Der Derek ek Cutler Cutler Nao Naomi mi Stein Stein Cha - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

der derek ek cutler cutler
SMART_READER_LITE
LIVE PREVIEW

Der Derek ek Cutler Cutler Nao Naomi mi Stein Stein Cha - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Land Land-Us Use e Sce Scenarios narios Impact Impact on on Eco Economic nomic Ev Evalua aluation tion of of Pr Projects ojects If youre going to skate on thin ice, you may as well dance. Cr Craig aig Cas Casper per Der


slide-1
SLIDE 1

Land Land-Us Use e Sce Scenarios narios Impact Impact on

  • n

Eco Economic nomic Ev Evalua aluation tion of

  • f Pr

Projects

  • jects

October 2016

If you’re going to skate on thin ice, you may as well dance.

Cr Craig aig Cas Casper per Der Derek ek Cutler Cutler Nao Naomi mi Stein Stein Cha Chandler ndler Dun Duncan can

slide-2
SLIDE 2

CONTEXT

#1

slide-3
SLIDE 3
slide-4
SLIDE 4

POPULATION COMPARISON –

slide-5
SLIDE 5

Planworks Process

13 Goals in a Performance Based Plan

https://fhwaapps.fhwa.dot.gov/planworks

Economic Goal: Improve economic vitality and freight movement by improving the transportation system.

slide-6
SLIDE 6

FACILITATED COLLABORATION

Technical Advisory Committee

City of Colorado Springs Mountain Metro Transit City of Fountain City of Manitou Springs City of Woodland Park Colorado DOT HQ Colorado DOT Region 2 El Paso County Bicycle Colorado Teller County Town of Green Mountain Falls Town of Monument Town of Palmer Lake Colorado Air Quality Control Colorado Springs Utilities FHWA FTA Ft Carson Peterson Air Force Base Mountain Metro Transit US Air Force Academy

Community Advisory Committee

City of Colorado Springs City of Fountain City of Manitou Springs City of Woodland Park Regional Business Alliance Council of Neighborhood Organizations El Paso County League of Women Voters Teller County Town of Green Mountain Falls Town of Monument Town of Palmer Lake 6 Citizens-At-Large

Other Groups Invited

Convention & Visitors Bureau Housing & Building Association of CS Downtown Partnership of CS City of CS Economic Development Dept Colorado Springs Airport Manitou Springs EDC / BID City of Fountain Economic Develop Dept Greater Woodland Park Chamber City of Cripple Creek CS Black Chamber Hispanic Chamber of CS Southern Colorado Women’s Chamber Colorado Springs Utilities Pikes Peak Assoc. Of Realtors Tri-Lakes Chamber Pikes Peak Community College Army Corps of Engineers US EPA US Fish and Wildlife Service Colorado Dept of Wildlife Colorado Dept of Health El Paso County Parks Colorado Springs Parks Council of Neighbors and Organizations

Involve every group that impacts or is impacted by transportation investment decisions.

slide-7
SLIDE 7

ECONOMIC RELATED GROUPS

Regional Business Alliance Convention & Visitors Bureau Housing & Building Association of CS Downtown Partnership of CS City of CS Economic Development Dept Colorado Springs Airport Manitou Springs EDC / BID City of Fountain Economic Develop Dept Greater Woodland Park Chamber CS Black Chamber Hispanic Chamber of CS Southern Colorado Women’s Chamber Tri-Lakes Chamber

slide-8
SLIDE 8

FACILITATED COLLABORATION

slide-9
SLIDE 9

SCENARIO DEVELOPMENT IN COMMUNITYVIZ

Create land use scenarios Use indicators to measure impacts (economic, social, environmental) Analyze using models Experiment interactively and see changes Score projects based

  • n future impacts

Adopt official plan

slide-10
SLIDE 10

TOOLS USED

ArcGIS Compatible

CommunityViz Vista N-Spect TELUM VISUM

Stand-Alone

HERS-ST TREDIS MOVES TNM

slide-11
SLIDE 11

Infill/ Cluster

SCENARIO DEVELOPMENT WORKSHOPS

Baseline Current Trend Accelerated Trend 2010 2040 Scenario planning:

