I-70 Mountain Corridor Traffic Congestion Policy Analysis
INSTITUTE FOR PUBLIC POLICY STUDIES
UNIVERSITY OF DENVER
JEANNI BARNTHOUSE
MASTER OF PUBLIC POLICY CANDIDATE
JUNE 2016
ADVISOR: LAPO SALUCCI
CBA ADVISOR: ANDREW SHERBO
Contents
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .................................................................................................................................1
INTRODUCTION............................................................................................................................................2
Traffic Congestion Along Major Transportation Corridors: A National Issue .................................2
Problem Definition..........................................................................................................................2
Economic Rationale for Government Intervention.........................................................................4
A. Negative Internalities.....................................................................................................5
Human Health Impacts and Travel Inefficiencies...............................................................5
B. Negative Externalities ....................................................................................................5
C. Business Capital Losses ..................................................................................................7
D. The Need for Government Intervention........................................................................7
METHODS.....................................................................................................................................................7
Federal and State Policy Resources ................................................................................................8
Literature Review............................................................................................................................8
Interviews........................................................................................................................................9
ISSUE ANALYSIS ............................................................................................................................................9
Role of Federal Government & Transportation Infrastructure.......................................................9
Federal Environmental Regulation ..................................................................................10
Colorado’s Compliance with NEPA and I-70 Mountain Corridor.....................................11
Statewide Transportation Planning ..............................................................................................12
CDOT Transportation Regions..........................................................................................12
Statewide Transportation Planning .................................................................................13
Statewide Transportation Improvement Program ..........................................................14
Intermountain Transportation Planning Region ..............................................................14
Denver Regional Council of Governments.......................................................................15
Transportation Commission.............................................................................................15
Government Funding for Transportation .....................................................................................16
Federal Funding ...............................................................................................................17
State Funding ...................................................................................................................19
Population Growth........................................................................................................................23
Increasing Recreational Travel Demand .......................................................................................24
Rural Mountain vs. Urban Traffic Congestion...............................................................................24
Previous Interventions ..................................................................................................................26
Future Technology ........................................................................................................................26
Costs & Economic Impacts............................................................................................................27
Time and Resource Inefficiency .......................................................................................27
Vehicle Operating Costs...................................................................................................28
Fatalities and injuries due to automobile accidents ........................................................28
Tourism & Recreation ......................................................................................................29
Commercial Freight..........................................................................................................31
Fuel Economy...................................................................................................................31
Environmental & Health Impacts..................................................................................................32
Air and Noise Pollution ....................................................................................................32
Stakeholder Interests....................................................................................................................33
Stakeholder Groups .........................................................................................................33
Stakeholder Positions....................................................................................................................33
Partisan Politics................................................................................................................33
PROPOSED SOLUTIONS ..............................................................................................................................34
Status Quo.....................................................................................................................................34
Alternative #1: High-Occupancy Vehicle (HOV3) ..........................................................................37
Requirements and Challenges for Implementation.........................................................38
Alternative #2: Toll Lanes..............................................................................................................38
Requirements and Challenges for Implementation.........................................................39
Alternative #3: Increasing Bus Transit Ridership ..........................................................................40
Requirements and Challenges for Implementation.........................................................41
COST-BENEFIT ANALYSIS ............................................................................................................................42
Methodology.................................................................................................................................42
Approach & Timeframe....................................................................................................42
Method for Evaluation.....................................................................................................43
Social Discount Rate, Inflation and Future Projections ...................................................43
Cost and Benefit Inputs....................................................................................................44
Cost Benefit Matrix Discussion .....................................................................................................44
Sensitivity Analysis Matrices and Discussion ................................................................................46
Political Feasibility Matrix and Discussion ....................................................................................47
CBA Results ...................................................................................................................................47
CBA Assumptions & Limitations.......................................................................................48
STRATEGIC RECOMMENDATIONS..............................................................................................................48
WEAKNESSES AND LIMITATIONS ...............................................................................................................50
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1: Map of I-70 Mountain Corridor Region .......................................................................................4
Figure 2: Negative Effects of Air Pollutants on the Human Body..............................................................5
Figure 3: Map of CDOT Regions ............................................................................................................... 13
Figure 4. Map of Intermountain TPR........................................................................................................ 14
Figure 5. Map of DRCOG Transportation Planning Region..................................................................... 15
Figure 6. Map of Transportation Commission Districts .......................................................................... 16
Figure 7: Transportation Funding Flows to Government Agencies ........................................................ 16
Figure 8: Map of Colorado Ski Areas ....................................................................................................... 29
Figure 9: Bustang West Line Map............................................................................................................ 36
List of Charts
Chart 1: Air Pollutants from Source Sector in Colorado ............................................................................6
Chart 2: Overview of NEPA Process ......................................................................................................... 10
Chart 3: Federal Highway Expenditures & Revenue Sources................................................................. 17
Chart 4: State of Colorado Transportation Revenues & Expenditures .................................................. 20
Chart 5: Colorado's Projected Population Growth 1990-2040 .............................................................. 24
Chart 6: I-70 Directional Traffic Vehicle Counts (2015) ......................................................................... 25
List of Tables
Table 1: Summary of Mechanism for Colorado Transportation ............................................................. 23
Table 2: Cost-Benefit Inputs ..................................................................................................................... 44
Table 3: CBA Matrix................................................................................................................................... 45
Table 4: Simplified CBA ........................................................................................................................... 46
Table 5: Sensitivity Analysis of Toll Lanes ............................................................................................... 47
Table 6: Political Feasibility Matrix .......................................................................................................... 47
Acknowledgements
Though my name appears on the cover of this memorandum, a great many people have
contributed to its production. I owe my gratitude to all those people who have made this
memorandum possible. I want to take this opportunity to express my gratitude to everyone
who supported me throughout the course of this MPP program.
I express my gratitude to my advisor Professor Lapo Salucci. I have been fortunate to have
an advisor who provided insightful comments and constructive criticisms at different stages
in my research that were thought provoking and helped to focus my ideas.
To my CBA advisor, Professor Andrew Sherbo, I am deeply grateful for your insight and
willingness to accommodate meetings during non-office hours.
And to Alexis Senger for challenging me in her class, by setting high standards, while
encouraging and guiding me to meet those standards.
I am thankful to the University of Denver Institute for Public Policy Staff, Erin Dietrich and
Debbie Gaylinn for their continued administrative support and direction throughout the
program.
I am grateful for Steve Farber, for allowing me the opportunity to attend graduate school to
pursue my passion for policy.
I would like to acknowledge Dr. Rebecca Garvoille, for her continued friendship, insight and
thought provoking ideas.
Many friends have supported me and helped me overcome setbacks and helped me stay
focused on my graduate memorandum. I would like particularly thank Claire Carroll,
Anastasia Darwish, Whitney Newcomer, Jamie Pierson and Sophie Poppie, for their
continued encouragement and friendship.
Many thanks to Susan Griffin and Marsha Stewart for listening and the continued belief in
my abilities.
Especially, I am extremely thankful for Keith Stefanik, for his knowledge, his patience with
me through the process and him being supportive every step of the way. And for Rozi, always
making me feel special by wagging her tail and cuddling, no matter what hour of the day.
Most importantly, none of this would have been possible without the love and support from
my family. My immediate family to whom this memorandum is dedicated to has been a
constant source of love, concern, support, and strength all of these years. As well as, my
extended family that have aided and encouraged me throughout graduate school, especially
Priscilla Moore, whom encouraged me the most to continue my education at a graduate
level.
ACRONYMS & ABBREVIATIONS
ADIS-Advanced Driver Information Systems
HTF-Highway Trust Fund
AGS-Advanced Guideway System
HUTF-Highway Users Tax Fund
CAA-Clean Air Act
LPA-Local Public Agencies
CBA-Cost Benefit Analysis
MPO-Metropolitan Planning Organization
CDOT-Colorado Department of Transportation
MT-Metric Ton
CO-Carbon Monoxide
NAAQS-National Ambient Air Quality Standards
CRS-Colorado Revised Statutes
NEPA-National Environmental Policy Act
DEIS-Draft Environmental Impact Statement
NOx-Nitrogen Oxide
DOT-United States Department of
Transportation
NPV-Net Present Value
OEDIT-Office of Economic Development
DRCOG-Denver Regional Council of
Governments
P3-Public-Private Partnership
DTP-Denver Transit Partners
PEIS-Programmatic Environmental Impact
Statement
EA-Environmental Assessment
EPA-Environmental Protection Agency
PM-Particulate Matter
ROD-Record of Decision
FASTER-Funding Advancement for Surface
Transportation and Economic Recovery
RTD-Regional Transportation District
FHWA-Federal Highway Administration
SHF-State Highway Fund
FONSI-Finding of No Significant Impact
STIP-Statewide Transportation Improvement
Program
FTA-Federal Transit Administration
HOT-High Occupancy Toll
HOV-High Occupancy Vehicle
HPTE-High Performance Transportation
Enterprise
SWP-Statewide Transportation Plan
TABOR-Taxpayer’s Bill of Rights
TIFIA-Transportation Infrastructure Finance
and Innovation Act
TPR-Transportation Planning Region
Executive Summary
“As long as the Interstate is the highway supporting our society, economy, and national security,
it will forever need to be the beneficiary of our attention and investment. The ribbon cuttings will never end!”
~Dan McNichol~
Traffic congestion has become an increasingly important topic for policymakers in the United
States. As populations continue to grow, traffic volumes during peak travel times are expected to
continually increase causing greater delays. These delays impact health and exacerbate travel
inefficiencies for commuters, resulting in increased pollution. Although, Colorado has many outdoor
recreational activities to offer, tourist and residents are having difficulty commuting along the I-70
Mountain Corridor in a timely manner due to these negative impacts of increased traffic congestion.
This policy memorandum examines the extensive issues related to the excessive traffic
congestion on Colorado’s I-70 Mountain Corridor and offers strategic mitigation recommendations. A
thorough examination of governmental regulation mechanisms were reviewed in the analysis, taking
into account the complexities surrounding transportation infrastructure projects. The analysis further
examines alternatives to the existing status quo. The memorandum finds that the development and
implementation of an alternative to the status quo is necessary to decrease traffic congestion along
the I-70 Mountain Corridor.
The following interventions are considered in the analysis: HOV3, increasing capacity of the
corridor with two additional lanes, requiring a minimum of three passengers per vehicle, Toll Lanes,
increasing capacity of the corridor with two additional lanes, with fluctuating fees per vehicle based
on traffic demands, and increased bus ridership, through a bus service with fees for riders. Of the
three interventions, Toll Lanes are projected to have the least fiscal impact on taxpayers while
alleviating traffic congestion along the I-70 Mountain Corridor.
Barnthouse 2
Introduction
Traffic Congestion Along Major Transportation Corridors: A National Issue
Traffic congestion along major interstate corridors is a widespread issue across the United States.
Traffic not only impedes mobility but also has a number of negative consequences including lost time for
commuters and leisure travelers, hindering economic growth through travel inefficiencies, loss of capital
for businesses, and an increase in pollution. Each year Americans travel an extra 6.9 billion hours and
purchase an extra 3.1 billion gallons of fuel due to congestion, creating a total traffic congestion cost of
$160 billion a year.1 Additionally, traffic influencing events like accidents or weather further increase the
traffic congestion on roads and cause a decrease of capacity capabilities for transportation infrastructure.
I-70 in Colorado is a particular example of the economic and health costs posed by traffic congestion
along a major highway corridor in a mountain environment.
Problem Definition
I-70 is the only east to west interstate highway in Colorado. Traversing the Southern Rocky
Mountains, I-70 is an important transportation artery, used to move 11,000 tons of commercial goods and
nearly 11 million automobiles from the Great Plains across Colorado and into to Western states via Utah
each year.2 The I-70 Mountain Corridor is the section of interstate between C-470, outside of Denver, to
Glenwood Springs; providing an economic gateway to Colorado’s multi-million dollar outdoor recreation
industry.3 (Figure 1). Nearly 72 million tourists traveled to Colorado to enjoy recreational opportunities in
the Southern Rockies last year, 23% of these tourists used I-70 to access the mountain resorts for skiing in
the winter and outdoor activities in the summer.4 However, traffic congestion in the region is not only a
potential danger to motorists but it costs drivers in Colorado an extra $1.35 billion annually.5 Further,
traffic congestion is an inconvenience and an economic drain to local communities.
1
“2015 Urban Mobility Scorecard,” accessed February 6, 2016,
http://d2dtl5nnlpfr0r.cloudfront.net/tti.tamu.edu/documents/mobility-scorecard-2015.pdf.
2
“Freight Analysis Framework (FAF),” accessed February 6, 2016, http://faf.ornl.gov/fafweb/FUT.aspx.
3
“Construction Timeline — Colorado Department of Transportation - CDOT,” accessed October 20, 2015,
https://www.codot.gov/about/CDOTHistory/50th-anniversary/interstate-70/construction-timeline.html.
4
“Travelers Stuffed $17.3 Billion into Colorado Tourism Coffers in 2013 - The Denver Post,” accessed February 6, 2016,
http://www.denverpost.com/business/ci_26236834/travelers-stuffed-17-3-billion-into-colorado-tourism.
5
“Performance Landing Page — Colorado Department of Transportation - CDOT,” accessed February 6, 2016,
https://www.codot.gov/performance.
Barnthouse 3
The development of world-class ski areas, such as Vail and Aspen, and the continued amenitydriven population growth in and around the Mountain Corridor continues to increase traffic, adding an
additional 150,000 vehicles a year.6 Such increased traffic volumes create a loss of $25 million a year in
tourism spending in the Mountain Resort Region, which decrease tax revenues for the state, counties, and
localities. Further, traffic congestion on I-70 Mountain Corridor creates a loss of $85 million for residents
commuting along the corridor as well as decreasing businesses productivity by $728 million annually.7
Despite short-term mitigation efforts by the Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT), the I-70
Mountain Corridor has become increasingly congested with vehicular traffic volumes. In fact, during
peak travel times, traffic volumes on the I-70 Mountain Corridor far exceed the highway’s current
capacity, creating heavy traffic congestion that adversely affects Colorado’s multi-million dollar
recreational economy, travel efficiency and the health of motorists and residents alike.
Precise Problem Definition
During peak travel times, traffic volumes on the I-70 Mountain Corridor far exceed the highway’s
current capacity, creating heavy traffic congestion that adversely affects Colorado’s multi-million
dollar recreational economy, the travel efficiency of the I-70 Corridor and the health of motorists and
residents.
Given the previous and projected population growth in Colorado, traffic volumes during peak
travel times is expected to continue to increase over the coming decade, causing further congestion and
delays. Colorado’s population grew by over fifty-eight percent between 1990 and 2015. Further, the
Mountain Resort Region population increased by about eighty-four percent during the same time frame.8
Colorado’s population is estimated at 5.4 million and is expected to increase by an additional twenty-two
percent within the next ten years.
9
While CDOT has explored methods for addressing transportation
issues along the I-70 Mountain Corridor, additional alternatives need to be assessed in order to identify
6
“CDOT Tackling I-70 Mountain Corridor - The Denver Post,” accessed February 6, 2016,
http://www.denverpost.com/news/ci_25504609/cdot-tackling-i-70-mountain-corridor.
7
“The Impact of I70 Congestion on Colorado-Denver to Grand Junction,” accessed February 6, 2016,
http://www.developmentresearch.net/Sample%20Projects/Economic%20and%20Fiscal%20Impact%20Analysis/I70%20Impact_
042507.pdf.
8
“The Impact of I70 Congestion on Colorado-Denver to Grand Junction,” accessed February 6, 2016,
http://www.developmentresearch.net/Sample%20Projects/Economic%20and%20Fiscal%20Impact%20Analysis/I70%20Impact_
042507.pdf.
9
“QuickFacts-Colorado, United States Census Bureau,” accessed March 7, 2016,
http://www.census.gov/quickfacts/table/PST045215/08.
Barnthouse 4
and implement an effective long-term strategy to decrease vehicular congestion. This policy analysis
presents several feasible alternatives to help meet existing and future travel demands, while also
increasing travel mobility along the I-70 Mountain Corridor. Figure 1 below depicts the region that
encompasses the I-70 Mountain Corridor.
Figure 1: Map of I-70 Mountain Corridor Region
Source: DRCOG Briefing Oct062010
Economic Rationale for Government Intervention
Traffic congestion along the I-70 Mountain Corridor warrants definition as a public problem that
should be addressed using public resources. It is both a market failure and a government failure that
results in broader economic and social costs to the state. Government has proven abilities in developing
the complex network of transportation infrastructure, with freeways providing the backbone to almost
every metropolitan area in the country. However, transportation reliability has worsened over time and the
United States transportation infrastructure is not keeping pace with demands.10 America has a failing
infrastructure system and the government continues to underestimate the costs associated to keep up with
demands and develop effective infrastructure. I-70 Mountain Corridor is a prime example of the lack of
transportation reliability in the United States. Traffic congestion along I-70’s Mountain Corridor has
10
America may not be able to completely build its way out of traffic congestion.
Barnthouse 5
created direct negative impacts on Colorado’s economy, transportation efficiency, and the health of
residents and visitors, requiring government intervention.
A. Negative Internalities
Human Health Impacts and Travel Inefficiencies
There are negative internalities for the motorists stuck in traffic along I-70. Those that travel the
region regularly may be at a higher risk for health issues. Motorists that endure prolonged times sitting in
traffic, have negative health implications that can create an induced risk of urinary tract infections, blood
clots, and stiff necks.11 A long duration of sitting is even linked to heart disease and diabetes.12 Along
with sitting; motorists are more likely to have traffic accidents because of traffic congestion. Motorist can
be distracted easily, as speeds of traffic accelerate and decline rapidly. Further, this congestion can also
interfere with emergency vehicles being able to gain access to the scene of an accident.13 While negative
internalities are present for motorists because of traffic congestion along the I-70 Mountain Corridor,
negative externalities are created for the region due to increased air pollutants.
B. Negative Externalities
Air and Noise Pollution
Figure 2: Negative Effects of Air Pollutants on the Human Body
While air pollution may be
reduced with the continued integration
of vehicle emission technologies, such
as hybrid and electric vehicles, air
pollution
caused
from
vehicle
emissions is increasing in the region
because of traffic congestion. This
pollution
leads
to
negative
externalities for the residents and the
ecosystems along the I-70 Mountain
Corridor. Living near congested or
Source: Page 13, Every breath we take EEA 2013
11
Alejandro Reuss, “‘Car Trouble’-Dollars & Sense, Issue 246, 2003,” accessed October 20, 2015,
http://dollarsandsense.org/archives/year/2003/.
12
Ibid.
13
Roy L. Wilshire and Charles J. Keese, Effects of Traffic Accidents on Freeway Operation (Citeseer, 1963), accessed March
27,2016, http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.248.3992&rep=rep1&type=pdf.accessed.
Barnthouse 6
high traffic volumes increases the risk for adverse health effects. Figure 2 illustrates the effects of
pollution on the human body. Additionally, noise pollution caused from traffic congestion is not only a
nuisance, but it has also been linked to additional negative health implications.14
Transportation is the second largest source air pollution is a mobile source, accounting for
twenty-nine percent of all the United States greenhouse gases emissions. Transportation carbon emissions
account for between 95 to 99 percent of the total air pollution created from passenger vehicles, with the
remaining portion of the other pollutants difficult to estimate.15 As more cars emit hazardous gases sitting
in traffic congestion, the amount of air pollution in Colorado will continue to grow. Overall, Colorado has
relatively good air quality for most of the year compared to many other states. However, when accounting
for air pollutants in Colorado, mobile sources provide the highest levels of carbon monoxide, lead and
oxides of nitrous pollution in the state.16 Chart 1 below exemplifies the various sources of emissions and
the rate by source. These vehicle emissions add to the traffic congestion economic impacts suffered by the
state.
Chart 1: Air Pollutants from Source Sector in Colorado
Source: United States Environmental Protection Agency
14
Alejandro Reuss, “‘Car Trouble’-Dollars & Sense, Issue 246, 2003,” accessed October 20, 2015,
http://dollarsandsense.org/archives/year/2003/.
15 Greenhouse Gas Emissions from a Typical Passenger Vehicle, United States Environmental Protection Agency, accessed
March 22, 2016, https://www3.epa.gov/otaq/climate/documents/420f14040a.pdf.
16
“State and County Emission Summaries | Air Emission Sources | Air & Radiation | US EPA,” accessed March 7, 2016,
https://www3.epa.gov/cgi-bin/broker?_service=data&_debug=0&_program=dataprog.dw_do_all_multi.sas&stfips=08.
Barnthouse 7
C. Business Capital Losses
Traffic congestion on I-70 continues to threaten the Mountain Region businesses. In the Mountain
Resort Region, businesses earn approximately $800,000 a day from tourism related contributions,
providing a vital source of revenue for the state.17 Yet, tourists having trouble accessing Colorado’s
Rocky Mountains may choose other vacation options than those along the I-70 Corridor. Traffic
congestion losses equate to an average annual loss of $25 million in business revenue for the state and
may continue to decrease due to the increased traffic congestion.18 Further, traffic congestion adds to a
decline in worker productivity and business operations, causing businesses in the region a loss of $728
million annually.
D. The Need for Government Intervention
The costs borne by internal and external parties from I-70’s traffic congestion, along with the
costs of the travels inefficiencies for motorists and businesses, justifies the role of government
intervention to mitigate traffic congestion along the I-70 Mountain Corridor. Due to the growing number
of affected individuals, traffic congestion has transformed into a basic mobility problem, which is that too
many people want to move at the same time. Peak traffic congestion has become an inherent means that
modern society to operate within. Addressing this growing recreational traffic congestion on the corridor
requires a robust mixture of travel demand management, technology, and other highway improvements.
Clearly this is a broader societal issue with far-reaching economic and social costs for many people and
entities. In order to successfully create a more reliable transportation system it requires the government to
maximize social welfare by speeding up the growth of the transportation network to serve an increasing
number of users. Yet, it also requires the government to be consider the environment of the corridor, by
preserving historic sites, having a clear grasp on local community values, and the safety needs along the
corridor.
Methods
Various methods were used to gather relevant information to analyze this topic, to inform and
evaluate policy recommendations.
“The Impact of I70 Congestion on Colorado-Denver to Grand Junction,” accessed February 6, 2016,
http://www.developmentresearch.net/Sample%20Projects/Economic%20and%20Fiscal%20Impact%20Analysis/I70%20Impact_
042507.pdf.
18
Ibid.
17
Barnthouse 8
Federal and State Policy Resources
Primary sources for research included the United States Department of Transportation’s database
maintained by the Bureau of Transportation Statistics. The database provides transportation information
by mode, region, and subject.19 Additionally, the Colorado Office of Economic Development and
International Trade (OEDIT) provides information on the state economy and maintains records on state
tourism in the Colorado Tourism Office.20 Additional primary sources include reports and analyses from
the Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT).21
Further, the federal and state legislative histories related to road infrastructure and Interstate-70
improvements as well as regulations since the Mountain Corridor portion was constructed were reviewed
to understand the broader policy context of the I-70 Mountain Corridor. The State of Colorado Legislative
information was found in the Colorado Revised Statute (CRS), which is available online.22
Literature Review
There was an extensive review of relevant peer-reviewed journal articles examining the costs of
traffic congestion on major interstate highway corridors in the United States. A list of reviewed Journal
articles can be found in Appendix P.
Scientific insights on travel time analysis and the health effects of air pollution were offered by
Schumer et al. (2009). Consumer preferences and economic analysis of air pollution can be found in the
Review of Economics and Statistics. The Logistics and Transportation Review provides information on
the impacts of changing transportation systems, indicating the economic assessments of transportation
modes. The Journal of Transport Economics and Policy offers information on the costs of, as well as, the
supply and demand of alternative modes of transportation, while assessing the environmental impact of
vehicles. The Journal of Safety Research and the American Economic Review provide important
information on transportation safety. The Journal of Urban Economics looks at the cost and output of
alternative modes of transportation and safety regulation. The Transportation Research Part A reviews
19
“Data and Statistics | Bureau of Transportation Statistics,” accessed October 20, 2015,
http://www.rita.dot.gov/bts/data_and_statistics/index.html.
