6 1,479 669 22,411 4.7

2028 (4) 5,764 1,854 7,618 2.8 17,491 8,279 25,771 4.9 1,558 694 23,519 4.9

2029 5,904 1,884 7,788 2.2 18,297 8,598 26,895 4.4 1,632 716 24,547 4.4

2030 6,064 1,920 7,984 2.5 19,193 8,954 28,146 4.7 1,714 741 25,691 4.7

2031 6,228 1,956 8,184 2.5 20,132 9,324 29,456 4.7 1,801 766 26,889 4.7

2032 (4) 6,415 1,998 8,413 2.8 21,175 9,736 30,911 4.9 1,897 795 28,219 4.9

2033 6,571 2,031 8,601 2.2 22,151 10,110 32,261 4.4 1,987 820 29,454 4.4

2034 6,749 2,069 8,818 2.5 23,235 10,528 33,763 4.7 2,087 848 30,828 4.7

2035 6,932 2,108 9,040 2.5 24,372 10,963 35,336 4.7 2,193 877 32,266 4.7

2036 (4) 7,127 2,169 9,296 2.8 25,645 11,528 37,173 5.2 2,306 922 33,946 5.2

2037 7,287 2,219 9,506 2.3 26,837 12,056 38,893 4.6 2,411 964 35,518 4.6

2038 7,471 2,277 9,749 2.5 28,162 12,642 40,804 4.9 2,528 1,011 37,265 4.9

2039 7,660 2,336 9,997 2.5 29,552 13,257 42,809 4.9 2,651 1,061 39,097 4.9

2040(4)

7,876 2,404 10,280 2.8 31,095 13,940 45,036 5.2 2,788 1,115 41,133 5.2

2041 8,053 2,460 10,513 2.3 32,541 14,579 47,120 4.6 2,916 1,166 43,038 4.6

2042 8,256 2,524 10,780 2.5 34,147 15,288 49,435 4.9 3,058 1,223 45,154 4.9

2043 8,465 2,590 11,055 2.5 35,832 16,032 51,864 4.9 3,206 1,283 47,375 4.9

2044(4)

8,679 2,657 11,337 2.5 37,601 16,812 54,412 4.9 3,362 1,345 49,705 4.9

2045 8,875 2,719 11,594 2.3 39,349 17,581 56,930 4.6 3,516 1,406 52,007 4.6

2046 9,099 2,790 11,889 2.5 41,291 18,437 59,727 4.9 3,687 1,475 54,565 4.9

2047 9,329 2,863 12,192 2.5 43,328 19,333 62,662 4.9 3,867 1,547 57,249 4.9

2048(4)

9,565 2,937 12,502 2.5 45,467 20,274 65,741 4.9 4,055 1,622 60,064 4.9

2049 9,780 3,005 12,786 2.3 47,581 21,202 68,783 4.6 4,240 1,696 62,846 4.6

2050 9,903 3,044 12,948 1.3 48,741 21,712 70,452 2.4 4,342 1,737 64,373 2.4

2051 10,028 3,084 13,111 1.3 49,929 22,234 72,162 2.4 4,447 1,779 65,937 2.4

2052(4)

10,154 3,124 13,277 1.3 51,146 22,768 73,914 2.4 4,554 1,821 67,539 2.4

2053 10,253 3,156 13,409 1.0 52,250 23,251 75,501 2.1 4,650 1,860 68,991 2.1

2054 10,382 3,196 13,578 1.3 53,524 23,810 77,334 2.4 4,762 1,905 70,667 2.4

2055 10,513 3,238 13,750 1.3 54,829 24,383 79,211 2.4 4,877 1,951 72,384 2.4

2056 (4) 10,645 3,280 13,924 1.3 56,165 24,969 81,134 2.4 4,994 1,997 74,143 2.4

2057 10,749 3,313 14,062 1.0 57,377 25,499 82,876 2.1 5,100 2,040 75,737 2.1

2058 10,884 3,356 14,240 1.3 58,776 26,112 84,888 2.4 5,222 2,089 77,577 2.4

2059 11,021 3,399 14,420 1.3 60,209 26,739 86,949 2.4 5,348 2,139 79,462 2.4

2060 (4) 11,159 3,443 14,603 1.3 61,677 27,382 89,059 2.4 5,476 2,191 81,392 2.4

2061 11,269 3,478 14,747 1.0 63,008 27,963 90,972 2.1 5,593 2,237 83,142 2.1





(4) Leap Year.


4-24 April 16, 2018


SCENARIO 3: Jefferson Parkway Ultimate Build without the Northwest Parkway Extension



2022(3)

4,019 1,344 5,363 - 9,782$ 4,815$ 14,597$ - 1,011$ 495$ 13,092$ -

2023(3)

4,378 1,454 5,832 8.7 10,872 5,317 16,189 10.9 1,064 512 14,613 11.6

2024(3)(4)

4,768 1,572 6,339 8.7 12,078 5,869 17,948 10.9 1,122 532 16,293 11.5

2025 5,150 1,685 6,835 7.8 13,308 6,426 19,734 10.0 1,178 550 18,007 10.5

2026 5,298 1,721 7,020 2.7 13,969 6,701 20,670 4.7 1,239 569 18,862 4.7

2027 5,451 1,758 7,210 2.7 14,662 6,989 21,651 4.7 1,303 590 19,758 4.7

2028 (4) 5,624 1,801 7,425 3.0 15,432 7,309 22,741 5.0 1,375 613 20,753 5.0

2029 5,770 1,835 7,605 2.4 16,154 7,601 23,755 4.5 1,443 633 21,680 4.5

2030 5,937 1,874 7,811 2.7 16,956 7,927 24,883 4.7 1,518 656 22,710 4.8

2031 6,108 1,915 8,023 2.7 17,798 8,267 26,065 4.7 1,597 679 23,789 4.8

2032 (4) 6,302 1,961 8,263 3.0 18,732 8,646 27,378 5.0 1,684 706 24,988 5.0

2033 6,466 1,998 8,464 2.4 19,608 8,992 28,600 4.5 1,767 729 26,104 4.5

2034 6,653 2,041 8,694 2.7 20,581 9,377 29,959 4.8 1,859 755 27,344 4.8

2035 6,845 2,085 8,929 2.7 21,603 9,780 31,383 4.8 1,956 782 28,644 4.8

2036 (4) 6,998 2,136 9,134 2.3 22,591 10,238 32,829 4.6 2,048 819 29,962 4.6

2037 7,115 2,177 9,292 1.7 23,494 10,659 34,154 4.0 2,132 853 31,169 4.0

2038 7,254 2,225 9,478 2.0 24,501 11,129 35,630 4.3 2,226 890 32,514 4.3

2039 7,396 2,273 9,669 2.0 25,551 11,618 37,169 4.3 2,324 929 33,916 4.3

2040(4)