  • Educational, “what-if”

analysis

  • Intentionally extreme
  • Not necessarily

desired outcomes

  • Indicators help

quantify effects

slide-12
SLIDE 12

DIFFERENT FUTURE LAND-USES

The only thing we know for sure about our land-use forecasts is that they are wrong.

slide-13
SLIDE 13

PLAN ASSUMPTIONS

slide-14
SLIDE 14

PLAN ASSUMPTIONS

slide-15
SLIDE 15

PLAN ASSUMPTIONS

slide-16
SLIDE 16

2040 SCENARIOS –”ADVISORS” WITH A VESTED INTEREST

slide-17
SLIDE 17

2040 SCENARIOS –”ADVISORS” WITH A VESTED INTEREST

slide-18
SLIDE 18

2040 SCENARIOS –”ADVISORS” WITH A VESTED INTEREST

slide-19
SLIDE 19

2040 SCENARIOS –”ADVISORS” WITH A VESTED INTEREST

slide-20
SLIDE 20

20 2012 12 Ex Existing isting

slide-21
SLIDE 21

20 2040 40 For

  • rec

ecast ast

slide-22
SLIDE 22

2040 SCENARIOS – MORE INFORMED ADVISORS

WITH A VESTED INTEREST

slide-23
SLIDE 23

2040 SCENARIOS – MORE INFORMED ADVISORS

WITH A VESTED INTEREST

slide-24
SLIDE 24

CONSERVATION 2035 – RESIDENTIAL DENSITY

slide-25
SLIDE 25

ECONOMIC ANALYSIS = PRESENT VALUE OF DIRECT / INDIRECT

slide-26
SLIDE 26

ECONOMIC ANALYSIS

slide-27
SLIDE 27

Accelerated Trend Scenario

Benefits over Maintenance Only

Vehicle Operating Cost Savings +136.6 Million Dollars Time & Reliability Cost Savings +91.8 Million Dollars Value of Personal Time Savings +1,215.8 Million Dollars Shipper/Logistics Cost Savings +9.0 Million Dollars Total Economic Benefits +1,459.8 Million Dollars

ECONOMIC ANALYSIS

  • Monetized present value from project benefits
  • Scoring from 0 to 9
  • Due to project magnitude distortion, normalized using 3rd best

project.

slide-28
SLIDE 28

KEY FINDINGS

1,680,000,000 2,180,000,000 2,680,000,000 3,180,000,000 3,680,000,000 4,180,000,000 4,680,000,000 5,180,000,000

INFILL ADOPTED ACCELERATED

Total Value of Projects Analyzed

slide-29
SLIDE 29

KEY FINDINGS

Socioeconomic and land use scenarios help identify:

  • Projects whose utility changes under different growth patterns
  • Projects with benefits that remain stable under all scenarios.

This allowed the MPO to consider the risk inherent in socio-economic assumptions in projecting project benefits, as well as considering the degree to which anticipated socio-economic future conditions may affect project prioritization and selection. With a total of $1.8 Billion in project construction costs the forecast direct economic benefit was:

