I-25 GAP COALITION MEETING #3 August 24, 2017 Douglas County Fairgrounds Main Event Center 500 Fairgrounds Blvd., Castle Rock MEETING SUMMARY

Transcription

1 I-25 GAP COALITION MEETING #3 August 24, 2017 Douglas County Fairgrounds Main Event Center 500 Fairgrounds Blvd., Castle Rock MEETING SUMMARY Attendees Dale Anderson Rachel Beck Linda Black Representative Terri Carver Commissioner Luella Chavez D Angelo Carrie DeJiacomo-Wiedner Andrew Dunkley Emeka Ezekwemba Tim Geitner Aaron Greco Art Griffith Jennifer Irvine Paul Jesaitis Congressman Doug Lamborn Tomer Laufer Lesley Mace Mayor Jackie Millet Ann Oatman-Gardner Ron Papsdorf Commissioner Roger Partridge David Poling Mayor Ron Rakowsky Representative Kim Ransom Karah Reygers Pam Ridler Commissioner Rocky Scott Commissioner Nancy Sharpe Roger Sherman Rick Sonnenburg Tim Stewart Herman Stockinger Commissioner Lora Thomas Commissioner Mark Waller Larry Warner Jennifer Webster Mayor Pro Tem Don Wilson Welcome and Introductions Douglas County Commissioner Roger Partridge welcomed everyone to the third meeting of the I-25 Gap Coalition. Commissioner Partridge recognized several elected officials present including Congress Doug Lamborn; County Commissioners Mark Waller, Lora Thomas and Nancy Sharpe; Transportation Commissioners Luella Chavez D Angelo and Rocky Scott; Representatives Terri Carver and Kim Ransom; Mayors Ron Rakowsky and Jackie Millet; and Mayor Pro Tem Don Wilson. He also recognized several Colorado congressional staff members in attendance. Commissioner Partridge then asked those in attendance to introduce themselves. 1

2 Administrative Items Roger Sherman reported the standing Coalition meeting, based on input from members, will be the fourth Thursday of the month at 2:30 p.m. The Coalition will meet every other month for now, but may switch to monthly meetings if needed. He noted agendas, meeting summaries, presentations and other materials are posted on the Coalition s website at I25GapCoalition.com. Roger provided copies of the Coalition s letter to the Colorado congressional delegation and thanked members for their help with drafting and signatures. CDOT Update on I-25 South PEL Study Carrie DeJiacomo provided an update on the PEL Study. The PEL study covers I-25 South from C-470 to Monument, not just the Gap. The team has completed level 1 and 2 review of the study, which included review of four concepts that stand alone as well as supplement elements that improve to the concepts. Most of the concepts are being carried forward into level 3 and 4 reviews. Level 3 looks at how the concepts would apply to the three study segments (the Gap, middle area around Castle Rock, and the north area). CDOT continues to conduct surveys and hopes to advance the Gap and kick-off the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) study in October. A Consultant will soon be under contract to perform a traffic and revenue study for the corridor and will be analyzing managed lane options. CDOT is coordinating with both DRCOG and PPACG to review traffic modeling and working to get the project in the Statewide Transportation Plan. Carrie reported on communication and outreach efforts for the project. She noted the September public meetings were rescheduled to October 24 (Colorado Springs) and 26 (Douglas County). It was necessary to move the meeting to allow time for a thorough review of all options before presenting them to the public. The rescheduled meetings will not impact the schedule. Larry Warner noted the Douglas County public meeting is the same day as our next Coalition meeting. Finally, she reported on a number of initial action items to improve operations on the corridor including the Mind the Gap campaign, working with courtesy patrol, the addition of weekend Bustang service, and incident management review. Corridor Funding Strategies Herman Stockinger, the Director of the Office of Policy and Government Relations and Secretary of the Transportation Commission, was present to discuss transportation funding and SB 267. Herman reviewed some of the challenges the state of Colorado is facing. Colorado has not kept up with our growing population. In 1991, the state had 3.3 million residents who traveled 27.4 billion vehicle miles, and CDOT spent $ per person. By 2015, our population grew to 5.4 million people traveling 50.5 billion miles and CDOT spending decreased to $68.94 per person. It is estimated that by 2040, our population will grow to 7.8 million and CDOT s spending will only spend $41.16 per person. The result is a $1 billion shortfall each year for the next 25 years. As a result, Colorado has fallen behind other states. To provide some context, Herman compared Colorado to Utah in two categories: pavement conditions (CO ranked 32 nd, UT ranked 2 nd ) and bridge conditions (CO ranked 18 th, UT ranked 1 st ). When comparing 2