7,561 2,329 9,890 2.3 26,719 12,163 38,882 4.6 2,433 973 35,476 4.6

2041 7,687 2,374 10,061 1.7 27,788 12,664 40,451 4.0 2,533 1,013 36,905 4.0

2042 7,838 2,426 10,263 2.0 28,978 13,221 42,199 4.3 2,644 1,058 38,498 4.3

2043 7,991 2,479 10,469 2.0 30,220 13,803 44,023 4.3 2,761 1,104 40,158 4.3

2044(4)

8,147 2,533 10,680 2.0 31,515 14,410 45,926 4.3 2,882 1,153 41,891 4.3

2045 8,283 2,581 10,865 1.7 32,776 15,004 47,780 4.0 3,001 1,200 43,579 4.0

2046 8,445 2,638 11,083 2.0 34,180 15,664 49,844 4.3 3,133 1,253 45,459 4.3

2047 8,610 2,695 11,306 2.0 35,645 16,353 51,999 4.3 3,271 1,308 47,420 4.3

2048(4)

8,779 2,754 11,533 2.0 37,173 17,073 54,246 4.3 3,415 1,366 49,465 4.3

2049 8,926 2,807 11,732 1.7 38,660 17,776 56,436 4.0 3,555 1,422 51,458 4.0

2050 9,012 2,837 11,850 1.0 39,479 18,163 57,642 2.1 3,633 1,453 52,557 2.1

2051 9,100 2,868 11,968 1.0 40,316 18,558 58,875 2.1 3,712 1,485 53,678 2.1

2052(4)

9,188 2,899 12,088 1.0 41,171 18,962 60,133 2.1 3,792 1,517 54,824 2.1

2053 9,252 2,923 12,175 0.7 41,929 19,322 61,251 1.9 3,864 1,546 55,841 1.9

2054 9,342 2,955 12,297 1.0 42,818 19,743 62,561 2.1 3,949 1,579 57,033 2.1

2055 9,433 2,987 12,420 1.0 43,726 20,173 63,899 2.1 4,035 1,614 58,250 2.1

2056 (4) 9,525 3,019 12,544 1.0 44,653 20,612 65,265 2.1 4,122 1,649 59,493 2.1

2057 9,591 3,044 12,635 0.7 45,475 21,003 66,478 1.9 4,201 1,680 60,597 1.9

2058 9,685 3,077 12,761 1.0 46,439 21,460 67,899 2.1 4,292 1,717 61,891 2.1

2059 9,779 3,110 12,889 1.0 47,424 21,928 69,351 2.1 4,386 1,754 63,211 2.1

2060 (4) 9,874 3,144 13,018 1.0 48,429 22,405 70,834 2.1 4,481 1,792 64,561 2.1

2061 9,943 3,170 13,112 0.7 49,321 22,830 72,151 1.9 4,566 1,826 65,758 1.9





(4) Leap Year.


4-25 April 16, 2018


SCENARIO 4: Jefferson Parkway Ultimate Build with the Northwest Parkway Extension



2022(3)

4,843 1,601 6,444 - 11,955$ 5,848$ 17,803$ - 1,228$ 601$ 15,975$ -

2023(3)

5,280 1,731 7,011 8.8 13,291 6,453 19,743 10.9 1,291 622 17,830 11.6

2024(3)(4)

5,754 1,871 7,625 8.8 14,769 7,117 21,887 10.9 1,361 645 19,881 11.5

2025 6,220 2,006 8,226 7.9 16,278 7,786 24,064 9.9 1,427 666 21,971 10.5

2026 6,405 2,049 8,453 2.8 17,091 8,114 25,205 4.7 1,500 690 23,015 4.8

2027 6,595 2,092 8,687 2.8 17,944 8,456 26,400 4.7 1,577 714 24,109 4.8

2028 (4) 6,809 2,143 8,951 3.0 18,891 8,836 27,727 5.0 1,662 741 25,324 5.0

2029 6,992 2,182 9,174 2.5 19,779 9,183 28,963 4.5 1,743 765 26,455 4.5

2030 7,199 2,229 9,428 2.8 20,767 9,570 30,337 4.7 1,832 792 27,713 4.8

2031 7,413 2,276 9,689 2.8 21,803 9,973 31,776 4.7 1,926 820 29,031 4.8

2032 (4) 7,653 2,331 9,984 3.1 22,954 10,422 33,376 5.0 2,030 851 30,495 5.0

2033 7,859 2,374 10,233 2.5 24,034 10,831 34,865 4.5 2,129 878 31,858 4.5

2034 8,092 2,424 10,517 2.8 25,233 11,287 36,521 4.7 2,238 909 33,374 4.8

2035 8,332 2,476 10,808 2.8 26,493 11,763 38,255 4.8 2,353 941 34,962 4.8

2036 (4) 8,573 2,551 11,124 2.9 27,874 12,376 40,251 5.2 2,475 990 36,785 5.2

2037 8,773 2,613 11,387 2.4 29,168 12,951 42,119 4.6 2,590 1,036 38,493 4.6

2038 9,003 2,685 11,687 2.6 30,606 13,589 44,195 4.9 2,718 1,087 40,390 4.9

2039 9,238 2,758 11,996 2.6 32,114 14,258 46,372 4.9 2,852 1,141 42,380 4.9

2040(4)

9,506 2,841 12,347 2.9 33,789 15,002 48,791 5.2 3,000 1,200 44,591 5.2

2041 9,727 2,911 12,638 2.4 35,357 15,698 51,056 4.6 3,140 1,256 46,660 4.6

2042 9,982 2,990 12,972 2.6 37,100 16,472 53,572 4.9 3,294 1,318 48,960 4.9

2043 10,243 3,072 13,315 2.6 38,928 17,284 56,212 4.9 3,457 1,383 51,372 4.9

2044(4)

10,510 3,156 13,666 2.6 40,847 18,135 58,982 4.9 3,627 1,451 53,904 4.9

2045 10,756 3,233 13,989 2.4 42,743 18,977 61,720 4.6 3,795 1,518 56,406 4.6

2046 11,037 3,322 14,359 2.6 44,849 19,912 64,761 4.9 3,982 1,593 59,186 4.9

2047 11,325 3,413 14,738 2.6 47,059 20,893 67,953 4.9 4,179 1,671 62,103 4.9

2048(4)