20
“Office of Economic Development and International Trade | Colorado Business,” accessed October 20, 2015,
http://www.advancecolorado.com/.
21
“CDOT and Transportation Facts — Colorado Department of Transportation - CDOT,” accessed October 20, 2015,
https://www.codot.gov/about/.
22
“Colorado General Assembly Home Page,” accessed October 20, 2015,
http://www.leg.state.co.us/clics/cslFrontPages.nsf/HomeSplash?OpenForm.
Barnthouse 9
high-occupancy toll lanes. Where the Journal of Political Economy looks into the peak-load pricing of
expressways. For articles regarding tourism, the Journal of Travel Research is an applicable source.
Interviews
Additionally, this policy analysis is based on insights from interviews with key stakeholders that
include industry leaders, professionals, and constituents. Interviewees included a CDOT Project Engineer;
a FHWA & TIFIA board member, an operative of Colorado’s OEDIT, transportation attorneys and
lobbyists, transportation consultants, and commuters along I-70 Mountain Corridor. A list of questions
used in interviews are located in Appendix O.
Issue Analysis
Highways defined and created America in the past, but present transportation infrastructure
problems have created severe issues. Current government roles, regulations, planning and funding
mechanisms are part of the continued persistent problems associated with traffic congestion. While
innovative solutions have been developed to increase infrastructure financing options, federal and state
governments lack appropriate funding to successfully eradicate traffic congestion. Adding to the issue are
non-infrastructure related components, such as population growth, recreational traffic demands and
unique traffic patterns in the Mountain Corridor compared to urban settings. Even with successful
transportation mechanisms and the potential for technology advancement, predicting the future of
transportation infrastructure needs is difficult to assess. An analysis of transportation infrastructure is
necessary as excess traffic congestion leads to negative implications for the economy and public health in
Colorado. These negative health and economic impacts can be seen for motorists, residents, businesses,
the environment, and impact the government.
Role of Federal Government & Transportation Infrastructure
Prior to the federal government’s role in funding transportation infrastructure, the state
government and private sector financed roads by building toll roads and connecting many areas
throughout the country. The first major federal intervention into road financing was in the early 1900s,
establishing the Federal Bureau of Public Roads, allotting federal grants to the states. Such federal grants
initiated a top-down regulatory effect on roads. Further, the origin of the Interstate is most closely being
Barnthouse 10
associated with President Dwight D. Eisenhower with the Federal-Aid Highway Act of 1956.23 While
Interstates are owned and maintained by the state they were built, the states are subject to additional
applicable federal regulations.
Federal Environmental Regulation
The 1970 National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) established federal standards that require
federal agencies to assess potential environmental impacts of proposed transportation infrastructure
developments prior to implementation.24 The process requires an Environmental Assessment (EA) of the
proposed project area. If the EA results in a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI), then the project
can move forward as planned. However; like with many transportation improvements; when the EA
results in a potential environmental impact, a Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) is required.
The DEIS provides alternatives to the status quo, including a no action and a preferred alternative. The
federal regulation further requires public participation throughout the process. The process continues with
a Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement (PEIS), that provides recommendations, through a
multi-tiered system, for implementation of a selected alternative. The recommended alternative from the
Final PEIS then concludes with publication in the Record of Decision (ROD).25 Once the ROD has had
the appropriate public commenting period, then the project can be implemented. Chart 2 below displays
the NEPA process once an EA has been assessed. These regulatory policies are necessary to ensure the
selected alternative has minimal implications for the environment, while adding value for the proposed
transportation infrastructure. However, traffic in the proposed area during this process continues to
remain congested as this multi-tiered system for implementation of the selected project can take years.
Chart 2: Overview of NEPA Process
EA
DEIS
PEIS
ROD
PROJECT
Public Comment Period
26
23
“The Interstate Highway System - Facts & Summary - HISTORY.com,” accessed February 7, 2016,
http://www.history.com/topics/interstate-highway-system.
24
“What Is the National Environmental Policy Act? | National Environmental Policy Act | US EPA,” accessed February 6, 2016,
http://www.epa.gov/nepa/what-national-environmental-policy-act.
25
Ibid.
26
Terminology may vary based on industry, the diagram depicts a generalization of the NEPA process.
Barnthouse 11
While the NEPA requires an extensive process by which states must comply to receive funding
from the federal government, states must also be in compliance with the Clean Air Act (CAA). 27 The
CAA set the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for six pollutants that are considered
harmful to public health and the Environment.28 As vehicle emissions contain pollutants under the
NAAQS, limitations on vehicular emissions are in place, with the Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA) regulating these standards.29 If a state is in non-attainment of such regulations federal funding for
transportation projects can be withheld.
Colorado’s Compliance with NEPA and I-70 Mountain Corridor
Colorado submitted its Final PEIS in March 2011, using the Tier 1 evaluation that is required in
NEPA regulations. Tier 1 alternatives evaluated included mode, capacity, and general locations, twentyone action and one no action alternative were evaluated. The Final PEIS identified the preferred
alternative as a multimodal long-term vision toward 2050, as well as a combination of bundled solutions
for the Corridor that involve highway improvements, non-infrastructure improvements, and an Advanced
Guideway System (AGS).30
The approved Tier 1 evaluation AGS includes transit connections and requires additional
infrastructure development locally.31 CDOT has committed to increasing studies of alternatives to
implement an AGS along the Corridor.32Moreover, the specific highway improvements include auxiliary
lanes and interchange improvements. With other highway projects including truck operation
improvements, safety improvements, and some additional interchange improvements.33
While the selected alternative was approved, there is difficulty meeting the travel demands of
both now, because traffic demands remain consistent; and in the future; as technologies may advance
27
“What Is the National Environmental Policy Act? | National Environmental Policy Act | US EPA,” accessed February 6, 2016,
http://www.epa.gov/nepa/what-national-environmental-policy-act
28
Ibid.
29
These are major regulations surrounding transportation infrastructure, there are additional regulations that impact
transportation projects that are not discussed, such as the Historic Preservation Act, the Endangered Species Act, the Clean
Water Act, Section 4(f) of the DOT Act and various Executive Orders.
30
“I-70 Mountain Corridor Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement,” accessed February 6, 2016,
https://www.codot.gov/projects/i-70-old-mountaincorridor/final-peis/final-peisdocuments/MainText_combined_withTabs.pdf.
31
Ibid.
32
Ibid.
33
“I-70 Mountain Corridor Record of Decision and Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement,” accessed February 6,
2016, https://www.codot.gov/projects/i-70-old-mountaincorridor/documents/Final_I70_ROD_Combined_061611maintext.pdf.
Barnthouse 12
prior to any implementation actions, with the selected alternative becoming inept at meeting future needs.
Even more so, the selected alternative seeks to minimize environmental impacts, with a need for longterm solutions. Tier 1 NEPA evaluations do not address funding for the proposed long-term alternative.
Tier 2 processes have not yet been addressed, as Tier 2 processes deal with specific site location
alternatives, impacts, costs, and mitigation processes. 34
Non-infrastructure Related Components
Even with the states compliance to Federal environmental regulations, there are additional noninfrastructure components that are related to transportation. These require the involvement of agencies,
municipalities, and other stakeholders. These non-infrastructure components include strategies to decrease
traffic congestion through various means: increase enforcement, shuttle services in general purpose lane
traffic, driver education, technology advancements and services, methods for converting day trips to
overnight stays, methods for converting single occupancy vehicles to high-occupancy vehicles, increasing
use of public transportation, and implementation of transit incentives.35 All of these strategies rely on
transportation infrastructure planning mechanisms.
Statewide Transportation Planning
In addition to environmental regulations the federal government also mandates each state’s
transportation planning methods. CDOT is therefore, required to compile both long-term and short-term
transportation plans. Long-term plans are known as the Statewide Transportation Plans (SWP). Further,
short-term priorities are produced through the Statewide Transportation Improvement Program (STIP).36
Transportation planning therefore further requires the coordination of local planning regions and the state
transportation commission.
CDOT Transportation Regions
The Colorado Department of Transportation has four transportation regions. Each region has its
own CDOT Director. The Directors are responsible for assisting the in planning and execution of
34
Ibid.
Ibid.
36
“STIP Report, Statewide Transportation Improvement Plan,” accessed February 6, 2016,
https://www.codot.gov/business/budget/documents/dailySTIP.pdf.
35
Barnthouse 13
transportation infrastructure projects in the state.37 Figure 3 is a map of CDOT’s Transportation Regions.
The I-70 Mountain Corridor is part of two CDOT transportation regions: Region 1 and Region 3.
Figure 3: Map of CDOT Regions
Source: CDOT Transportation Regions & Directors
Statewide Transportation Planning
The Statewide Transportation Plan (SWP) assists in determining the future needs of Colorado’s
transportation, creating an outline for a unified strategy to achieve goals. The SWP incorporates fifteen
state transportation planning regions to create a 20 year plan. This plan is required to be updated every
five years based on estimated future revenues. The SWP is required by both the state and federal
government and provides a framework for CDOT.38 The SWP specifies five overall goals: safety,
mobility, economic vitality, and maintenance. Further, the SWP requires a planning process for such
goals, with input from the public and agencies within the process. The SWP identifies investment needs,
revenue sources, and funding gaps for future transportation projects. The SWP has identified the
Intermountain Region as one of the top ten priority investment corridors in the state.39 Colorado’s SWP
utilizes the Transportation Commission and two regional transportation areas: the Intermountain
37
“Transportation Regions & Directors — Colorado Department of Transportation - CDOT,” accessed April 18, 2016,
https://www.codot.gov/about/regions.html
38
“Statewide Transportation Plan — Colorado Department of Transportation - CDOT,” accessed February 6, 2016,
https://www.codot.gov/programs/planning/transportation-plans-and-studies/statewide-transportation-plan.
39
“Colorado Department of Transportation-Transportation Matters, Statewide Transportation Plan 2040,” accessed February 6,
2016, http://coloradotransportationmatters.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/CDOT-SWP-Executive-Summary-2015-0701.pdf.
Barnthouse 14
Transportation Planning Region and the Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) for planning
purposes. The Denver Regional Council of Governments acts as the MPO in the I-70 Mountain Corridor
Region. Additionally, CDOT also has its own planning program that assists with the SWP.
Statewide Transportation Improvement Program
The Statewide Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) is an additional short term planning
document that assists in identifying the transportation projects that CDOT intends to fund over a six year
period, involving the Transportation Planning Regions (TPRs) and the Denver Regional Council of
Governments (DRCOG) acting as the Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO).40
Intermountain Transportation Planning Region
The Intermountain Transportation Planning Region (TPR) represents the counties of Eagle,
Garfield, Lake, Pitkin, and Summit. Currently, the region has 1,542 lane miles allowing for the movement
of 5.4 million vehicle miles per day. Additionally, the region has 19 local transit services and 4 regional
bus lines, with 1 Amtrak passenger rail line. 41 Figure 4 shows the transit options and the regions area. The
Intermountain TPR has indicated that traffic volumes in the region continue to increase. Accordingly the
Intermountain TPR assists in creating regional priority corridors and provides recommendations through
2040. These recommendations include reducing traffic congestion to improve traffic flow, enhance transit
services, and mitigate rock fall, avalanches, and increasing incident management.42
Figure 4. Map of Intermountain TPR
Source: CDOT Intermountain Regional Transportation Plan
40
“STIP Report, Statewide Transportation Improvement Plan,” accessed February 6, 2016,
https://www.codot.gov/business/budget/documents/dailySTIP.pdf.
41
“CDOT-2040 Regional Transportation Plan, February 2015,” accessed February 6, 2016,
http://coloradotransportationmatters.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/IM_RTP_FINAL_eView-bookmarked.pdf.
42
Ibid.
Barnthouse 15
Denver Regional Council of Governments
Another planning region incorporates additional counties along the I-70 Mountain Corridor,
which are not included in the Intermountain TPR. The Denver Regional Council of Governments
(DRCOG) serves as the MPO for the I-70 Mountain Corridor. Figure 5 depicts the counties included in
the DRCOG. Further, the DRCOG serves as the planning, organization and the technical assistance
provider for local government members. The government members include a mix of diverse counties and
municipalities.43
Figure 5. Map of DRCOG Transportation Planning Region
Source: CDOT DRCOG Regional Transportation Plan
44
Transportation Commission
Along with local planning regions, the state has a Transportation Commission that is involved in
transportation infrastructure planning. While the responsibility for construction and maintenance of the
highway system lies with CDOT, the Colorado Transportation Commission is responsible for a majority
of the decision processes, giving CDOT direction. There are eleven commissioners, each representing one
of the eleven transportation districts in the state. Figure 6 presents a map of the eleven Districts. Though
the commissioners are non-partisan, they are appointed by the Governor and confirmed by the Senate.
These Commissioners’ further assist in setting transportation policies for the State.45
43
“Transportation Planning | DRCOG,” accessed April 18, 2016, https://drcog.org/programs/transportation-planning.
While all of the counties in DRCOG are included on the map, Jefferson County is the only county included in the I-70
Mountain Corridor Region.
45
“Transportation Commission — Colorado Department of Transportation - CDOT,” accessed February 6, 2016,
https://www.codot.gov/about/transportation-commission.
44
Barnthouse 16
Commissioners from 3 regions are included in the planning process for the I-70 Mountain
Corridor: Districts 2, District 6, and District 7. Effective transportation planning and coordination from
all of these aforementioned entities are essential in ensuring decreases in traffic congestion issues, now
and the future.
Figure 6. Map of Transportation Commission Districts
Source: CDOT Transportation Commission Districts
Government Funding for Transportation
In addition to a robust planning process for transportation infrastructure, there is also a complex
funding system. It requires funding partnerships between the federal, state and local governments.
Funding for highways and transit flows through intergovernmental transfers, direct spending and direct
sources. Figure 7 depicts the funding flows for transportation. Even with the ability to move funds
around for transportation infrastructure, there are limitations and stipulations for funding which are
indicative of structural and budgetary constraints of the government.
Figure 7: Transportation Funding Flows to Government Agencies
Source: PEW Charitable Trusts-Funding Challenges in Highway and Transit
Barnthouse 17
Federal Funding
The United States Department of Transportation (DOT) authorizes the Federal Highway
Administration (FHWA) to provide assistance with construction, maintenance, and preservation of the
country’s highway system.46 The FHWA authorizes federal funds to the states and local public agencies
(LPAs) for maintaining the Interstate Highways; these funds are located in the Highway Trust Fund
(HTF). The HTF was created by Congress in 1965, authorizing states to receive funds from Federal
highway user fees, much of the funding provided comes from federal gas tax revenues. Chart 3 depicts
the federal highway expenditures and revenue sources.
The FHWA does not generally distribute funds upfront for transportation infrastructure; instead
the FHWA provides a promise of future reimbursement. In addition, the FHWA offers a percentage of
matching funds, requiring the state or LPA to provide the same percentage of funding. Further, such
funding received by the states from the HTF has a specific use. The funds may not be used for routine
maintenance; rather to be eligible the highway has to be a particular classification, the funds must be used
for capital construction, and the project must be included in the Statewide Transportation Improvement
Program (STIP).47 While the STIP can be categorized into two subsections; Regional Significant projects
and Program Pool projects; the FHWA will only deal with Regional Significant projects.48
Chart 3: Federal Highway Expenditures & Revenue Sources
highway
patrol and
safety
8%
interest on
debt
5%
Bond
retirement
4%
Bonds
10%
admin
8%
Maintenance
& Traffic
Services
25%
Capital
Outlay*
50%
General
Funds
21%
Other
20%
Expenditures
*Capital Outlay include direct highway expenditures & amounts transferred to State and
local governments for use on highways.
MotorFuel Taxes
30%
MotorVehicle
Taxes
14%
Tolls
5%
Revenues
Source: FHWA 2010 Status of the Nation’s Highways, Bridges, and Transit
46
“Home | Federal Highway Administration,” accessed February 6, 2016, http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/.
“Companion Resource for Funding Basics and Eligibility - 44funding.pdf,” accessed February 6, 2016,
http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/federal-aidessentials/companionresources/44funding.pdf.
48
“STIP Report, Statewide Transportation Improvement Plan,” accessed February 6, 2016,
https://www.codot.gov/business/budget/documents/dailySTIP.pdf.
47
Barnthouse 18
Furthermore, the Transportation Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act (TIFIA) provides
federal credit assistance for transportation projects.49 TIFIA offers transportation infrastructure financing
through innovative techniques by allowing flexible financing for complex transportation projects through
the DOT. In order to qualify for the TIFIA credit program the highway project or transit capital project
must be include in the STIP, with at least $50 million in costs, but those costs only can equate to thirtythree percent of the total cost of the project.50
Shortfalls of Federal Funding
Even with innovative financing methods through the federal government there are still budgetary
shortfalls. Today, the interstate highway system has expanded, with financing from the federal
government being an inadequate source to complete transportation projects. The federal government
relies heavily on the gas tax to fund transportation infrastructure maintenance; however, it has been a
steady declining source of revenue. 51 As an excise tax, the federal gas tax, is based on fuel consumption
and has remained at 18.4 cents a gallon since 1993.52 This imbalance has required Congress to transfer
over $53 billion from the general fund to transportation in the last five years to support the lack of funds
received from gas tax revenues.53
Although highways are funded through various sources, even with fees, taxes, and cash transfers
from Congress, transportation infrastructure projects are still expensive and time consuming. This is
further compounded by the prices for transportation construction supplies continually increasing. In
addition, tax incentives from the federal government for fuel efficient vehicles have increased. A
consumer can receive up to $7,500 for purchasing an electric or plug-in hybrid vehicle.54 While revenues
generated from the gas tax continue to decrease and tax credits for fuel efficient vehicles increase there
are no new revenue sources to offset this revenue gap.
49
“FHWA Office of Innovative Program Delivery: TIFIA,” accessed February 6, 2016, http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/ipd/tifia/.
“Eligibility | Department of Transportation,” accessed February 6, 2016, https://www.transportation.gov/tifia/eligibility.
51
“Highway Trust Fund, April 2014 Baseline - 43884-2014-04-Highway_Trust_Fund.pdf,” accessed February 6, 2016,
http://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/attachments/43884-2014-04-Highway_Trust_Fund.pdf.
52
“FASTER — Colorado Department of Transportation - CDOT,” accessed February 6, 2016,
https://www.codot.gov/projects/faster.
53
“A Federal Gas Tax for the Future,” accessed November 20, 2014, http://www.itep.org/pdf/fedgastax0913.pdf.
54
“Tax Incentives,” accessed March 7, 2016, http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/taxcenter.shtml.
50
Barnthouse 19
Funding for transportation development continues to lack at a federal level. With these failures in
revenue, the federal government cannot afford to maintain highway infrastructure effectively, states are
now being required to direct a majority of the federal funding to asset management in order to preserve
the existing infrastructure, therefore, limiting the funds available for highway capacity projects.
State Funding
In addition to federal funding, states also have their own complex funding mechanisms for state
transportation infrastructure. Colorado’s transportation finance system is comprised of both state and
local resources, through a variety of sources. The Highway Users Tax Fund (HUTF) is one major source
of highway funds in Colorado. CDOT receives about sixty percent of the HUTF. Whereas, counties
receive about twenty-two percent of the HUTF, which equates to an estimated $120 million that is
distributed based on the number of registered vehicles and center lane miles within the municipalities.55
While the main source of funding for the State Highway Fund (SHF) come from transfers from the
HUTF, there are other revenues sources such as overweight and oversize permits that are appropriated for
transportation infrastructure maintenance by CDOT.56
The Funding Advancement for Surface Transportation and Economic Recovery (FASTER) adds
another source of revenue that is generated from vehicle registration fees and fines. While FASTER
revenues vary, an average of $200 million is collected annually. These funds are to be used for methods to
increase road safety, special bridge funds, and fund state transit grants.57 Other revenue sources for
transportation infrastructure are received from registration fees, driver license fees and court fines.
Additionally, CDOT created a government owned business in 2009, the High Performance
Transportation Enterprise (HPTE). As an enterprise, the HPTE receives less than ten percent of its
funding from the General Fund, but has the ability to take on debt through the creation of bonds. The
55
“Colorado Department of Transportation Future of State Government Strategic Issues Panel,” accessed February 6, 2016,
http://www.du.edu/issues/media/documents/georgecdotpresentation.pdf.
56
“CDOT FY2015-2016 Budget Allocation Plan — Colorado Department of Transportation - CDOT,” accessed March 7, 2016,
https://www.codot.gov/business/budget/cdot-budget/current-budget-documents/cdot-fy2015-2016-budget-allocationplan/view.
57
“FASTER — Colorado Department of Transportation - CDOT,” accessed February 6, 2016,
https://www.codot.gov/projects/faster.
Barnthouse 20
responsibility of the HPTE is to create innovative ways to fund transportation infrastructure.58 Chart 4
depicts state transportation revenues and expenditures. CDOT’s Region 3 is expected to receive $7.15
million of the Regional Priority Programs from HPTE in FY 2016, allocating these funds between several
regional transportation planning areas.59
Chart 4: State of Colorado Transportation Revenues & Expenditures
HPTE
0%
State
Aviation
Fuel Tax
2%
Other
Bridge
6%
Enterprise
9%
Federal Gas
Tax
33%
Revenues
General
Funds (SB228)
14%
FASTER
8%
State Gas
Tax
20%
TC
Contingen
cy
1%
Local, City &
County
Funds
1%
HPTE
0%
Debt
Services
14%
Bridge
Enterprise
11%
Expand
15%
Vehicle
Registration
7%
Maximize
8%
Program
Delivery
Administra
tion
6%
Maintain
45%
Expenditures
Source: CDOT Revenues & Expenditures
Shortfalls of State Funding
The state has an excise fuel tax of 22 cents a gallon, but has not had an increase since 1991.60
Most impactful to transportation infrastructure funding, however, is the state has a structural budgetary
limitation known as the Taxpayer’s Bill of Rights (TABOR). The revenue the state may spend each year
is limited by inflation and population growth, when revenues exceed such limits, the state is then required
to refund the taxpayers, unless voters approve a revenue change.61 Senate Bill 09-228, is a partial work
around from TABOR limitations, triggering a five year block of transfers from the General Fund to
58
“Colorado Legislative Council Staff Issue Brief: Colorado's Constitutional Spending Limit,” accessed February 6, 2016,
https://www.colorado.gov/pacific/sites/default/files/Update%20Constitutional%20Spending%20Limit%20Issue%20Brief624151
11222_1.pdf.
59
“CDOT-2040 Regional Transportation Plan, February 2015,” accessed February 6, 2016,
http://coloradotransportationmatters.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/IM_RTP_FINAL_eView-bookmarked.pdf.
60
“Colorado Department of Transportation Future of State Government Strategic Issues Panel,” accessed February 6, 2016,
http://www.du.edu/issues/media/documents/georgecdotpresentation.pdf.
61
“TABOR | Colorado Legislative Council,” accessed February 6, 2016, https://www.colorado.gov/pacific/cgalegislativecouncil/tabor.
Barnthouse 21
transportation and capital construction based on the percentage of Colorado personal income growth.62
As an enterprise, the HPTE, is completely exempt from TABOR limitations.
High-Performance Transportation Enterprise
With all of these budgetary shortfalls in the state the HPTE has been exploring alternative
methods to fund transportation infrastructure. The HPTE’s strategy for overcoming limited funds is
through public-private partnerships, operating concession agreements, and design-build contracting.63 The
HPTE continues to look for additional new ways to make up for the funding gap. While transportation
infrastructure needs to be maintained, the potential innovation and future transportation needs have to be
modernized to receive the best benefits with minimal costs.
