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