HomeMy WebLinkAbout02/21/2024 - TRANSPORTATION BOARD - AGENDA - Regular Meeting2/21/2024 Agenda Page 1
Transportation Board Meeting
SUMMARY AGENDA
Wednesday, February 21st, 2024, 6:00 PM
Online via Zoom or in Person at 281 N. College Avenue
This hybrid Transportation Board meeting will be conducted in person at 281 N College
Ave, 1st floor conference rooms or you may join on-line via Zoom. Participants should join at
least 5 minutes prior to the 6:00 p.m. start time.
ONLINE PUBLIC PARTICIPATION:
You will need an internet connection on a laptop, computer, or smartphone, and may join the
meeting through Zoom at https://us06web.zoom.us/join Webinar ID:992 3667 9837,
Passcode 735155. Keep yourself on muted status.
For public comments, the Chairperson will ask participants to click the “Raise Hand” button to
indicate you would like to speak at that time. Staff will moderate the Zoom session to ensure all
participants have an opportunity to comment.
PUBLIC PARTICIPATION BY PHONE:
Please dial +1-719-359-4580 and enter Meeting ID 99236679837; Passcode 73515. Keep
yourself on muted status.
For public comments, when the Chair asks participants to click the “Raise Hand” button if they
wish to speak, phone participants will need to press *9 to do this. Staff will be moderating the
Zoom session to ensure all participants have an opportunity to address the Transportation
Board. When you are called, press *6 to unmute yourself.
Documents to Share: Any document or presentation a member of the public wishes to
provide to the Transportation Board for its consideration must be emailed to
aiverson@fcgov.com at least 24 hours before the meeting.
Provide Comments via Email: Individuals who are uncomfortable or unable to access the
Zoom platform or participate by phone are encouraged to participate by emailing comments
to aiverson@fcgov.com at least 24 hours prior to the meeting. If your comments are specific
to any of the discussion items on the agenda, please indicate that in the subject line of your
email. Staff will ensure your comments are provided to the Transportation Board.
2/21/2024 Agenda Page 2
Transportation Board Meeting
SUMMARY AGENDA
Wednesday, February 21st, 2024, 6:00 PM
Online via Zoom or in Person at 281 N. College Avenue
AGENDA
1. CALL TO ORDER
2. ROLL CALL
3. AGENDA REVIEW
4. CITIZEN PARTICIPATION
5. APPROVAL OF MINUTES (JANUARY 2024)
6. UNFINISHED BUSINESS
7. NEW BUSINESS
a. Active Modes Projects and Grants, Information and Discussion (Cortney Geary, 45
minutes)
b. State of the Infrastructure and Asset Management, Information and Discussion (Rob
Mobsey, 45 minutes)
8. BOARD MEMBER REPORTS
9. OTHER BUSINESS
a. City Council 6 Month Calendar Review
b. Staff Liaison Report
10. ADJOURNMENT
TRANSPORTATION BOARD
TYPE OF MEETING – REGULAR
January 17, 2024, 6:00 p.m.
Online Via Zoom or In-Person at 281 North College Avenue
1 /17/202 4 – MINUTES Page 1
FOR REFERENCE:
Chair: Cari Brown
Vice Chair:
Council Liaison:
Ed Peyronnin
Emily Francis
Staff Liaison: Aaron Iverson
1. CALL TO ORDER
Chair Brown called the meeting to order at 6:00 PM.
2. ROLL CALL
BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT:
Ed Peyronnin, Vice Chair
Nathalie Rachline
Indy Hart
Jess Dyrdahl
Jerry Gavaldon
James Burtis
BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT:
Cari Brown, Chair
Stephanie Blochowiak
CITY STAFF PRESENT:
Rachel Ruhlen
PUBLIC PRESENT:
David Baker
Marcus H
3. AGENDA REVIEW
Iverson noted there will no longer be a Bicycle Advisory Committee report as that
Committee no longer exists and stated Chair and Co-Chair elections will occur in April or
May after new Board Members are appointed.
Hart made a motion, seconded by Gavaldon, to table the consideration of
nominations for Chair and Co-Chair until April or May. The motion was adopted
unanimously.
TRANSPORTATION BOARD
TYPE OF MEETING – REGULAR
1 /17/2024 – MINUTES Page 2
4. CITIZEN PARTICIPATION
David Baker stated he has applied for a position on the Board and is present to observe.
Marcus H. stated he recently moved from Vienna, Austria and is an avid cyclist.
5. APPROVAL OF MINUTES – DECEMBER 2023
Gavaldon made a motion, seconded by Dyrdahl, to approve the December 2023
minutes as written. Yeas: Peyronnin, Rachline, Hart, Dyrdahl, and Gavaldon. Nays:
none. Abstain: Burtis.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
6. UNFINISHED BUSINESS
None.
7. NEW BUSINESS
a. SPIN Shared Micro-Mobility Annual Report – Rachel Ruhlen
Rachel Ruhlen, FC Moves Transportation Planner, stated this is the second annual
report for SPIN. She stated ridership remains strong and the program is
outperforming any previous bike or E-scooter share program in Fort Collins, though
ridership is down very slightly from last year which is likely primarily due to the
weather. Ruhlen showed a graph of ridership by hour of the day noting the devices
are now available 24 hours a day. She stated CSU to downtown is the core area of
usage and 60% of riders are associated with CSU, 40% of which are undergraduates.
Ruhlen discussed the credits provided by SPIN for parking in designated parking
boxes and for the Bike Buddies who were mentors for the E-bike grant. She also
discussed various tours that utilized the E-bikes.
Ruhlen noted climate change is a large motivating factor as to why Fort Collins wants
to have bike and scooter share. She stated 62 metric tons of carbon dioxide
emissions have been avoided since the start of the SPIN program. In terms of
transportation equity, Ruhlen discussed the SPIN Access program which reduces the
cost of trips.
Rachline suggested SPIN Access should be free of charge.
Hart suggested people could be provided with a free card for use of SPIN and that
would lead to more of a sense of ownership that can lead to a better sense of care for
those individuals.
Burtis asked if it would be possible to unlock the SPIN devices with a free card rather
than a phone. Ruhlen replied that information will be forthcoming in the presentation.
TRANSPORTATION BOARD
TYPE OF MEETING – REGULAR
1 /17/2024 – MINUTES Page 3
Gavaldon also noted many people do not carry cell phones or credit cards. He also
supported free SPIN rides for those who need it.
Ruhlen went on to discuss the SPIN Adaptive program which provides 5 total trikes,
hand cycles, and recumbent bikes for anyone who requests one free of charge. In
terms of how a completely free SPIN program could work, Ruhlen noted a grant from
CDOT provided for 75 year-long SPIN passes for low-income individuals, though that
program is now over. Additionally, a grant was received from the Colorado Energy
Office to provide either E-bikes or SPIN passes to low-income individuals.
Gavaldon asked if there have been any issues with the E-devices handling the cold
weather. Ruhlen replied she has not heard of any issues.
Ruhlen discussed the City’s Get FoCo program that allows individuals receiving
government benefits to be eligible for other City programs intended for low-income
individuals. She stated SPIN Access has now been integrated into Get FoCo and
that has greatly increased the number of those enrolled in SPIN Access.
Rachline commented on the fact that outreach to people who are not going to think
about looking for the program needs to better occur.
Ruhlen noted there is an option to purchase a SPIN cash card for individuals who do
not have credit cards and there is a way to use the devices without a smart phone,
though texts still need to be sent and received.