Public-Private Partnerships
One innovative funding option that the HPTE has used is a Public-Private Partnership (P3), which
is a contractual agreement between the public sector agency and a private entity allowing for greater
participation from the private sector to finance and complete a government project at a faster rate.64As an
additional way to fund infrastructure investments, these partnerships assist in expertise and oversight that
can create more efficiency on projects and provide a cost savings to the government by reducing
construction time. 65 By using partnerships that incorporate private sectors, additional benefits can be
realized.66 Private businesses thrive in competition and seek to make a profit. It is through this
competition in the private sector which can assist in improving the quality of transportation infrastructure
and reduce of costs to the public sector, by introducing an opportunity to government inflexibility.67
However, P3 transportation projects have been met with some resistance in Colorado, as upfront
costs tend to be more because the process of a P3 is different than that of the rigid government
procurement practices. Colorado’s US-36, was the first P3 completed by the HPTE in the state. However,
62
“Colorado Legislative Council Staff Memorandum: Overview of Senate Bill 09-228,” accessed February 6, 2016,
https://www.colorado.gov/pacific/sites/default/files/Overview%20of%20Senate%20Bill%2009-228.pdf.
63
“Colorado HPTE Annual Report,” accessed March 29,2016,
https://www.codot.gov/library/AnnualReports/2015hpteannualreport/2015-hpte-annual-report/view
64
“ US-36 Public-Private Partnership (P3) Project Performance Audit, March 2015,” accessed February 6, 2016,
http://www.leg.state.co.us/OSA/coauditor1.nsf/All/03D76FF34736878087257E14007F395D/$FILE/1415P%20-%20US36%20Public-Private%20Partnership%20%28P3%29%20Project%20Performance%20Audit,%20March%202015.pdf.
65
Ibid.
66
A primary advantage of a P3 is the private entity providing substantial funding to assist in advancing construction.
67
“PPPIRC News & Multimedia | Public Private Partnerships | World Bank,” accessed February 6, 2016,
http://ppp.worldbank.org/public-private-partnership/multimedia.
Barnthouse 22
according to public opinion, the HPTE did not adequately involve state legislators and the general public
in the processes of procurement and development of US-36. Thus, P3’s have had difficulty gaining
taxpayer’s support in the State.68 Due to the lack of public support, CDOT has shifted its practices from
public involvement to public engagement for future transportation processes.69 CDOT has used
experience gained from the US-36 P3 Project and has created comprehensive schedules to involve the
general public in future P3 endeavors. P3s may be used in future infrastructure projects in the state, but
are not a solution for every corridor. There are additional methods that the HPTE currently utilizes that
may assist in funding and development of transportation infrastructure.
Operating Concession Agreements
Concession agreements are another form of innovative means for funding transportation. In 2010,
the Regional Transportation District (RTD) developed a plan for expansion of public transportation in
Denver metropolitan area in Colorado, known as the FasTracks Plan. FasTracks included the construction
and operations of particular commuter rail lines. RTD entered into a concession agreement with the
Denver Transit Partners (DTP), for which DTP is responsible for the design, build, finance, operations,
and maintenance of the project components for 34 years.70 RTD will retain ownership, set fare prices, and
retain all project revenues.71 Similar adaptations of concession agreements may be necessary for the
development and financing of transportation infrastructure needs in Colorado.
Design-build contracting
Design-build contracting is another innovative way to fund transportation projects. CDOT used
the design-build contracting on the I-70 Mountain Express Lanes.72 This allowed CDOT to create new
partnerships with Lawrence Construction Company and URS, as contractors for the construction phase of
the project. This project resulted in the use of existing highway right of ways, but not expanding the
68
“US-36 Public-Private Partnership (P3) Project Performance Audit, March 2015,” accessed February 6, 2016,
http://www.leg.state.co.us/OSA/coauditor1.nsf/All/03D76FF34736878087257E14007F395D/$FILE/1415P%20-%20US36%20Public-Private%20Partnership%20%28P3%29%20Project%20Performance%20Audit,%20March%202015.pdf.
69
“NO MORE WAITING: FIXING COLORADO’S MAJOR MOBILITY ISSUES NOW ,” accessed April 18, 2016,
https://www.codot.gov/programs/high-performance-transportation-enterprise-hpte/media-and-news/presentations/2014cdot-hpte-presentation.pdf.
70
The Eagle P3 project was conducted by the Denver Transit Partners. The private entity advanced money for construction
receiving 50 years of funds from transit fares.
71
“Eagle Project | Department of Transportation,” accessed February 7, 2016, https://cms.dot.gov/tifia/financedprojects/eagle-project.
72
Design-build terminology varies, it may also be referred to as a construction management or general contract process.
Barnthouse 23
footprint of the highway.73 Further, this new lane is tolled, with the revenues received applied to the
operating and capital construction cost of the project.74
All of the aforementioned avenues provide innovative means to create additional funding
mechanisms that circumvent existing issues for state funding. Table 1 below summarizes all of the
various government funding and planning mechanisms involved in transportation infrastructure.
Table 1: Summary of Mechanism for Colorado Transportation
Federal
Summary of Mechanisms for Transportation
Authority/Regulation
Transportation
Funding Mechanisms
Planning
EPA-NEPA/CAA/NAAQS Requires states to
HTF
DOT-FHWA
have SWP & STIP
TIFIA
State
CDOT-HPTE
Transportation
HUTF
CommissionFASTER
SWP/STIP
SB-228
Local
LPA
Intermountain TPR
Counties
MPO/DRCOG
While funding and planning mechanisms attempt to mitigate traffic congestion, other factors
contribute to the unique rural I-70 Mountain Corridor traffic congestion problem. Population growth,
recreation demands and economic impacts are additional factors surrounding traffic congestion issues on
the I-70 Mountain Corridor.
Population Growth
The state of Colorado has had sustainable population growth over the last sixty years.75
Colorado’s population continues to increase, and based on these current trends, there is the potential to
have even more serve traffic volumes along the I-70 Mountain Corridor over time. The state of
Colorado’s population is projected to increase to 7.8 million by 2040.76 Chart 5 illustrates the estimated
population growth. Further, the Mountain Resort Region population is expected to grow extensively over
73
“Project Overview — Colorado Department of Transportation - CDOT,” accessed February 7, 2016,
https://www.codot.gov/projects/I70mtnppsl/project-overview.
74
“EB I-70 Peak Period Shoulder Lane-Frequently Asked Questions,” accessed February 7, 2016,
https://www.codot.gov/projects/I70mtnppsl/assets-and-documents/ppsl-faqs-final.pdf.
75
“Colorado Water Conservation Board,” accessed November 13, 2015, http://cwcb.state.co.us/water-management/watersupply-planning/Pages/SWSI2010.aspx.
76
“Colorado Department of Transportation-Transportation Matters, Statewide Transportation Plan 2040,” accessed February 6,
2016, http://coloradotransportationmatters.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/CDOT-SWP-Executive-Summary-2015-0701.pdf.
Barnthouse 24
the next 20 years. The Intermountain TPR estimates the population in the region will grow from 161,000
to 313,000 by 2040.77 Population growth in Colorado and throughout the country continues to add to an
increase in traffic congestion.
Chart 5: Colorado's Projected Population Growth 1990-2040
Source: CO State Demographer
Increasing Recreational Travel Demand
Consecutively recreational traffic has increased over the last four years. In 2014, a new record for
tourism in the state was set, with 71.3 million visitors spending $18.6 billion in Colorado.78 Colorado
remains the country’s top ski destination for overnight ski trips, taking twenty-on percent of the share in
the United States. While current residents of Colorado are the top vacationers, making up thirty-four
percent of all overnight leisure travelers, visitors from California, Texas, Illinois, Florida, and New York
continue to increase overnight leisure travel in Colorado.79 These recreational demands bring about a
unique dichotomy between urban and mountain traffic congestion issues.
Rural Mountain vs. Urban Traffic Congestion
The I-70 Mountain Corridor traffic congestion provides a different set of transportation
challenges than the traffic congestion in an urban setting. Although many urban areas allow for an
increase in economic development surrounding the highways, the mountainous topography may limit the
ability to grow in the same capacity. Much of the mountain corridor region is rural, with traffic patterns
77
“CDOT-2040 Regional Transportation Plan, February 2015,” accessed February 6, 2016,
http://coloradotransportationmatters.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/IM_RTP_FINAL_eView-bookmarked.pdf.
78
“Colorado Tourism Numbers Set Record in 2014 - The Denver Post,” accessed October 20, 2015,
http://www.denverpost.com/business/ci_28368011/2014-record-colorado-tourism.
79
Ibid.
Barnthouse 25
impacted by additional factors not related to commuting patterns. Transportation demand on the I-70
Mountain Corridor is based on the season, outdoor recreational activities and leisure travel.
Peak period, directional travel times for both weekday and weekends vary substantially along the
I-70 Mountain Corridor. Chart 6 displays the comparison of traffic patterns throughout the year.
Generally speaking, unlike urban traffic congestion, peak travel periods with extreme excess congestion
from Denver to the Mountain Resort Region occur during Friday evenings, Saturday mornings and
evenings heading westbound, and Sunday afternoons eastbound, during the winter season. On the other
hand, similar flows of traffic from the Western region of the I-70 to Mountain Resorts flow in the
opposite directional peak times.
Chart 6: I-70 Directional Traffic Vehicle Counts (2015)
1,400,000
1,200,000
1,000,000
800,000
600,000
400,000
200,000
0
Eastbound
Westbound
Monthly Total
Source: CDOT 2015 Eisenhower Tunnel Traffic Counts
When faced with traffic congestion on the I-70 Mountain Corridor, many drivers find roads to
bypass traffic on the interstate. In doing so, these often include the use of frontage roads and maneuvering
through residential neighborhoods. Such streets were not designed to handle dense traffic, therefore,
contributing to a deterioration of local roads at a faster rate, while also having an increased impact on
local traffic.80 Further, this impact on local traffic can impede on peoples quality of life. Often, residents
80
"The Impact of I-70 Congestion on Colorado-Denver to Grand Junction," Development Research Partners,
http://www.developmentresearch.net/Sample%20Projects/Economic%20and%20Fiscal%20Impact%20Analysis/I70%20Impact_
042507.pdf.
Barnthouse 26
move to the mountain region to escape urban problems, like traffic jams. Now, traffic congestion is once
again becoming a part of the daily routine.
Previous Interventions
The state has attempted to mitigate the traffic congestion issues of the Mountain Corridor through
expansions of various general purpose lanes along specific segments of the interstate. Prior to the recent
NEPA Tier 1 evaluation, there was expansion near Floyd Hill and an expansion on the West side of the
Eisenhower Tunnels that added to a decrease in traffic congestion. After the Tier 1 evaluation, CDOT
recently completed the widening of the Twin Tunnels (Veterans Memorial Tunnels) in Idaho Springs. The
completion of the Twin Tunnels widening brought about traffic flow improvements for motorists, setting
the stage for future improvements on I-70.81 In 2014, it was estimated that the expansion would save
eastbound I-70 Sunday travelers approximately $11.4 million in travel time and fuel costs annually.82
Most recently CDOT added a 13-mile Mountain Express Eastbound Lane, from the Empire Junction to
Idaho Springs, using fluctuating tolls based on traffic congestion. This lane is not considered a capacity
expansion of I-70 as it utilizes the shoulder lane for high peak travel times. As CDOT continues to assess
transportation needs throughout the corridor, future technology innovation may assist in increasing
transportation efficiency.
Future Technology
From complex crash avoidance technologies to in-vehicle guidance services, vehicle based
technologies continue to advance. Such technologies can assist in improving safety and allow travelers to
have information readily accessible, providing up to the moment information on travel conditions and
other potential disruptive situations.83 This year CDOT created a pilot program to test out connected
vehicles; these vehicles are equipped with technology that allows vehicle to vehicle communication,
81
“I-70 Westbound Twin Tunnels (Veterans Memorial Tunnels) — Colorado Department of Transportation - CDOT,” accessed
February 6, 2016, https://www.codot.gov/projects/i70twintunnels.
82
“I-70 Eastbound Twin Tunnels (Completed) — Colorado Department of Transportation - CDOT,” accessed February 6, 2016,
https://www.codot.gov/projects/i70twintunnels/i-70-eastbound-twin-tunnels.
83
“A Toolbox for Alleviating Traffic Congestion - Institute of Transportation Engineers,” accessed February 6, 2016,
http://ntl.bts.gov/lib/jpodocs/repts_te/10803.pdf.
Barnthouse 27
known as the Advanced Driver Information Systems (ADIS).84 The pilot program allows 700 CDOT first
responders, ski shuttles, and commercial vehicles access to these devices. Further, similar technology for
autonomous and semi-autonomous vehicles is being developed, these types of vehicles will not only able
be communicate with one another, but would automatically respond to upcoming hazards.85 This
technology could assist in alleviating traffic congestion throughout the state. Although CDOT has made
efforts to alleviate traffic congestion through previous interventions and is investing in potential future
technologies, traffic congestion still has an increased cost and burden to Colorado.
Costs & Economic Impacts
Time and Resource Inefficiency
A major negative impact from traffic congestion along the I-70 Mountain Corridor is the loss of
productivity. Traffic congestion increases the commute time for motorists which therein cause a decrease
in the amount of personal time that can be used to do other things, such as working. The extra time spent
in traffic congestion creates lost opportunity costs for the state, as drivers could utilize this time to
participate in other economic activities or leisure activities. American’s spends 6.9 billion hours in traffic
each year, costing more than an extra $160 billion in fuel costs and lost time.86 The average travel-time
delay of congestion is extreme on highways in Colorado amounting to 18.6 minutes per traveler per day,
equating to 113 hours a year.87 Even Washington, D.C., known for having some of the most severe traffic
congestion annually, has an average annual delay that only amounts to 82 hours a year for commuters.88
In addition to the lost opportunity costs, traffic congestion waste valuable tax dollars that could be
allocated to other resources. As locations of extreme traffic congestion decrease the road surface lifetime,
these areas require more road maintenance. The state continues to increase the money allocated to upkeep
the roads where these resources could be utilized for other gains in the state. CDOT maintains over 9,000
84
“When Cars Talk: The Future of Colorado’s I-70 Mountain Corridor | SummitDaily.com,” accessed February 7, 2016,
http://www.summitdaily.com/news/19457476-113/when-cars-talk-the-future-of-colorados-i-70.
85
“A Toolbox for Alleviating Traffic Congestion - Institute of Transportation Engineers,” accessed February 6, 2016,
http://ntl.bts.gov/lib/jpodocs/repts_te/10803.pdf.
86
“Economics of Transportation Systems: A Reference for Practitioners,” accessed February 6, 2016,
http://www.utexas.edu/research/ctr/pdf_reports/0_6628_P1.pdf.
87
“Your CDOT Dollar : Mobility,” accessed February 6, 2016, http://dtdapps.coloradodot.info/otis/YCD/Mobility.
88
David Schrank, Bill Eisele, and Tim Lomax, “TTI’s 2012 Urban Mobility Report,” Texas A&M Transportation Institute. The Texas
A&M University System, 2012, http://www.pagregion.com/Portals/0/documents/HumanServices/2012MobilityReport.pdf.
Barnthouse 28
miles of highway and is now spending 91% of funds received on maintenance.
89
Maintenance of
transportation infrastructure has become a large priority, as capacity issues are left with continued funding
shortfalls.
Vehicle Operating Costs
Commuters not only have a lost opportunity cost, but an increase in vehicle operating costs. The
fixed costs associated with vehicles include: purchasing and financing, insurance, registration fees, and
scheduled maintenance. Whereas, variable costs include: fuel and oil costs, tire wear, and repairs.90 The
national average cost of operating a vehicle is 58 cents a mile.91 Traffic congestion increases these
maintenance costs as it decreases tire tread, fuel efficiency, and can create negative impacts on a vehicles
transmission.
Fatalities and injuries due to automobile accidents
Beyond vehicle operating costs, driving an automobile is an inherently dangerous activity. There
are serious to fatal injuries probable as a cost of commuting; with traffic congestion only increasing the
rate and causes of an accident.92 In general, traffic congestion reduces the safe distance between vehicles
and drivers are more likely to be less alert when sitting in traffic. Reducing traffic congestion can result in
a decrease of car accidents, therefore, decreasing the associated government costs.93
With eighty-five percent of the population in Colorado choosing cars as a primary source for
transportation, personal automobiles are the predominant mode of transportation in the I-70 Mountain
Corridor.94 Colorado had been on a continual decline of fatal accidents, in part due to advancing
technologies and safety requirements, averaging just 464 fatalities between 2009 and 2013.95 However,
Colorado has seen an increase in overall traffic related fatalities in 2014 and 2015, with 2015 having a
89
“Your CDOT Dollar,” accessed February 6, 2016, http://dtdapps.coloradodot.info/otis/YCD/.
“Methodology - Transportation Benefit-Cost Analysis,” accessed February 7, 2016,
http://bca.transportationeconomics.org/benefits/vehicle-operating-cost/vehicle-operating-costs-methodology.
91
“Table 3-17: Average Cost of Owning and Operating an Automobile(a) (Assuming 15,000 Vehicle-Miles per Year) | Bureau of
Transportation Statistics,” accessed February 7, 2016,
http://www.rita.dot.gov/bts/sites/rita.dot.gov.bts/files/publications/national_transportation_statistics/html/table_03_17.html
92
“Traffic Congestion and Reliability: Trends and Advanced Strategies for Congestion Mitigation,” accessed May 10, 2016,
http://www.ops.fhwa.dot.gov/congestion_report/chapter2.htm
93
Typically, traffic congestion can reduce the rates of fatalities and serious injury accidents, but may increase minor accidents.
Although there is a correlation between traffic congestion and accidents, there may be no direct causation of the severity of the
accident.
94
"The Impact of I-70 Congestion on Colorado-Denver to Grand Junction," Development Research Partners,
http://www.developmentresearch.net/Sample%20Projects/Economic%20and%20Fiscal%20Impact%20Analysis/I70%20Impact_
042507.pdf.
95
“Your CDOT Dollar : Safety,” accessed February 6, 2016, http://dtdapps.coloradodot.info/otis/YCD/Safety.
90
Barnthouse 29
total of 506 fatal crashes in the state.96 The costs of a fatal crash is estimated on upwards of $6 million;
when accounting for property damage, loss of productivity, including earnings and lost time at work,
medical costs, emergency services, travel delays, legal costs, and the loss of quality of life.97 While the
costs associated for commuters can be increased due to of traffic congestion along the I-70 Mountain
Corridor, the state experiences further negative externalities through the economic costs associated with
traffic congestion.
Tourism & Recreation
Bordered by seven other states, Colorado is a gateway to the West, drawing many tourists for
recreational activities. The I-70 Mountain Corridor encompasses the Mountain Resort Region, including
seven counties, with access to 17 of the 26 major ski resorts in Colorado.98 Figure 8 is a map that includes
all of the ski resorts located in Colorado.
Figure 8: Map of Colorado Ski Areas
Source: Ski Central Map of Colorado Ski Resorts
96
99
“Historical Fatal Crashes — Colorado Department of Transportation - CDOT,” accessed February 6, 2016,
https://www.codot.gov/library/traffic/safety-crash-data/fatal-crash-data-city-county/historical_fatals.pdf/view.
97
“AAA: Fatal Motor Vehicle Crash Costs $6M – USATODAY.com,” accessed February 7, 2016,
http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/nation/story/2011-11-02/fatal-vehicle-crashes-cost-millions/51051030/1.
98
The Mountain Resort Region and Western Slope ski resorts are: Aspen Highlands, Aspen Mountain, Arapahoe
Basin, Beaver Creek, Breckenridge, Buttermilk, Copper Mountain, Echo Mountain, Keystone, Loveland, Powderhorn, Ski Cooper,
Snowmass, SolVista, Sunlight,Vail, and Winter Park/Mary Jane.
99
Typical traffic congestion occurs during the weekends and holidays, rarely a daily occurrence.
Barnthouse 30
As mentioned previously, the I-70 Mountain Corridor is subject to different traffic congestion
patterns than that of urban settings. With Colorado’s outdoor assets, peak travel periods and peak
direction traffic congestion occur daily, weekly, and seasonally. Traffic volumes in the Mountain Corridor
are higher in the summer months then in the winter months, but the duration of time in traffic is higher in
the winter. This recreational traffic brings about year round traffic congestion. Colorado’s mountains
appeal to recreational activities in the winter months provides opportunities to ski at Mountain Resorts.
During the summer months, Colorado offers outdoor recreation along the Mountain Corridor with 12
fourteeners, rivers for fishing, kayaking, as well as, other outdoor recreation activities, such as biking and
camping. Adding to this tourist recreation traffic congestion, approximately ninety percent of Colorado
residents participate in outdoor activities throughout the year.100 While some of the recreational trips
along the corridor are predictable, the region is susceptible to adverse weather, avalanches, rockslides,
and traffic accidents; all of which can have additional impacts on excessive traffic congestion.101
As previously mentioned, tourism in the state of Colorado generated $18.6 billion in revenues last
year, of that, over $4 billion was spent in the Mountain Resort Region.102 As Colorado is the leading
destination for skiing in the nation, those traveling to the state, compounded by the number of locals
traveling to the Mountain Resort Region, results in a significant increase in vehicular traffic congestion on
I-70. Traffic congestion further threatens the ski industry in Colorado because tourist may seek to visit
other areas, seeking less traffic congestion and avoiding the area altogether. Over the last few years,
despite Colorado having the highest number of ski visitors in the United States, Colorado’s share of skier
visits has declined, with Utah increasing its overall share of the market.103 Although, this may not be
“Statewide Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation Plan-2014,” accessed October 20, 2015,
http://cpw.state.co.us/Documents/Trails/SCORP/SCORPOnlineReport.pdf.
101
“Adverse Weather on I-70 Mountain Corridor — Colorado Department of Transportation - CDOT,” accessed October 20,
2015, https://www.codot.gov/news/2014-news-releases/03-2014/adverse-weather-on-i-70-mountain-corridor-1.
102
“Colorado Tourism Numbers Set Record in 2014 - The Denver Post,” accessed October 20, 2015,
http://www.denverpost.com/business/ci_28368011/2014-record-colorado-tourism.
103
“The Impact of I70 Congestion on Colorado-Denver to Grand Junction,” accessed February 6, 2016,
http://www.developmentresearch.net/Sample%20Projects/Economic%20and%20Fiscal%20Impact%20Analysis/I70%20Impact_
042507.pdf.
100
Barnthouse 31
directly correlated with traffic congestion issues, as Vail Resorts pass has now been expanded into
accommodations in Utah.104
Further, while traffic congestion can benefit local communities that rely on tourism for economic
stability, the high level of congestion may mean motorists are less likely to stop in small towns along the
way in fear of losing the spot in traffic. Still others may choose to substitute the effects of traffic
congestions by taking alternate routes or flights to local airports instead.
Commercial Freight
Another economic impact to the state is commercial freight. Transportation is, in itself, a major
component of the economy. Not only does it provide the transportation of goods and services, which
account for more than ten percent of the United States GDP, it also provides millions of jobs.
Transportation-related industries account for over sixteen percent of all jobs in the country. Traffic
congestion increases fuel costs for commercial freight which is then passed on to the consumers.
Colorado has approximately, 4,156 highway miles that are critical to regional, state, and national
freight.105 Businesses are spending an additional $27 billion in freight transportation because of traffic
congestion. 106 Freight demands will only continue to grow in the United States. As congestion spreads
during peak travel periods for trucks, more direct cost will be incurred. Further, reliability of trucks will
continue to decrease as the ability to meet a delivery windows will decrease, which adds to the increase of
cost to freight firms.107 The I-70 Mountain Region provides a major US freight corridor and traffic
congestion in the area and continues to hinder the mobility of goods and services.
