1. Presentation to ***(group) on ***(date) 1

2.  Cities - 11  Highway districts – 3  Ada and Canyon Counties  School districts – 2  Valley Regional Transit  Idaho Dept of Environmental Quality  Idaho Transportation Department  Boise State University  Capital City Development Corp  Board of 34 Elected/Senior Officials 2 Metropolitan Planning Organization for Ada and Canyon Counties An MPO is required for areas > 50,000 population in order to use federal funds

3.  Long-range transportation planning  Short-range funding priorities  Transportation-related air quality planning  Mobility planning – transit, walking, biking  Transportation legislative services  Demographic monitoring and projection  Travel demand modeling 3

4.  Last plan started in 2004 and was adopted in August 2006  2,000 people participated in a variety of workshops, open house meetings and small group meetings  Implementation of various elements of CIM is underway 4

5. 5

6.  Workshops in Nov 2004 and Feb 2005  Nearly 1,000 people participated  Developed many “scenarios” about how region could grow  Two were continued: Trend and Community Choices 6

7. Primary character of future growth is low density Areas of Impact as shown may have been amended since map was prepared 7

8. Primary character of future growth is mixed density and uses Areas of Impact as shown may have been amended since map was prepared 8

9. 9 526,000 Population Base

10. 10 825,000 Population Base Community Choices Scenario

11. 11

12. 12

13. 13

14. 14 Based on population of 560,000 14,000 hours of delay

15. 15 Based on population of 825,000 140,000 hours of delay per day

16. 16 Based on population of 1.5 million 1.8 million hours of delay per day

17. 17

18. 18

19. 19 Estimated Capital and Operating Cost: $1.1 billion in 2005

20. 20

21. 21 Costs in Millions Total is $8.3 Billion 22% of Total

22. T:\FY07\600 Projects\661 CIM\FY06\661 CIM\07- PublicMeetings\Presentations\westernplannerconf.ppt 22 Roadway Capital Unfunded $628,600,000 Annual Unfunded $25,144,000 Annual share/household $71 Transit Total Unfunded $1,098,890,000 Annual Unfunded $43,955,600 Annual share/household $125 Total Plan Unfunded $1,727,490,000 Annual Unfunded (25 year period) $69,099,600 Annual share/household (2030 base) $196

23.  Adopted in August 2006. Next update needed no later than August 2010  Refinement—not a start from scratch  Funding will be the major challenge  A "preservation" scenario based on comprehensive plans  Projects prioritized into five-year periods 23

24. 24

25. 25

26.  Outreach via organizations - service clubs, neighborhood groups, professional groups. Continuous  Workshops addressing financing – June 2009  Public open house meetings – Fall 2009  Public comment events – Spring 2010  Major reliance on internet 26

27.  Financial – Work Started by Consultant  Growth Forecast and Allocation  Transit System – New Chapter  Management and Operational – New Chapter  Efficiency  Maintenance  Safety/Security 27

28.  Roadways – Five Year Increments, Typologies and Complete Streets  Pathways – New Chapter  Environmental Mitigation – New Chapter  Freight – New Chapter 28

29.  Refine prioritization process to focus on regional needs and desired outcomes  Seek additional funding  Local option taxes  Increased registration fees and fuel taxes  Expanded impact fee base  Congestion Pricing – tolls?  Issues  As gas prices go up, consumption and gas tax revenue go down  Massive increases in construction costs since 2003 29

30. 30 Source Transportation Financial Report October 2008

31. 31 Actual Estimated and Forecasted 825 432

32.  Transit ridership goes up with frequency of service  No longer an 8-5 economy – but current services shut down at 6:30pm  Community design is also key: compact, mixed- use areas well connected with sidewalks and bike lanes  Need for better information services 32

33. Ada/Canyon Transit 33 Source Transportation Financial Report October 2008

34. 34

35.  Road deficit higher than 2006 Plan  Need to remove some corridors from “funded” list  New design typologies under consideration  Design - complete streets concept  Adequate public facilities  Corridor preservation 35

36.  Federal rules - more consideration of making efficient use of existing system  Preservation of current system is higher priority  Safety and security of system is also critical 36

37. 37 ½ Mile

38. 38 Addition of dedicated lanes (throat) provides storage but sacrifices parking. http://www.geoearth.uncc.edu/people/iheard/3115Notes/Feb%205.ppt#281,24,Level of Service Measures

39. 39 Source Transportation Financial Report October 2008

40. 40 A 2008 Idaho study concluded that % of roads in poor-fair shape could triple by 2025

41. 41

42. 42

43. 43 A 2008 survey found that <5% of external traffic is through trips

44. 44 $5-7 million per mile $14+ million per mile $1.1 million per mile

45.  Conformity Finding – Transportation based emissions cannot exceed “budget”  New rules allow testing of only projects in the funded list  Challenge of meeting the new ozone standards – may see area in non-attainment by 2011  Expanding growth numbers could be an issue 45

46. T:\FY07\600 Projects\661 CIM\FY06\661 CIM\07- PublicMeetings\Presentations\westernplannerco nf.ppt 46 CLEVER CAR 3.3 feet wide 10 feet long Natural gas - 94-107 mpg 2-passenger Top speed - 60 mph 250 miles cruising range

47. 47