Gavaldon suggested the possibility of having a SPIN fair at schools, Old Town, or
other facilities.
Ruhlen noted Get FoCo has arranged to help facilitate SPIN getting to events with
the community’s affordable housing partners.
Ruhlen discussed the SPIN survey and stated the most common answer to the
question of what would help one use SPIN more often was having more bikes or
scooters available where they need to start and that even at $0.10 per mile on the
Access program, it is still too expensive. She noted public right-of-way is lacking in
some of the areas where socio-economic factors come into play and she is hoping to
connect with mobile home park managers to potentially create parking boxes and
deployment zones within the parks.
Gavaldon suggested the Museo de las Tres Colonias could be used for a deployment
zone.
Vice Chair Peyronnin asked if there is any thought of opening up the trails to E-
scooters. Ruhlen replied the Master Trails Plan is going to be updated this year and
it is likely that question will be answered through that process.
Burtis stated the bike deployment zones seem to be along major arterials which may
not necessarily be accessible to pedestrians. He suggested placing more
TRANSPORTATION BOARD
TYPE OF MEETING – REGULAR
1 /17/2024 – MINUTES Page 4
deployment zones in neighborhoods. Ruhlen replied the deployment zones were
examined by SPIN after the first year and a half of service. She stated they prefer to
use transit stops and do need to have public right-of-way available.
Hart noted most people will not chose to ride one of the devices on some of the
arterials.
Burtis suggested deploying the devices along the bikeways designated as
comfortable if space is available.
Hart stated proper parking would need to be provided if scooters are going to be
allowed on trails.
Ruhlen stated she would follow up with SPIN on why the deployment areas were
selected and on what changes were made. She noted SPIN sets its regular rates
and SPIN Access rates.
Members discussed the survey results around barriers to using SPIN more
frequently. Gavaldon commented on the survey question regarding whether lack of
access to a phone is a barrier and noted some individuals do not have texting
options.
Ruhlen commented on the demographic questions asked in the survey and stated the
results showed only about ¼ of the SPIN Access riders are affiliated with CSU,
whereas 60% of overall riders are affiliated with CSU. She stated Get FoCo is
looking into using the Pell Grant as an eligibility option for the program .
Ruhlen stated census data shows that about 6% of Fort Collins residents have a
mobility disability and the survey of all SPIN riders showed 8% have a mobility
disability whereas the survey of SPIN Access riders shows 20% have a mobility
disability.
Ruhlen outlined the safety data for the report noting five incidents of people falling off
bikes or scooters were reported this year. She noted Poudre Fire Authority has
inspected the SPIN facility and found everything to be appropriate.
Hart commended staff doing its own research as opposed to getting all the
information from SPIN.
Ruhlen discussed the parking situation noting a great deal of effort has gone into it
over the last year. She stated the most common complaint is of improperly parked
devices or devices blocking a sidewalk. She stated staff did not feel like they had a
good sense from the complaints as to where the problems existed and worked with a
graduate student in the Public Health program at CSU to design a study and collect
and analyze data for a before and after comparison. The main goal of the study was
to determine whether the devices as parked provide a barrier or a barrier for ADA
accessibility. She stated 1/5 of the parked devices were found to be a barrier for
TRANSPORTATION BOARD
TYPE OF MEETING – REGULAR
1 /17/2024 – MINUTES Page 5
ADA accessibility and just over 1/3 of the parked devices were found to be a barrier
under the former parking regulations. Ruhlen discussed the subsequent installation
of parking boxes and changes to parking regulations. She stated one legal car
parking space has been utilized as of yet.
Rachline supported removing more parking spaces for this use or other multi-modal
options.
Ruhlen also noted the parking ordinance has been changed to allow for the devices
to be parked on the street which enabled a parking quiz that was incentivized with a
$5 ride credit.
Hart stated he did not believe complaints and warnings from SPIN staff should not be
correlated. Ruhlen noted only about 25% of complaints result in a warning because
most complaints are about bikes or scooters that are not improperly parked.
Additionally, SPIN instituted a system involving its drivers reporting parking issues
and more than half of the warnings are initiated by SPIN staff. She stated the
warning system has three tiers: a warning, a one-day suspension, and a permanent
ban and there are very few repeat offenders.
Gavaldon asked how many people have been permanently banned. Ruhlen replied
only four or five people have been banned and some of those resulted from
vandalism rather than parking issues. She noted the bans can be appealed, but the
ban is for a minimum of 15 days.
Ruhlen stated SPIN has geofenced the parking boxes and provides a $1 credit if a
ride ends in a parking box.
Ruhlen outlined the study data collected after the parking changes noting there was a
12% decrease in the number of barriers; however, there was not a decrease in the
ADA accessibility barriers. The number of legally parked scooters naturally went up
given the increase in the number of legal parking spaces. She also noted many
sidewalks in Fort Collins are too narrow which causes ADA issues in itself.
Gavaldon commented on a 2009 sidewalk mapping study that identified deficiencies.
Iverson noted the Engineering Department tracks improvements as they are made
and suggested that topic for the Board to discuss.
Ruhlen outlined the program plans for the upcoming year, including shifting away
from parking and toward equity. She stated outreach to mobile home communities
and increasing SPIN Access enrollment will be focused upon.
In terms of structural changes, Ruhlen noted Bird acquired SPIN in September and
Bird announced a Chapter 11 filing in December, though SPIN does not anticipate
that will affect Fort Collins’ operations at all. She noted Fort Collins does ask a lot of
requests of SPIN that are outside the contract and because SPIN is expanding to
other area communities, some of those requests have not been able to be met.
TRANSPORTATION BOARD
TYPE OF MEETING – REGULAR
1 /17/2024 – MINUTES Page 6
Ruhlen stated the next renewal of the SPIN contract will start year four in July and the
end of the five-year extension period will be in June of 2026. She outlined
considerations for providers who are seeking markets and stated the fact that
scooters are not allowed on paved trails could be a limitation when Fort Collins seeks
to attract an operator.
Gavaldon suggested the possibility of a strategic partnership for a long -term contract.
Members commended Ruhlen on the presentation.
b. Transportation Board 2023 End of Year Report – Aaron Iverson
Hart made a motion, seconded by Gavaldon, to approve the 2023 Annual
Report as presented.
Gavaldon commended Iverson’s work on the report.
The vote on the motion was as follows: Yeas: Hart, Dyrdahl, Gavaldon,
Peyronnin and Burtis. Nays: Rachline.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
c. 2024 Topic Ideas/Requests – Aaron Iverson
Vice Chair Peyronnin noted the Board would like to discuss the sidewalk program as
per the previous discussion.
Iverson outlined plans and studies that are happening this year. He stated grants
were received to update the EV readiness roadmap and conduct a micro-transit
study. He outlined other items the Board will be considering, including the school
safety assessment which is ongoing, the Transfort strategic plan, the ongoing
Transfort and Poudre School District collaboration study, the Strategic Paved Trail
Plan update, an audit of several standards and codes to determine alignment with the
Active Modes Plan, Vision Zero Plan, and Climate Action Plan, and the West
Elizabeth BRT design. He outlined other topics that may be of interest, including
budgeting discussions, Traffic’s annual safety report, the Shift Your Ride program
launch, coordination with the new Active Modes Advisory Board, downtown parking,
various active modes projects, and ongoing capital projects.
Hart noted many of the topics will likely be considered either in coordination with or
by the Active Modes Advisory Board. Iverson noted FC Moves will be the liaison to
both Boards.