Fuel Economy
The problems of the economic impacts from traffic congestion are exacerbated by the extra costs
of fuel being wasted. According to the Texas Transportation Institute, the excess traffic congestion results
in commuters purchasing an extra 2.9 billion gallons of fuel, adding an additional cost of $120 billion
104
“Vail Resorts Acquires Park City Mountain Resort in Park City, Utah | Vail Resorts Corporate,” accessed April 26, 2016,
http://news.vailresorts.com/corporate/vail-resorts-acquires-pcmr.htm.
105
“Colorado Department of Transportation-Transportation Matters, Statewide Transportation Plan 2040,” accessed February
6, 2016, http://coloradotransportationmatters.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/CDOT-SWP-Executive-Summary-2015-0701.pdf.
106
“Congestion Cost Trucking $23 Billion in 2010 | Fleet Management Content from Fleet Owner,” accessed October 20, 2015,
http://fleetowner.com/management/news/congestion-trucking-billions-1005.
107
“| Bureau of Transportation Statistics,” accessed February 6, 2016,
http://www.rita.dot.gov/bts/sites/rita.dot.gov.bts/files/publications/freight_shipments_in_america/html/entire.html.
Barnthouse 32
annually.108 Delays caused by traffic congestion in Colorado costs a commuter an average of an additional
$865 annually for excess fuel consumption.109 Traffic congestion not only has a negative economic
impact, but additionally leads to negative environmental and health implications for the state.
Environmental & Health Impacts
Air and Noise Pollution
Vehicular emissions deter air quality, resulting in negative environmental and health implications
to those living along the I-70 Mountain Corridor. Peak time traffic congestion has lower speeds which
increase excessive vehicular emissions and produce more road dust. Air pollutants from vehicular traffic
congestion are mostly comprised of carbon monoxide (CO), Particulate Matter 10 and 2.5 (PM-10, PM2.5), and oxides of nitrogen (NOx). The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) indicates that
transportation accounts for one-third of all emissions that are harmful to humans and the environment.110
Moreover, exposure to air pollutants from transportation emissions can cause irreversible damage
to lungs, asthma, influenza, cancer, and even early death.111 Carbon emissions, due to traffic congestion,
can reduce the ability for oxygen to be delivered to the body’s organs and in extreme situations can even
cause death. 112 These emissions, along with tire and brake wear and tear from traffic congestion provide
relative impacts on visibility to the area as well.113 Although, Colorado has certain counties that require
emission inspections, many counties along the I-70 Mountain Corridor are not required to complete
emission inspections and out of state vehicles are not required to abide by Colorado’s motor vehicle
emission standards.114
108
“2015 Urban Mobility Scorecard,” accessed February 6, 2016,
http://d2dtl5nnlpfr0r.cloudfront.net/tti.tamu.edu/documents/mobility-scorecard-2015.pdf.
109
“THE COST OF TRAFFIC CONGESTION IN COLORADO: THE STATE’S 25 WORST TRAFFIC JAMS AND THE STEPS NEEDED TO
RELIEVE TRAFFIC CONGESTION - Transport Research International Documentation - TRID,” accessed February 7, 2016,
http://trid.trb.org/view/718639.
110
“Economics of Transportation Systems: A Reference for Practitioners,” accessed February 6, 2016,
http://www.utexas.edu/research/ctr/pdf_reports/0_6628_P1.pdf.
111
“Environmental Protection Agency -- Particulate Matter (PM-10),” accessed October 20, 2015,
http://www3.epa.gov/airtrends/aqtrnd95/pm10.html.
112
“Health Effects | Carbon Monoxide | US EPA,” accessed October 20, 2015,
http://www3.epa.gov/airquality/carbonmonoxide/health.html.
113
Some air pollutants from vehicle emissions increase with speed.
114
“Metro Denver and North Front Range Emissions Inspections | Department of Public Health and Environment,” accessed
February 7, 2016, https://www.colorado.gov/pacific/cdphe/metro-north-emissions.
Barnthouse 33
Noise pollution is another concern related to traffic congestion. The quantity of vehicles on the
road adds to the noise pollution.115 The decibels of noise are not only a nuisance but can cause additional
severe health effects. While some of these effects might depict symptoms related to stress, high blood
pressure and sleep deprivation, more severe health considerations from noise pollution is it can induce
hearing loss.116
Stakeholder Interests
Stakeholder Groups
There is a wide array of vested stakeholders involved at various levels as it relates to traffic
congestion on the I-70 Mountain Corridor. Nationally, the United States Department of Transportation
(DOT), Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), Transportation Infrastructure Financing Act (TIFIA)
board, all have a vested interest in transportation issues. State stakeholders include the High Performance
Transportation Enterprise (HPTE), the Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT), the Colorado
Office of Economic Development (OEDIT), the Transportation Commission, and the Transportation
Planning Regions, including the Intermountain Transportation Planning Region (TPR) and the Denver
Regional Council of Government Transportation Commission (DRCOG). On the other hand, local
stakeholders include businesses, residents, counties, tourists, recreational travelers and commuters using
the I-70 Mountain Corridor.117
Stakeholder Positions
Partisan Politics
There is no doubt transportation infrastructure issues are vital to the state of Colorado. However,
traffic congestion issues can be contentious among stakeholders. Various constituencies have competing
agendas and positions on how to best resolve the issues related to traffic congestion. This makes it
difficult to determine which priorities will align among the many stakeholders. Although transportation
issues are not a Democrat or Republican issue, generally speaking, liberals tend to favor larger
government through expansive and expensive alternatives; where conservatives tend to disapprove them.
Both sides of the aisle are likely to form coalitions for and against any alternative recommended.
115
Traffic congestion may lead less noise pollutions than traffic traveling at the speed limit.
“Title IV - Noise Pollution | Overview of the Clean Air Act and Air Pollution | US EPA,” accessed February 7, 2016,
http://www.epa.gov/clean-air-act-overview/title-iv-noise-pollution.
117
The section does not exhaust all stakeholders, others include the US Forest Service, I-70 Coalition, and more.
116
Barnthouse 34
Proposed Solutions
There are many potential alternatives to the existing transportation infrastructure methods used
along the I-70 Mountain Corridor. Policy approaches in this analysis attempt to provide strategic
recommendations to encourage the use of new alternatives. Proposed alternatives in this analysis include
the following: the current status quo, an expansion of capacity with HOV3 reversible lanes, Toll Lanes,
and a bus-rapid transit system. While each alternative has strengths, there are also weaknesses associated.
Further, discussions of different funding mechanisms for each alternative are reviewed within the
analysis.
Status Quo
Currently, on average there are 2.6 passengers per vehicle that travel along the I-70 Mountain
Corridor, moving about 11.5 million vehicles a year. Eighty-five percent of commuters in the state of
Colorado use their vehicles as the sole transportation means.118As the Final PEIS for Tier 1 application
processes were submitted in March 2011, CDOT and the state have continued to mitigate traffic
congestion through various means, to no avail.119 Many minimal action alternatives for the Corridor have
been completed to assist in mitigating the traffic congestion associated with the movement of those
vehicles.
Using current mechanisms, CDOT has increased maintenance and operations on the road. One
attempt to mitigate traffic congestion uses additional courtesy patrols with quicker response times to clear
accidents. Additionally, the Eisenhower Tunnel and on-ramps are metered during peak times of
directional traffic congestion.120 Even with the metering, the stopped traffic quickly catches up to the
slower moving motorists ahead.
Further, CDOT has invested significantly in non-infrastructure related components, using
unconventional methods to hinder traffic congestion through the Change Your Peak Time campaign. This
campaign uses existing partnerships with Mountain Resorts, casinos, and restaurants to offer deals for
“Colorado Department of Transportation-Transportation Matters, Statewide Transportation Plan 2040,” accessed February
6, 2016, http://coloradotransportationmatters.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/CDOT-SWP-Executive-Summary-2015-0701.pdf.
119
The Twin Tunnels and Peak Period Shoulder Lane projects have reduced travel times in certain sections of the corridor, but
have not completely alleviated traffic congestion.
120
“Eisenhower Tunnel Metering FAQ’s — Colorado Department of Transportation - CDOT,” accessed October 20, 2015,
https://www.codot.gov/travel/eisenhower-tunnel/eisenhower-metering.html.
118
Barnthouse 35
commuters to encourage a decrease in travel during peak times.121 In addition, these programs offer
incentives for commuters to join, or create a carpool; or use transit. The campaign relies on distinct and
predictable travel patterns and has resulted in some peak-shifting travel times. These incentives entice
commuters to stay to avoid peak time travel and provide revenue increases to the Mountain Resort
Region. However, these incentives can detract from economic revenues in the commuters’ city of
residence. Costs for all of the campaign programs are minimal; rather, relying on public education.
However, public education campaigns rarely see a significant return.122
The state also uses technology to update motorists on road conditions. Cotrip is a website and
mobile application that provides traveler information for Colorado Interstates and Highways. This
application offers updates on current road conditions, weather information, travel times, and live
streaming of traffic.123
Further, CDOT has added a 13-mile Mountain Express Eastbound Lane, which has been deemed
a success, but is only a short term solution. Even still, a plan to complete a similar lane going Westbound
is underway. However, FHWA limits the lane usage by requiring a maximum of 72 days, with 600 plus
hours, of lane usage a year, as it is a shoulder lane.124 Additionally, knowing that traffic congestion
patterns on I-70’s Mountain Corridor ebbs and flows with season and time of day, the state of Colorado
recently passed a law with new requirements for tire wear and tear for winter travel.125 Time has yet to
determine if this policy has had any significant benefit in decreasing traffic congestion.
While most of these approaches may be cost effective, current commuter and transit options are
still limited for the Corridor. Accordingly, CDOT introduced the Bustang, a new interregional express bus
for commuters in July of 2015. Bustang is a state-owned and operated bus system that connects
commuters from local Denver transit centers to the I-25 Front Range Corridor and the I-70 Mountain
121
“GOI70 :: Home,” accessed October 20, 2015, http://goi70.com/.
Dana Mitra, “The Social and Economic Benefits of Public Education,” accessed April 18, 2016, http://www.elc-pa.org/wpcontent/uploads/2013/11/BestInvestment_Full_Report_6.27.11.pdf.
123
“Road Conditions, Speeds, Travel Times, Traffic Cameras, Live Streaming Traffic Cameras, Road Closures and Road Work
Information Provided by Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS) a Branch of Colorado Department of Transportation,” accessed
February 6, 2016, http://www.cotrip.org/home.htm.
124
“Project Overview — Colorado Department of Transportation - CDOT,” accessed October 20, 2015,
https://www.codot.gov/projects/I70mtnppsl/project-overview.
125
Many vehicles are still inadequately prepared for travel conditions.
122
Barnthouse 36
Corridor, with each bus allowing for a capacity of up to 50 passengers each way.126 Figure 9 shows the
Bustang I-70 Mountain Corridor Route. A one-way ticket for the West Line, to/from Denver and
Glenwood Springs, costs a passenger $28. However, Bustang only has one bus commuting in each
direction daily. In addition to the Bustang, private companies offer shuttle services to the mountain areas,
with prices varying depending on distance, time of year, and drop-off locations.
Figure 9: Bustang West Line Map
Source: CDOT Ride Bustang Routes
Maintaining the status quo will likely continue to result in longer travel times and further
suppress the economic growth of many counties along the Corridor. Further, minor improvements that
have been attempted by CDOT may actually attract more traffic, as these approaches can provide the
perception that the traffic congestion is mitigated through such improvements.127 Even with all of these
efforts, traffic congestion and environmental impacts along the I-70 Corridor continue to not be
adequately addressed through the status quo.
Wasteful energy consumption also continues to increase. However, aforementioned, technology
advances in fuel efficient vehicles and the continued tax incentives for such vehicles have continued to
assist in decreasing the overall carbon emissions from vehicles, with the average passenger vehicle emits
4.7 metric tons of carbon emissions annually. Future projections indicate with the increase in fuel
126
“About Bustang,” accessed March 29, 2016, http://www.ridebustang.com/
“The Impact of I70 Congestion on Colorado-Denver to Grand Junction,” accessed February 6, 2016,
http://www.developmentresearch.net/Sample%20Projects/Economic%20and%20Fiscal%20Impact%20Analysis/I70%20Impact_
042507.pdf.
127
Barnthouse 37
efficient vehicles, this could reduce the amount carbon emissions from each vehicle by 462 metric tons
(MT) annually.128
Given the future traffic demands, a long-term strategy is essential to decrease traffic congestion
on the I-70 Mountain Corridor. Various strategies for long-term efforts to decrease negative impacts from
traffic congestion already exist. In order to assist in the reduction of recurring congestion it is
recommended that the development and implementation of new approaches are used. This proposal offers
three alternatives in line with the recommendations of the Tier 1 NEPA process to further assists in the
evaluations of Tier 2 processes. The purpose of this policy memorandum is not to select an alternative;
rather it is to examine three alternatives to the current status quo.
Alternative #1: High-Occupancy Vehicle (HOV3)
An alternative to the current status quo is to expand highway capacity. This alternative would add
two reversible High Occupancy Vehicle (HOV3) lanes, increasing its capacity from two general purpose
lanes in each direction, to a total of six lanes for the entire Mountain Corridor. These lanes provide
congestion relief during peak east-bound or west-bound traffic by changing with the flow of traffic.
Further, to use these lanes, a driver would need to have at least three passengers in a vehicle. The primary
purpose of such lanes would be to increase the amount of people moving instead of the number of
vehicles moving along the interstate. In general, HOV lanes can reduce travel times for users by an
average of twenty-two percent.129 These lanes offer the potential to move more passengers in a smaller
amount of vehicles. Therefore, this could lead to reducing traffic congestion in general purpose lanes,
while also reducing the total number of vehicles on the road.
Currently, Virginia uses the HOV3 passenger rule on its reversible lanes on Interstate 95, also
known as the Shirley Highway. These lanes have been successful, by comparison, moving 13,000 more
passengers within fewer vehicles during peak congestion periods than the general purpose lanes at the
128
"I-70 Mountain Corridor PEIS Climate and Air Quality Technical Report," March 2011, https://www.codot.gov/projects/i70mountaincorridor/final-peis/final-peis-documents/technical-reports/Vol3_I70_Mntn_Corridor_Final_PEIS_Climate_AQ_TR.pdf.
129
“A Toolbox for Alleviating Traffic Congestion - Institute of Transportation Engineers,” accessed February 6, 2016,
http://ntl.bts.gov/lib/jpodocs/repts_te/10803.pdf.
Barnthouse 38
same time.130 Virginia’s lanes came about through a public-private partnership (P3) to design, build,
finance, operate, and maintain the lanes.131 The long-term contract partnership between Virginia
Department of Transportation and Transurban was able to complete the project for $82 million by
leveraging private investments, creating a cost savings $18 million.132
Requirements and Challenges for Implementation
Adding capacity to the corridor would require a significant upfront capital investment, but
increasing the capacity may initially reduce overall congestion. However, an increase in capacity; even
with more emission efficient vehicles; may result in an increase in air pollution over time. While traffic
congestion and negative health impacts on motorists may be decreased, a capacity expansion may mean
more vehicles releasing air pollutants from exhaust. Further, the additional travel lanes along the Corridor
may allow for more additional trips by commuters and increase the amount of vehicles traveling.133 Yet,
by providing capacity through the construction of new lanes to the interstate, vehicle accident rates may
be reduced as speeds become more consistent.134
Funding Options
For the HOV3 capital construction, in addition to the TIFIA financing and loan options that are
available for expansion projects, a potential source of funding beyond the normal means previously
reviewed in this analysis is private activity bonds and private equity. HOV lanes provide an opportunity
for the state to incorporate an innovative finance options, as the best practices are leading toward P3s for
funding capacity infrastructure projects.
Alternative #2: Toll Lanes
Another option is to increase capacity by introducing reversible toll lanes to the corridor. This
system would be similar to HOV3 option by adding two lanes to increase capacity, but would offer
revenues from user fees to assist in offsetting the costs of construction, maintenance and operations. By
130
Ibid.
“FHWA Office of Innovative Program Delivery: Public Private Partnerships,” accessed October 20, 2015,
http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/ipd/p3/resources/p3_concessions_map_newbuild.aspx.
132
“495 | 95 Express Lanes - Project Background,” accessed February 6, 2016, https://www.expresslanes.com/projectbackground.
133
“The Impact of I70 Congestion on Colorado-Denver to Grand Junction,” accessed February 6, 2016,
http://www.developmentresearch.net/Sample%20Projects/Economic%20and%20Fiscal%20Impact%20Analysis/I70%20Impact_
042507.pdf.
134
“Chapter 4: The Federal Role in Highway Safety - President Dwight D. Eisenhower and the Federal Role in Highway Safety General Highway History - Highway History - Federal Highway Administration,” accessed February 6, 2016,
https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/infrastructure/safety04.cfm.
131
Barnthouse 39
increasing the amount of capacity, this option also provides the ability to reduce traffic congestion on the
general purpose lanes and another alternative to manage traffic congestion along the Mountain Corridor.
However, these managed lanes do not require a minimum amount of passengers in a vehicle, rather are
based on the number of vehicles utilizing the toll lane. Toll lanes, similar to the HOV3 lanes, reduce
travel time for users by about twenty-two percent.
There are already several existing toll lane systems that work well in Colorado. These express
lanes exist on US-36, I-25, and I-70. Tolls are collected through an Express Toll system, either through an
account or through license plate collection, with no need to stop at a tollbooth. Express Lanes use a
dynamic pricing system, in which tolls can change in price depending on the time of day. As traffic
congestion increases, the toll price increase, with prices and the tolls fluctuating based on demand.135
Requirements and Challenges for Implementation
Similar to the HOV3 alternative, a reversible toll lane system would require a significant up front
capital investment for construction costs, which would necessitate additional funding. Yet, increasing
capacity along the corridor may reduce overall congestion. The Toll Lane system allows for fee revenues
to offset the costs associated with construction. However, a toll system relies on vehicle utilization; the
fluctuating tolls may deter commuters from using the toll lane. Additionally, although toll systems
remove vehicles from general lanes, because of the fees the reduction of vehicles in general purpose lanes
tend to be less than a free HOV3. Moreover, a Toll Lane system does not necessarily decrease the overall
number of vehicles on the road as there is no requirement for a minimum number of passengers.
Therefore, carbon emissions will not necessarily decrease either.
Funding Options
Funding options for this alternative are similar to the financing options available for HOV3. The
TIFIA financing and loan options are available for expansion projects and are a potential source of
funding beyond the normal means previously reviewed in this analysis. As best practices are leading
“ Express Lanes: FAQ”, accessed April 20, 2016, https://www.codot.gov/programs/expresslanes/frequently-askedquestions-faqs
135
Barnthouse 40
toward P3s for funding capacity infrastructure projects, toll lanes provide another opportunity to advance
the states innovative financing options.136
Alternative #3: Increasing Bus Transit Ridership
The final alternative to reduce traffic congestion along the I-70 Mountain Corridor is by
increasing bus transit ridership. A bus can offer an express service on the highway, with a fixed route.
This would require an expansion of existing public transportation. Rural bus transit in the United States
provides a low-cost mobility option, with exponential benefits for a fixed bus route.137 The United States
Government Accountability Office reviewed the bus systems throughout the country finding such projects
significantly improved transit options and created a time savings.138 Relatively speaking, the costs of bus
options are lower than rail transit projects. Unlike building a rail line or expanding the highway the bus
offers a flexible option for transportation infrastructure. There is no expansion footprint and in the event
the bus ridership is not successful, the reintegration of other options is feasible.
The Lake Tahoe region provides a similar context to the predicament of the I-70 Mountain
Corridor. Lake Tahoe is popular for its skiing, casinos, and outdoor recreation. Various strategies have
been developed in the region to deal with traffic involving buses. Ski Resort Buses provides a free shuttle
bus for skiers; the Tahoe Casino Express operates a bus transit service from the Reno Airport to Lake
Tahoe Casinos. The South Lake Shuttle with increased ridership seasonally. The North Shore Trolley, is
similar to the South Lake Trolley, but is a summer-only form of transportation.139 Many of these bus
systems were originally utilized by residents disproportionately to tourists, but over time have increased
tourist ridership. Although Lake Tahoe is a comparable region because of the recreational travel, the
region is not identical to the I-70 Mountain Corridor, as Tahoe has multiple access points from various
corridors including the Nevada State Route 28, California’s I-80 and Highway 50. Further, the bus
activity in Lake Tahoe offer more local access alternatives that are provided by ski resorts, casinos, South
136
Toll revenue may also present an opportunity for a P3 approach to provide additional funding for construction.
“National Center for Transit Research: Cost-Benefit Analysis of Rural and Small Urban Transit, July 2014,” accessed February
6, 2016, http://www.nctr.usf.edu/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/77060-NCTR-NDSU03.pdf.
138
“GAO-12-811, BUS RAPID TRANSIT: Projects Improve Transit Service and Can Contribute to Economic Development,”
accessed February 6, 2016, http://www.gao.gov/assets/600/592973.pdf.
139
“Transportation Management Alternatives I-70 Mountain Corridor,” accessed February 7, 2016,
http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:gson7TKYjfQJ:hermes.cde.state.co.us/drupal/islandora/object/co%2
53A12136/datastream/OBJ/download/Transportation_management_alternatives___I70_mountain_corridor_draft_environmental_impact_statement.pdf+&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us.
137
Barnthouse 41
Lake Shuttle Service, and a North Shore Trolley. Areas along I-70 Mountain Corridor don’t offer as many
access points and transportation alternatives like that of Lake Tahoe.
Requirements and Challenges for Implementation
The Bus transit alternative offers an expansion of a transportation mode along the I-70 Mountain
Corridor. This option would not require its own lane, thus, capital construction costs would be
significantly lower than other alternatives. Instead the bus would be susceptible to traffic congestion on
the highway, therefore, riders would not necessarily benefit from a time savings.140 Additionally, the
Regional Transit Authorities and CDOT would need to develop additional capital investments for
localized transportation infrastructure in regions along the Corridor to meet the needs of this transit
alternative. This alternative may result in difficulty deciding the frequency and location of stops along the
route. The success of this option would rely on commuters changing preferences from vehicles to mass
transit.141 Nearly eighty-five percent of the population in Colorado use automobiles as the main mode of
transportation.142 If more benefits are available to motorists such as convenience and preference, then
motorists will tend to favor automobile travel at the expense of other modes of transportation. While the
transit services would increase the ability for capacity of commuters along the Corridor, it may not reduce
traffic congestion significantly.
A tradeoff, however, is the reliability and safety of the transit system in comparison to motorists in
traffic. This increased perception of safety may result in an increase in riders’ willingness to pay for a
transit alternative. Further, this transit mode needs to interface with existing and future transit systems to
ensure connectivity. Therefore, the region along the corridor would need to make additional capital
investments in local transit.
Funding Options
Specific sources of funding for buses are provided through the U.S. Department of Transportation’s
Federal Transit Administration (FTA). The FTA provides grants to help to assist with transit systems
140
Bus travel may not be more reliable compared to the status quo, unless it has its own lane.
Motorists may not change transportation preferences to bus travel unless there is a time savings, cost savings, or both.
142
“Colorado Department of Transportation-Transportation Matters, Statewide Transportation Plan 2040,” accessed February
6, 2016, http://coloradotransportationmatters.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/CDOT-SWP-Executive-Summary-2015-0701.pdf.
