The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutCOUNCIL - AGENDA ITEM - 11/13/2018 - CITY PLAN SCENARIOS UPDATE-COMMUNITY FEEDBACKDATE: STAFF: November 13, 2018 Ryan Mounce, City Planner Aaron Iverson, Senior Transportation Planner Cameron Gloss, Planning Manager Timothy Wilder, Service Development Manager WORK SESSION ITEM City Council SUBJECT FOR DISCUSSION City Plan Scenarios Update - Community Feedback. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The purpose of this item is to update Council on community feedback and reaction to the three City Plan scenarios. Staff will provide an overview of areas of alignment and areas of tension based on community input, and implications for developing a preferred scenario based on results. GENERAL DIRECTION SOUGHT AND SPECIFIC QUESTIONS TO BE ANSWERED 1. Feedback from the scenarios phase indicates that residents have wide-ranging opinions about adding density and housing types to established neighborhoods. How would Council like staff to proceed when preparing a preferred scenario? 2. Feedback from the scenarios phase indicates that residents desire an expanded and more frequent transit system while supporting only moderate increases in funding. How would Council like staff to proceed when preparing a preferred scenario? BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION City Plan Timeline and Scenarios Phase City Plan is an update to Fort Collins’ comprehensive plan, transportation master plan, and transit master plan. Together, these plans articulate high-level, long-term vision and policy direction for the community. City Plan directly supports future decision-making and alignment with other City plans and policies, the City’s Strategic Plan, and the Budgeting for Outcomes Process. The City Plan process is approximately halfway complete, and consideration of plan adoption is anticipated in spring 2019. Over the past several months, City Plan has focused on the preparation and communication of three scenarios illustrating potential changes to Fort Collins’ land-use and transportation systems. The City Plan scenarios are a conversation and engagement tool to collaborate with and gather input from the community. The goal is not to select a single scenario, but rather to understand: • What types of land-use and transportation changes, if any, are desired by the community • The impacts, benefits, and drawbacks of potential changes • If changes will help the community better achieve our shared vision, goals, and priorities Council direction, community feedback, and ongoing staff analysis and evaluation will be used to develop a preferred scenario to assist in refining and updating City Plan policy direction over the coming months. Overview of Scenario Options Staff and the City Plan consultant team developed three scenarios tailored towards feedback received during the City Plan Visioning Phase and Council direction received at the last work session in July. The scenarios illustrate November 13, 2018 Page 2 potential changes to help achieve existing goals on climate action and community priorities to enhance multimodal transportation and better align with future housing demand. Attachment 1 includes a detailed overview of each scenario, graphics illustrating how each scenario could change the appearance of different areas of the community, and estimates/evaluation of potential scenario impacts like cost, travel times, energy use, housing and job capacity, etc. At the highest level, the scenarios present three different choices for land-use and transportation options: a baseline option (Scenario 1) that continues our existing direction and development patterns, a targeted approach (Scenario 2) that emphasizes smaller land-use adjustments and a small increase in funding for transportation enhancements, and a broader set of changes (Scenario 3) that could result in large changes in community appearance, density, and enhancements to our multimodal transportation network. Community Outreach Similar to other City Plan phases, the engagement process for scenarios has focused on detailed interactions and depth of understanding while reaching a representative cross-section of the community. Over 1,000 responses have been received through a combination of City-led events, online activities, and meetings held by City Plan Ambassadors and Community Partner organizations. The primary method of gathering feedback was through facilitated, small group discussions, rather than informational open houses or intercept exchanges. City Plan Ambassadors and Community Partner Organizations have helped the City reach hundreds of additional participants not customarily represented using traditional outreach efforts. Specific events and meetings over the last two months have focused on youth and seniors, Spanish-speaking populations, CSU students, and people with disabilities. Collectively, community members and our partners have spent over 2,000 hours shaping the long-term future of their community by participating in the City Plan scenarios phase. Scenarios Feedback When designing City Plan scenario events and feedback, staff focused on understanding community feedback on: • What magnitude of change, if any, is appropriate to help achieve community goals and priorities • Whether change in the built environment is more appropriate in specific parts of the community than it is in others • Levels of support for specific land-use, transportation, and funding strategies • Identification of the key benefits and drawbacks of each scenario Attachment 2 contains a summary of all data collected as of early November. While conversations and feedback have covered a wide range of issues, several areas of agreement and tension have emerged from the community conversation during this phase of City Plan. General Areas of Agreement • Overall, people are willing to consider moderate or big changes to help achieve community priorities for enhancing transportation, housing attainability, reducing greenhouse gas emissions, and equitable access. • Changes in existing development or growth patterns should directly support community priorities for attainable housing and housing type diversity, not additional growth or density for its own sake. • Strong support for higher density development in commercial corridors to support transit, and a greater