Gavaldon noted the Transportation Board will be considering the Master Street Plan
and will need to get input from the Active Modes Advisory Board.
Vice Chair Peyronnin commented on the importance of the Board being engaged in
the process of development of the Active Modes Advisory Board.
TRANSPORTATION BOARD
TYPE OF MEETING – REGULAR
1 /17/2024 – MINUTES Page 7
Gavaldon questioned whether the new Board would be considering SPIN. Iverson
replied many of the details have yet to be worked out, but it is likely both Boards
would hear some of the same presentations.
Gavaldon noted both Boards will also need to consider the Mulberry corridor.
Hart commended the list of topics and noted it is likely one Board or the other may
receive more in-depth information on certain topics.
Vice Chair Peyronnin stated he would like to ensure Transfort is being discussed as a
solution to affordable housing.
Rachline suggested an item related to linking and measuring the impact of
transportation on climate as a recurring topic.
Burtis concurred and noted transportation is linked to both climate and equity issues.
Dyrdahl stated she would be interested in discussing the E -bike grant mentioned by
Ruhlen.
Gavaldon suggested discussing the Land Use Code updates and snow routes.
8. BOARD MEMBER REPORTS
Gavaldon commented on the prior success of snow routes in Fort Collins and suggested
staff work with SPIN to ensure good visibility of the program for CSU home football games.
Additionally, he suggested the use of parks and the Museo de las Tres Colonias for SPIN
parking boxes and commended Ruhlen on her work with SPIN. He thanked Rachline for
her service on the Board and encouraged her to reapply.
Rachline stated snow removal on bike lanes is still lacking and the lanes and sidewalks
become unmanageable and dangerous during freeze and thaw cycles. She stated she
would like to see more buses on the roadways.
Dyrdahl reported she just returned from east Africa and discussed a shuttle trip she took
from Tanzania to Kenya as well as other transportation options. She also stated her time
on the Board is up in March and she opted to not reapply as she may not be in Fort Collins
during the fall.
Hart reported on Transfort updates and noted he could have taken a bus to and from this
meeting based on the extension of times. He commented on desiring more reliability over
more frequency and stated reliability has improved over the past few months. He stated he
is looking forward to biking more once the snow and ice has melted.
Burtis reported the situation with cars parking in bike lanes on City Park seems to be
improving. He noted MAX is running later and reported on taking the Landline bus to the
airport from CSU. He also reported on watching a delivery person riding an E-bike in the
snow at night on the throughway in New York City.
TRANSPORTATION BOARD
TYPE OF MEETING – REGULAR
1 /17/2024 – MINUTES Page 8
Vice Chair Peyronnin reported on the recent Planning and Zoning Commission work
session during which some extension projects were discussed. He stated he presented to
the Commission about the Board’s recent discussion of roundabouts. He noted
Commissioner Shepard expressed concern about using too many collector streets,
particularly in the northeast part of town.
Vice Chair Peyronnin reported he will be attending Civic Conversations at Horse and
Dragon on Monday during which affordable housing will be discussed. He stated he will be
bringing up Transfort as part of affordable housing.
Dyrdahl stated she may need another member to attend the Planning and Zoning
Commission meeting on February 9th.
9. OTHER BUSINESS
a. City Council 6-Month Calendar Review
Iverson stated Council will be setting their priorities for the coming term and will be
considering the renewal of the ¼ cent CCIP tax that sunsets in 2025. Additionally,
the State of the City will occur February 26th and Council will discuss the Strategic
Plan on February 27th. In April, Council will discuss how the newly adopted tax will
be appropriated.
Gavaldon noted Council will be considering increasing fees on February 6th and
expressed concern those increases could impact housing affordability.
b. Staff Liaison Report
None.
10. ADJOURNMENT
The meeting adjourned at 8:07 p.m. by unanimous consent.
Headline Copy Goes Here
2/21/2024Cortney Geary | Active Modes Manager
Fort Collins Citywide Arterial Street Low Stress Bike Network
Safe Streets and Roads for All
Headline Copy Goes HereOverview
•Background
•Safe Streets and Roads for All
•Vision Zero Action Plan
•FY 2023 Application
•Award
•Demonstration project
•Supplemental planning
•Next Steps
Headline Copy Goes Here
3
Safe Streets and Roads for All (SS4A)
•Federal grant program established by Bipartisan
Infrastructure Law
•$5 billion available for 2022 –2026
•Focused on preventing roadway deaths and serious
injuries
•Supports US Department of Transportation’s goal of
zero roadway deaths using a Safe System Approach
•Eligible grant activities:
•Develop comprehensive safety action plan
•Supplemental planning (ex: topical sub-plan)
•Demonstration (ex: quick-build project)
•Implementation (ex: constructing corridor
improvements)
Credit: US Department of Transportation
Headline Copy Goes HereVision Zero Action Plan
4
•SS4A applicants must complete a
comprehensive safety action plan to
apply for implementation, supplemental
planning, and demonstration activities
•Fort Collins action plan comprised of
Vision Zero Action Plan and Active
Modes Plan
•Vision Zero high injury network
identifies roads and intersections with
greatest share of fatal and serious injury
crashes
By 2032, no one dies or has a
serious injury while traveling on
Fort Collins’ streets
Headline Copy Goes HereFY 2023 Application
Citywide Arterial Street Low Stress Bike Network
5
•Implementation (not awarded)
•Harmony Rd improvements
•Separated bike lanes, bike phasing at signals, signal timing
improvements, street lighting, vehicle lane narrowing
•Total cost: $7.8 million
•Demonstration Project (awarded)
•Centre Ave. separated bike lanes
•Total cost: $638,000
•Supplemental Planning (awarded)
•Northwest Fort Collins arterial bikeway study
•Total cost: $567,600
Headline Copy Goes HereDemonstration Project
6
•Centre Ave. from Worthington Cir. to
Bay Dr.
•Plastic post/curb separated bike lanes
and pedestrian refuges
•Will follow street resurfacing in
summer 2024
Example plastic posts and curbs
on W. Pitkin St.
Headline Copy Goes HereSupplemental Planning
7
•Northwest Fort Collins arterial bikeway study
•Area bounded by College Ave., Horsetooth Rd., Overland Trl.,
and Laporte Ave.
•Identify specific safety concerns and potential countermeasures
•Analyze feasibility and network impacts of separated bike lanes,
protected intersections, lane diets, and road diets
•Goal: complete 10 –15% design and preliminary public
engagement in preparation for FY 2025 SS4A application cycle
Headline Copy Goes HereNext Steps
•Finalize budget
•Complete grant agreement
•Baseline data collection
•Community engagement
•Initiate projects
•Prepare FY 2024 grant application
Headline Copy Goes Here
Questions?
Cortney Geary | cgeary@fcgov.com
9
1
STATE OF THE
INFRASTRUCTURE
JANUARY 2024
2
“The City of Fort Collins is committed to the long-term
replacement of our assets based on a data driven, sustainable
and strategic approach. This report is a culmination of
significant input and analysis from the various departments
responsible for operating and maintaining our City's
transportation assets. It highlights the complexity, opportunity
and urgency for a clear operational and financial strategy.”
– Caryn Champine
Director of PDT
Acknowledgements
Would like to extend a sincere appreciation to the dedicated City staff whose commitment and expertise
have been instrumental in the development of this State of the Infrastructure report. Their insights,
data collection efforts, and collaborative spirit have greatly enriched the accuracy and
comprehensiveness of the report’s findings. Their contributions reflect a shared commitment to the
betterment of our city’s infrastructure and the quality of life for those who live, work, and play here.