141
Barnthouse 42
through a series of grants.143 These transit capital investment grants (5309) can assist in the funding this
new system. States and local entities, including agencies are eligible recipients for the Bus program;144
private companies are eligible for funding as a sub-recipient if they are involved in public
transportation.145
Cost-Benefit Analysis
Methodology
Approach & Timeframe
The cost-benefit analysis (CBA) constructs the expenditures and benefits of developing alternate
methods of transportation infrastructure, while comparing these results to the current status quo. The ex
ante CBA assists in the consideration of each alternative. A CBA is a common form of analysis
conducted prior to policy implementation.146 Benefits are measured through the avoided costs of travel,
an increase in safety, the increase of air quality, and increase economic revenues. Each intervention is
considered an add-on to the status quo. However, implementation time frames vary depending on the
selected alternative. Estimations for the HOV3 lanes and Toll Lanes developments are three years,
whereas, the buses would be able to run almost immediately. Therefore, the CBA considers twenty years
of analysis to offset the different timeframes for implementation for each alternative, allowing for a
seventeen year comparison of operations.
The main considerations in determining the costs of the recommended alternatives include the
short-term capital costs for construction and the long-term operating costs. Such modes of transportation
can impose an increase of external costs to society through environmental pollution. Vehicle emissions
change due to travel speeds, times of day, fuels, and types of vehicles having varied costs on health
impacts. Further, evaluated is the value of travel time saved and vehicle operating costs.
Traffic congestion has both qualitative and quantitative dimensions. However, qualitative
attributes may be more difficult to monetize because they include less tangible costs such as the quality of
life and the negative perception of motorists commuting to the mountains. For example, a person stuck in
traffic may have paid for a full day ticket at a ski resort but might only utilizes it for part of the day. Thus,
143
“FTA,” accessed February 7, 2016, https://www2.fta.dot.gov/.
FASTER also provides transit funds.
145
“Grants Information by Number — Colorado Department of Transportation - CDOT,” accessed February 6, 2016,
https://www.codot.gov/programs/transitandrail/transit/transit-grant-programs.
146
Boardman, Anthony, et al., Cost Benefit Analysis: Concepts and Practice, Pearson Education, Inc. (2011), 3.
144
Barnthouse 43
this individual is essentially paying more per hour for the opportunity to ski than those who are not stuck
in traffic. The overall level of enjoyment during the outdoor activity may also be reduced for those stuck
in traffic.
Quantitative costs and benefits can be measured through revenues, expenditures, safety, vehicle
operating costs, and the efficiency of commute times. These lost opportunity costs can be monetized
through the value of time lost due to traffic congestion. Further, traffic congestion can contribute to sunk
costs, which is the time and money already invested into unsuccessful projects along the I-70 Mountain
Corridor.
Method for Evaluation
The recommended policy alternatives discussed in this analysis are evaluated first by the
economic efficiencies, or the ability to effectively decrease traffic congestion along the corridor. Each
alternative is assessed based on the number of passengers increasing the value of travel time savings, rate
of vehicular accidents and the amount of carbon emissions. Each recommendation is then compared to the
status quo, where limited benefits for stakeholders are expected. Utilization of this method of comparison
allows for the creation of an analysis of benefits, including the estimates of short and long-term costs
avoided from travel, accidents, and pollutants. The policy options are subsequently evaluated for political
feasibility.
Social Discount Rate, Inflation and Future Projections
The analysis includes a multi-year timeframe, costs and benefits are discounted to reflect the
present value of money. The real social discount rate of 7% is used. All numbers are adjusted to present
values using the OMB-Circular A-94.147 A conservative future projection of population is used in this
analysis, at a 2.2% increase annually year over year.148 Pollution costs for any transportation mode along
the Corridor are expected to decrease annually with the continued use of fuel efficient vehicle
technologies.149
147
“Circular A-94 Appendix C | The White House,” accessed April 18, 2016,
https://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/circulars_a094/a94_appx-c.
148 "The Impact of I-70 Congestion on Colorado-Denver to Grand Junction," Development Research Partners,
http://www.developmentresearch.net/Sample%20Projects/Economic%20and%20Fiscal%20Impact%20Analysis/I70%20I
mpact_042507.pdf.
149 "I-70 Mountain Corridor PEIS Climate and Air Quality Technical Report," March 2011, https://www.codot.gov/projects/i70mountaincorridor/final-peis/final-peis-documents/technical-reports/Vol3_I70_Mntn_Corridor_Final_PEIS_Climate_AQ_TR.pdf.
Barnthouse 44
Cost and Benefit Inputs
To produce cost and benefit estimates, this analysis includes the costs and benefits for
stakeholders that can be quantified and are backed by existing research. Although, qualitative benefits
from one or more of the policy options may be present, they are more difficult to measure and are not
included. The cost and benefit inputs used to evaluate policy options in this analysis are summarized in
Table 2 below.
Table 2: Cost-Benefit Inputs
Costs
Benefits
1. Costs of traffic congestion.
1. Vehicle Travel Time Savings
2. Costs of motor vehicle injuries from crashes.
2. Reduction in motor vehicle injuries
3. Costs of vehicle operations.
3. Reduction in vehicle operations
4. Costs of carbon emissions
4. Reduction in carbon emissions
5. Cost of Construction/Maintenance & Operations
5. Revenues
Cost Benefit Matrix Discussion
Table 3 below provides the Cost-Benefit Matrix. In the matrix the cost and benefits are combined
to present a simplified sum total for each category. (The monetary costs and benefits breakdown of the
CBA Matrix can be found in Appendix A). Further, the Present Costs for each alternative is subtracted
from the Present Benefits to determine the Net Present Value (NPV). The policy option with the highest
NPV represents the option that has the most benefits.150 The monetary calculations, formulas and
statistical inputs used in the matrix below are found in Appendices A, B and C.
150
Boardman, Anthony E. Cost-benefit Analysis: Concepts and Practice. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall, 2001.
Barnthouse 45
Table 3: CBA Matrix151
System
Travel Time in Minutes152
Years for implementation
Annual Marginal Decrease in
Vehicles
Costs
Traffic Congestion
Carbon Emissions153
Vehicle Operations154
Injury/fatality155
Vehicle
Construction156
Costs of 23 Buses157
Operations/Maintenance158
Total Marginal Social Costs
Benefits159
Vehicle travel time savings
(VTTS)160
Reduction in Vehicles
Vehicle Operating Cost savings
Reduction in travel time of 4
General Purpose Lanes161
Reduction in Accidents162
Reduction in Carbon Emissions
Revenue from Toll163
Revenue from Bus164
Total Marginal Social Benefits165
Present Value Benefits
Present Value Costs
NPV
IRR
B/C Ratio
Discounted Payback
151
20 Year Total Costs in Constant 2015 Dollars
Status Quo
HOV3
4 Lanes
6 Lanes
202
158
0
3
0
813,721
Costs
Toll
6 Lanes
158
3
Bus
4 Lanes
190
0
0
348,738
$2,689,832,857
Marginal Costs
$0
$0
$0
Marginal Costs
$0
$0
$0
Marginal Costs
$0
$0
$0
$10,690,409,769
$0
$0
$0
$3,185,603,010
$0
$0
$3,185,603,010
$0
$0
$2,361,024,000
$50,423,031
$172,529,200
$86,264,600
$97,864,600
$29,447,856
$41,449,361,211
Benefits
$3,271,867,610
Marginal Benefits
$3,283,467,610
Marginal Benefits
$2,440,894,887
Marginal Benefits
$0
$997,925,150
$712,803,679
$14,568,835
$0
$0
$142,560,736
$36,991,506
$0
$0
$14,568,835
$22,170,222
$0
$615,624,489
$615,624,489
$307,812,244
$0
$294,036,376
$0
$598,001,615
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$2,685,139,872
Return on Investment Measures
$0
$2,685,139,872
$41,449,361,211
$3,271,867,610
($41,449,361,211)
($586,727,738)
n/a
4.53%
n/a
.48
n/a
39.35
$126,015,590
$0
$1,759,606,795
$0
$3,214,050,553
$160,356,147
$326,105,167
$340,561,370
$1,186,142,821
$3,214,050,553
$3,283,467,610
($69,417,058)
6.72%
.94
20.24
$1,186,142,821
$2,440,894,887
($1,254,752,066)
-1.96%
.42
44.79
$6,156,244,889
$21,740,344,497
CBA Templates for each alternative can be found in Appendices Q, R, S, and T. The CBA matrix takes into account a 7% real discount rate.
Travel time estimates for 144 miles, time savings for HOV3 is 44 minutes, Toll Lane is 44 minutes, bus is 12 minutes.
153
Annual estimation of 4.7 metric tons of carbon emissions per passenger vehicle
154
Vehicle operations are estimated at $.12/mile traveled.
155
Estimated cost per fatality is $4.6 million, estimated cost per vehicle injury is $19,600.
156
Estimates for construction of HOV3 and Toll Lanes are 3 years. Bus construction costs are estimated for bus stops with implementation
within the first year.
157
Estimate of bus replacement every 5 years.
158
Annual estimates for operations/maintenance of I-70 are based on the CDOTs annual budget per mile allocation of $60,000 for the status
quo. Operations/maintenance base costs for HOV3 and Toll Lanes is ½ the amount of status quo for the addition of 2 lanes, with Toll Lanes
having an additional $200,000 for toll signage. Operations/maintenance costs for buses include salaries of bus operators and maintenance on
buses.
159
All marginal benefits reflects that ½ of all users will utilize each alternative for the entire duration of the corridor round trip.
160
VTTS is estimated by on ½ the average annual wage, $12.40 x the amount of travel time x percentage of users for each alternative. HOV3
increases the average of passengers to 2.8/vehicle, with 2.6 hours of travel time, 49% of users. Toll Lanes estimates an average 3.5
passengers/vehicle, with 2.6 hours of travel time, 37% of users. Bus estimates an average of 2.6 passengers/vehicle, with 3 hours of travel time,
3% of users.
161
Estimates in travel time in 4 general purpose lanes increases by 10% for HOV3 and Toll, and 5% increase for Bus
162
HOV3 estimates a 7% reduction in vehicle accidents/fatalities, Toll 3% reduction, Bus 3% reduction
163
Revenues for tolls are estimated at $.27/mile or $38.88 one way, with 37% of users moving to Toll
164
Estimates for revenue are $.19/mile or $28 one-way, with 3% of ridership moving from general purpose lanes
165
All Marginal Benefits account for 50% of users traveling the entire 144 miles and roundtrip
152
Barnthouse 46
While no option can completely eliminate all of the traffic congestion along the Corridor, as all of
the options yield a negative NPV. However, the Toll Lanes offer the highest NPV. The HOV3 offers the
second highest with a negative NPV; the Bus has the second lowest, with the Status Quo yields the lowest
value. Although, implementation of the Toll Lanes is significantly more costly to construct than other
alternatives, the associated reward is great. The Toll Lanes can reduce vehicular accidents, increase the
vehicular travel times, while gaining fee revenues for the state.
Sensitivity Analysis Matrices and Discussion
In order to consider the uncertainties in the cost-benefit analysis, a sensitivity analysis was
conducted. Table 5 below provides a simplified CBA over twenty years, comparing carbon emissions,
time travel savings, the amount of accidents, as well as the NPV.
Table 4: Simplified CBA (20 year comparison)
Policy
Option
Status
Quo
HOV3
Toll
Bus
CO Emissions
(Metric Tons)
VTTS
Accident Rates
NPV
1,354,261,689
$0
3344
($41,449,361,211)
1,312,726,396
1,354,261,689
$5,803,544,537
$1,471,409,851
2726
2842
($586,727,738)
($69,417,058)
1,333,947,764
$334,427,721
3244
($1,254,752,066)
The results of the original cost-benefit analysis were based on the assumption that improvements
to modes of transportation can be combined with the existing status quo. Important to this, however, is the
possibility of combined approaches will not lead to the reductions projected.
Important to this analysis then, is the formation of the sensitivity analysis, in which the best case
scenarios and worst case scenarios are averaged to produce more modest projections. Costs of
transportation projects tend overrun expectations. Therefore, the analysis accounts for a five percent
increase in costs associated for the recommended alternative. Table 6 below presents this approach with a
sensitivity analysis.
Barnthouse 47
Table 5: Sensitivity Analysis of Toll Lanes
Marginal Costs
$3,185,603,010
$ 97,864,600
$3,283,467,610
Marginal Benefits
Increase 5% in Construction
Costs
Marginal Costs
$3,344,883,161
$97,864,600
$3,442,747,761
Marginal Benefits
$712,803,679
$712,803,679
$615,624,489
$615,624,489
$126,015,590
$1,759,606,795
$126,015,590
$1,759,606,795
$3,214,050,553
$3,214,050,553
($69,417,058)
($228,697,208)
Toll
Costs
Construction
Operations/Maintenance
Total Marginal Social Costs
Benefits
Vehicle travel time savings
(VTTS)
Reduction in travel time of
4 Lanes
Reduction in Accidents
Revenue from Toll
Total Marginal Social
Benefits
NPV
Even when subjected to modest estimates, the Toll Lane alternative is the favored alternative
when considering the economic efficiency or the ability to effectively decrease traffic congestion.
Political Feasibility Matrix and Discussion
Table 7 below presents the Political Feasibility Matrix. Each policy option is ranked according to
the following measures: affordability, commuter and community impacts. Affordability is an important
consideration because budget and funding limitations can significantly impact the ability to move forward
with development. Commuter and community impacts are equally important. Interventions that affect a
greater number of individuals are more susceptible to resistance than those that affect relatively few.
Policy
Option
Status Quo
HOV3
Toll
Bus
Table 6: Political Feasibility Matrix (annual average)
Affordability
Commuter Impact
Costs
Rank VTTS
Rank Accident
Rank
$2,072,468,060
$163,593,380
$164,173,380
$122,044,744
4
2
3
1
$0
$290,177,227
$73,570,493
$16,721,386
4
1
2
3
168
160
167
162
4
1
3
2
Community Impact
CO Emission MT Rank
67,713,084
65,636,320
67,713,084
66,697,388
CBA Results
After conducting the cost benefit analysis and reviewing the political feasibility matrix it is clear
not one alternative completely satisfies all conditions set forth in the measurement standards of the
4
2
4
3
Barnthouse 48
matrix. Therefore, the alternative determined to be the best option based on costs savings is the Toll Lane
system. The Toll Lanes have the highest net present value, decrease vehicular accidents, while still
offering a saving travel time for passengers.
CBA Assumptions & Limitations
Below, the list describes some of the assumptions and limitations that were used in the CBA.
Consideration of these constraints is important to ensure proper evaluation of the findings and
recommendations within this analysis. Using the longitudinal approach, projections were made for twenty
years out, but the future uncertainties of the estimates are greater than twenty years.
Use of an ex ante CBA: There is an uncertainty in the ex ante CBA, as assumptions are made based on
future projections. Economic events, technological advances, and costs in transportation alternatives
cannot be easily accounted for in the future.
Calculations: The results of the CBA are dependent upon the generalization of data from national studies
as applied to the transportation infrastructure issues. National average lost wage data, average passenger
vehicle metric tons of carbon emissions, and average passenger per vehicle is used to present an average
experience of a commuter in Colorado. When possible relevant state and local data was used in the
analysis. Further, national average of benefits was applied to data, making the assumption that those along
the I-70 Mountain Corridor will have the same results as other traffic congestion areas.
Social Discount Rate: Selection of other discount rates, other than the 7% real discount rate, would have
lent to different results in the cost benefits analysis. This could have been addressed in the sensitivity
analysis, but wasn’t because it was determined that the sensitivity analysis was needed to examine the
different effects on the costs of the chosen alternative as it was more appropriate.
Political Feasibility: It is plausible that the political situation surrounding the I-70 Mountain Corridor is
more complex than estimated, and it is plausible that opposition to the proposed alternative would be
greater than anticipated.
Strategic Recommendations
This policy analysis recommends the Toll Lanes for the I-70 Mountain Corridor, to decrease
traffic congestion during peak times while still relying on existing methods of increasing enforcement and
Barnthouse 49
implementing additional incentives. This approach also involves cooperation from various stakeholders.
All proposed alternatives to decrease traffic congestion have limitations. Even if an alternative is adopted,
CDOT and its partners may struggle with financing and may have to design new ways to fund the selected
alternative. Because of funding limitations, any alternative selected may face challenges; however Toll
Lanes, as a source of additional revenue, may provide CDOT with opportunities to attract private
investors.
Granted, government spending on transportation infrastructure will not completely solve all of the
problems of traffic congestion. Since there is an induced demand that tends to fill up additional
transportation infrastructure capacity, a multi-faceted approach that includes behavioral modifications,
incentives for off-peak travel times, and other travel demand related management strategies are necessary.
Further, the government needs to develop strategic infrastructure investment policies with partnerships
that will provide policy guidance and assist in determining the appropriate tradeoffs that could occur
while helping to maximize economic vitality. The government has to consider the complexities of
transportation infrastructure to find a viable solution.
In addition to the Toll Lanes, as an add-on intervention to the status quo, a focus on more
localized highway improvements may assist in reducing congestion and improving mobility on the
highway. This focused approach would involve making spot improvements to specific sections of the
highway rather than improving the Corridor all at once. Using this process also encourages greater
cooperation from communities along the I-70 Mountain Corridor. This prioritizes sections of the highway
corridor that lead to the greatest traffic congestion, including bottlenecks, steep grades and slow-moving
vehicle locations. The approach can ease the financial and political pressure on the state to implement the
entire project all at once. Instead it will allow CDOT to create an adaptive management strategy. CDOT
can publicize its successes while making any necessary adjustments to the project as each phase is
implemented. Altering structural deficiencies and improving the localized highways by identifying areas
that are in the most needs should be addressed first.
Further, ADI technology that is currently being piloted by CDOT could dramatically change the
outlook of the future need of transportation infrastructure. Technology advances can alter the way
Barnthouse 50
transportation issues will be dealt with in the future.166 Such technologies can create a more efficient route
and improve traffic congestion by informing drivers or vehicles about upcoming hazards.167
Many factors will affect the implementation of this strategic recommendation. The political
landscape and the ability to negotiate with stakeholders will play important roles in the process. Although
a long-term sustainable alternative is necessary, the Toll Lanes present trade-offs between the need for
improvements to decrease traffic congestion and the negative environmental impacts on the I-70
Mountain Corridor.
Innovative Funding Recommendations
As previously indicated, the State is facing shortfalls for transportation funding. This policy
memorandum has offered some funding options for the proposed alternative. Further, it is recommended
the HPTE find additional innovative ways to fund projects for the I-70 Mountain Corridor. The HPTE
may use the P3 to assist in funding the transportation needs of the corridor, as P3s have been successfully
implemented. However, because of the most recent experience with US-36, P3s may still be met with
resistance from the general public and legislators.
Therefore, another creative option is to learn from transportation successes within the state. The
State authorized E-470 to operate without any state or federal funds, creating the E-470 Public Highway
Authority. Revenues for E-470 come from registration fees, investment income, and other non-toll
revenue. Any excess revenues are directed back into the infrastructure of E-470.
168
The State could
create a similar authority for the I-70 Mountain Corridor. Another innovative way for the state to use E470 by allowing CDOT to purchase E-470, which could create a higher credit rating for the state, while
allowing for the redirection of a portion of the excess capital from E-470 to assist in funding the project
on I-70 Mountain Corridor.
Weaknesses and Limitations
Prior to moving forward with any policy recommendation careful consideration of weaknesses
and limitations should be addressed. This policy memorandum is not without such limitations. The
166
Autonomous vehicles may reduce the need for lanes to be as wide as they currently are, therefore allowing for more
capacity in the same amount of space.
167 “When Cars Talk: The Future of Colorado’s I-70 Mountain Corridor | SummitDaily.com,” accessed February 6, 2016,
http://www.summitdaily.com/news/19457476-113/when-cars-talk-the-future-of-colorados-i-70.
168
“E-470,” accessed February 6, 2016, https://www.e-470.com/pages/AboutUs/History.aspx.
Barnthouse 51
selection of the three alternatives above was based on existing infrastructure solutions that have been
utilized in the United States and Colorado that have resulted in successfully decreasing traffic congestion.
Omission of Alternatives
Other alternatives such as new technologies or combining alternatives were considered, but not
included in this analysis. Further, although the Tier 1 evaluation recommended an AGS, this option was
initially reviewed in the analysis, but it was determined to not be a feasible option as the costs associated
would be extreme and fees for riders would be expensive without additional subsidies.
Another possible way to reduce traffic congestion that was not assessed in this analysis is
carpooling. Despite the omission of these alternatives from the analysis, they are worth mentioning as
another means to reduce traffic congestion.
Budget Constraints and Policy Issues
There will always budget constraints on legislation. Specifically, Colorado’s Tax Payer Bill of
Rights (TABOR) has amplified issues of transportation funding. Compounded by the increase of fuelefficient vehicles, the revenue generated from the gas tax continue to decrease, with no funds to replace
the loss in revenue.169 Further, the upfront cost associated with projects may be exponential without
knowing all of the benefits that will be received.
Challenges for Transportation Improvement in the Mountain Corridor
The I-70 Mountain Corridor brings about a unique set of challenges that impact transportation
across multiple jurisdictions. Particularly difficult is the challenge presented by creating effective
coordination between stakeholders. Additionally, there are areas along the route that may not want to
increase economic growth from the alternative. Further, urbanized areas have been studied significantly in
regards to traffic congestion alternatives, yet there is less experience with strategies for recreational traffic
congestion in rural regions.
Surrounding Regional Impacts
Another weakness is the I-70 Mountain Corridor is only part of the entire I-70 Corridor and may
be subjected to other traffic congestion patterns created by the urban sprawl of the Denver region. While
forecasting traffic congestion along the Corridor considers travel from the metro area, there is no
169
“A Federal Gas Tax for the Future,” accessed October 20, 2015, http://www.itep.org/pdf/fedgastax0913.pdf.
Barnthouse 52
proposed alternative dealing with this specific type of added congestion factor. CDOT may need to
investigate further development in the surrounding regions as a possible solution.
Traffic Congestion Reduction Methods
The current methods for measuring traffic congestion are somewhat misleading with the data
provided. Data points and calculations for traffic are not entirely accurate. A closer examination of DOT’s
traffic statistics indicates traffic related statistics are limited in both accuracy and verifiability.170
Further, the ideal target for traffic reduction should be the combination of the national average of
pollution emitted, time-spent, and traffic related options. However, these national averages may be higher
or lower than anticipated. Therefore, this policy analysis has vagueness as to the amount of traffic that
constitutes too much or too little traffic. By comparing I-70 traffic statistics to other similar situations it
may provide a numerical framework for the analysis, but does not objectively identify an appropriate
level of traffic congestion for the I-70 Mountain Corridor.
Implementation, Feasibility & Effectiveness
There is a distinction between building transportation systems and successful integration. Any
alternative selected needs to have buy-in from key stakeholders to be successfully implemented. Often
times the government is ill-suited to handle all aspects of traffic congestion issues and relies largely on
the cohesion of relevant stakeholders to accomplish the goal of decreasing the negative impacts of traffic
congestion. This heavily relies on both the public and private sectors.
Although there are predictions for the future population and needs of traffic congestion along the
Mountain Corridor, there is always an element of complexity with the uncertainty of the type of
infrastructure needed to support the future demands.
Furthermore, even if a recommendation is
effectively implemented it is unlikely that any alternative will completely deter all of the traffic
congestion on the I-70 Mountain Corridor, as adverse weather and other server conditions are common
along the Mountain Corridor.
170
Better Road Congestion Measures Are Needed." United States Department of Transportation. 2014. Accessed March 20,
2016.http://www.rita.dot.gov/bts/sites/rita.dot.gov.bts/files/publications/special_reports_and_issue_briefs/issue_briefs/num
ber_04/html/entire.html.
Barnthouse 53
Technology Advancements
Advances in technology, such as autonomous vehicles, create a potential limitation of this policy
analysis. Policy makers are tasked with creating policy, often times in a fast paced ever changing
technological world. The nature of these fast changing events can make policy planning and analysis
difficult. The foundation of policy analysis is derived from previous experiences, yet all planning assumes
a certain risk that the future is an ever changing landscape.