3 system reliability of 46 large cities across the country, Salt Lake City is ranked 2 nd and Denver is ranked 28 th. CDOT s budget is approximately $1.4 billion per year. Most of the funding is dedicated to maintaining the current system (approximately $800M). Generally, there are no new funds for increased capacity projects. The Transportation Commission has made the decision that it is better to try and sustain our existing transportation system than neglect it in favor of new capacity. New capacity requires agreement with local jurisdictions and identifying seed money for local match requirements to leverage federal grants. An example was I-25 North, Fort Collins South-Segments 7 and 8. Agreement was reached on what to build was in ROD (managed lanes), a County Commissioner proposed using local funds as a match for a TIGER Grant application. The seed money turned into a small TIGER Grant. Together the grant and matching funds provided $55 million of a $267 million project. Herman reviewed the details of SB passed by the legislature earlier this year. Approximately $1.8 billion will be available over four years for transportation funding. The bill authorizes approximately $150 million per year in Certificates of Participation (COP), with repayment coming from two sources: $50 million from CDOT s (likely from existing maintenance budget) and $100 million from the state s general fund. CDOT is required to spend at least 25% in rural counties and 10% on transit. He stated it was important to manage expectations regarding SB 267 it is not a funding solution; but a step in the right direction. The bill effectively provides a low interest loan to CDOT to move important projects forward. What is the timing for projects? The Transportation Commission has held workshops each month and hopes to select the first two years of projects before the end of the year. CDOT continues to work with transportation stakeholders to discuss priorities. Staff was working to refine the Tier 1 Development Plan into a ballot list during the legislative session while legislators were considering HB In June the Transportation Commission received an updated list that contains refined cost estimates for projects in the Tier 1 grouping. The list is a starting point for selecting SB 267 and INFRA grant application projects and SB 267 funds may be used to match INFRA grant applications. Questions regarding SB 267: What can the Coalition do to help ensure the $100 million from the general fund will be there? It is important to work with future legislators to make sure they understand transportation funding remains a priority. If the money isn t allocated each year, CDOT will be responsible to use existing funds which would require reducing expenditures on maintenance. Regarding INFRA, or Infrastructure for Rebuilding America, Stockinger noted only $1.56 billion is available nationally. Large projects are defined as > $100 million with a minimum $25 million grant request. INFRA can make up no more than 60% of a project s cost, but should be much less to be competitive. Applications are due November 2 nd. States, cities, counties and other governmental agencies may apply. The Transportation Commission will determine which projects the state will apply for in September. 3