Brad Buckman
Jin Wang
Spencer Smith
Kari Craven
Bill Welborn
Tom Knostman
Britney Sorensen
Joseph Fischer
Rich Brewbaker
RJ Glorso
Annabelle Phillips
Gretchen Grambling
3
Executive Summary
This Planning, Development, and Transportation
State of the Infrastructure report provides an
overview of the transportation infrastructure in
our local government, focusing on replacement
value, condition, and financial needs. The
annual report assesses the current state of
transportation assets, identifies areas of
concern, and highlights the financial
requirements to maintain and improve our
transportation system. To continue to meet
expected levels of service, it is important to
understand the current state of the assets.
The report is a snapshot in time and coincides
with the assets respective asset management
plans that define more detail around the
lifecycle costs, risk management, future
demand management, and long-term financial
planning. The asset management plans also
describe the necessary activities and costs that
are needed to maintain or improve the overall
state of our assets.
The key asset indicators of replacement value,
remaining useful life, condition, and financial
need provide a high-level overview to help
decision makers better understand the overall
health of our transportation assets.
The replacement value analysis reveals the
estimated cost of replacing existing
transportation assets with equivalent
infrastructure. It serves as a benchmark to
gauge the value of our transportation system
and its importance to our community's
economic vitality and quality of life. The report
presents the replacement value figures for
bridges, railroad crossings, sidewalks, streets,
traffic operations, and transit elements.
Assessing the condition of our transportation
infrastructure is essential for effective planning
and decision-making. The report provides an
evaluation of the condition of the various
transportation assets. The assessment helps
prioritize maintenance and repair efforts to
ensure the safety, reliability, and efficiency of
our transportation networks.
Understanding the financial needs of our
transportation infrastructure is crucial for
budgeting and securing adequate funding. The
report outlines the estimated financial
requirements to address maintenance, repairs,
and capacity expansions. It highlights the
funding gaps and emphasizes the importance of
sustainable revenue streams to ensure the long-
term viability of our transportation system
0 20 40 60 80 100
Sidewalks
Bridges
Railroad Crossings
Traffic
Streets
Transit
Average Remaining Useful Life (Current Assets)
Average Useful Life (Current Assets)
$10
$27
$72
$498
$706
$1,154
Railroad Crossings
Transit
Traffic
Bridges
Sidewalks
Streets
$2.5 BILLION
Total Replacement Value ($M)
28%
32%
25%
8%7%
Infrastructure Assets
Average Condition State
Very Good Good Fair Poor Very Poor
4
SIDEWALK NETWORK
Replacement Value: $706 M
Condition:
RAILROAD NETWORK
Replacement Value: $10 M
Condition:
TRAFFIC NETWORK
Replacement Value: $72 M
Condition:
STREET NETWORK
Replacement Value: $1,154 M
Condition:
TRANSIT NETWORK
Replacement Value: $27 M
Condition:
BRIDGE NETWORK
Replacement Value: $498 M
Condition:
By analyzing replacement value, condition, and
financial needs, this report underscores the
importance of strategic investment in our
transportation infrastructure. It serves as a call
to action for increased funding, efficient
resource allocation, and proactive planning to
address the challenges and opportunities
ahead. Investing in transportation infrastructure
will not only enhance the safety and reliability
of our networks but also stimulate economic
growth, attract businesses, and improve the
overall quality of life for our residents.
To effectively meet the transportation needs of
our community, it is vital to prioritize
maintenance and repairs, leverage innovative
technologies and design practices, and foster
collaboration among stakeholders. By adopting
a comprehensive and forward-thinking
approach, our local government can ensure a
resilient, efficient, and sustainable
transportation system that meets the needs of
our evolving community for years to come.
Condition State
Very Good Good Fair Poor Very Poor
$- $400,000,000
0-5 years
6-10 years
11-20 years
Investment Summary ($M)
Investment
Need
Available
Funding
Financial
Gap
5
6
Introduction
1.1 Purpose
Transportation services are a vital part of daily
life and business for the Planning,
Development, and Transportation division for
the City of Fort Collins. The purpose of the
report is to assess and communicate the current
condition, performance, and needs of the City’s
transportation network.
This report serves several important purposes:
Evaluation: It provides an evaluation of the
state of transportation assets, including bridges,
railroad crossings, sidewalks, streets, traffic, and
transit infrastructure. This review helps identify
areas of concern, such as deteriorating
infrastructure, life expectancy, or financial
constraints.
Planning: The report aids in strategic planning
by informing decision-makers about the current
and projected needs of the transportation
system. It helps prioritize investments,
maintenance efforts, and capacity expansions
based on the assessed condition and
performance of the assets.
Prioritization: By highlighting the state of the
assets, the report will support prioritization of
limited resources. It assists in allocating budgets
effectively, focusing on critical repairs or
replacements, and ensuring that investments
address the most pressing issues impacting the
transportation system.
Funding and Investment: The report provides a
review of the financial sustainability of the
transportation infrastructure. It identifies the
funding gaps and the potential need for
additional revenue sources.
Public Awareness: Sharing the state of
transportation assets with the public raises
awareness about the condition and
performance of the infrastructure that directly
impacts their daily lives. It helps citizens
understand the challenges faced, the need for
investment, and the potential consequences of
neglecting infrastructure maintenance and
improvements.
Accountability and Transparency: The report
promotes accountability by providing a
comprehensive and transparent assessment of
the transportation system. It holds responsible
parties accountable for maintaining and
improving infrastructure while allowing
stakeholders to track progress over time.
Overall, the purpose of a transportation asset
State of the Infrastructure report is to provide a
clear and comprehensive picture of the
transportation system's condition, identify
areas for improvement, inform decision-making,
advocate for funding, and ensure the efficient
and sustainable operation of the infrastructure.
1.2 Scope
This report focuses on the six primary
transportation asset categories and their
associated data. Please note this report does
not include assets managed by other City
service areas or other transportation assets
managed by City partners (i.e., Downtown
Development Authority (DDA), CDOT)
What assets does PDT own?
What is the replacement value of those
assets?
What is the remaining useful life of the
assets?
What is the condition of the assets?
What funding is needed to maintain
level of service?
7
State of the Assets
2.1 What We Own
The PDT division manages numerous amounts of transportation assets* which support stakeholder’s
levels of service. Following is a highlight of the transportation assets:
*Not all transportation assets have been included in the asset registers at this time.
2.2 Replacement Value
As of December 31st, 2023 the replacement
value of the transportation infrastructure assets
is estimated at $2.5 billion. Replacement value
is defined as the cost to replace an asset of like
capacity and function in today’s dollars. The
replacement value does not include operations
and maintenance of an asset – this information
can be found in the asset management plans.
The chart demonstrates the breakdown of
replacement value by asset class.
BRIDGE NETWORK
• 92 Major Bridges
• 135 Minor Bridges
• 91 Less 4' Bridges
RAILROAD NETWORK
• 28 Arterial Crossings
• 5 Collector Crossings
• 11 Local Crossings
SIDEWALK NETWORK
• 1,045 miles of Sidewalk
• 24,724 Pedestrian Ramps
STREET NETWORK
• 122 miles of arterial roads
• 92 miles of collector roads
• 385 miles of local roads
TRAFFIC NETWORK
• 170 Signalized Intersections
• 21 Rapid Flashing Beacons
• 34,000 Signs
TRANSIT NETWORK
• 416 Bus Stops
• 150 have Shelters
• 5 Miles of BRT
$10
$27
$72
$498
$706
$1,154
Railroad Crossings
Transit
Traffic
Bridges
Sidewalks
Streets
Total Replacement Value ($M)
8
2.3 Remaining Useful Life
Useful life is how long an asset is expected to
provide value before needing replacement.
