Full Text
5-1 Transportation Master Plan 5.0 IMPLEMENTATION PLAN 5.1 Cost of Needed Improvements The recommended transportation plan includes an extensive list of improvements including: • 53 miles of arterial roadway construction/reconstruction • Baseline (WCR 2)/US 85 interchange • US 85/Bromley interchange • US 85/144th Avenue interchange • US 85/136th Avenue interchange • US 85/120th interchange • Sable/E-470 interchange • Grade separation of 120th Avenue over the Union Pacific Railroad tracks Concept-level construction cost estimates for these improvements were developed based on year 2000 unit costs published by DRCOG (Regional Roadway Cost Estimating Program Unit Costs, DRCOG, March 16, 2001). The aggregate construction cost to implement the recommended major thoroughfare plan is $418 million (year 2000 dollars). This figure is exclusive of local and collector roads, which are generally assumed to be constructed as part of the final plats for individual developments. This figure does, however, include the cost of arterial roadways that developers will be funding. For comparison, the 1987 Brighton Transportation Study identified the thoroughfare plan cost as $71 million, using lower unit costs. A tabular summary of the concept-level construction cost for individual projects, including costs for collector streets and local streets, is located in Appendix 3. 5.2 Funding Sources Primary sources for transportation funding in Brighton include property owner/developer contributions, city capital improvements funds, state and federal grant funding, and the City’s discretionary “fee fund” administered by the City to mitigate off-site impacts created by new developments in the City. Current City policy is to have developers build all local and collector roads, and half of any adjacent roads, including arterials. The city funds local matches for constructing interchanges, traffic signalization, and construction of arterial missing links that will not be built by developers. Using these criteria, it is estimated that developers will be responsible for approximately two-thirds (67%) of the cost of arterials. A formula for computing the City versus private shares of improvement funding for arterials was developed in the 1987 Brighton Transportation Study. The City share was based on estimating future travel demand patterns in the City as compared to existing travel demand. The City’s share would be computed by dividing the number of future year daily trips by the number of existing daily trips. In the 1987 study, the City’s share of future arterial improvements was computed to be 14%, with 20% of the cost borne by the discretionary “fee ---PAGE BREAK--- 5-2 Transportation Master Plan fund.” Using the updated travel model, the City’s share was re-calculated based upon the estimated number of 2001 daily trips generated within the study area divided by the number of study area 2020 trips. The calculation of the City’s share (19%) is depicted in the table below: Total Daily Study Area Trips (2001) 208,377 Total Daily Study Area Trips (2020) 1,115,496 Percent City Funding 19% For interchanges on the state highway system, State and Regional funding will typically provide 80% of the cost of interchange construction, with the remaining 20% coming from local sources. It is not unusual however, for local jurisdictions to exceed the required local match in order to accelerate the development of state projects. 5.3 Near-Term Priority Projects Table 5-1 summarizes projects that were selected as near-term priority projects. These projects are also depicted on Figure 5.1. The list includes interchanges on US 85 classified as “Medium Priority” or “High Priority” in the US 85 Access Control Plan. Roadway projects selected for inclusion in the near-term priority plan included: • Roadways that are currently nearing capacity or are over capacity, and those expected to do so over the next 10 years. • Roadways needed to serve the fast-growing eastern portion of the City. • Roadways needed to serve E-470 once it is open. The total cost of the near-term priority projects is $167 million (year 2000 dollars). Of this amount, the calculated City’s share using the previously described cost sharing percentages is $50 million. Of this amount, 19%, or approximately $10 million, is the share that should be borne by current residents and businesses. The remaining 81%, or $40 million, of the City’s share is to be financed through a common, discretionary “fee fund.” From the near-term projects depicted on Table 5-1, the City has identified five projects for inclusion in a “fiscally constrained plan.” These identified projects are depicted on Table 5-2. The total cost of these projects is $26 million with a City share of $7 million. Of this $7 million City share, $5.8 million is expected to come from the fee fund. To construct the Bromley/US 85 interchange, $9 million of federal funds, or 80% percent of the total cost, will be requested. ---PAGE BREAK--- 5-3 Transportation Master Plan Table 5-1 Near-Term Priority Projects Length Total Facility Description Limits Miles Cost Roadways within City Bridge Street Widen from 2 to 4 lanes City Limits to US 85 0.45 $2,285 Bridge Street Widen from 2 to 6 lanes 27th Avenue to Tower Road 1.10 $8,712 Bridge Street Widen from 2 to 6 lanes Tower Road to I-76 E. Frontage Rd. 2.00 $16,564 Bromley Lane Widen from 2 to 6 lanes Platte River Road to US 85 0.21 $1,999 Bromley Lane Widen from 4 to 6 lanes US 85 to 4th Avenue 0.47 $1,861 Bromley Lane Widen from 2 to 6 lanes 4th Avenue to E. Frontage Rd. 3.70 $29,786 27th Avenue/Buckley Construct 6-lane major arterial Bromley Lane to 136th Ave. 2.00 $16,920 Buckley Road Widen from 4 to 6 lanes 136th Ave. to I-76 0.47 $1,861 Picadilly Road Construct 4-lane minor arterial Baseline to I-76 Frontage Road 0.70 $4,396 Tower Road Construct 4-lane minor arterial 164th Ave. to Hilltop Dr. 1.00 $6,280 Tower Road