Therefore, public policy makers must constantly alter methods to address these potential future
changes. This is seen when analyzing the I-70 Mountain Corridor traffic congestion. While the analysis
conducted leads to the conclusion of capacity expansion, as technology for autonomous vehicles could be
introduced, this policy analysis could be rendered obsolete. Although, this technology is in its infancy
there is no determinant timeframe on when it will advance. Such technologies may have an immediate
impact on reducing the number of vehicles on the road.
Therefore, it is within reason to assume at some point in the future, people will utilize
autonomous vehicles in the same fashion as Ubers are utilized at this time, by purchasing personal
mobility instead of vehicles. Further, autonomous vehicles can have many advantages over human
operated vehicles, as a majority of accidents are caused by human failures. Although CDOT and other
organizations are in the beginning stages of testing out such technology there is the potential to drastically
alter the means of Americans transportation needs, which would significantly impact the analysis
presented in this policy memorandum.
Appendix A: Monetary Costs and Benefits with Calculations & Sources
The tables below provide an overview of calculations for each alternative, along with sources for each portion
of the calculation.
Status Quo:
Costs
Cost of Traffic
Congestion
Operation/Maint
enance Costs
Monetary Value
$6,156,244,889
$172,529,200
Calculations & Sources
CDOT estimates 10,894,970 vehicles traveled I-70 Mountain
Corridor in 2013 with 2.2% population growth rate per year for 2
years = 11,374,349 vehicles. Bureau of Labor Statistics estimates
the average national wage in 2015 is $24.80. Boardman
commuting leisure time travel average wage is .5. $24.80*.5
=$12.40 *11,374,349 x 3.3 hours of travel time + population
increase of 2.2% year over year 20 year total costs =
$6,156,244,889
Sources: "The Impact of I-70 Congestion on Colorado-Denver to Grand
Junction," Development Research Partners,
http://www.developmentresearch.net/Sample%20Projects/Economic%2
0and%20Fiscal%20Impact%20Analysis/I70%20Impact_042507.pdf.
Boardman, Anthony E. Cost-benefit Analysis: Concepts and Practice.
Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall, 2001.
"Average Hourly and weekly earnings of all employees on private nonfarm
payrolls by industry sector, seasonally adjusted," Bureau of Labor
Statistics, http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.t19.htm. Highway
Data Explorer by Highway Segment, CDOT,
http://dtdapps.coloradodot.info/otis/HighwayData.
CDOT’s budget for maintenance is $547.9 million, servicing 9146
miles, =$60,000 per mile annually. Annual maintenance for the I70 Mountain Corridor = $8,626,460 a year for a 20 year total
costs = $172,529,200
Source: “CDOT Annual Report Fiscal Year 2015,” accessed April 18,
2016,
https://www.codot.gov/library/AnnualReports/annualreport2015.pdf/at
_download/file.
CDOT estimates 2012 total vehicle injury accidents on I-70 Region
was 132, Broadman estimates in 2008 total vehicle injury costs is
$17,777 in 2008 dollars. 2015 dollars = $19,572.48 *132
=$2,583,567 + population increase of 2.2% year over year 20
year total costs =$35,354,294
Costs of Motor
Vehicle Injury
$35,354,294
Sources: Boardman, Anthony E. Cost-benefit Analysis: Concepts and
Practice. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall, 2001. "2012 Crash Rate
Book", https://www.codot.gov/library/traffic/safety-crash-data/accidentrates-books-coding/crash-rate-books-accident-rates-books.
"The Impact of I-70 Congestion on Colorado-Denver to Grand Junction,"
Development Research Partners,
http://www.developmentresearch.net/Sample%20Projects/Economic%2
0and%20Fiscal%20Impact%20Analysis/I70%20Impact_042507.pdf.
Costs of vehicle
operations
CDOT estimates 10,894,970 vehicles traveled I-70 Mountain
Corridor in 2013, with 2.2% population growth rate per year for 2
years = 11,374,349. Boardman estimates total cost of vehicle
operations is $.109 in 2008 dollars. 2015 dollars = $.12 *144
miles traveled *11,374,349 vehicles + population increase of
2.2% year over year total 20 year costs = $2,689,832,857
$2,689,832,857
Sources: Boardman, Anthony E. Cost-benefit Analysis: Concepts and
Practice. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall, 2001.
"The Impact of I-70 Congestion on Colorado-Denver to Grand Junction,"
Development Research Partners,
http://www.developmentresearch.net/Sample%20Projects/Economic%2
0and%20Fiscal%20Impact%20Analysis/I70%20Impact_042507.pdf.
Highway Data Explorer by Highway Segment, CDOT,
http://dtdapps.coloradodot.info/otis/HighwayData.
CDOT estimates 169 fatalities along I-70 Mountain Corridor
Region in 2015. Boardman estimates the average fatality
resulting from a vehicle crash is $4,184,651 in 2008 dollars.
2015 dollars = $4,607,300 *169=$778,633,827 + population
increase of 2.2% year over year total 20 year costs
=$10,655,055,475 Sources: "Total of Statewide fatal crashes &
Costs of fatal
crashes
$10,655,055,475
fatalities, broken out by CDOT Region and month,"
https://www.codot.gov/library/traffic/safety-crash-data/fatal-crash-datacity-county/2015-monthly-fatals/view.
Boardman, Anthony E. Cost-benefit Analysis: Concepts and Practice.
Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall, 2001.
"The Impact of I-70 Congestion on Colorado-Denver to Grand Junction,"
Development Research Partners,
http://www.developmentresearch.net/Sample%20Projects/Economic%2
0and%20Fiscal%20Impact%20Analysis/I70%20Impact_042507.pdf.
EPA GHG Emissions from a typical passenger vehicle is 4.7 metric
tons (MT) a year. Colorado emitted 51,206,359 MT of carbon
emissions in 2013 with 2.2% population increase for 2 years=
53,459,439 MT. EPA estimates the social costs is $26.00 in 2007
dollars per MT. 2015 dollars = $29.72
*(4.7x11,374,349)=$1,588,707,602 + population increase 2.2%
year over year total 20 year costs =$21,740,344,497
Costs of Carbon
Emissions
$21,740,344,497
Total Costs
$41,449,361,211
Total Benefits
$0
Sources: "The Social Cost ofCarbon,"
https://www3.epa.gov/climatechange/EPAactivities/economics/scc.htm
l.
"I-70 Mountain Corridor PEIS Climate and Air Quality Technical Report,"
March 2011, https://www.codot.gov/projects/i70mountaincorridor/final-peis/final-peis-documents/technicalreports/Vol3_I-70_Mntn_Corridor_Final_PEIS_Climate_AQ_TR.pdf.
"The Impact of I-70 Congestion on Colorado-Denver to Grand Junction,"
Development Research Partners,
http://www.developmentresearch.net/Sample%20Projects/Economic%2
0and%20Fiscal%20Impact%20Analysis/I70%20Impact_042507.pdf.
"Greenhouse Gas Emissions from a Typical Passenger Vehicle," EPA,
2014,
https://www3.epa.gov/otaq/climate/documents/420f14040a.pdf.
Alternative #1 HOV3:
Costs
Monetary Value
Costs of
Construction
Costs of
Operations/Maint
enance
Total Costs
Benefits
VTTS
$3,185,603,010
$86,264,600
Calculations & Sources
CDOT estimates it would cost $20 B to expand highway and rail,
with $16.6 B towards the rail in 2014 dollars = $3,185,603,010
one-time costs over three years in 2015 dollars.
Sources: "CDOT tackling I-70 mountain corridor," Denverpost, April
6,2014, http://www.denverpost.com/news/ci_25504609/cdot-tacklingi-70-mountain-corridor
2 lanes would require ½ the costs of the status quo costs of
operations/maintenance. CDOT’s budget for maintenance is
$547.9 million, servicing 9146 miles, =$60,000 per mile
annually. Status quo maintenance for the I-70 Mountain Corridor
= $172,529,200*.5=$86,264,600
Source: “CDOT Annual Report Fiscal Year 2015,” accessed April 18,
2016,
https://www.codot.gov/library/AnnualReports/annualreport2015.pdf/at
_download/file.
$3,271,867,610
Monetary Value
$997,925,150
Calculations & Sources
Bureau of Labor Statistics estimates the average national wage in
2015 is $24.80. Boardman commuting leisure time travel average
wage is .5. $24.80*.5 =$12.40 *2014 national average of cost
2014 of VTTS (increased to 2.8 passengers per car) 2015 dollars
is $12.40+ population increase of 2.2% year over year*2.6 hours
of travel time*49% of HOV3 users from general purpose lanes x
.5(not all users will utilize the lanes the entire duration) total 20
year benefit =$997,925,150
Source:
"I-70 Mountain Corridor Final PEIS," March 2011,
https://www.codot.gov/projects/i-70mountaincorridor/final-peis.
"The Impact of I-70 Congestion on Colorado-Denver to Grand Junction,"
Development Research Partners,
http://www.developmentresearch.net/Sample%20Projects/Economic%2
0and%20Fiscal%20Impact%20Analysis/I70%20Impact_042507.pdf.
Boardman, Anthony E. Cost-benefit Analysis: Concepts and Practice.
Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall, 2001.
2014 national average of cost 2014 of VTTS, 2.8 passengers per
car)* 813,721 vehicles. Bureau of Labor Statistics estimates the
average national wage in 2015 is $24.80. Boardman commuting
leisure time travel average wage is .5. $24.80*.5 =$12.40 X
813,721 vehicles removed +population increase of 2.2% year
over year * 2.6 hours travel time x .5(not all users will utilize the
lanes the entire duration) = total 20 year benefits =$142,560,736
Reduction in
Vehicles
Vehicle Operating
Costs Savings
Reduction in
travel time of 4
Lanes
Reduction in
accidents
$142,560,736
$36,991,506
$615,624,489
$ 972,409
Sources: "The Impact of I-70 Congestion on Colorado-Denver to Grand
Junction," Development Research Partners,
http://www.developmentresearch.net/Sample%20Projects/Economic%2
0and%20Fiscal%20Impact%20Analysis/I70%20Impact_042507.pdf.
"Freedom to Travel," Bureau of Transportation Statistics, United States
Department of Transportation,
http://www.rita.dot.gov/bts/sites/rita.dot.gov.bts/files/publications/free
dom_to_travel/html/data_analysis.html.
"Colorado Tourism numbers set record in 2014, Denverpost, June 23,
2015, http://www.denverpost.com/business/ci_28368011/2014record-colorado-tourism.
Boardman, Anthony E. Cost-benefit Analysis: Concepts and Practice.
Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall, 2001.
"Average Hourly and weekly earnings of all employees on private nonfarm
payrolls by industry sector, seasonally adjusted," Bureau of Labor
Statistics, http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.t19.htm.
CDOT estimates 10,894,970 vehicles traveled I-70 Mountain
Corridor in 2013, with 2.2% population growth rate per year for 2
years = 11,374,349. Boardman estimates total cost of vehicle
operations is $.109 in 2008 dollars. 2015 dollars = $.12 *72
miles traveled * .5(not all users will utilize the lanes the entire
duration) *11,374,349 vehicles- 813,721 vehicles removed +
population increase of 2.2% year over year total 20 year costs =
$36,991,506
Sources: Boardman, Anthony E. Cost-benefit Analysis: Concepts and
Practice. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall, 2001.
"The Impact of I-70 Congestion on Colorado-Denver to Grand Junction,"
Development Research Partners,
http://www.developmentresearch.net/Sample%20Projects/Economic%2
0and%20Fiscal%20Impact%20Analysis/I70%20Impact_042507.pdf.
Highway Data Explorer by Highway Segment, CDOT,
http://dtdapps.coloradodot.info/otis/HighwayData.
Vehicles using HOV3 lane reduces vehicles in general purpose
lanes (4 Lanes), estimation of 10% reduction of general purpose
lanes x .5(not all users will utilize the lanes the entire duration)
CDOT estimates 2012 total vehicle injury accidents on I-70 Region
was 132, Broadman estimates total vehicle injury costs is
$17,777 in 2008 dollars. 2015 dollars = $19,572.48 *132decrease of 7% year over year +2.2% increase in population x
.5(not all users will utilize the lanes the entire duration) total 20
year benefits=$972,409
Sources: Boardman, Anthony E. Cost-benefit Analysis: Concepts and
Practice. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall, 2001.
"2012 Crash Rate Book", https://www.codot.gov/library/traffic/safetycrash-data/accident-rates-books-coding/crash-rate-books-accident-ratesbooks.
CDOT estimates 2014 total fatalities related to traffic accidents on
I-70 Region was 169. Broadman estimates total vehicle fatality
costs is $4,184,651 in 2008 dollars. 2015 dollars
=$4,607,301*169-decrease of 7% year over year+2.2%
population increase x .5(not all users will utilize the lanes the
entire duration) total 20 year benefit = $293,063,967
Reduction in
fatalities
$293,063,967
Sources: "Total of Statewide fatal crashes & fatalities, broken out by
CDOT Region and month," https://www.codot.gov/library/traffic/safetycrash-data/fatal-crash-data-city-county/2015-monthly-fatals/view.
Boardman, Anthony E. Cost-benefit Analysis: Concepts and Practice.
Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall, 2001.
"The Impact of I-70 Congestion on Colorado-Denver to Grand Junction,"
Development Research Partners,
http://www.developmentresearch.net/Sample%20Projects/Economic%2
0and%20Fiscal%20Impact%20Analysis/I70%20Impact_042507.pdf.
Estimate reduction of 4.7 MT per vehicle removed. EPA estimates
GHG Emissions from a typical passenger vehicle is 4.7 metric
tons. The social cost of carbon emissions is $26.00 in 2007
dollars. 2015 dollars $29.72 *11,374,349 vehicles- 813,721
vehicles x 4.7 MT =2.2% population increase year over year x
.5(not all users will utilize the lanes the entire duration) total
benefits over 20 years=$598,001,615
Reduction in
Carbon emissions
Total Benefits
$598,001,615
Sources: "The Impact of I-70 Congestion on Colorado-Denver to Grand
Junction," Development Research Partners,
http://www.developmentresearch.net/Sample%20Projects/Economic%2
0and%20Fiscal%20Impact%20Analysis/I70%20Impact_042507.pdf.
"Greenhouse Gas Emissions from a Typical Passenger Vehicle," EPA,
2014,
https://www3.epa.gov/otaq/climate/documents/420f14040a.pdf. "The
Social Cost of
Carbon,"
https://www3.epa.gov/climatechange/EPAactivities/economics/scc.htm
l.
$2,685,139,872
Alternative #2 Toll
Toll Costs
Costs of
construction
Costs of
Operations/Maint
enance
Monetary Value
$3,185,603,010
$97,864,600
Calculations & Sources
CDOT estimates it would cost $20 B to expand highway and rail,
with $16.6 B towards the rail in 2014 dollars = $3,185,603,010
one-time costs over three years in 2015 dollars.
Sources: "CDOT tackling I-70 mountain corridor," Denverpost, April
6,2014, http://www.denverpost.com/news/ci_25504609/cdot-tacklingi-70-mountain-corridor
2 lanes would require ½ the costs of the status quo costs of
operations/maintenance. CDOT’s budget for maintenance is
$547.9 million, servicing 9146 miles, =$60,000 per mile
annually. Status quo maintenance for the I-70 Mountain Corridor
= $172,529,200*.5+ 58 toll signs *$200,000=$97,864,600
Source: “CDOT Annual Report Fiscal Year 2015,” accessed April 18,
2016,
https://www.codot.gov/library/AnnualReports/annualreport2015.pdf/at
_download/file.
Total Costs
Toll Benefits
VTTS
Reduction in
travel time of 4
Lanes
Benefit of
reduction of auto
accidents
$3,283,467,610
Monetary Value
Calculations & Sources
Bureau of Labor Statistics estimates the average national wage in
2015 is $24.80. Boardman commuting leisure time travel average
wage is .5. $24.80*.5 =$12.40 *2014 national average of cost
2014 of VTTS (passenger per car 3.5 average of 1-6 passengers)
2015 dollars is $12.40+ population increase of 2.2% year over
year*2.6 hours of travel time*37% of users x .5(not all users will
utilize the lane the entire duration) total 20 year benefit
=$712,803,679
$712,803,679
$615,624,489
$416,747
Source:
"I-70 Mountain Corridor Final PEIS," March 2011,
https://www.codot.gov/projects/i-70mountaincorridor/final-peis.
"The Impact of I-70 Congestion on Colorado-Denver to Grand Junction,"
Development Research Partners,
http://www.developmentresearch.net/Sample%20Projects/Economic%2
0and%20Fiscal%20Impact%20Analysis/I70%20Impact_042507.pdf.
Boardman, Anthony E. Cost-benefit Analysis: Concepts and Practice.
Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall, 2001
Vehicles using HOV3 lane reduces vehicles in general purpose
lanes (4 Lanes), estimation of 10% reduction of general purpose
lanes x .5(not all users will utilize the lanes the entire duration).
CDOT estimates 2012 total vehicle injury accidents on I-70 Region
was 132, Broadman estimates in 2008 total vehicle injury costs is
$17,777 in 2008 dollars. 2015 dollars = $19,572.48 *132
=$2,583,567 x decrease of 3 % accidents per year x .5(not all
users will utilize the lanes the entire duration) x 2.2% population
increase per year for 20 years total =$416,747
Sources: Boardman, Anthony E. Cost-benefit Analysis: Concepts and
Practice. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall, 2001.
"2012 Crash Rate Book", https://www.codot.gov/library/traffic/safetycrash-data/accident-rates-books-coding/crash-rate-books-accident-ratesbooks.
CDOT estimates 2014 fatalities related to I-70 Mountain Corridor
were169. Removing 375,000 vehicles from the road results in a
reduction of 3% fatalities a year X 2.2% population increase a year
x .5(not all users will utilize the lanes the entire duration) =
$125,598,843
Benefit of
reduction in
fatalities
Toll Revenue
$125,598,843
$1,759,606,795
Sources: "Total of Statewide fatal crashes & fatalities, broken out by
CDOT Region and month," https://www.codot.gov/library/traffic/safetycrash-data/fatal-crash-data-city-county/2015-monthly-fatals/view.
Boardman, Anthony E. Cost-benefit Analysis: Concepts and Practice.
Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall, 2001.
"The Impact of I-70 Congestion on Colorado-Denver to Grand Junction,"
Development Research Partners,
http://www.developmentresearch.net/Sample%20Projects/Economic%2
0and%20Fiscal%20Impact%20Analysis/I70%20Impact_042507.pdf.
US-36, has fluctuating toll rates based on traffic congestion
ranging from $1.75-$8.75, over 15.2 miles= $.27/mile.37% of toll
users x $.27 per mile x 144 miles x2.2% population increase a
year x .5(not all users will utilize the lanes the entire duration)
Sources: “Express Lanes US 36 Fact Sheet,”
https://www.codot.gov/programs/expresslanes/corridors/us-36.
Total Benefits
$3,214,050,553
Alternative #3 Bus:
Bus Costs
Monetary Value
Costs of
Construction
$2,361,024,000
Costs of buses
$50,423,031
Calculations & Sources
Cost of Fort Collins bus system per mile, 5 miles with a budget of
$81,980,000 =$16,396,000 * 144=$2,361,024,000
Source: National BRT Institute,
http://db.nbrti.org/index.php?type=detail&page=route&id=201
375,000/365=1,028 passengers a day/45 passengers per bus
=23 buses Cost of 2015 bus is $438,461 * 23 =one time cost of
$10,084,606 *5( buses last for 12 years or 500,000 miles) total
costs over 20 years =$50,423,031
Source: "U.S. Average New Vehicle Costs for 2007 vehicles by type,"
American Public Transportation Association,
http://www.apta.com/resources/aboutpt/Documents/table22_vehvosttr
ansitlength.pdf.
Operations costs of Bustang is $3,000,000 annually in 2015
dollars. 293.4 miles of service/$3,000,000 =$10,225 per mile x
144 miles x 2(roundtrip) over 20 years total costs = $29,447,856
Costs of bus
operations
$29,447,856
Total Costs
$2,440,894,887
Bus Benefits
Monetary Value
Sources: "Are you ready for Bustang?," Denver Business Journal, July
2015,
http://www.bizjournals.com/denver/blog/earth_to_power/2015/04/areyou-ready-for-bustang-cdot-sets-launch-date.html.
"Bustang Routes,” http://www.ridebustang.com/routes
Calculations & Sources
Bureau of Labor Statistics estimates the average national wage in
2015 is $24.80. Boardman commuting leisure time travel average
wage is .5. $24.80*.5 =$12.40 *2014 national average of cost
2014 of VTTS (increased to 2.6 passengers per car) 2015 dollars is
$12.40+ population increase of 2.2% year over year*3 hours of
travel time x .5(not all users will utilize the lanes the entire
duration) total benefits =$14,568,835
VTTS
$14,568,835
Benefit of
reduction in
vehicles
$14,568,835
Source:
"I-70 Mountain Corridor Final PEIS," March 2011,
https://www.codot.gov/projects/i-70mountaincorridor/final-peis.
"The Impact of I-70 Congestion on Colorado-Denver to Grand Junction,"
Development Research Partners,
http://www.developmentresearch.net/Sample%20Projects/Economic%20
and%20Fiscal%20Impact%20Analysis/I70%20Impact_042507.pdf.
Boardman, Anthony E. Cost-benefit Analysis: Concepts and Practice. Upper
Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall, 2001.
"Colorado Tourism numbers set record in 2014, Denverpost, June 23,
2015, http://www.denverpost.com/business/ci_28368011/2014-recordcolorado-tourism.
2014 national average of cost 2014 of VTTS (2.6 passengers per
car)*375,000 vehicles (15% of users of 23% of travelers) Bureau
of Labor Statistics estimates the average national wage in 2015 is
$24.80. Boardman commuting leisure time travel average wage is
.5. $24.80*.5 =$12.40 X 3% vehicles removed from traffic =
$4,650,000 +population increase of 2.2% year over year x .5(not
all users will utilize the lanes the entire duration) total 20 year
benefits =$14,568,835
Sources: "The Impact of I-70 Congestion on Colorado-Denver to Grand
Junction," Development Research Partners,
http://www.developmentresearch.net/Sample%20Projects/Economic%20
and%20Fiscal%20Impact%20Analysis/I70%20Impact_042507.pdf.
"Freedom to Travel," Bureau of Transportation Statistics, United States
Department of Transportation,
http://www.rita.dot.gov/bts/sites/rita.dot.gov.bts/files/publications/freed
om_to_travel/html/data_analysis.html.
"Colorado Tourism numbers set record in 2014, Denverpost, June 23,
2015, http://www.denverpost.com/business/ci_28368011/2014-recordcolorado-tourism.
Boardman, Anthony E. Cost-benefit Analysis: Concepts and Practice. Upper
Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall, 2001.
"Average Hourly and weekly earnings of all employees on private nonfarm
payrolls by industry sector, seasonally adjusted," Bureau of Labor
Statistics, http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.t19.htm.
CDOT estimates 15% of drivers use transit options. Vehicle
operating costs is $.109 in 2008 dollars. 2015 dollars = $.12 *
3%= $45,003.38 x 72 miles + population increase of 2.2% year
over year x .5 (not all users will utilize the lanes the entire duration)
total benefits = $22,170,222
Benefits of
reduction in
vehicle operation
cost
Reduction in
travel time of 4
Lanes
Benefit of
reduction of
vehicle accidents
Benefit of
decrease in
fatalities
$22,170,222
$307,812,244
$530,314
$159,825,832
Sources: "The Impact of I-70 Congestion on Colorado-Denver to Grand
Junction," Development Research Partners,
http://www.developmentresearch.net/Sample%20Projects/Economic%20
and%20Fiscal%20Impact%20Analysis/I70%20Impact_042507.pdf.