11,621 3,506 15,127 2.6 49,379 21,923 71,302 4.9 4,385 1,754 65,163 4.9

2049 11,893 3,592 15,484 2.4 51,671 22,940 74,611 4.6 4,588 1,835 68,188 4.6

2050 12,047 3,640 15,687 1.3 52,929 23,499 76,427 2.4 4,700 1,880 69,848 2.4

2051 12,203 3,690 15,893 1.3 54,217 24,071 78,288 2.4 4,814 1,926 71,548 2.4

2052(4)

12,362 3,740 16,102 1.3 55,537 24,657 80,194 2.4 4,931 1,973 73,290 2.4

2053 12,488 3,780 16,269 1.0 56,734 25,188 81,922 2.2 5,038 2,015 74,869 2.2

2054 12,650 3,832 16,482 1.3 58,115 25,801 83,916 2.4 5,160 2,064 76,692 2.4

2055 12,815 3,884 16,698 1.3 59,530 26,429 85,959 2.4 5,286 2,114 78,559 2.4

2056 (4) 12,981 3,936 16,917 1.3 60,979 27,073 88,051 2.4 5,415 2,166 80,471 2.4

2057 13,114 3,979 17,093 1.0 62,293 27,656 89,949 2.2 5,531 2,212 82,205 2.2

2058 13,284 4,033 17,317 1.3 63,809 28,329 92,138 2.4 5,666 2,266 84,206 2.4

2059 13,456 4,088 17,544 1.3 65,363 29,019 94,381 2.4 5,804 2,322 86,256 2.4

2060 (4) 13,631 4,143 17,774 1.3 66,954 29,725 96,679 2.4 5,945 2,378 88,356 2.4

2061 13,771 4,188 17,958 1.0 68,396 30,366 98,762 2.2 6,073 2,429 90,260 2.2





(4) Leap Year.


4-26 April 16, 2018

transactions and 66.7 percent of total gross toll revenues. Total gross toll revenues are estimated to

be $14.1 million. Based on the leakage assumptions previously discussed, total net toll revenues in

2022 are estimated to be $12.6 million.

By 2040, a total of 8.5 million transactions are estimated under Scenario 1, representing an average

annual increase of 3.2 percent. This is estimated to include 6.5 million ExpressToll transactions and

2.0 million LPT transactions, or an ExpressToll participation rate of 76.0 percent. These transactions

are estimated to generate $25.1 million in gross toll revenue from ExpressToll customers and $11.5

million from LPT customers. Gross ExpressToll revenues represent 68.4 percent of total estimated

gross revenues. Due to assumed annual toll increases, toll revenues are estimated to increase at a

faster rate that transactions, with gross toll revenues increasing by an average of 5.5 percent to $36.6

million in 2040. Collected toll revenues are estimated to be $33.4 million in 2040.

Scenario 2: Initial Build with the Northwest Parkway Extension

Estimated annual transactions and toll revenues are summarized for Scenario 2 in Table 4-9. An

estimated 4.2 million ExpressToll transactions and 1.4 million LPT transactions are anticipated in the

opening year of 2022. This represents an ExpressToll participation rate of 74.8 percent. Total annual

transactions, including the estimated impacts of ramp-up, are estimated at 5.6 million in 2022.

Opening year ExpressToll and LPT gross toll revenues of $11.1 million and $5.5 million, respectively,

are estimated for the Jefferson Parkway. ExpressToll gross revenues represent 66.9 percent of the

estimated $16.6 million in total 2022 gross toll revenues. Total net toll revenues in 2022 are

estimated to be $14.9 million, based on the previously summarized leakage assumptions.

Total transactions under Scenario 2 are estimated to increase at an average annual rate of 3.5 percent

per year to 10.3 million in 2040. ExpressToll transactions are estimated to be 7.9 million and LPT

transactions are estimated to be 2.4 million at that time. This represents an estimated ExpressToll

participation rate of 76.6 percent. These transactions are estimated to generate $31.1 million in gross

toll revenue from ExpressToll customers, or 69.0 percent of total gross toll revenues, and $13.9

million from LPT customers. Gross toll revenues are estimated to increase by an average of 5.7

percent annually after the opening year as a result of assumed toll increases to $45.0 million in 2040.

Collected toll revenues are estimated to be $41.1 million in 2040.

Scenario 3: Ultimate Build without the Northwest Parkway Extension

Under Scenario 3, 4.0 million ExpressToll transactions are estimated in the assumed opening year of

2022 and 1.3 million LPT transactions. As previously shown in Table 4-10, total annual transactions

are estimated at 5.8 million, which includes the estimated impacts of ramp-up. These transactions are

estimated to generate ExpressToll and LPT gross toll revenues of $9.8 million and $4.8 million,

respectively. Thus, ExpressToll transactions are estimated to represent 74.9 percent of total

transactions and 67.0 percent of total gross toll revenues. Total gross toll revenues are estimated to

be $14.6 million. Based on the leakage assumptions previously discussed, total net toll revenues in

2022 are estimated to be $13.1 million.

By 2040, a total of 9.9 million transactions are estimated under Scenario 3, representing an average

annual increase of 3.5 percent. This is estimated to include 7.6 million ExpressToll transactions and

2.3 million LPT transactions, or an ExpressToll participation rate of 76.4 percent. These transactions

are estimated to generate $26.7 million in gross toll revenue from ExpressToll customers and $12.2

million from LPT customers. Gross ExpressToll revenues represent 68.7 percent of total estimated

gross revenues. Due to assumed annual toll increases, toll revenues are estimated to increase at a


4-27 April 16, 2018

faster rate that transactions, with gross toll revenues increasing by an average of 5.6 percent to $38.9

million in 2040. Collected toll revenues are estimated to be $35.5 million in 2040.

Scenario 4: Ultimate Build with the Northwest Parkway Extension

Estimated annual transactions and toll revenues are summarized for Scenario 4 in Table 4-11

(previously shown). An estimated 4.8 million ExpressToll transactions and 1.6 million LPT

transactions are anticipated in the opening year of 2022. This represents an ExpressToll participation

rate of 75.2 percent. Total annual transactions, including the estimated impacts of ramp-up, are

estimated at 6.4 million in 2022. Opening year ExpressToll and LPT gross toll revenues of $12.0

million and $5.8 million, respectively, are estimated for the Jefferson Parkway. ExpressToll gross

revenues represent 67.2 percent of the estimated $17.8 million in total 2022 gross toll revenues. Total

net toll revenues in 2022 are estimated to be $16.0 million, based on the previously summarized

leakage assumptions.