Remaining useful life can be calculated by
subtracting an assets current age from its
expected useful life. An assets life expectancy
depends on several factors, including
installation practices, maintenance practice,
treatment timing, climate, and asset usage.
This indicator along with asset condition can
provide valuable insight to a service areas
health. However, not all assets are created
equal and a longer or shorter remining useful
life doesn’t mean an asset is in need of being
replaced or is in good condition.
Reviewing the remaining useful life of
infrastructure assets is essential for effective
asset management, cost-efficiency, public
safety, regulatory compliance, financial
planning, and sustainability. By understanding
the remaining life of assets, stakeholders can
make informed decisions that optimize
performance, extend asset life, and ensure the
continued functionality of critical infrastructure
systems.
2.4 Asset Condition
Asset condition is a pivotal component of
transportation infrastructure as it serves as a
key determinant of the overall health and
performance of the transportation system.
Evaluating the condition of the transportation
assets provides critical insights into their
current state and identifies areas that may
require immediate attention.
Understanding asset condition aids in
prioritizing maintenance efforts, allocating
resources effectively, and making informed
decisions about repairs and replacements. By
assessing asset condition, we can accurately
gauge the safety, reliability, and efficiency of
the transportation system, ensuring that
necessary measures are taken to address any
vulnerabilities that may impact level of service.
Asset condition is based on a typical 5-value
scale (Very Good, Good, Fair, Poor, Very Poor)
that is utilized both nationally and
internationally as a universal standard for
comparing assets. This report focuses on
physical condition of the assets. Function and
capacity of assets are identified in the asset
management plans.
Overall, 85% of the reported PDT transportation
assets are in very good to fair physical
condition. 15% that are in poor or very poor
may not be meeting expected levels of service
and will need renewal in the near future.
0 20 40 60 80 100
Sidewalks
Bridges
Railroad Crossings
Traffic
Streets
Transit
Average Remaining Useful Life (Current Assets)
Average Useful Life (Current Assets)
28%
32%
25%
8%7%
Very Good Good Fair Poor Very Poor
9
2.5 Financial Need
The investment or financial need is the current
level at which the City should be investing in its
assets to be sustainable long-term. Financial
needs are based on asset lifecycle costs of new
acquisitions, current operations and
maintenance, asset renewals (replacements),
and disposals over a 20-year planning period.
A 10-year Lifecycle Financial Ratio is used to
compare the planned budget with the
forecasted lifecycle costs. The target range is
between 90%-110%. A low ratio may indicate
that assets are not being funded at the rate that
would meet the organization’s risk and service
level commitments. A high ratio may mean that
there’s a surplus funding or some “catch-up”
going on to address a reported “funding gap.”
Additional investment needs for demand
management can be found within the asset
management plans. Typically, demand drivers
will have some form of impact on lifecycle
activities – such as “projected growth” will
impact operation costs for additional
inspections as well as future maintenance costs
for those new assets.
2.6 Projected Funding Gap
The City’s 20-year projected infrastructure gap
is $592.5 million. The funding gap is the
difference between anticipated future funding
and the projected investment needs in each of
the service areas. The financial gap is what’s
estimated to meet current levels of service. The
next section will provide additional information
in greater detail pertaining to the short (0-5
years), medium (6-10 years), and long term (11-
20 years) investment needs. *Investment Need
will include assets that have surpassed useful
life, but still may be in good condition.
20-Year Investment Gap Summary by Asset Class ($M)
Asset Group Investment Need* Available Funding Financial Gap
Bridges $215.7 $56.0 $159.7
Railroad Crossings $6.9 $2.5 $4.4
Sidewalks (TBD) $0 $0 $0
Streets $689.9 $288.1 $401.8
Traffic $40.3 $31.6 $8.7
Transit $19.9 $2.0 $17.9
Grand Total $972.7 $380.2 $592.5
Demand Drivers
What is the investment needed to
enhance level of service?
What impact does projected growth
have on the investment need to
manage the assets?
Is additional funding needed to manage
regulatory requirements?
10-year Lifecycle Financial Ratio
34.8%
Target ranges is between 90% - 110%
10
State of the Assets
by Asset Class
11
BRIDGES
Asset Category Quantity Unit Replacement Value ($M) Useful Life
(Yrs)
Major Bridges
(over 20’) 92 each $240 50-75
Minor Bridges
(4’-20’) 135 each $198.5 50-75
Less 4’ Bridges
(small drainage structures) 80 each $60 50-75
Bridge Total 307 each $498.5
3
4
11
32
14
1
7
10
1
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
Number of Scour Critical
Number of Functionally Obsolete
Number of Load Posted
Number of Bridges Past Design Life
Number of Structurally Deficient Bridges
Major Bridges Minor Bridges
12
10%9%
41%46%
48%35%
1%
4%6%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Major Bridges Minor Bridges
Asset Category Condition State
Very Good Good Fair Poor Very Poor
9%
44%
40%
3%4%
Overall Condition State
Very Good Good Fair Poor Very Poor
9
38
44
1
12
62
47
6 8
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
Very Good Good Fair Poor Very Poor
Number of Bridges by Condition State
Major Bridges Minor Bridges
63
58
37
22
26
36
0 20 40 60 80
Major Bridges
Minor Bridges
Average Useful Life
Average Age
Average Remaining Useful Life
Average Useful Life
18
24
13
19
9
3 4 2
15 15
35
17
21
8 8
14
2
0
10
20
30
40
0-10 Years 11-20 Years 21-30 Years 31-40 Years 41-50 Years 51-60 Years 61-70 Years 71-80 Years 81+ Years
Number of Bridges by Age
Major Bridges Minor Bridges
13
Condition State
Very Good Good Fair Poor Very Poor
Bridge Location by Condition State
14
$-
$10,000,000.00
$20,000,000.00
$30,000,000.00