"Freedom to Travel," Bureau of Transportation Statistics, United States
Department of Transportation,
http://www.rita.dot.gov/bts/sites/rita.dot.gov.bts/files/publications/freed
om_to_travel/html/data_analysis.html.
Boardman, Anthony E. Cost-benefit Analysis: Concepts and Practice. Upper
Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall, 2001.
Vehicles using HOV3 lane reduces vehicles in general purpose
lanes (4 Lanes), estimation of 5% reduction of general purpose
lanes x .5(not all users will utilize the lanes the entire duration).
CDOT estimates 2012 total vehicle injury accidents on I-70 Region
was 132, Broadman estimates in 2008 total vehicle injury costs is
$17,777 in 2008 dollars. 2015 dollars = $19,572.48 *132
=$2,583,567 + decrease of 3 % year over year + 2.2% population
increase a year x .5(not all users will utilize the lanes the entire
duration) 20 year benefit total = $530,314
Sources: Boardman, Anthony E. Cost-benefit Analysis: Concepts and
Practice. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall, 2001.
"2012 Crash Rate Book", https://www.codot.gov/library/traffic/safetycrash-data/accident-rates-books-coding/crash-rate-books-accident-ratesbooks.
CDOT estimates 2014 fatalities related to I-70 Mountain Corridor
were169. Removing 375,000 vehicles from the road results in a
reduction of 3% fatalities a year X 2.2% population increase x
.5(not all users will utilize the lanes the entire duration) 20 year
benefit total = $159,825,832
Sources: "Total of Statewide fatal crashes & fatalities, broken out by CDOT
Region and month," https://www.codot.gov/library/traffic/safety-crash-
data/fatal-crash-data-city-county/2015-monthly-fatals/view.
Boardman, Anthony E. Cost-benefit Analysis: Concepts and Practice. Upper
Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall, 2001.
"The Impact of I-70 Congestion on Colorado-Denver to Grand Junction,"
Development Research Partners,
http://www.developmentresearch.net/Sample%20Projects/Economic%20
and%20Fiscal%20Impact%20Analysis/I70%20Impact_042507.pdf.
EPA estimates GHG Emissions from a typical passenger vehicle is
4.7 metric tons. 2013 CO emitted 51,206,359 tons of carbon
emissions*2.2% population increase= 53,459,439 with the social
cost of carbon emissions is $26.00 in 2007 dollars. 2015 dollars
$29.72 * 53,459,439 =$1,588,707,602 – reduction of 3% of
vehicles x 4.7 MT x .5(not all users will utilize the lanes the entire
duration) 20 year benefit total = $326,105,167
Benefit of
reduction in
carbon emissions
$326,105,167
Sources: "The Impact of I-70 Congestion on Colorado-Denver to Grand
Junction," Development Research Partners,
http://www.developmentresearch.net/Sample%20Projects/Economic%20
and%20Fiscal%20Impact%20Analysis/I70%20Impact_042507.pdf.
"The Social Cost of
Carbon,"
https://www3.epa.gov/climatechange/EPAactivities/economics/scc.html.
"Greenhouse Gas Emissions from a Typical Passenger Vehicle," EPA,
2014, https://www3.epa.gov/otaq/climate/documents/420f14040a.pdf.
"Updated Comparison of Energy Use & CO2 Emissions From Different
Transportation Modes," April 2014, American Bus Association,
http://www.buses.org/assets/images/uploads/general/Report%20%20Energy%20Use%20and%20Emissions.pdf.
Bustang $28 one way cost, 375,000 passengers + population
increase of 2.2% a year over year x .5(not all users will utilize the
lanes the entire duration) 20 year benefit total benefits
=$340,561,167
Benefit of Bus
Revenue
$340,561,370
Total Benefits
$1,186,142,821
Sources: "The Impact of I-70 Congestion on Colorado-Denver to Grand
Junction," Development Research Partners,
http://www.developmentresearch.net/Sample%20Projects/Economic%20
and%20Fiscal%20Impact%20Analysis/I70%20Impact_042507.pdf.
"Colorado Tourism numbers set record in 2014, Denverpost, June 23,
2015, http://www.denverpost.com/business/ci_28368011/2014-recordcolorado-tourism.
"Bustang Routes," http://www.ridebustang.com/routes
Appendix B: Formulas used
The table below presents the general calculations used in the cost-benefit analysis of the report.
Cost Description
Traffic Congestion
Motor Vehicle Injury costs
Fatal Crashes costs
Vehicle Operation costs
Carbon Emissions costs
Carbon Emissions Metric Ton
VTTS
HOV/Toll Construction Costs
HOV3 Maintenance/Operations
Toll Maintenance/Operations
Toll Revenues
Bus Construction Costs
Bus Costs
Bus Operation Costs
Bus Revenues
Formulas used
Formula
number of vehicles x ½ average national wage x
time x population increase
number of vehicle injury accidents on I-70 region
x injury costs x population increase
number of fatalities resulting from vehicular
crashes on I-70 region x injury costs x population
increase
number of vehicles x vehicle operation costs x
population increase x miles traveled
amount of metric tons of carbon emission x
social costs x population increase
amount of carbon emission average per vehicle
number of vehicles x ½ average national wage x
time savings x population increase
expansion costs for two lanes
½ of the costs of maintenance for four lanes
½ the costs of maintenance for four lanes + toll
sign technology
vehicles using Toll Lanes x $.27 per mile x ½
users traveling 144 miles on way
costs of construction per mile x years of
completion of construction
Costs of purchasing 23 buses every 5 years
Costs of operations per mile
riders x $.39 per mile x ½ users traveling 144
miles one way
Appendix C: Statistical Inputs
The table below presents statistical inputs that were used for the cost-benefit calculations. All costs were
adjusted to 2015 dollars in the statistical input section and were adjusted for inflation thereafter.
Baseline Statistical Inputs (2015 Constant Dollars)
Description*
Input
Number of vehicles on I-70 Mountain Corridor
11,374,349
Average National Wage
$24.80
Population increase
2.2%
Vehicle injury total
135
Vehicle injury Costs
$19,572.48
Fatal Crashes total
173
Fatal Crashes Costs
$4,607,300
Vehicle Operations Costs per mile
$.12
Costs of Carbon Emission per Metric Ton (MT)
$29.72
Carbon Emission Per Vehicle (MT)
4.7
Travel time status quo
3.3 hours/202 min.
Operations/Maintenance per mile
$59,906
*Citations for calculations referenced in Appendix A
Appendix D: Estimations of Future Projections
The table below provides calculation basis of future projection estimations of population growth, vehicle injury,
and carbon emissions from vehicles.
Description
Vehicles on I-70
Mountain
Corridor
Vehicle
Injury/fatality
Carbon
Emissions
(Metric Tons)
Estimations of Future Projections
Status Quo
HOV 3
Toll
decrease of 7% of
increase by
increase of
vehicles + increase 2.2%
2.2%
2.2%
annually=net decrease
annually
annually
5.5%
increase by
decrease by
2.2%
decrease by 7% annually
3% annually
annually
increase by
increase by
2.2%
decrease by 7% annually
2.2%
annually
annually
Bus
decrease of 3% of
vehicle + 2.2%
annually=net decrease
of .8%
decrease by 3%
annually
decrease by 3%
annually
Appendix E: Number of Vehicles Traveling on I-70 Mountain Corridor
Below the table depicts a comparison of each alternative and the estimated amount of motor vehicles on the
road based on estimate projections of future usage.
Year
Status Quo
HOV3
Toll
Bus
2016
11,624,584
-
-
11,241,334
2017
11,880,325
-
-
11,488,644
2018
12,141,692
-
-
11,741,394
2019
12,408,810
12,125,056
12,408,810
11,999,705
2020
12,681,803
12,391,807
12,681,803
12,263,698
2021
12,960,803
12,664,427
12,960,803
12,533,499
2022
13,245,941
12,943,044
13,245,941
12,809,236
2023
13,537,351
13,227,791
13,537,351
13,091,040
2024
13,835,173
13,518,802
13,835,173
13,379,042
2025
14,139,547
13,816,216
14,139,547
13,673,381
2026
14,450,617
14,120,173
14,450,617
13,974,196
2027
14,768,531
14,430,817
14,768,531
14,281,628
2028
15,093,438
14,748,295
15,093,438
14,595,824
2029
15,425,494
15,072,757
15,425,494
14,916,932
2030
15,764,855
15,404,358
15,764,855
15,245,105
2031
16,111,682
15,743,254
16,111,682
15,580,497
2032
16,466,139
16,089,605
16,466,139
15,923,268
2033
16,828,394
16,443,577
16,828,394
16,273,580
2034
17,198,618
16,805,335
17,198,618
16,631,598
2035
17,576,988
17,175,053
17,576,988
16,997,494
Total
288,140,785
246,720,367
252,494,184
278,641,095
Buses would reduce the amount of vehicles starting in 2016. HOV3 would reduce the amount of vehicles starting in 2018.
Toll Lanes do not account for a reduction in vehicles on the road.
Appendix F: Number of Vehicle Accidents
Below is a matrix that provides a comparison of estimated vehicle accident rates for each alternative.
Year
Status Quo
HOV
Toll
Bus
2016
135
-
-
131
2017
138
-
-
134
2018
141
-
-
137
2019
144
134
140
140
2020
147
137
143
143
2021
150
140
146
146
2022
154
143
149
149
2023
157
146
152
152
2024
161
149
156
156
2025
164
153
159
159
2026
168
156
163
163
2027
171
159
166
166
2028
175
163
170
170
2029
179
166
174
174
2030
183
170
177
177
2031
187
174
181
181
2032
191
178
185
185
2033
195
182
189
189
2034
200
186
194
194
2035
204
190
198
198
Total
3344
2726
3244
2842
Estimates for the status quo accidents rates are estimated to increase by 2.2% annually. Estimates for HOV3
accident rates are estimated to decrease by 7% annually. Estimates for the Toll Lane and Bus accident rates
are estimated to decrease by 3% annually.
Appendix G: Number of Fatalities
Below is a matrix that provides a comparison of estimated rates for fatalities caused from vehicle accidents for
each alternative.
Year
Status Quo
HOV3
Toll
Bus
2016
173
-
-
168
2017
177
-
-
171
2018
180
-
-
175
2019
184
171
179
179
2020
188
175
183
183
2021
193
179
187
187
2022
197
183
191
191
2023
201
187
195
195
2024
206
191
199
199
2025
210
195
204
204
2026
215
200
208
208
2027
219
204
213
213
2028
224
209
218
218
2029
229
213
222
222
2030
234
218
227
227
2031
239
223
232
232
2032
245
228
237
237
2033
250
233
243
243
2034
256
238
248
248
2035
261
243
253
253
Total
4281
3490
4153
3639
Estimates for the status quo fatality rates are estimated to increase by 2.2% annually. Estimates for HOV3
fatality rates are estimated to decrease by 7% annually. Estimates for the Toll Lane and Bus fatality rates are
estimated to decrease by 3% annually.
Appendix H: Amount of Carbon Emissions
Below is a comparison of estimates of carbon emissions form each transportation alternative.
Year
Status Quo Carbon
Emissions
HOV Carbon Emissions
Toll Carbon
Emissions
Bus Carbon Emissions
2016
53,458,977
53,459,052
53,458,977
53,435,455
2017
53,458,515
53,458,665
53,458,515
53,434,936
2018
53,458,053
53,458,278
53,458,053
53,434,417
2019
53,457,591
53,457,891
53,457,591
53,433,898
2020
53,457,129
53,457,504
53,457,129
53,433,379
2021
53,456,667
53,457,117
53,456,667
53,432,860
2022
53,456,205
53,456,730
53,456,205
53,432,341
2023
53,455,743
53,456,343
53,455,743
53,431,822
2024
53,455,281
53,455,956
53,455,281
53,431,303
2025
53,454,819
53,455,569
53,454,819
53,430,784
2026
53,454,357
53,455,182
53,454,357
53,430,265
2027
53,453,895
53,454,795
53,453,895
53,429,746
2028
53,453,433
53,454,408
53,453,433
53,429,227
2029
53,452,971
53,454,021
53,452,971
53,428,708
2030
53,452,509
53,453,634
53,452,509
53,428,189
2031
53,452,047
53,453,247
53,452,047
53,427,670
2032
53,451,585
53,452,860
53,451,585
53,427,151
2033
53,451,123
53,452,473
53,451,123
53,426,632
2034
53,450,661
53,452,086
53,450,661
53,426,113
2035
53,450,199
53,451,699
53,450,199
53,425,594
Total
Estimates based on 4.7 metric tons (MT) annual average of carbon emissions per vehicle.
Appendix I : Travel Time for General Purpose Lanes (4)
The chart below compares the estimated time savings for each alternative.
Hours
Status
Quo
3.3
HOV3
Toll
Bus
3.01
3.01
3.2
Minutes
202
181
181
191
Time Savings in Minutes
0
13
13
11
Appendix J: Travel Time Savings
The chart below compares the estimated time savings for all alternatives.
Lanes
Status
Quo
4
Hours
3.3
2.6
2.6
3.2
Minutes
202
158
158
190
Time Savings in Minutes
0
44
44
12
HOV3
Toll
Bus
6
6
4
Appendix K: Revenues
The table below compares the estimate revenues of ridership & toll fees.
Year
Toll Revenue
Bus Revenue
2016
-
$
50,776,184
2017
-
$
48,498,374
2018
-
$
46,322,746
2019
$
291,431,682
$
44,244,717
2020
$
278,358,112
$
42,259,907
2021
$
265,871,019
$
40,364,135
2022
$
253,944,095
$
38,553,408
2023
$
242,552,210
$
36,823,909
2024
$
231,671,363
$
35,171,995
2025
$
221,278,629
$
33,594,186
2026
$
211,352,111
$
32,087,157
2027
$
201,870,895
$
30,647,733
2028
$
192,815,004
$
29,272,882
2029
$
184,165,359
$
29,203,465
2030
$
175,903,736
$
26,705,439
2031
$
168,012,727
$
25,507,438
2032
$
160,475,707
$
24,363,179
2033
$
153,276,797
$
23,270,251
2034
$
146,400,829
$
22,226,352
2035
$
139,833,315
$
21,229,282
Total
$
1,759,606,795
$
340,561,370
Toll Lane estimates are based on $.27 per mile or $38.88 for 144 miles. Bus estimates are based on $.19 per
mile or $28 for 144 miles. These estimates further assume that only half of users will use the alternative for
the entire 144 miles.
Appendix L: Present Value Construction Costs
Below is a comparison of total estimated construction cost of all three alternatives.
HOV3
$3,185,603,010
Toll
Bus
$3,185,603,010
$2,361,024,000
HOV3 & Toll Lanes estimates are based on three years of construction; Bus is based on the same year of
implementation.
Appendix M: Operations/Maintenance
The table below compares the estimated costs of operations and maintenance for each alternative.
Year
Status Quo
4 Lanes
HOV3
6 Lanes
Toll
6 Lanes
2016
$8,626,460
-
-
$
1,472,393
2017
$8,626,460
-
-
$
1,472,393
2018
$8,626,460
-
-
$
1,472,393
2019
$8,626,460
$
4,313,230
$4,995,606
$
1,472,393
2020
$8,626,460
$
4,313,230
$4,995,606
$
1,472,393
2021
$8,626,460
$
4,313,230
$4,995,606
$
1,472,393
2022
$8,626,460
$
4,313,230
$4,995,606
$
1,472,393
2023
$8,626,460
$
4,313,230
$4,995,606
$
1,472,393
2024
$8,626,460
$
4,313,230
$4,995,606
$
1,472,393
2025
$8,626,460
$
4,313,230
$4,995,606
$
1,472,393
2026
$8,626,460
$
4,313,230
$4,995,606
$
1,472,393
2027
$8,626,460
$
4,313,230
$4,995,606
$
1,472,393
2028
$8,626,460
$
4,313,230
$4,995,606
$
1,472,393
2029
$8,626,460
$
4,313,230
$4,995,606
$
1,472,393
2030
$8,626,460
$
4,313,230
$4,995,606
$
1,472,393
2031
$8,626,460
$
4,313,230
$4,995,606
$
1,472,393
2032
$8,626,460
$
4,313,230
$4,995,606
$
1,472,393
2033
$8,626,460
$
4,313,230
$4,995,606
$
1,472,393
2034
$8,626,460
$
4,313,230
$4,995,606
$
1,472,393
2035
$8,626,460
$
4,313,230
$4,995,606
$
1,472,393
Total
$172,529,200
$73,324,910
$ 84,925,302
Bus
4 Lanes
$
29,447,860
Operation and maintenance costs estimates are based on mileage. Estimates are calculated for the HOV3 and
Toll Lanes based on ½ of the costs of the existing status quo. Toll Lanes have an additional cost for tolling
signage.
Appendix N: Buses
The table below estimates the costs and timeframe in which 23 buses would need to be purchased.
Year
Buses
2016
$10,084,606
2017
-
2018
-
2019
-
2020
$10,084,606
2021
-
2022
-
2023
-
2024
-
2025
$10,084,606
2026
-
2027
-
2028
-
2029
-
2030
$10,084,606
2031
-
2032
-
2033
-
2034
-
2035
$10,084,606
Total
The standard lifecycle of a bus is estimated at 500,000 miles.
$50,423,031
Appendix O: Interview Questions
As part of the research process, interviews were conducted with various stakeholders. The questions below
were prepared in advance of each interview. Although, they provided a framework for interviews, many
questions were used, but some were not.
1. Can you tell me a little about your background? How did you end up working in the transportation
field?
2. Can you tell me about the work you do with transportation in the state and I-70 Mountain
Corridor?
3. Is it fair to suggest that the state of Colorado has left much of the decision-making power in the
hands of local districts? If you agree, in your mind is this a good or bad thing when it comes to
transportation issues? Ultimately, where do you think the most change will come from (national,
state or district regulations or incentives)?
4. What would you suggest is the biggest motivator for implement of transportation changes?
5. What would you say is the greatest barrier to a statewide implementation of transportation
solutions polices? (i.e. budget restrictions, etc.)
6. I am focusing my research on the I-70 Mountain Corridor. Can you provide for me a general sense
of the transportation infrastructure issues in Colorado?
7. I need to get a better feel for what is occurring on the ground in the transportation districts.
Ideally, I would like to find out: how many districts are in favor of alternative transportation or other
solutions, what the status of the current transportation areas surrounding I-70?
Are there any databases I should explore, or people I should interview to retrieve this information?
11. How realistic do you think the interventions I have proposed are? (i.e. high-speed rail, HOV/HOT
reversible lane, Bus system) Do you have a favored intervention (if indeed you could only pick one)?
12. Are there any modifications to my policy recommendations that you would make? Anything you
think I should consider that is not already on the table?
13. What is the most exciting part of your job? What changes are being made/programs being
implemented that make your work the most fulfilling?
14. Do you have any research-related recommendations that you think might be useful for my
analysis?
15. Do you have any interview recommendations?
Appendix P: Journals
As part of the research process, an extensive review of Journals was conducted. Below is an exhaustive list
those journals.
Accident Analysis and Prevention
American Economic Review
Econometrics
Economic Analysis & Policy
Journal of Political Economy
Journal of Regional Science
Journal of Safety Research
Journal of Transport Economics and Policy
Journal of Transport Economics and Policy
Journal of Travel Research
Journal of Urban Economics
Logistics and Transportation Review
Logistics and Transportation Review
Regional Science and Urban Economics
Review of Economics and Statistics.
The Economic Journal
The International Journal of Transport Economics
Transport Policy
Transportation Planning and Technology
Transportation Quarterly
Transportation Research Part A
Transportation Review
Appendix Q: CBA Template for Status Quo
Below is the template used for calculations of the status quo, a real discount rate of 7% is applied and reflects
2015 Constant Dollars. Costs and benefits account for a 2.2% population increase year over year.
Year
Cost
PV Cost
Benefit
PV
Benefit
Discount
Rate
0
$3,656,566,799
$3,656,566,799
$0
$0
1.000
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
$3,656,566,799
$3,417,352,149
$0
$0
0.935
$3,656,566,799
$3,193,787,055
$0
$0
0.873
$3,656,566,799
$2,984,847,715
$0
$0
0.816
$3,656,566,799
$2,789,577,303
$0
$0
0.763
$3,656,566,799
$2,607,081,592
$0
$0
0.713
$3,656,566,799
$2,436,524,852
$0
$0
0.666
$3,656,566,799
$2,277,126,030
$0
$0
0.623
$3,656,566,799
$2,128,155,168
$0
$0
0.582
$3,656,566,799
$1,988,930,064
$0
$0
0.544
$3,656,566,799
$1,858,813,144
$0
$0
0.508
$3,656,566,799
$1,737,208,546
$0
$0
0.475
$3,656,566,799
$1,623,559,389
$0
$0
0.444
$3,656,566,799
$1,517,345,223
$0
$0
0.415
$3,656,566,799
$1,418,079,648
$0
$0
0.388
$3,656,566,799
$1,325,308,082
$0
$0
0.362
$3,656,566,799
$1,238,605,684
$0
$0
0.339
$3,656,566,799
$1,157,575,406
$0
$0
0.317
$3,656,566,799
$1,081,846,173
$0
$0
0.296
$3,656,566,799
$1,011,071,190
$0
$0
0.277
$41,449,361,211
$0
$0
Total $
$73,131,335,980
Net Present Value $
-$41,449,361,211
Profitability Index (PI)/BenefitCost Ratio
Internal Rate of Return (IRR)
n/a
Discounted Payback Period in
Years
Undiscounted Payback in
Years
n/a
n/a
n/a
Appendix R: CBA Template for HOV3
Below is the template used for calculations of the HOV3 alternative, a real discount rate of 7% is applied and
reflects 2015 Constant Dollars. Costs and benefits account for a 2.2% population increase year over year.
Year
Cost
PV
Cost
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
$1,134,466,670
$1,134,466,670
$0
$0
1.000
$1,134,466,670
$1,060,249,224
$0
$0
0.935
$1,134,466,670
$990,887,126
$0
$0
0.873
$10,115,956
$8,257,633
$314,877,233
$257,033,617
0.816
$10,115,956
$7,717,414
$314,877,233
$240,218,333
0.763
$10,115,956
$7,212,536
$314,877,233
$224,503,115
0.713
$10,115,956
$6,740,688
$314,877,233
$209,815,996
0.666
$10,115,956
$6,299,709
$314,877,233
$196,089,715
0.623
$10,115,956
$5,887,578
$314,877,233
$183,261,416
0.582
$10,115,956
$5,502,410
$314,877,233
$171,272,352
0.544
$10,115,956
$5,142,439
$314,877,233
$160,067,618
0.508
$10,115,956
$4,806,018
$314,877,233
$149,595,905
0.475
$10,115,956
$4,491,605
$314,877,233
$139,809,257
0.444
$10,115,956
$4,197,762
$314,877,233
$130,662,857
0.415
$10,115,956
$3,923,142
$314,877,233
$122,114,820
0.388
$10,115,956
$3,666,488
$314,877,233
$114,126,000
0.362
$10,115,956
$3,426,624
$314,877,233
$106,659,813
0.339
$10,115,956
$3,202,452
$314,877,233
$99,682,068
0.317
$10,115,956
$2,992,946
$314,877,233
$93,160,811
0.296
$10,115,956
$2,797,146
$314,877,233
$87,066,179
0.277
$3,575,371,254
$3,271,867,610
$5,352,912,958
$2,685,139,872
Total $
Net Present Value $
Profitability Index (PI)/Benefit-Cost Ratio
Internal Rate of Return (IRR)
Discounted Payback Period in Years
Undiscounted Payback in Years
-$586,727,738
0.48
4.53%
39.35
7.40
Benefit
PV
Benefit
Discount
Rate
Appendix S: CBA Template for Toll Lanes
Below is the template used for calculations of the Toll Lanes alternative, a real discount rate of 7% is applied
and reflects 2015 Constant Dollars. Costs and benefits account for a 2.2% population increase year over year.