Total transactions under Scenario 4 are estimated to increase at an average annual rate of 3.7 percent

per year to 12.3 million in 2040. ExpressToll transactions are estimated to be 9.5 million and LPT

transactions are estimated to be 2.8 million at that time. This represents an estimated ExpressToll

participation rate of 77.0 percent. These transactions are estimated to generate $33.8 million in gross

toll revenue from ExpressToll customers, or 69.3 percent of total gross toll revenues, and $15.0

million from LPT customers. Gross toll revenues are estimated to increase by an average of 5.8

percent annually after the opening year as a result of assumed toll increases to $48.8 million in 2040.

Collected toll revenues are estimated to be $44.6 million in 2040.

Disclaimer Current accepted professional practices and procedures were used in the development of these traffic

and revenue estimates. However, as with any forecast of the future, it should be understood that there

may be differences between forecasted and actual results caused by events and circumstances beyond

the control of the forecasters. In formulating its estimates, CDM Smith has reasonably relied upon the

accuracy and completeness of information provided (both written and oral) by the Jefferson Parkway

Public Highway Authority and other local and state agencies. CDM Smith also has relied upon the

reasonable assurances of some independent parties and is not aware of any facts that would make

such information misleading.

CDM Smith has made qualitative judgments related to several key variables in the development and

analysis of the traffic and revenue estimates that must be considered as a whole; therefore, selecting

portions of any individual result without consideration of the intent of the whole may create a

misleading or incomplete view of the results and the underling methodologies used to obtain the

results. CDM Smith gives no opinion as to the value or merit to partial information extracted from this

report.

All forecasts and projections reported herein are based on CDM Smith’s experience and judgment and

on a review of information obtained from multiple state and local agencies, including the Jefferson

Parkway Public Highway Authority, the Denver Regional Council of Governments, and by independent

third parties. These estimates and projections may not be indicative of actual or future values, and are

therefore subject to substantial uncertainty. Future developments, economic conditions cannot be

predicted with certainty, and may affect the estimates or projections expressed in this report, such

that CDM Smith does not specifically guarantee or warrant any estimate or projection contained

within this report.


4-28 April 16, 2018

While CDM Smith believes that some of the projections or other forward-looking statements contained

within the report are based on reasonable assumptions as of the date in the report, such forward

looking statements involve risks and uncertainties that may cause actual results to differ materially

from the results predicted. Therefore, following the date of this report, CDM Smith will take no

responsibility or assume any obligation to advise of changes that may affect its assumptions contained

within the report, as they pertain to socioeconomic and demographic forecasts, proposed residential

or commercial land use development projects and/or potential improvements to the regional

transportation network.

The report and its contents are intended solely for use by the JPPHA and designated parties approved

by JPPHA and CDM Smith. Any use by third-parties, other than as noted above, is expressly prohibited.

In addition, any publication of the report for purposes of financing without the express written

consent of CDM Smith is prohibited.

CDM Smith is not, and has not been, a municipal advisor as defined in Federal law (the Dodd Frank

Bill) to the Jefferson Parkway Public Highway Authority and does not owe a fiduciary duty pursuant to

Section 15B of the Exchange Act to the Jefferson Parkway Public Highway Authority with respect to

the information and material contained in this report. CDM Smith is not recommending and has not

recommended any action to the Jefferson Parkway Public Highway Authority. The Jefferson Parkway

Public Highway Authority should discuss the information and material contained in this report with

any and all internal and external advisors that it deems appropriate before acting on this information.

5-1 April 16, 2018

Chapter 5

Sensitivity Tests

The Base Case traffic and revenue forecasts included in the report are based on certain assumptions

and forecast of future economic growth and other events which are ultimately subject to some level of

uncertainty. As such, it is typical in traffic and revenue studies of this nature to conduct sensitivity

tests aimed at identifying the “sensitivity” of revenue forecasts to potential changes in certain basic

assumptions or future forecasts of underlying variables. Sensitivity tests typically include hypothetical

changes in future socioeconomic growth forecasts, value of time assumptions and so forth. For

purposes of this study, traffic assignments for seven different sensitivity tests were run. As will be

discussed in more detail below, Sensitivity Tests 1 through 5 were run for years 2022 and 2040.

Sensitivity Tests 6 and 7, which assume accelerated toll rate increases, provide a full toll revenue

stream between 2022 and 2061.

For each of the various sensitivity tests, the alternative transaction and revenue estimate is shown for

each respective year of tests and the percent impact as compared with the Base Case estimates. The

sensitivity tests were developed using all of the same socioeconomic inputs, highway improvements,

values of time, vehicle operating costs, toll rates, and toll revenue leakage assumptions as the Base

Case forecasts, except those being assessed in the particular sensitivity test. The seven sensitivity

tests considered in this study include:

1. Long-Term Reduced Economic Growth (25% Lower Trip Table Growth);

2. Long-Term Increased Economic Growth (25% Higher Trip Table Growth);

3. Decreased Value of Time (25% Lower Value of Time);

4. Increased Value of Time (25% Higher Value of Time);

5. Combined “Low” Scenario (25% Lower Trip Table Growth AND 25% Lower Value of Time);

6. Accelerated Toll Rate Increases (3.1% Annual Increase); and

7. Combined “High” Scenario (25% Higher Trip Table Growth AND 3.1% Annual Toll Increase).

It is important to recognize that all of the sensitivity tests assessed herein are hypothetical conditions

and represent departures from economic forecasts or assumptions used in the Base Case traffic and

revenue estimates. These tests are intended to show potential impacts on traffic and revenue of these

hypothetical changes from basic assumptions, and should not be considered as forecasts themselves.

Sensitivity Test 1: Long-Term Reduced Economic Growth A key underlying parameter of any traffic and revenue forecast is estimated future economic growth

in the project corridor. This particular sensitivity test was intended to evaluate the impact of a

hypothetical long-term reduced level of overall economic growth throughout the entire corridor. It

was simulated by reducing the net growth in trips in the trip tables by 25 percent from the rate of

growth assumed in the Base Case forecasts. The 25 percent reduction in growth resulted in overall

trip table reductions of 2.2 percent in 2022 and 6.5 percent in 2040. Traffic assignments were rerun

at 2022 and 2040 levels under the reduced growth assumptions and estimates of transactions and

collected toll revenue were developed for those years. Table 5-1 compares the resulting sensitivity

test estimates of annual transactions and collected toll revenue against the four Base Case forecasts.

Chapter 5 • Sensitivity Tests

5-2 April 16, 2018


Sensitivity Test 1: Long-Term Reduced Economic Growth

Total transactions in 2022 range from 4.5 million to 6.0 million under the reduced growth

assumptions of Sensitivity Test 1. This represents a reduction in transactions of between 6.5 percent

and 7.2 percent over the Base Case scenarios. In 2022, the transaction impact of the growth reduction

is slightly greater under the Ultimate Build configuration, likely as a result of a reduction in local trips.