$40,000,000.00
$50,000,000.00
$60,000,000.00
20
2
3
20
2
4
20
2
5
20
2
6
20
2
7
20
2
8
20
2
9
20
3
0
20
3
1
20
3
2
20
3
3
20
3
4
20
3
5
20
3
6
20
3
7
20
3
8
20
3
9
20
4
0
20
4
1
20
4
2
20-Year Lifecycle Summary
Renewal Operation Maintenance Acquisition Backlog Budget
$-
$20,000,000
$40,000,000
$60,000,000
$80,000,000
$100,000,000
Short Term
(0-5 yrs)
Medium Term
(6-10 yrs)
Long Term
(11-20 yrs)
Investment Summary
Investment Need Available Funding Financial Gap
10-Year Lifecycle
Financial Ratio
21%
Target ranges is between 90% - 110%
$-
$500,000
$1,000,000
$1,500,000
$2,000,000
$2,500,000
2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023
Funding Source Summary
General Fund Transportation Fund CCIP KFCG Federal Grant Funding Transit Fund
15
RAILROADS
Asset Category Quantity Unit Replacement Value ($M) Useful Life
(Yrs)
Arterial Crossings 28 each $6.5 15-20
Collector Crossings 5 each $0.9 20-35
Local Crossings 11 each $2.3 35+
Overhead Crossing 1 each n/a n/a
Railroad Total 45 each $9.7
1
1
71
4
3
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
Number of Crossings Repaired
Number of Crossings Replaced
% of Crossings along Evacuation Routes…
% of ADA Compliant Crossings (TBD)
Number of Accidents Related to Rail Crossings
Number of Signal Malfunctioning Events
Number of Crossings Past Useful Life
Arterial Crossings Collector Crossings Local Crossings
16
25%20%
73%
46%
40%
27%
11%40%
18%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Arterial Collector Local
Asset Category Condition State
Very Good Good Fair Poor Very Poor
36%
41%
12%
11%
Overall Condition State
Very Good Good Fair Poor Very Poor
7
13
3
5
1
2 2
8
3
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
Very Good Good Fair Poor Very Poor
Number of Crossings by Condition State
Arterial Collector Local
40
30
20
29
19
10
11
11
10
0 20 40 60
Local Crossing
Collector Crossing
Arterial Crossing
Average Useful Life
Average Age
Average Remaining Useful Life
Average Useful Life
15
10
2 13112
9
0
5
10
15
20
0-10 Years 11-20 Years 21-30 Years 31-40 Years 41+ Years
Number of Crossings by Age
Arterial Crossings Collector Crossings Local Crossings
17
Condition State
Very Good Good Fair Poor Very Poor
Crossing Location by Condition State
18
$-
$500,000
$1,000,000
$1,500,000
$2,000,000
$2,500,000
$3,000,000
$3,500,000
Short Term
(0-5 yrs)
Medium Term
(6-10 yrs)
Long Term
(11-20 yrs)
Investment Summary
Investment Need Available Funding Financial Gap
10-Year Lifecycle
Financial Ratio
34%
Target ranges is between 90% - 110%
$-
$200,000.00
$400,000.00
$600,000.00
$800,000.00
$1,000,000.00
$1,200,000.00
$1,400,000.00
20
2
3
20
2
4
20
2
5
20
2
6
20
2
7
20
2
8
20
2
9
20
3
0
20
3
1
20
3
2
20
3
3
20
3
4
20
3
5
20
3
6
20
3
7
20
3
8
20
3
9
20
4
0
20
4
1
20
4
2
20-Year Lifecycle Summary
Renewal Operation Maintenance Acquisition Backlog Budget
$-
$20,000
$40,000
$60,000
$80,000
$100,000
$120,000
$140,000
$160,000
2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023
Funding Source Summary
General Fund Transportation Fund Capital Projects CCIP KFCG Federal Grant Funding Transit Fund
19
SIDEWALKS
Asset Category Quantity Unit Replacement Value
($M)
Useful Life
(Yrs)
Attached Sidewalks 13,224,520 square feet $330.6 80
Detached Sidewalks 10,048,629 square feet $251.2 80
Sidewalk Total 23,273,149 square feet $581.8
Ramps 24,724 each $123.6 80
Total $705.4
13%
23%
17%
95%
37%
81%
42%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
% of Missing Sidewalks within Low-Income Census Tracts
% of ADA Compliant Sidewalks within Low-Income Census
Tracts
% of Missing Sidewalks along Arterial Roadways
% of ADA Compliant Ramps
% of ADA Compliant Sidewalks
Attached Sidewalks Detached Sidewalks Ramps Missing
20
29%
58%2%
1%52%
28%
17%13%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Attached Detached Ramps (TBD)
Asset Category Condition State
Very Good Good Fair Poor Very Poor
42%
2%
41%
15%
Overall Condition State
Very Good Good Fair Poor Very Poor
3,834,002
332,103
6,811,427
2,374
2,244,612
5,904,246
41,512
2,803,658
1,605
1,297,607
-
1,000,000
2,000,000
3,000,000
4,000,000
5,000,000
6,000,000
7,000,000
8,000,000
Very Good Good Fair Poor Very Poor
SF of Sidewalks by Condition State
Attached Sidewalks Detached Sidewalks
80
80
0 50 100
Detached
Sidewalk
Attached
Sidewalk
Average Useful Life
Average Age
Average Remaining Useful Life
Average Useful Life
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
1.2
0-10 Years 11-20 Years 21-30 Years 31-40 Years 41+ Years
SF of Sidewalks by Age
Attached Sidewalks Detached Sidewalks
21
Condition State
Very Good Good Fair Poor Very Poor Missing
Sidewalk Location by Condition State
22
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
1.2
Short Term
(0-5 yrs)
Medium Term
(6-10 yrs)
Long Term
(11-20 yrs)
Investment Summary
Investment Need Available Funding Financial Gap
10-Year Lifecycle
Financial Ratio
0%
Target ranges is between 90% - 110%
$-
$500,000.00
$1,000,000.00
$1,500,000.00
$2,000,000.00
$2,500,000.00
$3,000,000.00
20
2
3
20
2
4
20
2
5
20
2
6
20
2
7
20
2
8
20
2
9
20
3
0
20
3
1
20
3
2
20
3
3
20
3
4
20
3
5
20
3
6
20
3
7
20
3
8
20
3
9
20
4
0
20
4
1
20
4
2
20-Year Lifecycle Summary
Renewal Operation Maintenance Acquisition Disposal Budget
0
200000
400000
600000
800000
1000000
1200000
1400000
1600000
2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023
Funding Source Summary
General Fund Transportation Fund CCIP Federal Grant Funding Transit Fund
23
STREETS
Asset Category Quantity
(Centerline Miles) Quantity
(Lane Miles)* Unit Replacement Value
($M)
Useful Life
(Yrs)
Arterial Streets 122 495 miles $281.6 20
Collector Streets 92 321 miles $183.1 20
Local Streets 382 1178 miles $671.7 20
Alleys (AC, PCC, Unpaved) 27 45 miles $17.7 15-20
Streets Total 596 2039 miles $1,154.1
*Lane Mile is equal to 12’ x 5,280’ = 63,360 sf (7,040 sy) of maintained road area.
22.8
2.8
2
127
50
72.4
65.2
0.2
23
33
71.4
130.3
0.16
43
11
74.7
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140
# of Miles of Bike Lanes
(General, Buffered, Sidepath, Separated)
# of Miles of Streets Added to the Network
# of Miles of Unpaved Streets
# of Lane Miles Maintained
(Overlay, Surface Treatment, Crackseal, etc.)
