1

CDOT 101Colorado Counties, Inc.

June, 2017

Why Are We Here?

• CDOT's responsibilities

• CDOT Budget and Colorado transportation needs and gaps

• Role of the Transportation Commission

• Planning for transportation projects

• Project selection processes

• Who should you get to know at CDOT as a new elected official?

2

What Does CDOT Do

3

healthy

4

Our ChallengeContinued Growth

5

All dollar figures

adjusted for inflation

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

$$$$$$$$$

$125.70spent per person

3.3 M

1991

27.7 B vehicles miles traveled

$68.94spent per person

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

2015

5.4 M

50.5 Bvehicle miles traveled

$41.16spent per person

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

2040

7.8 M

72.3 Bvehicle miles traveled

FY 2017 – 18 Sources of Revenue ($1.41b)

6

Federal Gas Tax$526.8

37%

State Gas Tax$321.6

23%

State Vehicle Registration

$114.88%

SB-228/General Funds$79.5

6%

Colorado Bridge Enterprise

$112.28%

Local Agency, City & County Funds

$21.61%

Other$99.4

7%

State Aviation Fuel Tax

$19.51%

HPTE$11.2

1%

State FASTER$112.5

8%

Federal Funding Process

7

National Hwy Performance Program

$283.353.8%

Surface Transportation Program$130.124.7%

Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality,

$40, 7.6% Metro Planning

$5.11.0%

State Planning$11.12.1%

Highway Safety Improvement Program

$27.85.3%

Rail Highway Crossings$3.10.6%

Transportation Alternatives

$9.91.9%

RecTrails$1.60.3%

Natl Freight Program$14.82.8%

Federal Gas TaxFederal Gas Tax$526.8

37%

Sources of Funds

Colorado Donee State

$300

$400

$500

$600

$700

$800

$900

$1,000

2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016

Mill

ion

s

Colorado Total Federal Funding (not just CDOT)

Federal Apportionment vs. Collected Motor Fuel Taxes

Apportionment Motor Fuel

Total Apportionment $ 7,759,400,000 Total Motor Fuel $ 5,700,207,124

Donee Percentage 36.12%*Does not include Permanent Recovery

FEDERAL APPORTIONMENTWhat We Receive

MOTOR FUEL TAXWhat we send To DC

Revenue above

payments

FY16 CDOT Federal Funds (excludes RTD and other direct recipients)

CDOT Uses: Focus on Maintaining the System

9

$-

$100,000,000

$200,000,000

$300,000,000

$400,000,000

$500,000,000

$600,000,000

$700,000,000

$800,000,000

Significant Focus on

Maintenance

Generally No New

Funds for

New Capacity*

9

Funding And BudgetWe Use Almost $3 Federal For Every $1 State

10

Federal funds provide an average 52% of State DOT annual capital outlays

Demographics

11

ColoradoUtah

Land Area

Current Population

2040 Projected Population

Current Employment

Overall State Budget

Transportation Dept. Budget

104,185 sq. miles

5.4 M

7.8 M

2.8 M

$27.1 B

$1.4 B

84,899 sq. miles

3.0 M

4.5 M

1.4 M

$15.1 B

$1.3 B

Highway Stats

12

ColoradoUtah

23,018

3,400

952

4,106

16,154

1,867

935

4,846

Highway Lane Miles

On-System Bridges

Interstate Centerline Miles

(Utah has 17 fewer centerline miles but…)

Interstate Lane Miles

(… over 700 more miles of extra lanes!)

How Do We CompareColorado /Utah

13

Colorado relies on 75% of construction $$ coming from the feds. Utah relies on less than 50% of construction $$ coming from the feds—with a dedicated 1¢ sales tax and two gas tax increases in the last ten years.

Colorado has no funds for new capacity.

UT dedicates $600 million/yr. to new capacity.