A larger negative transaction impact is forecasted for 2040, with estimated reductions ranging from

14.2 percent to 17.9 percent. These impacts are based on total estimated transactions for Sensitivity

Test 1 ranging from 7.3 million to 10.1 million. The transaction impacts in 2040 tend to be greatest

under the scenarios that assume the Northwest Parkway Extension. This suggests that the lower

growth assumptions have a greater impact to trips traveling to and from the northeast.

Impacts to collected toll revenues in 2022 and 2040 are comparable to the impacts estimated for

transactions. This means that the lower growth assumptions are not expected to significantly impact

the ExpressToll participation rates or the vehicle class distribution estimated under the Base Case

scenarios. Total collected toll revenues under the reduced growth assumptions of Sensitivity Test 1

range from $11.8 million to $14.9 million in 2022 and from $28.5 million to $36.6 million in 2040.

Sensitivity Test 2: Long-Term Increased Economic Growth As with previous test, Sensitivity Test 2 was intended to evaluate the sensitivity of the proposed

Jefferson Parkway to a hypothetical long-term increase in economic growth. The net growth in trips

in the trip tables was increased by 25 percent over the rate of growth assumed in the Base Case

forecasts, resulting in overall trip table increases of 2.3 percent in 2022 and 9.4 percent in 2040.

Traffic assignments were rerun at 2022 and 2040 levels under these assumptions. Table 5-2

compares the resulting sensitivity test estimates of annual transactions and collected toll revenue

against the four Base Case forecasts.


Collected Toll Collected Toll


Base Case

Scenario 1: Initial Build w/o NWP Extension 4,832 12,585$ 8,542 33,380$

Scenario 2: Initial Build with NWP Extension 5,566 14,914$ 10,280 41,133$

Scenario 3: Ultimate Build w/o NWP Extension 5,363 13,092$ 9,890 35,476$

Scenario 4: Ultimate Build with NWP Extension 6,444 15,975$ 12,347 44,591$

Sensitivity Test 1: Long-Term 25 Percent Reduction in Economic Growth





Percent Difference

Scenario 1: Initial Build w/o NWP Extension (6.5) (6.3) (14.2) (14.5)

Scenario 2: Initial Build with NWP Extension (6.6) (6.5) (17.2) (17.8)

Scenario 3: Ultimate Build w/o NWP Extension (7.2) (6.9) (14.0) (14.1)

Scenario 4: Ultimate Build with NWP Extension (7.1) (6.8) (17.9) (17.9)




5-3 April 16, 2018


Sensitivity Test 2: Long-Term Increased Economic Growth

Overall, the transaction and collected toll revenue forecasts under Sensitivity Test 2 represent the

mirror image of those estimated under Sensitivity Test 1. Under the increased growth assumptions,

total transactions in 2022 range from 5.3 million to 7.1 million, or an increase over the Base Case

scenarios of between 9.3 percent and 10.9 percent. A larger positive transaction impact is forecasted

for 2040, with estimated increases over the Base Case scenarios ranging from 31.4 percent to 40.0

percent. These impacts are based on total estimated transactions for Sensitivity Test 2 of between

11.4 million to 12.7 million. The transaction impacts for Sensitivity Test 2 for both 2022 and 2040

tend to be greatest under the scenarios that assume the Northwest Parkway Extension. This suggests

that the increases in assumed regional growth have the greatest impact to trips traveling to and from

the northeast of the study area.

Impacts to collected toll revenues in 2022 and 2040 are generally comparable to the impacts

estimated for transactions. As noted in Sensitivity Test 1, this suggests that the lower growth

assumptions are not expected to significantly impact the ExpressToll participation rates or the vehicle

class distribution estimated under the Base Case scenarios. Total collected toll revenues under the

increased growth assumptions of Sensitivity Test 2 range from $13.8 million to $17.6 million in 2022

and from $45.0 million to $62.3 million in 2040.

Sensitivity Test 3: Decreased Value of Time Value of time is an important input parameter in estimating motorists’ willingness to pay tolls. With a

reduction in the assumed value of time, motorists would be less willing to pay a toll to take advantage

of the potential time savings provided by the proposed Jefferson Parkway. A sensitivity test was

requested to evaluate the impact of a hypothetical 25 percent decrease in the value of time. Under the

Base Case scenarios, the value of time averaged $0.318 per minute in 2022 and $0.478 per minute in




Base Case





Sensitivity Test 2: Long-Term 25 Percent Increase in Economic Growth





Percent Difference

Scenario 1: Initial Build w/o NWP Extension 9.3 9.5 34.0 34.9

Scenario 2: Initial Build with NWP Extension 9.6 9.4 40.0 41.0

Scenario 3: Ultimate Build w/o NWP Extension 9.3 9.3 31.4 33.3

Scenario 4: Ultimate Build with NWP Extension 10.9 10.0 39.3 39.7




5-4 April 16, 2018

2040. These values were reduced under this sensitivity test to an average of $0.239 per minute in

2022 and $0.359 per minute in 2040. Traffic assignments were then rerun at 2022 and 2040 levels

under the reduced value of time assumptions and estimates of transactions and collected toll revenue

were developed for those years. Table 5-3 compares the resulting sensitivity test estimates of annual

transactions and collected toll revenue against the four Base Case forecasts.


Sensitivity Test 3: Reduced Value of Time

Total transactions in 2022 range from 4.4 million to 5.6 million under the reduced value of time

assumptions of Sensitivity Test 3. This represents a reduction in transactions of between 8.9 percent

and 13.3 percent over the Base Case scenarios. A smaller negative transaction impact is forecasted for

2040, ranging from 6.9 percent to 11.8 percent, as inflation reduces the impact of the value of time

reduction. These impacts are based on total estimated transactions for Sensitivity Test 3 ranging from

8.0 million to 10.9 million. The transaction impacts for both 2022 and 2040 tend to be greatest under

the scenarios that assume the Northwest Parkway Extension. This is due to the fact that a reduction in

the assumed value of time would make all toll facilities less attractive, reducing the number of trips

entering the Jefferson Parkway from the Northwest Parkway.

Impacts to collected toll revenues in 2022 are roughly 1 percent greater than the impacts estimated

for transactions. This is due to the fact that a reduction in the assumed value of time will affect LPT

customers to a greater degree than ExpressToll customers due to the fact that the former pay a higher

toll rate. As result, those paying higher tolls are disproportionally discouraged from the roadway,

reducing the average toll, and impacting collected toll revenues to a greater degree than transactions.