% of Streets Past Useful Life (Major Work)
Current Pavement Condition Index (PCI) Score
Arterial Streets Collector Streets Local Streets
24
24%
9%12%
42%
47%48%
23%33%31%
10%9%7%1%2%2%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Arterial Collector Local
Asset Category Condition State
Very Good Good Fair Poor Very Poor
16%
46%
29%
8%1%
Overall Condition State
Very Good Good Fair Poor Very Poor
30
51
27
12 28
43
31
8 2
47
183
119
28
5
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
180
200
Very Good Good Fair Poor Very Poor
Miles of Streets by Condition State
Arterial Streets Collector Streets Local Streets
20
20
20
1
4
6
19
16
14
0 10 20 30
Local Street
Collector Street
Arterial Street
Average Useful Life
Average Age
Average Remaining Useful Life
Average Useful Life
58 53
4
58
25 9
232
107
43
0
50
100
150
200
250
0-10 Years 11-20 Years 20+ Years
Miles of Streets by Age
Arterial Streets Collector Streets Local Streets
25
Condition State
Very Good Good Fair Poor Very Poor
Street Location by Condition State
26
$-
$100,000,000
$200,000,000
$300,000,000
$400,000,000
Short Term
(0-5 yrs)
Medium Term
(6-10 yrs)
Long Term
(11-20 yrs)
Investment Summary
Investment Need Available Funding Financial Gap
$-
$2,000,000
$4,000,000
$6,000,000
$8,000,000
$10,000,000
$12,000,000
$14,000,000
2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023
Funding Source Summary
General Fund Transportation Fund CCIP KFCG Federal Grant Funding Transit Fund
10-Year Lifecycle
Financial Ratio
28%
Target ranges is between 90% - 110%
0
50000000
100000000
150000000
200000000
250000000
300000000
20
2
3
20
2
4
20
2
5
20
2
6
20
2
7
20
2
8
20
2
9
20
3
0
20
3
1
20
3
2
20
3
3
20
3
4
20
3
5
20
3
6
20
3
7
20
3
8
20
3
9
20
4
0
20
4
1
20
4
2
20-Year Lifecycle Summary
Renewal Operation Maintenance Acquisition Backlog Budget
27
TRAFFIC
Asset Category Quantity Unit Replacement Value ($M) Useful Life
(Yrs)
Traffic Signals 247 each $45.3 40
ITS Devices 900 each $4.5 15
Pedestrian Push Buttons 1,112 each $1.3 12
Traffic/School Cabinets 184/116 each $3.8 15-20
Fiber 66 miles $12.1 25
Signs 34,000 each $5.1 15-30
Traffic Total $72.1
45
17
25
4
33
22
60
1
25
46
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
% of Traffic Devices Replaced
% of Missing Pedestrian Crossings within Low-Income
Census Tracts (TBD)
% of Traffic Devices Past Useful Life
% of ADA Compliant Pedestrian Push Buttons
% of Traffic Devices in Good or Better Condition
Signals Ped Push Buttons ITS Devices Signs
28
27%17%9%
19%43%
16%
20%
7%
22%
15%
34%
20%
19%
33%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Signals Ped Push Buttons ITS Devices
Asset Category Condition State
Very Good Good Fair Poor Very Poor
18%
26%
16%
23%
17%
Overall Condition State
Very Good Good Fair Poor Very Poor
67 46 50 36 48
184
475
78
375
96
175
238 221
365
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
450
500
Very Good Good Fair Poor Very Poor
Number of Traffic Devices by Condition
State
Signals Ped Push Buttons ITS Devices
20
12
40
8
3
21
12
9
19
0 20 40 60
ITS Devices
Ped
Push Buttons
Signals
Average Useful Life
Average Age
Average Remaining Useful Life
Average Useful Life
67 46 50 36 25 23
729
383
234
745
116
0
200
400
600
800
0-10 Years 11-20 Years 21-30 Years 30-40 Years 41-50 Years 51+ Years
Number of Traffic Devices by Age
Signal Poles Ped Push Buttons ITS Devices
29
Condition State
Very Good Good Fair Poor Very Poor
Traffic Signal Location by Condition State
30
$-
$5,000,000
$10,000,000
$15,000,000
$20,000,000
$25,000,000
Short Term
(0-5 yrs)
Medium Term
(6-10 yrs)
Long Term
(11-20 yrs)
Investment Summary
Investment Need Available Funding Financial Gap
$-
$200,000
$400,000
$600,000
$800,000
$1,000,000
$1,200,000
$1,400,000
$1,600,000
$1,800,000
2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023
Funding Source Summary
General Fund Transportation Fund CCIP KFCG Federal Grant Funding Transit Fund
10-Year Lifecycle
Financial Ratio
57%
Target ranges is between 90% - 110%
$-
$2,000,000.00
$4,000,000.00
$6,000,000.00
$8,000,000.00
$10,000,000.00
$12,000,000.00
$14,000,000.00
$16,000,000.00
20
2
3
20
2
4
20
2
5
20
2
6
20
2
7
20
2
8
20
2
9
20
3
0
20
3
1
20
3
2
20
3
3
20
3
4
20
3
5
20
3
6
20
3
7
20
3
8
20
3
9
20
4
0
20
4
1
20
4
2
20-Year Lifecycle Summary
Renewal Operation Maintenance Acquisition Backlog Budget
31
TRANSIT
Asset Category Quantity Unit Replacement Value ($M) Useful Life
(Yrs)
Type 1 Bus Stop
(Sign Only) 82 each $1.3 20-30
Type 2 Bus Stop
(Bench) 166 each $4.1 20-30
Type 3 Bus Stop
(Shelter) 150 each $15.1 20-30
Type 4 Bus Stop
(MAX BRT Station) 18 each $6.7 20-30
Transit Total 416 each $27.2
100
100
100
100
100
100
90
97
96
72
77
87
91
87
100
59
65
79
66
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
% of Bus Stops in Good or Better Condition
that have High Volume Ridership
% of ADA Compliant Connecting Path/Sidewalks
within Low-Income Census Tracts
% of ADA Compliant Bus Stops
within Low-Income Census Tracts
% of Bus Stops with ADA Compliant Pads
% of ADA Compliant Bus Stops
(Pad and Connecting Path/Sidewalk)
Type 1 Bus Stop Type 2 Bus Stop Type 3 Bus Stop Type 4 Bus Stop
32
50%51%
31%
20%20%
31%100%
2%7%18%
3%10%1%
7%
28%18%
3%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Type 1
Bus Stop
Type 2
Bus Stop
Type 3
Bus Stop
Type 4
Bus Stop
Asset Category Condition State
Very Good Good Fair Poor Very Poor Other
48%
32%
11%
6%3%
Overall Condition State
Very Good Good Fair Poor Very Poor
41
16
2
23
85
34
11 5 1
30
46 47
27
15 11
4
18
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
Number of Bus Stops by Condition State
Type 1
Bus Stop
Type 2
Bus Stop
Type 3
Bus Stop
Type 4
Bus Stop
25
25
25
25
15
13
17
18
10
12
8
7
0 10 20 30
Type 4
Bus Stop
Type 3
Bus Stop
Type 2
Bus Stop
Type 1
Bus Stop
Average Useful Life
Average Age
Average Remaining Useful Life
Average Useful Life
57
2
119
16 1
93
42
1118
0
50
100
150
0-10 Years 11-20 Years 21-30 Years 31+ Years
Number of Bus Stops by Age
Type 1
Bus Stop
Type 2
Bus Stop
Type 3
Bus Stop
Type 4
Bus Stop
33
Condition State
Very Good Good Fair Poor Very Poor
Bus Stop Location by Condition State
34
$-
$5,000,000
$10,000,000
$15,000,000
$20,000,000
Short Term
(0-5 yrs)
Medium Term
(6-10 yrs)
Long Term
(11-20 yrs)
Investment Summary
Investment Need Available Funding Financial Gap
$-
$200,000
$400,000
$600,000
$800,000
$1,000,000
$1,200,000
$1,400,000
$1,600,000
2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023
Funding Source Summary
General Fund Transportation Fund CCIP KFCG Federal Grant Funding Transit Fund
10-Year Lifecycle
Financial Ratio
34%
Target ranges is between 90% - 110%
$-
$1,000,000.00
$2,000,000.00
$3,000,000.00
$4,000,000.00
$5,000,000.00
$6,000,000.00
$7,000,000.00
$8,000,000.00
20
2
3
20
2
4
20
2
5
20
2
6
20
2
7
20
2
8
20
2
9
20
3
0
20
3
1
20
3
2
20
3
3
20
3
4
20
3
5
20
3
6
20
3
7
20
3
8
20
3
9
20
4
0
20
4
1
20
4
2
20-Year Lifecycle Summary
Renewal Operation Maintenance Acquisition Disposal Budget
35
Definitions
Asset – an item or thing that has potential or
actual value or benefit to an organization,
council, or community.