PAVEMENT

CONDITION

Source:Highway Statistics

FHWA 2015

NV

UT

FL

SC

KY

MO

MT

WY

KS

AL

ND

AZ

GA

SD

TN

NM

WV

ME

NC

OR

VT

NE

MN

ID

MS

NH

AR

DE

VA

IL

TX

CO

IN

OK

PA

OH

IA

MI

WI

CT

WA

LA

MD

NY

AK

CA

HI

NJ

MA

RI

DC

UT

CO #32

UT #2

CO

BRIDGE

CONDITION

Source:National Bridge Inventory Data

USDOT FHWA 2015

UT

TX

HI

NV

FL

GA

MD

AL

AZ

KS

OR

MN

WI

OH

DC

VA

KY

CO

DE

TN

NM

MS

VT

SC

IN

ID

AR

ND

NJ

MT

WA

NE

ME

CA

MI

WV

LA

AK

OK

NH

MO

NC

IL

IA

SD

PA

NY

WY

MA

CT

RI

UT

UTUT #1

CO #18 CO

*All figures as ofJune 22, 2016

Source:Urban Mobility

Scorecard TTI 2015

SYSTEM

RELIABILITY

Colo. Springs#14/33

Richmond

Salt Lake City

Cleveland

Jacksonville

- - - -

St. Louis MO

San Antonio

Nashville

Virginia Beach

Las Vegas

Orlando

Baltimore

Minneapolis

Philadelphia

DENVER

Oklahoma City

- - - -

New York

San Francisco

Los Angeles

Washington DC

Bakersfield

Provo

Fresno

- - - -

Raleigh

CO SPRINGS

Knoxville

Wichita

- - - -

Tucson

Bridgeport

Honolulu

Provo#2/33

Salt Lake City

Provo

Large

Cities

Medium

Cities

Denver

SLC #2/46

DEN #28/46

48% of

Colorado

bridges need

preventative

maintenance

and 5% are

structurally

deficient

Potholes and

rough roads

cause

drivers as

much as

$300 per

year in

vehicle

repair bills

Colorado’s

population

has grown

53% since

1990 while

lane miles on

our highways

have only

gone up 2%

Maintaining What We HaveGoals For Asset Management

14

FY2016-17 Asset Management

Category

Fiscally Constrained Transportation Commission Goal for Asset Management Category

Funding Available

(CDOT needs over $950M to meet the goals) ($791.5M)

Surface Treatment 80% of system with “high” or “moderate” drivability life $242.1M

Bridge 90% of Colorado bridges not structurally deficient $163.2M

Buildings 90% of buildings with a “C” condition or greater $21.4M

Culverts 95% of culverts not structurally deficient $11M

Tunnels80% of tunnel length with ≥ 2.5 weighted condition index

$7.6M

ITS 90% of assets within useful life $24.5MRoad Equipment 70% of vehicles still within useful life $26.4MGeohazards/Rockfall 80% of segments above "C" risk grade $10 MWalls 1% of walls sq. ft. structurally deficient $5.8M

Traffic SignalsHave only 15% of intersections with at least one component above 100% useful life

$16.9M

Annual Maintenance B- overall condition $262.6M

Surface Treatment

15

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035

Planned Pavement Condition

Planned Budget

Goal

$150 M Less

Perc

ent

Hig

h/M

odera

te D

rivabilit

y L

ife

Planned Budget

Long-term Goal

$150M Less

Transportation Planning Process

16

MPO and TPR Input / Public Participation

Project Selection Overview

17

Transportation Commission116 Years

18

Colorado Highway Commissionerstour SW Colorado in 1910

1901• Colorado State Highway Commission

established in 1909 after the Governor

vetoed over 100 bills proposing various

road improvements.

• Created to design and implement state

wide road plans

2017• Responsible for setting overall fiscal and policy direction statewide via investment categories

• Set short term and long-term priorities

• Review budgets and the allocation of funds

•Maintain a statewide perspective while not forgetting their District’s issues

Colorado Transportation Commission tour of the west slope June 2015

Project Selection Overview

• Performance Based

Approach &

Performance

Objectives

• Planning Partner

Input

• Regional Distribution

• Statewide Projects

19

Asset Management Project Selection

20

CDOT employs a risk-based asset management strategy

• Funds not distributed by formula to the 5 regions, but are based on asset needs across the state.

• Regions are provided "planning numbers" to prepare for projects but are not guaranteed those dollars- project selection depends on the condition of the assets around the state and the asset needs and modeling.

• Regional input is critical in project selection to provide a "reality check" to confirm the modeling results.

Surface Treatment

• Model based, must comply with model on 80% of the funds.

Bridges

• Criteria is based on FASTER law

Walls, Culverts, Tunnels, Rockfall, etc.

• Projects are based on statewide need, not regional distribution

Other Programs Project Selection

21

Regional Priority Program (RPP)

• Regional funding dedicated to priority projects on regional level

• Funding formula based from a number of factors

• Input from TPRs, MPOs and STAC

Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP)

• Statewide federal funding with local match (90/10)

• Includes funding for statewide projects, and some funds for regional planning priorities

• Projects identified up to four years in advance

FASTER Safety

• Statewide funding dedicated to only state highway projects that can increase safety on roads

• Fund includes money for two types of projects: Safety Mitigation & Asset Management

• Regions get project planning funds based on weighted crash statistics

Transit Project Selection

22

FASTER Transit

• Statewide funding for transit infrastructure and operations - $5M

• Funds distributed through grant process in CDOT Division of Transit and Rail

• DTR works with transit organizations around the state to prioritize projects

• Counties able to use their share of HUTF for transit

Federal $

• Statewide distribution – focus on rural, elderly and disabled services

• $15M annually granted out to over 60 transit entities around the state.

• Funding for operations, bus replacement and facilities.

Special SB 267

• At least 10% of new funding

• Statewide distribution with emphasis on rural

• Distribution process TBD

How Can I Provide Input?

• There are several ways to provide input into project selection processes, including:

• TPR and MPO transportation regular meetings offer opportunity to discuss priorities and needs for area

• CDOT Regions, via Regional Planning staff, Regional Transportation Directors, and Local Liaisons

• Meetings of the Transportation Commission, State Transportation Advisory Committee, or other advisory bodies

• Public meetings for specific projects. Regional planning staff can provide information on current project opportunities.

• County Meetings within each Region (Annual, Quarterly, Monthly)

23

Working with CDOT

24

Regional Directors

R1 = Paul JesaitisR2 = Karen RoweR3 = David Eller

R4 = Johnny OlsonR5 = Mike Mcvaugh

Liaisons

Herman Stockinger303-757-9077

R1 and R3 = Ron Papsdorf303-757-9105

R2, R4 and R5 = Aaron Greco303-757-9755

Questions ?

25