Total collected toll revenues in 2022 range from $11.3 million to $13.8 million under Sensitivity Test

3. By 2040, the difference between the collected toll revenue and transaction impacts under

Senstivity Test 3 have largely been reduced to less than 1 percent as a result of inflation. Total 2040

collected toll revenues under Sensitivity Test 3 are estimated between $30.9 million to $39.0 million.




Base Case





Sensitivity Test 3: 25 Percent Decreased Value of Time





Percent Difference








5-5 April 16, 2018

Sensitivity Test 4: Increased Value of Time As with previous test, Sensitivity Test 4 was intended to evaluate the sensitivity of the proposed

Jefferson Parkway to a hypothetical change in the assumed value of time. Given an increase in the

assumed value of time, motorists would be more willing to pay a toll to take advantage of the potential

time savings provided by the proposed Jefferson Parkway. As noted above, value of times averaging

$0.318 per minute in 2022 and $0.478 per minute in 2040 were assumed under the Base Case

scenarios. These values were increased under this sensitivity test to an average of $0.398 per minute

in 2022 and $0.598 per minute in 2040. Traffic assignments were then rerun at 2022 and 2040 levels

under the increased value of time assumptions and estimates of transactions and collected toll

revenue were developed for those years. Table 5-4 compares the resulting sensitivity test estimates

of annual transactions and collected toll revenue against the four Base Case forecasts.


Sensitivity Test 4: Increased Value of Time

Total transactions in 2022 range from 5.1 million to 7.1 million under the increased value of time

assumptions of Sensitivity Test 4, representing increases of between 6.4 percent and 7.1 percent over

the Base Case scenarios. A smaller transaction impact is forecasted for 2040, ranging from 5.0 percent

to 8.3 percent, as inflation reduces the impact of the value of time increase. These impacts are based

on total estimated transactions for 2040 ranging from 9.0 million to 13.4 million. As with Sensitivity

Test 3, the transaction impacts for both 2022 and 2040 tend to be greatest under the scenarios that

assume the Northwest Parkway Extension.

Under Sensitivity Test 4, impacts to collected toll revenues are generally greater than those estimated

for transactions. As noted previously, this is due to the fact that changes in the assumed value of time

will affect LPT customers to a greater degree than ExpressToll customers. With an increase in

assumed values of time, those paying higher tolls are disproportionally encouraged to use the




Base Case





Sensitivity Test 4: 25 Percent Increased Value of Time





Percent Difference








5-6 April 16, 2018

roadway, increasing the average toll, and impacting collected toll revenues to a greater degree than

transactions. Total collected toll revenues under Sensitivity Test 4 range from $13.5 million to $17.7

million in 2022 and from $35.2 million to $48.4 million in 2040.

Sensitivity Test 5: Combined “Low” Scenario In an environment where regional growth is slowing, personal wages and household income can also

be negatively affected. Since values of time are correlated with wages and income, a reduction or

slowed increase in regional household income may lead to a reduction in value of time as people shift

their priorities away from time savings. As such, Sensitivity Test 5 estimates the potential impact to

the Jefferson Parkway of a combined 25 percent reduction in the rate of growth and a 25 percent

reduction in the assumed value of time. As in Sensitivity Test 1, a 25 percent reduction in the rate of

growth was simulated by reducing the overall trip tables by 2.2 percent in 2022 and 1.3 percent in

2040. The assumed values of time were adjusted to an average of $0.239 per minute in 2022 and

$0.359 per minute in 2040, similar to Sensitivity Test 3. Traffic assignments were then rerun at 2022

and 2040 levels under these combined “low” case assumptions. Table 5-5 compares the resulting

estimates of annual transactions and collected toll revenue against the four Base Case forecasts.


Sensitivity Test 5: Combined “Low” Scenario (Lower Growth and Lower Value of Time)

Total transactions in 2022 range from 4.1 million to 5.2 million, representing decreases of between

15.2 percent and 19.8 percent over the Base Case scenarios. A larger transaction impact is forecasted

for 2040, ranging from 20.5 percent to 28.0 percent, based on total estimated transactions for 2040

ranging from 6.8 million to 8.9 million. The transaction impacts for both 2022 and 2040 tend to be

greatest under the scenarios that assume the Northwest Parkway Extension. This is due to both the

reduction in growth to the northeast of the Jefferson Parkway and the fact that a reduction in the




Base Case





Sensitivity Test 5: Combined "Low" Scenario (25 Percent Lower Growth and 25 Percent Lower Value of Time)





Percent Difference








5-7 April 16, 2018

assumed value of time would make all toll facilities less attractive, reducing the number of trips

entering the Jefferson Parkway from the Northwest Parkway.

Under Sensitivity Test 5, Impacts to collected toll revenues are generally greater than those estimated

for transactions. As noted previously, this is due to the fact that changes in the assumed value of time

will affect LPT customers to a greater degree than ExpressToll customers. Total collected toll

revenues under Sensitivity Test 5 range from $10.6 million to $12.8 million in 2022 and from $26.2

million to $31.9 million in 2040.

Sensitivity Test 6: Accelerated Toll Rate Increases The preferred toll rates utilized in the Base Case forecasts were developed in cooperation with JPPHA

staff as part of the toll sensitivity analysis described in Chapter 4. As previously noted, the preferred

toll rate was selected at a point below the maximum on the curve. This will allow for some latitude in

the rate structure adjustments in the future. Also, the forecasting process itself is based on a range of

assumptions, such as estimates of values of time and perceived operating costs, etc. While the

technical approach and assumptions are reasonable, selecting a toll rate below the maximum point on

the curve helps to mitigate the potential uncertainty inherent in any forecast.

Under the Base Case assumptions, a preferred toll rate of $4.00 for ExpressToll customers and $6.00

for LPT was selected for 2040. This assumes a 2.3 percent annual increase over the 2022 toll rate

duringthe course of the forecast period based on the historical rate of inflation, keeping the toll rate at

the same general location on the toll sensitivity curve.

This sensitivity test assessed the traffic and revenue impact of increasing toll rates at an increased

rate, above the assumed 2.3 percent inflation rate. This would have the effect of moving further up the

toll sensitivity curve. An alternative toll rate of $4.60 for ExpressToll customers and $6.90 for LPT

was selected for 2040. The toll ramps were assumed to be $2.05 for ExpressToll customers and $3.05

for LPT. These rates assume a 3.1 percent annual increase over the 2022 toll rate through the course

of the forecast period. Trucks were still assumed to pay by axle based on an “n-1” rate structure.