slide-30
SLIDE 30

KEY FINDINGS – ACCELERATED TREND

ID Project Benefit Score

72 I-25 HOV Lanes $ 1,199,484,943 9.000 27 Briargate Pkwy/ Stapleton Rd Connection $ 352,721,855 8.000 172 Transit-current operations $ 280,574,203 7.000 114 Powers Blvd. Intersection Improvements from North Carefree to Constitution $ 263,201,499 6.567 14 Academy over Sand Creek Bridge Rehabilitation $ 108,014,273 3.465 34 Cimarron over Fountain Creek Bridge Rehabilitation $ 105,286,255 3.377 13 Academy over Platte Ave Deck Replacement $ 88,880,223 2.851 198 Union Blvd over Cottonwood Creek Bridge Replacement $ 86,702,486 2.781 40 Dublin Road Widening:Peterson Road to Marksheffel Road $ 74,887,076 2.402 62 Garrett Road $ 72,196,536 2.316 5 8th St. over Fountain Creek Bridge Rehabilitation $ 70,512,226 2.262 50 Fillmore Street over Monument Creek Bridge Rehabilitation $ 60,577,009 1.943 51 Fillmore Street over UPRR Bridge Rehabilitation $ 60,400,373 1.937 53 Fontanero over Camp Creek Bridge Replacement $ 56,015,998 1.797 160 Transit BRT Citadel to Downtown $ 53,995,186 1.732 61 Garden of the Gods over S Douglas Creek Bridge Rehabilitation $ 53,631,295 1.720 115 Powers Blvd: SH 83 to I-25 (at Northgate Rd) $ 51,725,375 1.659 195 Transit IT Improvements $ 47,783,124 1.533

slide-31
SLIDE 31

KEY FINDINGS – EXISTING TREND ADOPTED SCENARIO

ID Project Benefit Score

72 I-25 HOV Lanes $ 1,235,991,867 9.000 114 Powers Blvd. Intersection Improvements from North Carefree to Constitution $ 792,548,999 8.000 172 Transit-current operations $ 308,997,967 7.000 27 Briargate Pkwy/ Stapleton Rd Connection $ 163,140,134 4.752 14 Academy over Sand Creek Bridge Rehabilitation $ 108,014,273 3.146 34 Cimarron over Fountain Creek Bridge Rehabilitation $ 105,286,255 3.067 13 Academy over Platte Ave Deck Replacement $ 88,880,223 2.589 198 Union Blvd over Cottonwood Creek Bridge Replacement $ 86,702,486 2.525 115 Powers Blvd: SH 83 to I-25 (at Northgate Rd) $ 74,172,144 2.160 5 8th St. over Fountain Creek Bridge Rehabilitation $ 70,512,226 2.054 50 Fillmore Street over Monument Creek Bridge Rehabilitation $ 60,577,009 1.764 51 Fillmore Street over UPRR Bridge Rehabilitation $ 60,400,373 1.759 160 Transit BRT Citadel to Downtown $ 60,388,829 1.759 161 Transit-Nevada Streetcar $ 60,388,829 1.759 53 Fontanero over Camp Creek Bridge Replacement $ 56,015,998 1.632 61 Garden of the Gods over S Douglas Creek Bridge Rehabilitation $ 53,631,295 1.562 159 Transit-Colorado Avenue BRT $ 53,335,008 1.553 205 US 24 East Widening $ 43,497,430 1.267

slide-32
SLIDE 32

KEY FINDINGS – INFILL EMPHASIS

ID Project Benefit Score

72 I-25 HOV Lanes $ 1,806,181,664 9.000 172 Transit-current operations $ 451,545,416 8.000 114 Powers Blvd. Intersection Improvements from North Carefree to Constitution $ 290,424,815 7.000 115 Powers Blvd: SH 83 to I-25 (at Northgate Rd) $ 125,422,128 3.887 14 Academy over Sand Creek Bridge Rehabilitation $ 115,919,610 3.592 34 Cimarron over Fountain Creek Bridge Rehabilitation $ 112,304,776 3.480 160 Transit BRT Citadel to Downtown $ 88,247,503 2.735 161 Transit-Nevada Streetcar $ 88,247,503 2.735 13 Academy over Platte Ave Deck Replacement $ 87,861,673 2.723 5 8th St. over Fountain Creek Bridge Rehabilitation $ 83,546,685 2.589 198 Union Blvd over Cottonwood Creek Bridge Replacement $ 83,518,984 2.588 159 Transit-Colorado Avenue BRT $ 77,939,601 2.415 51 Fillmore Street over UPRR Bridge Rehabilitation $ 70,200,236 2.175 61 Garden of the Gods over S Douglas Creek Bridge Rehabilitation $ 69,876,932 2.165 50 Fillmore Street over Monument Creek Bridge Rehabilitation $ 69,294,115 2.147 53 Fontanero over Camp Creek Bridge Replacement $ 59,683,205 1.850 157 Transit- Downtown Streetcar $ 53,022,659 1.643 163 Transit – Fixed Route Expansion $ 52,874,344 1.639