4 Questions regarding INFRA: One of the requirements is local participation, and since the applications are due in November we don t have a lot of time to identify local funds. How do we make this work? We recognize we won t have all the local match commitments by September when the Transportation Commission considers projects. As long as there is a reasonable expectation of local funds we can consider the project. Communication is key. How much of a local match will you be looking for? It s undetermined at this point, but likely a minimum of 10% local funds, and INFRA is capped at 20%. What was the level of local participation on the North I-25 project mentioned earlier? Local governments contributed $25 million, which leveraged a $15 million TIGER grant. The total project cost was $237 million. Has CDOT started looking at Benefit Cost Analysis (BCA) ratios on any of the high priority projects? I don t believe we have. They are pretty labor intensive, so until we have a good sense about which projects to submit we won t do the analysis. Congressman Lamborn thanked the Coalition for the work being done in support of the project. He stated he will do everything he can to obtain an INFRA grant for Colorado. Congressman Lamborn introduced James Thomas, his legislative director who joined by phone from Washington D.C. He works closely with the U.S. Department of Transportation and Federal Highway Administration and they have stressed the importance of projects that have state, local and/or private public-private partnerships funding. Projects need to be ready to be constructed fairly quickly following the grant. He noted only 17 projects (were urban and 8 rural) nationally were funded through the Fast Act last year, and INFRA will be just as competitive. Larry Warner noted a CDOT staff memo to the Transportation Commission dated August 16 and encouraged Coalition members to review it. The memo includes a lot of good information and the timeline for CDOT decision making. Questions/Comments: What challenges we face regarding the Gap project? The top priority is getting into the Statewide Transportation Plan, which requires CDOT declare if the project is general purpose lane or managed lane. Both INFRA and SB 267 are looking for innovative financing. CDOT is working closely with DRCOG and PPACG. What money does a managed lane bring to the table? Managed lanes do not collect significant funds for construction. It does provide some funds to ongoing maintenance. Each project is different, but the primary benefit of all managed lane projects is improving trip reliability. There needs to be a way to use revenue for construction to get buy-in from our citizens. The purpose of the current tolling and revenue study is to determine how much money might be raised. Should we be concerned by smaller projects local jurisdictions might submit? Does it create competition that could hinder a larger application? CDOT always works with our congressional delegations and FHWA to prioritize applications for the state. City and county applications can 4

5 be just as successful as local. Perhaps it would be better to have Douglas or El Paso County apply, rather than CDOT. These are the types of discussions CDOT is having. What is our competition across the state? All of the Tier 1 development plan projects over $100 million are listed in the memo you were provided. The projects bolded are one s we feel could be competitive. The North Front Range MPO will be submitted an application for North I-25 segments 5 and 6. Are there any other projects that haven t been through the DRCOG process? Not sure, but the accelerated environmental process will ensure the project meets the INFRA grant timeline. Commissioner Mark Waller provided an update on two funding sources El Paso County is considering. One source is PPRTA, which is required to use funds raised on two identified project lists which total approximately $89 million this year. Revenue is coming in much higher ($102 million) and he has proposed using $5 million of the excess for two years to provide Gap seed money. Unfortunately, the Gap isn t on one of the lists, so voters will be asked in November to add the Gap to the project list. All five member governments will then have to unanimously agree to add the project. Recent polling indicates strong support for the proposal as well as high awareness of the need to make improvements to the Gap. The second source is revenue coming to the county due to record growth. Forecasts estimate approximately $15 million per year in TABOR surplus over the next 3-4 years. He will be asking his Commission to refer to the voters a ballot question asking for approval to retain the surplus. He would like to use half of the money over two years as additional seed funds for the GAP ($7.5 million per year). Commissioner Partridge noted Douglas County will not have a ballot issue in November, but has identified $7.9 million for safety improvements on adjacent facilities, incident management improvements and planning/study costs. The County also identified $5 million to the west frontage road project. Update on Increased Enforcement in the GAP Larry Warner noted the I-25 PEL Steering Committee discussed the merits of photo radar at its July 14 meeting. He asked local officials to think about the pros/cons of photo radar so the Coalition can discuss at a future meeting. Tamara Rollison previewed a new Mind the Gap safety campaign to be launched later in the fall. The website for the effort is The campaign includes information about the Gap, what steps CDOT has taken to improve safety, and what motorists can do to stay safe when traveling through the corridor. Other Matters Commissioner Waller presented a draft resolution supporting improvements and asking for state officials to support prioritizing the Gap. After discussion about the process for taking positions as a Coalition, it was agreed individual members could adopt a resolution or provide a letter of support based on the local jurisdiction s process. 5