Construct 4-lane major arterial Bromley to 150th 0.50 $3,140 Tower Road Construct 6-lane major arterial 150th Ave. to I-76 0.50 $4,230 13.10 $98,034 Interchanges within City Baseline/US 85 Interchange Single-point diamond interchange $11,500 Bromley/US 85 Interchange Single-point diamond interchange $11,500 $23,000 Projects outside the City Bridge Street Widen from 2 to 4 lanes Yosemite to Havana 1.00 $3,960 Bridge Street Widen from 2 to 4 lanes Havana to City Limits 1.75 $7,433 120th Avenue Construct 6-lane major arterial Riverdale Rd. to Brighton Road 1.20 $14,172 120th Avenue Grade Separation of UPRR $3,015 Himalaya Street Construct 4-lane major arterial Baseline Road to WCR 4 1.00 $6,280 120th Avenue/US 85 Diamond interchange $11,500 4.95 $46,360 Total of all Improvements 18.05 $167,394 City Share of Improvements (see table in Appendix 3 for details of cost sharing) $50,363 All estimates in $1,000 (2000 dollars). All project costs based on year 2000 unit costs for project planning developed by the Denver Regional Council of Governments. ---PAGE BREAK--- 5-4 Transportation Master Plan Table 5-2 Fiscally Constrained Plan Length Total Facility Description Limits Miles Cost Bridge Street Widen from 2 to 4 lanes City Limits to US 85 0.45 $2,285 Bridge Street Widen from 2 to 6 lanes 27th Avenue to Tower Road 1.10 $8,712 Bromley Lane Widen from 2 to 6 lanes Platte River Road to US 85 0.21 $1,999 Bromley Lane Widen from 4 to 6 lanes US 85 to 4th Avenue 0.47 $1,861 Bromley/US 85 Interchange Single-point diamond interchange $11,500 Total 2.23 $26,357 Federal Dollars to be Requested for the Bromley/US 85 interchange $9,200 City Share of Improvements (see table in Appendix 3 for details of cost sharing) $7,203 All estimates in $1,000 (2000 dollars). All project costs based on year 2000 unit costs for project planning developed by the Denver Regional Council of Governments. ---PAGE BREAK--- 5-5 Transportation Master Plan 5.4 Transportation Plan Monitoring and Updating Process A major goal of this study was to create a dynamic planning tool for the City of Brighton through the creation of the traffic model and the near-term priority improvement plan. The study products were structured so that the plan can be periodically updated to reflect actual experience in development patterns, funding availability, and the implementation of transportation improvements. Principal planning activities necessary to maintain the accuracy of the model and integrity of the transportation plan include: • Maintaining database integrity • Revalidation of the travel model • New planning o Land use and network forecasts o State and local policies • Project reprogramming based on revenue availability Specifically, the following items should be monitored, evaluated, and documented: • Actual changes to the existing transportation network, as well as significant (large) changes in population or employment, should be monitored on an ongoing basis.. • The base network used for forecasting and planning purposes should be revised to reflect actual changes on not less than a yearly basis. • Significant changes in current land use should be noted for ultimate input to the current land use database used for revalidation of the travel model. Such land use changes should be assessed for potential impact on model accuracy and a revalidation of the model should be conducted if a significant change in the traffic forecasts is suspected. • The travel model should generally be checked – and revalidated as necessary – every five years using then-current, actual land use and road network data. • Additional planning can be conducted for any horizon year desired. New planning to verify or modify the recommendations in this report should be conducted at roughly five-year intervals. • Changes to the 10-year near-term priority improvement plan may occur if significant changes in projected costs or revenues are identified. Such reprogramming may require additional planning analysis to determine if other changes in the nature and timing of recommended improvements are needed. In the absence of significant deviations from cost and revenue forecasts, capital programming should be checked in concert with the five-year planning cycle. ---PAGE BREAK--- 5-6 Transportation Master Plan In addition to keeping up-to-date records of land use data, the monitoring of road improvements and traffic count data is an important aspect of the model updates. The facilities on the Major Thoroughfare Plan should be divided into segments for traffic counting. The segments should be bounded by the beginning or ending of a facility, and by intersections with major and minor arterials and freeways. Twenty-four hour counts should be conducted on each major and minor arterial at two-year intervals with counts on collectors conducted every four years. The Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT) maintains a count program for roadways under their jurisdiction. In addition to the CDOT and City traffic counts, developer conducted traffic counts submitted to the City should also be included in the database. Periodically, the model forecasted traffic volumes should be compared with the most recent traffic counts. Several factors may necessitate collection of traffic volume data in addition to the schedule described above. These could include accelerating the collection of traffic count data in areas that have just undergone significant growth, or in the area of a new transportation facility recently brought on-line (such as E-470). Additional counts may also be needed in support of the design of new roadway facilities. Turning movement counts may also be needed to determine the need for auxiliary intersection turn lanes and for traffic signal warrant studies. In some cases, the collection of traffic count data by developers in support of their traffic impact reports will alleviate the need for the City to conduct a count.