Traffic assignments were run at 2040 levels with the alternative toll rates. A set of alternative annual

transaction and revenue estimates were developed through 2061 by interpolating between the Base

Case 2022 forecast and the Sensitivity Test 6 2040 transaction and revenue estimates, as presented in

Table 5-6. The Sensitivity Test 6 transaction and revenue estimates are compared against the four

Base Case forecasts at 2040 levels in Table 5-7.

Total estimated transactions in 2040 range from 8.1 million to 11.6 million assuming the higher

alternative toll rate, representing decreases of between 4.8 percent and 5.8 percent over the Base Case

scenarios. These decreases are due to some customers choosing to take alternative paths rather than

pay the higher toll rates analyzed under Sensitivity Test 6. The impacts are greater under the Ultimate

Build Scenarios due to the additional tolling points assumed under that configuration.

Under Sensitivity Test 6, impacts to collected toll revenues in 2040 are estimated to be 12.7 percent to

13.5 percent greater than under the Base Case scenarios due to the increased toll. In general, the

impact of the Base Case is greater in scenarios with the Northwest Parkway Extension. Total collected

toll revenues under the accelerated toll rate increases assumptions of Sensitivity Test 6 range from

$37.8 million to $50.4 million in 2040.


5-8 April 16, 2018

Table 5-6 Estimated Annual Transactions and Revenue Stream (In Thousands)

Sensitivity Test 6: Accelerated Toll Rate Increases




2022 (3) 4,832 12,585$ 5,566 14,914$ 5,363 13,092$ 6,444 15,975$

2023 (3) 5,218 14,138 6,020 16,766 5,809 14,739 6,984 17,979

2024(3)(4)

5,633 15,864 6,509 18,829 6,290 16,576 7,567 20,213

2025 6,032 17,645 6,979 20,958 6,755 18,478 8,131 22,524

2026 6,152 18,600 7,130 22,111 6,911 19,523 8,323 23,790

2027 6,275 19,608 7,283 23,327 7,071 20,628 8,520 25,129

2028 (4) 6,418 20,726 7,461 24,679 7,254 21,855 8,746 26,616

2029 6,529 21,790 7,601 25,967 7,401 23,029 8,929 28,037

2030 6,659 22,971 7,765 27,397 7,572 24,333 9,141 29,616

2031 6,793 24,217 7,933 28,907 7,747 25,712 9,358 31,285

2032 (4) 6,948 25,600 8,127 30,584 7,948 27,243 9,607 33,139

2033 7,068 26,915 8,281 32,183 8,110 28,708 9,809 34,912

2034 7,210 28,376 8,460 33,959 8,298 30,335 10,043 36,881

2035 7,355 29,916 8,644 35,833 8,491 32,055 10,282 38,962

2036 (4) 7,521 31,425 8,873 37,810 8,672 33,626 10,563 41,118

2037 7,648 32,830 9,058 39,679 8,809 35,080 10,792 43,157

2038 7,798 34,391 9,272 41,753 8,972 36,698 11,056 45,421

2039 7,951 36,027 9,491 43,937 9,138 38,390 11,326 47,803

2040 (4) 8,130 37,844 9,742 46,361 9,333 40,271 11,635 50,448

2041 8,267 39,536 9,945 48,652 9,480 42,013 11,887 52,950

2042 8,430 41,417 10,181 51,196 9,656 43,950 12,178 55,727

2043 8,596 43,387 10,421 53,873 9,835 45,977 12,476 58,650

2044 (4) 8,765 45,451 10,668 56,690 10,018 48,098 12,782 61,727

2045 8,913 47,483 10,890 59,491 10,175 50,178 13,059 64,787

2046 9,088 49,741 11,148 62,602 10,364 52,492 13,378 68,186

2047 9,267 52,107 11,411 65,876 10,556 54,913 13,706 71,762

2048 (4) 9,449 54,586 11,681 69,321 10,752 57,446 14,041 75,527

2049 9,609 57,026 11,925 72,746 10,921 59,931 14,345 79,271

2050 9,703 58,367 12,065 74,624 11,022 61,297 14,520 81,324

2051 9,798 59,739 12,207 76,550 11,124 62,695 14,697 83,429

2052 (4) 9,894 61,143 12,350 78,526 11,227 64,124 14,875 85,589

2053 9,963 62,409 12,461 80,333 11,299 65,407 15,015 87,566

2054 10,061 63,876 12,608 82,406 11,404 66,898 15,198 89,833

2055 10,159 65,378 12,756 84,534 11,509 68,423 15,383 92,159

2056(4)

10,259 66,915 12,906 86,716 11,615 69,983 15,570 94,545

2057 10,331 68,301 13,022 88,711 11,690 71,383 15,716 96,728

2058 10,432 69,906 13,175 91,001 11,798 73,010 15,907 99,233

2059 10,534 71,550 13,330 93,350 11,907 74,675 16,101 101,802

2060 (4) 10,637 73,232 13,487 95,759 12,017 76,377 16,296 104,438

2061 10,712 74,748 13,608 97,963 12,095 77,905 16,450 106,849





(4) Leap Year.


5-9 April 16, 2018


Sensitivity Test 6: Accelerated Toll Rate Increases

Sensitivity Test 7: Combined “High” Scenario This sensitivity test assessed the traffic and revenue impact of increasing toll rates at an increased

rate, above the assumed 2.3 percent inflation rate, in combination with a hypothetical increase in long-

term economic growth. As with Scenario 6, an alternative toll rate of $4.60 for ExpressToll customers

and $6.90 for LPT was selected for 2040. The toll ramps were assumed to be $2.05 for ExpressToll

customers and $3.05 for LPT. These rates assume a 3.1 percent annual increase over the 2022 toll

rate through the course of the forecast period. Trucks were still assumed to pay by axle based on an

“n-1” rate structure. The net growth in trips in the trip tables was then increased by 25 percent over

the rate of growth assumed in the Base Case forecasts, resulting in overall trip table increases of 2.3

percent in 2022 and 9.4 percent in 2040.

Traffic assignments were run at 2023 and 2040 levels with the increase trip table growth and the

2040 alternative toll rates. A set of alternative annual transaction and revenue estimates were

developed through 2061 by interpolating between the Sensitivity Test 7 transaction and revenue

estimates for 2023 and 2040, as presented in Table 5-8. The Sensitivity Test 6 transaction and

revenue estimates are compared against the four Base Case forecasts in Table 5-9.

