1. Using Performance-based planning to influence Decision-making. October 23, 2014 If you’re going to skate on thin ice, you may as well dance.

2. T ECHNICAL P OLITICAL L IFE IS FULL OF LITTLE TRADEOFFS. MPO Staff

3. A N EW C OLLABORATIVE A PPROACH Collaborate with non-transportation agencies that make decisions that impact, or are impacted by transportation investments. Desired outcome are plans that are consistent with one another. Improve everyone’s function within their own “cylinder of excellence”.

4. A forum to : – Facilitate collaboration; – Create a shared vision for the future. – Allocate transportation funds. W HO IS THE P IKES P EAK A REA C OUNCIL OF G OVERNMENTS ? Board of Directors composed of local elected officials.

5. A DOPTED V ISION AND G OALS Plan Vision  Create a sustainable multi-modal transportation system that meets regional mobility and accessibility expectations as essential elements of the Pikes Peak Area’s quality of life. Plan Goals  Used S.M.A.R.T. format Specific Measureable Agreed Upon Realistic Time Constrained

6. P LANNING F RAMEWORK = TCAPP NOW CALLED P LAN W ORKS www.transportationforcommunities.comwww.transportationforcommunities.com

7. C OLLABORATION T RAINING BY ECR AND F ACILITATED C OLLABORATION Don’t say or mean “no” or “but” Do say and mean “yes” and “and”

8. Army Corps of Engineers US Fish and Wildlife Agency Environmental Protection Agency Bureau of Land Management US Forest Service Housing and Urban Development Department State Historic Preservation Office State Department of Health and Environment State Department of Wildlife State Department of Local Affairs Office of Emergency Management and Security El Paso County Health Department Colorado Springs Housing Authority School Districts Chambers of Commerce Regional Development Corporation Local land-use planning agencies Social and Environmental non-profits U SE THEIR GOALS AND PERFORMANCE MEASURES !

9. By definition, if both plans have the same goal then they are consistent with each other. If they have a performance measure then they will have data also. If you use their goal and they don’t have a performance measure they will likely have some data that can be used to create a performance measure. If they don’t have a performance measure or data, then using their input places the burden on them to create a goal that reflects their interest that can have data collected for it to be measured. You need a baseline! U SE THEIR GOALS AND PERFORMANCE MEASURES !

10. Interview Regional Leaders Traveling Open Houses Moving Forward Web Survey Speakers Bureau Traveling Community Events Regional Transportation Roundtable Focus Groups PPACG Open Houses RDD Survey T AKE THE P ROCESS TO THE P EOPLE

11. E VOLUTION OF P LAN G OALS AND O BJECTIVES 2008 RTP had 9 goals focused on transportation measures 2012 RTP had 17 goals enhanced by collaboration with non-transportation entities. 2015 RTP will likely have 13 goals that we can get collect data on. Key non-transportation goals still included.

12. F ROM 9 TO 17 A DOPTED P LAN G OALS AND O BJECTIVES

13. K EEP THE G OALS AND P ERFORMANCE M EASURES S IMPLE The logsum of anything is not a good performance measure. If neither the public nor the elected officials understand it then then won’t believe or use it. This may require some polishing to collaborating agency goals and performance measures. The most technical performance measure we use is the difference in travel time between peak hour and free flow conditions; called travel time index.

14. W EIGHTS OF G OALS ( SOME ARE MORE EQUAL THAN OTHERS ) Combined Weight Goal (by number and name)TAC ResultsCAC Results Phone Survey Results Avg. of three efforts 1 Transportation System Condition Preservation and Rehabilitation 10.410.57.79.5 4 System Connectivity 7.89.86.78.1 2 Regional Mobility Improvement or Regional Congestion Reduction 6.89.76.87.8 5 Safety 9.96.26.67.6 3 Cost Effectiveness 7.57.66.67.2 7 Multimodal Use 6.45.66.56.2 17 Regional Collaboration 6.95.06.26.0 11 Economic Vitality 5.56.65.05.7 14 Protect Streams and Reduce Stormwater 4.05.06.65.2 9 Environmental Justice 4.84.55.95.1 8 Private Partnership 6.02.86.25.0 13 Protect Wildlife Habitat 3.24.17.54.9 16 Carbon Monoxide (CO) Reduction 4.43.96.44.9 10 Adverse Transportation Impact Reduction 4.55.43.94.6 12 Infill/Redevelopment 4.45.92.94.4 6 Security 4.24.04.74.3 15 Greenhouse Gas Emissions 3.53.33.83.5