Asset Class – a collection of assets which share
similar construction, maintenance, condition,
and availability standards. Roadways,
sidewalks, and street signs are all examples of
asset classes.
Asset Management (AM) – provide effective
control and governance to infrastructure assets
to realize value through managing risk and
opportunity, in order to achieve the desired
balance of cost, risk & performance.
Capital Infrastructure Asset – infrastructure
assets are long-lived capital assets that normally
are stationary in nature and normally can be
preserved for a significantly greater number of
years than most capital assets. Examples of
infrastructure assets include roads, sidewalks,
bridges, tunnels, drainages systems, water and
sewer systems, dams, and lighting systems.
Financial Strategy – a strategy for budgeting
available resources to provide the defined level
of service across the full life cycle of all
managed assets, typically through the funding
and implementation of a long-range plan that
emphasizes cost-effective periodic maintenance
activities.
Function – the asset(s) are able to meet the
intended service demand.
Investment Gap – the difference between the
investment need and the available funding
projected over a period of time.
Investment Need – the level the City should be
investing in its assets to meet the rate of
renewals to continue to meet levels of service.
Level of Service – A quantifiable measure of a
combination of parameters that reflect social,
economic, and environmental outcomes that
the organization delivers. Levels of service
statements describe the outputs or objectives
an organization or activity intends to deliver to
customers. Parameters can be aspects or
characteristics of a service such as accessibility,
affordability/cost, efficiency, quality, quantity,
reliability, responsiveness, and safety.
Lifecycle Cost – means the total cost of an asset
throughout its life including planning, design,
construction, acquisition, operation,
maintenance, depreciation, rehabilitation, and
disposal costs.
Remaining Useful Life – the difference between
current age of an asset and the anticipated
service life of the asset.
Replacement Value – the cost of replacing an
existing asset with a like asset in today’s dollars.
Sustainability – infrastructure that meets the
needs of the present without compromising the
ability of future generations to meet their own
needs. In the context of AM it is about meeting
the needs of the future by balancing social,
economic, cultural, and environmental
outcomes or needs when making decisions
today.
Useful Life – the expected period of time which
an asset provides value to the community.
Value – assets exist to provide tangible, non-
tangible, financial or non-financial benefits to
council and community in accordance with
council objectives.
36
Asset Condition Ratings
Asset condition is based on a typical 5-value scale (Very Good, Good, Fair, Poor, Very Poor) that is
utilized both nationally and internationally as a universal standard for comparing assets. This report
focuses on physical condition of the assets.
Grade Rating
Estimated
Remaining
Useful Life
Definition
1 Very
Good (80-100%)
Fit for Future
The infrastructure in the system or network is generally in
excellent condition, typically new or recently rehabilitated, and
meets capacity needs for the future. A few elements show
signs of general deterioration that require attention. Facilities
meet modern standards for functionality and are resilient to
withstand most disasters and sever weather events.
2 Good (60-80%)
Adequate for Now
The infrastructure in the system or network is in good to
excellent condition, some elements show signs of general
deterioration that require attention. A few elements exhibit
significant deficiencies. Safe and reliable with minimal
capacity issues and minimal risk.
3 Fair (40-60%)
Requires Attention
The infrastructure in the system or network is in fair to good
condition, shows signs of deterioration and requires attention.
Some elements exhibit significant deficiencies in conditions
and functionality, increasing vulnerability to risk.
4 Poor (20-40%)
At Risk
The infrastructure is in fair to poor condition and mostly below
standard, with many elements approaching the end of their
service life. A large portion of the system exhibits significant
deterioration. Condition and capacity are of serious concern
with strong risk of failure.
5 Very
Poor (0-20%)
Failing/Critical, Unfit for Sustained Service
The infrastructure in the system is in unacceptable condition
with widespread, advanced signs of deterioration. Many of
the components of the system exhibit signs of imminent
failure.
If condition data has not been collected, ratings can be estimated and translated from the remaining
useful life of the asset(s) to represent the condition grade.
37
Gaps and Assumptions
BRIDGES
Gaps:
Inventory of less than 4’ bridges owned
by Engineering.
Assumptions:
Replacement values are extrapolated
based on deck area.
Condition ratings are based on visual
inspections and expert opinions.
RAILROADS
Gaps:
ADA compliance for all crossings.
Quantify trolley line crossings.
Assumptions:
Replacement values are based on
historic projects.
Useful life based on expert opinion of
staff.
Condition ratings were based on visual
inspections and expert opinions.
SIDEWALKS
Gaps:
Age data for all sidewalk segments.
Collect condition data in 5-value scale.
Age data required to perform lifecycle
summary.
Assumptions:
% of ADA compliant ramps based on
estimated number of improved ramps.
Condition data utilizes ADA compliance
for 5-value scale.
STREETS
Gaps:
Complete inventory of local road area.
Assumptions:
Utilizing historic local road area data to
calculate road replacement values.
TRAFFIC
Gaps:
Utilizing only signal pole, ITS (Intelligent
Transportation System), and Push
Button condition data.
Quantify underground infrastructure.
Quantify pedestal and button poles.
Quantify ITS devices.
Capture underground and signal head
condition data.
Assumptions:
Condition ratings are based on age,
visual inspections, and staff opinions.
Replacement values are based on
contracted prices. Cost savings if work
completed by City staff.
Useful life based on expert opinion of
FHWA and CDOT.
TRANSIT
Gaps:
Type 4 bus stop condition/compliance
data.
Age data for all bus stop assets.
Spatial relationships for condition data
within GIS.
Utilizing only pad condition data.
Update connecting path within GIS
data.
Assumptions:
Replacement values are extrapolated
based on bus stop type.
Lifecycle summary age information for
renewals is based on condition data.
Useful life average age information is
based on condition data.
38
Data Assurance
Each asset class was qualitatively assessed by City staff for data assurance using the following measures:
Asset Class Accuracy Completeness
Bridges Very High Medium
Railroad Crossings Medium Medium
Sidewalks High High
Streets Very High Very High
Traffic Medium High
Transit Very High High
Accuracy Description
Very High Dataset is current. Estimated to
be accurate +/-2%.
High Dataset is estimated to be
accurate +/- 10%.
Medium
Dataset is substantially complete
but up to 50% is extrapolated
data and accurate +/- 25%.
Low
Dataset is not documented or
entered into asset register. Most
data is estimated or extrapolated
and accurate +/- 40%.
Very Low None or very little data has been
collected for the asset.
Completeness Description
Very High
Dataset is complete and
covers the entire set of
assets and attributes.
Estimated to be >98%.
High
Dataset is primarily
complete and covers most
of the assets and attributes.
Estimated to be >90%.
Medium
Most critical assets
captured, but there may be
some gaps. Portions of
non-major assets are
missing information.
Estimated to be >50%.
Low
Significant gaps within the
dataset.
Estimated to be <50%.
Very Low
None or very little data has
been collected for the
asset.
Accuracy
Refers to the degree to which collected information reflects the true and precise
values of the measured attributes. It involves minimizing errors, biases, and
variations during the data gathering process to ensure that the collected data
faithfully represents the real-world assets and its attributes.
Completeness
Refers to the extent to which all relevant and necessary information about each
asset is captured and included in the dataset. It ensures that no critical details or
attributes are omitted, allowing for a comprehensive understanding of the asset’s
characteristics, condition, and context.
39