Under Sensitivity Test 7, are the same those estimated under Sensitivity Test 2, since the increased

growth has been assumed but the accelerated toll rate increases (compared to the Base Case) have not

begun. Total transactions in 2022 range from 5.3 million to 7.1 million, or an increase over the Base

Case of between 9.3 percent and 10.9 percent. With the accelerated toll rate increases assumed, a

larger positive transaction impact is forecasted for 2040. Estimated transactions are 31.4 percent to

40.0 percent greater than the Base Case, or an increase of 11.4 million to 12.7 million. As with

Sensitivity Test 2, the transaction impacts for Sensitivity Test 7 for both 2022 and 2040 tend to be

greatest under the scenarios that assume the Northwest Parkway Extension.

Est. 2040 Transactions and Revenue

Collected Toll

Transactions (000s) Revenue ($000s) (1)

Base Case

Scenario 1: Initial Build w/o NWP Extension 8,542 33,380$

Scenario 2: Initial Build with NWP Extension 10,280 41,133$

Scenario 3: Ultimate Build w/o NWP Extension 9,890 35,476$

Scenario 4: Ultimate Build with NWP Extension 12,347 44,591$

Sensitivity Test 6: Accelerated Toll Rate Growth (3.1% per Year)

Scenario 1: Initial Build w/o NWP Extension 8,130 37,844$

Scenario 2: Initial Build with NWP Extension 9,742 46,361$

Scenario 3: Ultimate Build w/o NWP Extension 9,333 40,271$

Scenario 4: Ultimate Build with NWP Extension 11,635 50,448$

Percent Difference

Scenario 1: Initial Build w/o NWP Extension (4.8) 13.4

Scenario 2: Initial Build with NWP Extension (5.2) 12.7

Scenario 3: Ultimate Build w/o NWP Extension (5.6) 13.5

Scenario 4: Ultimate Build with NWP Extension (5.8) 13.1



5-10 April 16, 2018

Table 5-8 Estimated Annual Transactions and Revenue Stream (In Thousands)

Sensitivity Test 7: Combined “High” Scenario (Higher Growth and Accelerated Toll Rate Increases)




2022(3)

5,282 13,786$ 6,098 16,317$ 5,861 14,307$ 7,144 17,574$

2023(3)

5,756 15,603 6,675 18,553 6,392 16,201 7,827 19,980

2024(3)(4)

6,270 17,642 7,305 21,073 6,968 18,327 8,573 22,691

2025 6,773 19,771 7,929 23,725 7,534 20,550 9,312 25,544

2026 6,970 21,000 8,198 25,317 7,759 21,840 9,636 27,255

2027 7,173 22,305 8,476 27,015 7,992 23,210 9,971 29,081

2028(4)

7,403 23,757 8,788 28,906 8,254 24,735 10,346 31,115

2029 7,597 25,164 9,061 30,761 8,478 26,215 10,676 33,110

2030 7,819 26,728 9,369 32,825 8,732 27,861 11,047 35,328

2031 8,047 28,390 9,687 35,027 8,994 29,609 11,432 37,696

2032 (4) 8,304 30,237 10,043 37,479 9,289 31,554 11,862 40,332

2033 8,522 32,028 10,356 39,885 9,542 33,443 12,241 42,918

2034 8,771 34,019 10,708 42,561 9,828 35,541 12,667 45,794

2035 9,027 36,133 11,072 45,416 10,123 37,772 13,108 48,864

2036 (4) 9,407 38,879 11,604 49,125 10,562 40,687 13,755 52,880

2037 9,750 41,605 12,095 52,846 10,961 43,588 14,355 56,915

2038 10,133 44,644 12,642 57,006 11,406 46,825 15,022 61,426

2039 10,532 47,906 13,214 61,494 11,869 50,302 15,721 66,296

2040 (4) 10,976 51,548 13,849 66,518 12,385 54,186 16,497 71,748

2041 11,376 55,164 14,436 71,560 12,852 58,052 17,218 77,226

2042 11,824 59,197 15,089 77,197 13,374 62,364 18,019 83,351

2043 12,289 63,524 15,772 83,278 13,918 66,998 18,857 89,962

2044 (4) 12,773 68,169 16,486 89,839 14,483 71,976 19,735 97,099

2045 13,239 72,954 17,185 96,654 15,031 77,114 20,598 104,517

2046 13,761 78,289 17,963 104,272 15,642 82,845 21,557 112,811

2047 14,303 84,016 18,777 112,491 16,278 89,003 22,561 121,765

2048 (4) 14,866 90,162 19,628 121,359 16,940 95,620 23,612 131,431

2049 15,409 96,494 20,461 130,571 17,580 102,449 24,645 141,478

2050 15,710 99,962 20,920 135,621 17,934 106,189 25,213 146,987

2051 16,017 103,555 21,388 140,868 18,296 110,067 25,793 152,712

2052(4)

16,329 107,278 21,868 146,317 18,664 114,086 26,388 158,660

2053 16,602 110,830 22,297 151,563 18,988 117,929 26,922 164,389

2054 16,926 114,814 22,797 157,427 19,370 122,236 27,542 170,793

2055 17,257 118,942 23,308 163,519 19,760 126,701 28,177 177,446

2056(4)

17,594 123,219 23,831 169,847 20,159 131,328 28,827 184,359

2057 17,888 127,300 24,298 175,938 20,509 135,754 29,411 191,019

2058 18,237 131,878 24,843 182,747 20,922 140,713 30,089 198,462

2059 18,594 136,620 25,401 189,820 21,343 145,853 30,782 206,195

2060 (4) 18,957 141,533 25,970 197,168 21,773 151,182 31,492 214,231

2061 19,274 146,223 26,480 204,241 22,152 156,277 32,130 221,972





(4) Leap Year.


5-11 April 16, 2018


Sensitivity Test 7: Combined “High” Scenario (Higher Growth and Accelerated Toll Rate Increases)

Impacts to collected toll revenues in 2022 and 2040 are generally comparable to the impacts

estimated for transactions. As noted in prior Sensitivity Tests, this suggests that the higher growth

assumptions are not expected to significantly impact the ExpressToll participation rates or the vehicle

class distribution estimated under the Base Case scenarios. Total collected toll revenues under the

increased growth and accelerated toll rate increase assumptions of Sensitivity Test 7 range from $13.8

million to $17.6 million in 2022 and from $51.5 million to $71.7 million in 2040.




Base Case





Sensitivity Test 5: Combined "Low" Scenario (25 Percent Lower Growth and 25 Percent Lower Value of Time)





Percent Difference







Level 1 Traffic and Revenue Study Jefferson Parkway

Documents

Transcript of Level 1 Traffic and Revenue Study Jefferson Parkway