15. S CENARIO D EVELOPMENT W ORKSHOPS

16. N OT ALL NEED TO BE USED TO EVALUATE PROJECTS H OUSEHOLDS WITHOUT VEHICLES

17. T OTAL C RASHES BY I NTERSECTION

18. W EIGHTED H AZARD I NDEX BY I NTERSECTION

19. 2010 C ONGESTION L EVELS WITH P ROPORTIONAL L INE W EIGHT

20. 2035 C ONGESTION L EVELS M AINTENANCE O NLY

21. 2005 Congestion at Intersections

22. 2035 Congestion at Intersections

23. 4-step travel demand model HERS-ST for maintenance TELUM for future land use CommunityViz for scenarios Vista for habitat / species TNM for noise (social impacts) N-Spect for water quality Synchro/Vissim for intersections MOVES for air quality N EED TOOLS TO ANALYZE / FORECAST THE FUTURE.

24. Fountain Creek WatershedAverage Percent Change From Current Condition: ParameterInfillTrendBuildout Maintenance Only Congestion Reduction Preferred Scenario Accumulated Run- off11%13%21%11%16% Total Suspended Solids3%4%7%2%1%5% Nitrogen Concentrations4%5%7%3%6%5% Phosphorus Concentrations20%27%38%13%34%25% Lead Concentrations12%14%21%9%23%14% Zinc Concentrations5%8%10%5%7% Accumulated Sediment-3%-4%-7%-2% -4% W ATER Q UALITY I MPACTS – N-SPECT

25. A IR Q UALITY I MPACTS - MOVES Vehicle Types20052010 2035 Maintenance Only 2035 Build Motorcycles34,820,14436,725,93451,858,03753,921,444 Passenger Cars3,197,395,2333,276,854,8563,702,576,3393,769,897,136 Light Trucks4,338,393,3994,494,129,2214,655,580,7234,753,243,437 Bus32,223,52433,642,96347,587,41248,553,928 Single Unit Truck132,571,813136,803,076198,726,238198,714,697 Combination Truck934,214,995969,203,5251,393,687,6761,420,213,452 Grand Total8,669,619,1078,947,359,57410,050,016,42510,244,544,094

26. N OISE A NALYSIS M AINTENANCE O NLY - TNM

27. N OISE A NALYSIS B UILD S CENARIO - TNM

28. The Preferred ScenarioBenefits 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 Overall Benefit Cost Ratio of all capacity improvements2.12 Add Capacity – Project 147 Segment Model Summary Risk Analysis Output Summary ItemDiscounted Values in 2010 $'s Potential Benefits Lower 10%Median ValueUpper 10% Time Savings$327,082,018$331,665,803$336,497,214 VOC Savings-$143,593,150-$135,496,593-$128,137,899 Greenhouse Gas Emission Savings-$2,881,781-$2,515,228-$2,027,561 Other Emission Savings-$4,542,145-$4,304,263-$4,014,022 Accident Cost Savings$47,672,146$48,460,924$49,116,646 Subtotal Benefits $225,512,411$237,450,389$247,620,923 Total Benefits w/Salvage $225,512,411$237,450,389$247,620,923 Project Costs (Exceeding Base Case) Capital Costs + ROW Costs$79,520,255$85,584,171$90,312,403 O&M + Other Costs$0 Total Costs $79,520,255$85,584,171$90,312,403 Project Selection Criteria Net Present Value $138,293,600$153,130,234$164,495,168 Benefit-Cost Ratio 2.62.83.0 Internal Rate of Return 25.24%26.87%28.59% E CONOMIC A NALYSIS P ROJECTS AND B UILD S CENARIO

29. The fastest growing population segment in Colorado is obese people. This population grew 80% between 1995 and 2010. An important method of reducing obesity is increasing physical activity. T RANSPORTATION AND H EALTH

30. C OLORADO ’ S W INNABLE H EALTH G OALS M OVING F ORWARD U PDATE 2035 Regional Transportation Plan Goals Obesity Mental Health and Substance Abuse Injury Prevention Clean Water Clean Air Goal 5 - Improve safety for all travelers xxxxx Goal 7 - Increase opportunity for all travelers, including special needs and protected-class travelers, to choose methods of travel other than single occupant motor vehicles x x x Goal 10 - Reduce transportation-related adverse impacts to communities, neighborhoods, and rural areas identified for cultural, environmental, and/or historical preservation x x x Goal 12 - Use transportation investments to incentivize infill in, and redevelopment of, existing communities xx Goal 14 - Minimize the amount of storm water runoff and transportation-associated pollutants that enter the region’s streams x Goal 16 - Attain existing and future national air quality health standards xx x

31. G LOBAL C ONSERVATION V ALUE W ATERSHEDS OF I NTEREST

32. G REEN I NFRASTRUCTURE

33. Q UESTIONS ?