Year
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
Total $
Cost $
PV
Cost $
Benefit $
PV
Benefit $
Discount
Rate
$1,134,466,670
$1,134,466,670
$0
$0
1.000
$1,134,466,670
$1,060,249,224
$0
$0
0.935
$1,134,466,670
$990,887,126
$0
$0
0.873
$11,476,248
$9,368,037
$376,900,792
$307,663,316
0.816
$11,476,248
$8,755,175
$376,900,792
$287,535,810
0.763
$11,476,248
$8,182,406
$376,900,792
$268,725,056
0.713
$11,476,248
$7,647,109
$376,900,792
$251,144,912
0.666
$11,476,248
$7,146,831
$376,900,792
$234,714,871
0.623
$11,476,248
$6,679,281
$376,900,792
$219,359,692
0.582
$11,476,248
$6,242,319
$376,900,792
$205,009,058
0.544
$11,476,248
$5,833,943
$376,900,792
$191,597,251
0.508
$11,476,248
$5,452,283
$376,900,792
$179,062,851
0.475
$11,476,248
$5,095,591
$376,900,792
$167,348,459
0.444
$11,476,248
$4,762,235
$376,900,792
$156,400,429
0.415
$11,476,248
$4,450,687
$376,900,792
$146,168,625
0.388
$11,476,248
$4,159,520
$376,900,792
$136,606,192
0.362
$11,476,248
$3,887,402
$376,900,792
$127,669,338
0.339
$11,476,248
$3,633,086
$376,900,792
$119,317,138
0.317
$11,476,248
$3,395,408
$376,900,792
$111,511,344
0.296
$11,476,248
$3,173,278
$376,900,792
$104,216,210
0.277
$3,598,496,229
$3,283,467,610
$6,407,313,464
$3,214,050,553
Net Present Value $
Profitability Index (PI)/Benefit-Cost Ratio
Internal Rate of Return (IRR)
Discounted Payback Period in Years
Undiscounted Payback in Years
-$69,417,057
0.94
6.72%
20.24
5.47
Appendix T: CBA Template for Buses
Below is the template used for calculations of the Toll Lanes alternative, a real discount rate of 7% is applied
and reflects 2015 Constant Dollars. Costs and benefits account for a 2.2% population increase year over year.
Year
Cost
PV
Cost
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
$2,361,024,001
$2,361,024,001
$104,638,777
$104,638,777
1.000
$7,727,749
$7,222,195
$104,638,777
$97,793,249
0.935
$7,727,749
$7,727,749
$7,727,749
$7,727,749
$7,727,749
$7,727,749
$7,727,749
$7,727,749
$7,727,749
$7,727,749
$7,727,749
$7,727,749
$7,727,749
$7,727,749
$7,727,749
$7,727,749
$7,727,749
$7,727,749
$6,749,715
$6,308,145
$5,895,463
$5,509,778
$5,149,325
$4,812,454
$4,497,620
$4,203,383
$3,928,396
$3,671,398
$3,431,213
$3,206,741
$2,996,954
$2,800,892
$2,617,656
$2,446,407
$2,286,362
$2,136,787
$104,638,777
$104,638,777
$104,638,777
$104,638,777
$104,638,777
$104,638,777
$104,638,777
$104,638,777
$104,638,777
$104,638,777
$104,638,777
$104,638,777
$104,638,777
$104,638,777
$104,638,777
$104,638,777
$104,638,777
$104,638,777
$91,395,560
$85,416,411
$79,828,422
$74,606,002
$69,725,235
$65,163,771
$60,900,721
$56,916,562
$53,193,048
$49,713,129
$46,460,868
$43,421,372
$40,580,722
$37,925,908
$35,444,774
$33,125,957
$30,958,838
$28,933,494
0.873
0.816
0.763
0.713
0.666
0.623
0.582
0.544
0.508
0.475
0.444
0.415
0.388
0.362
0.339
0.317
0.296
0.277
Total $
Net Present Value $
$2,507,851,232
$2,440,894,887
$1,254,752,066
0.42
-1.96%
44.79
24.36
$2,092,775,537
$1,186,142,821
Profitability Index (PI)/Benefit-Cost Ratio
Internal Rate of Return (IRR)
Discounted Payback Period in Years
Undiscounted Payback in Years
Benefit
PV
Benefit
Discount
Rate
References
"2012 Crash Rate Book", https://www.codot.gov/library/traffic/safety-crash-data/accident-ratesbooks-coding/crash-rate-books-accident-rates-books.
“2015 Urban Mobility Scorecard,” accessed February 6, 2016,
http://d2dtl5nnlpfr0r.cloudfront.net/tti.tamu.edu/documents/mobility-scorecard-2015.pdf.
“495 | 95 Express Lanes - Project Background,” accessed February 6, 2016,
https://www.expresslanes.com/project-background.
“AAA: Fatal Motor Vehicle Crash Costs $6M – USATODAY.com,” accessed February 7, 2016,
http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/nation/story/2011-11-02/fatal-vehicle-crashes-costmillions/51051030/1.
“A Federal Gas Tax for the Future,” accessed November 20, 2015,
http://www.itep.org/pdf/fedgastax0913.pdf.
“A Toolbox for Alleviating Traffic Congestion - Institute of Transportation Engineers,” accessed
February 6, 2016, http://ntl.bts.gov/lib/jpodocs/repts_te/10803.pdf.
“About Bustang,” accessed March 29, 2016, http://www.ridebustang.com/
“Adverse Weather on I-70 Mountain Corridor — Colorado Department of Transportation - CDOT,”
accessed October 20, 2015, https://www.codot.gov/news/2014-news-releases/03-2014/adverseweather-on-i-70-mountain-corridor-1.
Alejandro Reuss, “‘Car Trouble’-Dollars & Sense, Issue 246, 2003,” accessed October 20, 2015,
http://dollarsandsense.org/archives/year/2003/.
"Are you ready for Bustang?," Denver Business Journal, July 2015,
http://www.bizjournals.com/denver/blog/earth_to_power/2015/04/are-you-ready-for-bustangcdot-sets-launch-date.html.
"Average Hourly and weekly earnings of all employees on private nonfarm payrolls by industry
sector, seasonally adjusted," Bureau of Labor Statistics,
http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.t19.htm.
Better Road Congestion Measures Are Needed." United States Department of Transportation. 2014.
Accessed March 20,
2016.http://www.rita.dot.gov/bts/sites/rita.dot.gov.bts/files/publications/special_reports_and_issu
e_briefs/issue_briefs/number_04/html/entire.html.
Boardman, Anthony, et al., Cost Benefit Analysis: Concepts and Practice, Pearson Education, Inc.
(2011), 3.
“| Bureau of Transportation Statistics,” accessed February 6, 2016,
http://www.rita.dot.gov/bts/sites/rita.dot.gov.bts/files/publications/freight_shipments_in_america
/html/entire.html.
"Bustang Routes,” accessed February 20, 2016, http://www.ridebustang.com/routes
“CDOT-2040 Regional Transportation Plan, February 2015,” accessed February 6, 2016,
http://coloradotransportationmatters.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/IM_RTP_FINAL_eViewbookmarked.pdf.
“CDOT and Transportation Facts — Colorado Department of Transportation - CDOT,” accessed
October 20, 2015, https://www.codot.gov/about/.
“CDOT Annual Report Fiscal Year 2015,” accessed April 18, 2016,
https://www.codot.gov/library/AnnualReports/annualreport2015.pdf/at_download/file.
“CDOT FY2015-2016 Budget Allocation Plan — Colorado Department of Transportation - CDOT,”
accessed March 7, 2016, https://www.codot.gov/business/budget/cdot-budget/current-budgetdocuments/cdot-fy2015-2016-budget-allocation-plan/view.
“CDOT Tackling I-70 Mountain Corridor - The Denver Post,” accessed February 6, 2016,
http://www.denverpost.com/news/ci_25504609/cdot-tackling-i-70-mountain-corridor.
“Chapter 4: The Federal Role in Highway Safety - President Dwight D. Eisenhower and the Federal
Role in Highway Safety - General Highway History - Highway History - Federal Highway
Administration,” accessed February 6, 2016,
https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/infrastructure/safety04.cfm.
“Circular A-94 Appendix C | The White House,” accessed April 18, 2016,
https://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/circulars_a094/a94_appx-c.
“Colorado Department of Transportation Future of State Government Strategic Issues Panel,”
accessed February 6, 2016,
http://www.du.edu/issues/media/documents/georgecdotpresentation.pdf.
“Colorado Department of Transportation-Transportation Matters, Statewide Transportation Plan
2040,” accessed February 6, 2016, http://coloradotransportationmatters.com/wpcontent/uploads/2015/07/CDOT-SWP-Executive-Summary-2015-07-01.pdf.
“Colorado General Assembly Home Page,” accessed October 20, 2015,
http://www.leg.state.co.us/clics/cslFrontPages.nsf/HomeSplash?OpenForm.
“Colorado HPTE Annual Report,” accessed March 29,2016,
https://www.codot.gov/library/AnnualReports/2015hpteannualreport/2015-hpte-annualreport/view
“Colorado Legislative Council Staff Issue Brief: Colorado's Constitutional Spending Limit,” accessed
February 6, 2016,
https://www.colorado.gov/pacific/sites/default/files/Update%20Constitutional%20Spending%20
Limit%20Issue%20Brief62415111222_1.pdf.
“Colorado Legislative Council Staff Memorandum: Overview of Senate Bill 09-228,” accessed
February 6, 2016,
https://www.colorado.gov/pacific/sites/default/files/Overview%20of%20Senate%20Bill%2009228.pdf.
"Colorado Tourism numbers set record in 2014, Denverpost, June 23, 2015,
http://www.denverpost.com/business/ci_28368011/2014-record-colorado-tourism.
“Colorado Water Conservation Board,” accessed November 13, 2015, http://cwcb.state.co.us/watermanagement/water-supply-planning/Pages/SWSI2010.aspx.
“Companion Resource for Funding Basics and Eligibility - 44funding.pdf,” accessed February 6,
2016, http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/federal-aidessentials/companionresources/44funding.pdf.
“Congestion Cost Trucking $23 Billion in 2010 | Fleet Management Content from Fleet Owner,”
accessed October 20, 2015, http://fleetowner.com/management/news/congestion-truckingbillions-1005.
“Construction Timeline — Colorado Department of Transportation - CDOT,” accessed October 20,
2015, https://www.codot.gov/about/CDOTHistory/50th-anniversary/interstate-70/constructiontimeline.html.
Dana Mitra, “The Social and Economic Benefits of Public Education,” accessed April 18, 2016,
http://www.elc-pa.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/BestInvestment_Full_Report_6.27.11.pdf.
“Data and Statistics | Bureau of Transportation Statistics,” accessed October 20, 2015,
http://www.rita.dot.gov/bts/data_and_statistics/index.html.
David Schrank, Bill Eisele, and Tim Lomax, “TTI’s 2012 Urban Mobility Report,” Texas A&M
Transportation Institute. The Texas A&M University System, 2012,
http://www.pagregion.com/Portals/0/documents/HumanServices/2012MobilityReport.pdf.
“E-470,” accessed February 6, 2016, https://www.e-470.com/pages/AboutUs/History.aspx.
“Eagle Project | Department of Transportation,” accessed February 7, 2016,
https://cms.dot.gov/tifia/financed-projects/eagle-project.
“EB I-70 Peak Period Shoulder Lane-Frequently Asked Questions,” accessed February 7, 2016,
https://www.codot.gov/projects/I70mtnppsl/assets-and-documents/ppsl-faqs-final.pdf.
“Economics of Transportation Systems: A Reference for Practitioners,” accessed February 6, 2016,
http://www.utexas.edu/research/ctr/pdf_reports/0_6628_P1.pdf.
“Eisenhower Tunnel Metering FAQ’s — Colorado Department of Transportation - CDOT,” accessed
October 20, 2015, https://www.codot.gov/travel/eisenhower-tunnel/eisenhower-metering.html.
“Eligibility | Department of Transportation,” accessed February 6, 2016,
https://www.transportation.gov/tifia/eligibility.
“Environmental Protection Agency -- Particulate Matter (PM-10),” accessed October 20, 2015,
http://www3.epa.gov/airtrends/aqtrnd95/pm10.html.
“Express Lanes: FAQ”, accessed April 20, 2016,
https://www.codot.gov/programs/expresslanes/frequently-asked-questions-faqs
“Express Lanes US 36 Fact Sheet, “accessed March 4,2016
https://www.codot.gov/programs/expresslanes/corridors/us-36.
“FASTER — Colorado Department of Transportation - CDOT,” accessed February 6, 2016,
https://www.codot.gov/projects/faster.
“FHWA Office of Innovative Program Delivery: TIFIA,” accessed February 6, 2016,
http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/ipd/tifia/.
"Freedom to Travel," Bureau of Transportation Statistics, United States Department of
Transportation,
http://www.rita.dot.gov/bts/sites/rita.dot.gov.bts/files/publications/freedom_to_travel/html/data_
analysis.html.
“Freight Analysis Framework (FAF),” accessed February 6, 2016,
http://faf.ornl.gov/fafweb/FUT.aspx.
“FTA,” accessed February 7, 2016, https://www2.fta.dot.gov/.
“GOI70 :: Home,” accessed October 20, 2015, http://goi70.com/.
“GAO-12-811, BUS RAPID TRANSIT: Projects Improve Transit Service and Can Contribute to
Economic Development,” accessed February 6, 2016,
http://www.gao.gov/assets/600/592973.pdf.
“Grants Information by Number — Colorado Department of Transportation - CDOT,” accessed
February 6, 2016, https://www.codot.gov/programs/transitandrail/transit/transit-grant-programs.
Greenhouse Gas Emissions from a Typical Passenger Vehicle, United States Environmental
Protection Agency, accessed March 22, 2016,
https://www3.epa.gov/otaq/climate/documents/420f14040a.pdf.
“Health Effects | Carbon Monoxide | US EPA,” accessed October 20, 2015,
http://www3.epa.gov/airquality/carbonmonoxide/health.html.
Highway Data Explorer by Highway Segment, CDOT,
http://dtdapps.coloradodot.info/otis/HighwayData.
“Highway Trust Fund, April 2014 Baseline - 43884-2014-04-Highway_Trust_Fund.pdf,” accessed
February 6, 2016, http://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/attachments/43884-2014-04Highway_Trust_Fund.pdf.
“Historical Fatal Crashes — Colorado Department of Transportation - CDOT,” accessed February 6,
2016, https://www.codot.gov/library/traffic/safety-crash-data/fatal-crash-data-citycounty/historical_fatals.pdf/view.
“Home | Federal Highway Administration,” accessed February 6, 2016, http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/.
“I-70 Eastbound Twin Tunnels (Completed) — Colorado Department of Transportation - CDOT,”
accessed February 6, 2016, https://www.codot.gov/projects/i70twintunnels/i-70-eastbound-twintunnels.
"I-70 Mountain Corridor Final PEIS," March 2011, https://www.codot.gov/projects/i70mountaincorridor/final-peis.
“I-70 Mountain Corridor Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement,” accessed February 6,
2016, https://www.codot.gov/projects/i-70-old-mountaincorridor/final-peis/final-peisdocuments/MainText_combined_withTabs.pdf.
“I-70 Mountain Corridor PEIS Climate and Air Quality Technical Report," March 2011,
https://www.codot.gov/projects/i-70mountaincorridor/final-peis/final-peis-documents/technicalreports/Vol3_I-70_Mntn_Corridor_Final_PEIS_Climate_AQ_TR.pdf.
“I-70 Mountain Corridor Record of Decision and Final Programmatic Environmental Impact
Statement,” accessed February 6, 2016, https://www.codot.gov/projects/i-70-oldmountaincorridor/documents/Final_I70_ROD_Combined_061611maintext.pdf.
“I-70 Westbound Twin Tunnels (Veterans Memorial Tunnels) — Colorado Department of
Transportation - CDOT,” accessed February 6, 2016,
https://www.codot.gov/projects/i70twintunnels.
“Methodology - Transportation Benefit-Cost Analysis,” accessed February 7, 2016,
http://bca.transportationeconomics.org/benefits/vehicle-operating-cost/vehicle-operating-costsmethodology.
“Metro Denver and North Front Range Emissions Inspections | Department of Public Health and
Environment,” accessed February 7, 2016, https://www.colorado.gov/pacific/cdphe/metro-northemissions.
National BRT Institute, http://db.nbrti.org/index.php?type=detail&page=route&id=201
“National Center for Transit Research: Cost-Benefit Analysis of Rural and Small Urban Transit, July
2014,” accessed February 6, 2016, http://www.nctr.usf.edu/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/77060NCTR-NDSU03.pdf.
“NO MORE WAITING: FIXING COLORADO’S MAJOR MOBILITY ISSUES NOW ,” accessed
April 18, 2016, https://www.codot.gov/programs/high-performance-transportation-enterprisehpte/media-and-news/presentations/2014-cdot-hpte-presentation.pdf.
“Office of Economic Development and International Trade | Colorado Business,” accessed October
20, 2015, http://www.advancecolorado.com/.
“Performance Landing Page — Colorado Department of Transportation - CDOT,” accessed February
6, 2016, https://www.codot.gov/performance.
“PPPIRC News & Multimedia | Public Private Partnerships | World Bank,” accessed February 6,
2016, http://ppp.worldbank.org/public-private-partnership/multimedia.
“Project Overview — Colorado Department of Transportation - CDOT,” accessed October 20, 2015,
https://www.codot.gov/projects/I70mtnppsl/project-overview.
“QuickFacts-Colorado, United States Census Bureau,” accessed March 7, 2016,
http://www.census.gov/quickfacts/table/PST045215/08.
“Road Conditions, Speeds, Travel Times, Traffic Cameras, Live Streaming Traffic Cameras, Road
Closures and Road Work Information Provided by Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS) a
Branch of Colorado Department of Transportation,” accessed February 6, 2016,
http://www.cotrip.org/home.htm.
Roy L. Wilshire and Charles J. Keese, Effects of Traffic Accidents on Freeway Operation (Citeseer,
1963), accessed March 27,2016,
“State and County Emission Summaries | Air Emission Sources | Air & Radiation | US EPA,”
accessed March 7, 2016, https://www3.epa.gov/cgibin/broker?_service=data&_debug=0&_program=dataprog.dw_do_all_multi.sas&stfips=08.
“Statewide Transportation Plan — Colorado Department of Transportation - CDOT,” accessed
February 6, 2016, https://www.codot.gov/programs/planning/transportation-plans-andstudies/statewide-transportation-plan.
“Statewide Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation Plan-2014,” accessed October 20, 2015,
http://cpw.state.co.us/Documents/Trails/SCORP/SCORPOnlineReport.pdf.
“STIP Report, Statewide Transportation Improvement Plan,” accessed February 6, 2016,
https://www.codot.gov/business/budget/documents/dailySTIP.pdf.
“Table 3-17: Average Cost of Owning and Operating an Automobile(a) (Assuming 15,000 VehicleMiles per Year) | Bureau of Transportation Statistics,” accessed February 7, 2016,
http://www.rita.dot.gov/bts/sites/rita.dot.gov.bts/files/publications/national_transportation_statist
ics/html/table_03_17.html
“TABOR | Colorado Legislative Council,” accessed February 6, 2016,
https://www.colorado.gov/pacific/cga-legislativecouncil/tabor.
“Tax Incentives,” accessed March 7, 2016, http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/taxcenter.shtml.
“THE COST OF TRAFFIC CONGESTION IN COLORADO: THE STATE’S 25 WORST TRAFFIC
JAMS AND THE STEPS NEEDED TO RELIEVE TRAFFIC CONGESTION - Transport
Research International Documentation - TRID,” accessed February 7, 2016,
http://trid.trb.org/view/718639.
“The Impact of I70 Congestion on Colorado-Denver to Grand Junction,” accessed February 6, 2016,
http://www.developmentresearch.net/Sample%20Projects/Economic%20and%20Fiscal%20Impa
ct%20Analysis/I70%20Impact_042507.pdf.
“The Interstate Highway System - Facts & Summary - HISTORY.com,” accessed February 7, 2016,
http://www.history.com/topics/interstate-highway-system.
"The Social Cost of Carbon,"
https://www3.epa.gov/climatechange/EPAactivities/economics/scc.html.
“Title IV - Noise Pollution | Overview of the Clean Air Act and Air Pollution | US EPA,” accessed
February 7, 2016, http://www.epa.gov/clean-air-act-overview/title-iv-noise-pollution.
"Total of Statewide fatal crashes & fatalities, broken out by CDOT Region and month,"
https://www.codot.gov/library/traffic/safety-crash-data/fatal-crash-data-city-county/2015monthly-fatals/view.
“Traffic Congestion and Reliability: Trends and Advanced Strategies for Congestion Mitigation,”
accessed May 10, 2016, http://www.ops.fhwa.dot.gov/congestion_report/chapter2.htm
“Transportation Commission — Colorado Department of Transportation - CDOT,” accessed February
6, 2016, https://www.codot.gov/about/transportation-commission.
“Transportation Management Alternatives I-70 Mountain Corridor,” accessed February 7, 2016,
http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:gson7TKYjfQJ:hermes.cde.state.co.us/d
rupal/islandora/object/co%253A12136/datastream/OBJ/download/Transportation_management_
alternatives___I70_mountain_corridor_draft_environmental_impact_statement.pdf+&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl
=us.
“Transportation Planning | DRCOG,” accessed April 18, 2016,
https://drcog.org/programs/transportation-planning.
“Transportation Regions & Directors — Colorado Department of Transportation - CDOT,” accessed
April 18, 2016, https://www.codot.gov/about/regions.html
“Travelers Stuffed $17.3 Billion into Colorado Tourism Coffers in 2013 - The Denver Post,”
accessed February 6, 2016, http://www.denverpost.com/business/ci_26236834/travelers-stuffed17-3-billion-into-colorado-tourism.
"Updated Comparison of Energy Use & CO2 Emissions From Different Transportation Modes," April
2014, American Bus Association,
http://www.buses.org/assets/images/uploads/general/Report%20%20Energy%20Use%20and%20Emissions.pdf.
"U.S. Average New Vehicle Costs for 2007 vehicles by type," American Public Transportation
Association,
http://www.apta.com/resources/aboutpt/Documents/table22_vehvosttransitlength.pdf.
“US-36 Public-Private Partnership (P3) Project Performance Audit, March 2015,” accessed February
6, 2016,
http://www.leg.state.co.us/OSA/coauditor1.nsf/All/03D76FF34736878087257E14007F395D/$FI
LE/1415P%20-%20US-36%20PublicPrivate%20Partnership%20%28P3%29%20Project%20Performance%20Audit,%20March%202
015.pdf.
“Vail Resorts Acquires Park City Mountain Resort in Park City, Utah | Vail Resorts Corporate,”
accessed April 26, 2016, http://news.vailresorts.com/corporate/vail-resorts-acquires-pcmr.htm.
“What Is the National Environmental Policy Act? | National Environmental Policy Act | US EPA,”
accessed February 6, 2016, http://www.epa.gov/nepa/what-national-environmental-policy-act
“When Cars Talk: The Future of Colorado’s I-70 Mountain Corridor | SummitDaily.com,” accessed
February 6, 2016, http://www.summitdaily.com/news/19457476-113/when-cars-talk-the-futureof-colorados-i-70.
“Your CDOT Dollar,” accessed February 6, 2016, http://dtdapps.coloradodot.info/otis/YCD/.
“Your CDOT Dollar : Mobility,” accessed February 6, 2016,
http://dtdapps.coloradodot.info/otis/YCD/Mobility.
“Your CDOT Dollar : Safety,” accessed February 6, 2016,
http://dtdapps.coloradodot.info/otis/YCD/Safety.