slide-33
SLIDE 33

ID Project Benefit Score

72 I-25 HOV Lanes Accelerated $ 1,199,484,943 9.000 72 I-25 HOV Lanes Adopted $ 1,235,991,867 9.000 72 I-25 HOV Lanes Infill $ 1,806,181,664 9.000 27 Briargate Pkwy/ Stapleton Rd Connection Accelerated ($26m) $ 352,721,855 8.000 114 Powers Blvd. Intersection Improvements from North Carefree to Constitution Adopted $ 792,548,999 8.000 172 Transit-current operations Infill $ 451,545,416 8.000 172 Transit-current operations Accelerated $ 280,574,203 7.000 172 Transit-current operations Adopted $ 308,997,967 7.000 114 Powers Blvd. Intersection Improvements from North Carefree to Constitution Infill $ 290,424,815 7.000

114 Powers Blvd. Intersection Improvements from North Carefree to Constitution Accelerated $ 263,201,499 6.567

27 Briargate Pkwy/ Stapleton Rd Connection Adopted $ 163,140,134 4.752 115 Powers Blvd: SH 83 to I-25 (at Northgate Rd) Infill $ 125,422,128 3.887

Accelerated value of top 4 $ 2,095,982,500

Adopted value of top 4 $ 2,500,678,967 Infill value of top 4 $ 2,673,574,023

slide-34
SLIDE 34

KEY FINDINGS – TOP TRANSIT PROJECTS

ID Project Benefit Score

172 Transit-current operations Accelerated $ 280,574,203 7.000 160 Transit BRT Citadel to Downtown Accelerated* $ 53,995,186 1.732 195 Transit IT Improvements Accelerated $ 47,783,124 1.533

$382,352,513 172 Transit-current operations Adopted $ 308,997,967 7.000 160 Transit BRT Citadel to Downtown Adopted* $ 60,388,829 1.759 161 Transit-Nevada Streetcar Adopted $ 60,388,829 1.759 159 Transit-Colorado Avenue BRT Adopted $ 53,335,008 1.553 $483,110,633 172 Transit-current operations Infill $ 451,545,416 8.000 160 Transit BRT Citadel to Downtown Infill* $ 88,247,503 2.735 161 Transit-Nevada Streetcar Infill $ 88,247,503 2.735 159 Transit-Colorado Avenue BRT Infill $ 77,939,601 2.415 157 Transit- Downtown Streetcar Infill $ 53,022,659 1.643 163 Transit – Fixed Route Expansion Infill $ 52,874,344 1.639 $811,877,026

slide-35
SLIDE 35

KEY FINDINGS COORDINATION OF LAND USE AND TRANSPORTATION MATTERS

$- $50,000,000 $100,000,000 $150,000,000 $200,000,000 $250,000,000 $300,000,000 $350,000,000 $400,000,000

Briargate Road Extension

$0 $50,000,000 $100,000,000 $150,000,000 $200,000,000 $250,000,000 $300,000,000 $350,000,000 $400,000,000 $450,000,000 $500,000,000

Current Transit Operations

slide-36
SLIDE 36

RISK ASSESSMENT

  • Projects A and B display

similar expected rates of

  • return. But project B is

riskier (Area X).

  • Project B offers a higher

expected return, but greater downside risk (Area Y).

  • Project B offers a lower

expected return, but greater upside possibilities (Area Z).

slide-37
SLIDE 37

APPROVALS

GAS TAX

44¢ 98¢ 57¢ $1.26

slide-38
SLIDE 38

WHY CITIZENS DON’T WANT A GAS TAX INCREASE.