diversity of housing types in new residential development. • Support for additional transportation enhancements and funding; prioritize transit and biking • Provide a balanced transit system with increased levels of high-frequency service and maintain coverage for equitable access. November 13, 2018 Page 3 General Areas of Tension or Concern • There is a wide range of opinions about the appropriate amount of change in established neighborhoods and overall community appearance. • The community’s responsibility to meet future housing demand and the impacts on the region. • Concern about having a larger population in the future than what we’ve been planning for, and how this would alter the feel of the community and the City’s ability to provide services. • Displacement impacts if additional redevelopment occurs, especially on mobile home park residents and businesses along commercial corridors. • Impacts on the level of service for parks, natural areas, and protecting sensitive lands if higher density development occurs more consistently. • Strong community support to achieve CAP goals, yet even most aggressive transit and land use scenarios (Scenario 3) saw far less reduction in vehicle miles traveled (VMT) than projected in the CAP Framework. • Strong support for additional transportation funding, but not enough to achieve the desired transit system. • The role of alternative transportation services (Transportation Network Companies, microtransit, etc.) in the City’s transit system Key themes of discussion in groups and written comments acknowledge that our current land-use and transportation patterns are unlikely to result in enough efficiency gains to meet our community goals including climate action goals, proactively addressing ongoing concerns about housing attainability and housing choices and taking the next steps in multimodal transportation options. While many residents expressed support for more ambitious changes to address these goals and priorities, people also expressed several crucial tradeoffs to consider. The most prominent tradeoffs and drawbacks discussed included concerns about unintended consequences of making big changes in existing neighborhoods, the financial resources needed to support transportation improvements, and the overall feel and appearance of the community if there were a larger population and more consistent urban character in the future. Many participants also qualified that their support for additional density or land-use changes is contingent upon such changes directly benefiting affordable/attainable housing and other community priorities. Participants did not want additional growth and density without tangible, concrete community benefit. Elements of the preferred scenario (based on community feedback) • Additional incentives or regulatory changes to support density in commercial and transit corridors • Ensure that parks, plazas, and other public amenities are emphasized alongside increased density/intensity • Some level of increased funding to support transportation enhancements • Zoning changes to increase future housing capacity (rezoning Employment to residential/mixed-use) • Regulatory changes to promote greater housing options • Additional support for affordable housing development • Level of transit service should be determined by the density and types of underlying land-uses Direction sought from Council • Appropriate level of change in existing neighborhoods • Appropriate approach to transit system expansion Next Steps City Plan will enter the final phases of the update process in late fall and winter. Work in the coming months will focus on updating and revising City Plan principles and policies based on a preferred scenario direction. As part of the outreach and community engagement for policy development, a “Future of Transit” Panel Discussion will take place at the Lincoln Center on November 28 at 6:00 p.m. November 13, 2018 Page 4 Staff anticipates extensive outreach and recommendations on the draft plan document to take place in February and March with community stakeholders. Staff, Plan Ambassadors, and Community Partner organizations will also be hosting events and meetings to solicit feedback on the draft plan. City Council next work session will be on February 12, 2019 and will focus on updated and revised City Plan principles and policies. ATTACHMENTS 1. City Plan Scenarios Overview (PDF) 2. Scenario Results Summary (PDF) 3. Powerpoint presentation (PDF) Scenario 1 illustrates our current path forward, as set forth in the current (2011) version of City Plan and other adopted plans. While this scenario envisions a city that looks and feels very similar to today, it could limit our ability to meet other community priorities, such as those around transportation and housing. SCENARIO 1-BASELINE What actions are part of this scenario? How will Fort Collins be different? Where will we see the most change? • Higher density redevelopment will continue to be focused near Downtown, in Midtown, and along the MAX corridor. • New development outside of these areas will look similar to we’ve seen over the past decade. • Roads will continue to expand as needed to serve new development. • Our transit network will expand, but with only a limited number of higher frequency routes. • Implementation of the Bicycle Plan low-stress bike network and the Pedestrian Plan sidewalk enhancements will continue as funding allows. • Funding levels remain similar to today. Higher density redevelopment near Downtown and CSU Redevelopment along College and the Mason corridor New residential and employment development in NE Fort Collins CSU ATTACHMENT 1 Housing types (total capacity for new units: 41,500) What are the key benefits and tradeoffs? What will neighborhoods look like? What will commercial areas look like? SCENARIO 1-BASELINE Does not require significant additional funding The look and feel of Fort Collins remains similar to today Harder to make progress on community goals (climate action, housing affordability, Nature in the City, etc.) Very limited increases in transit service and - frequency What are the impacts? Average residential density in commercial areas (dwelling units/acre) Greenhouse gas reductions from transportation (% reduction from existing) 4% Reduction Access to... Enhanced bike lanes (% of population within 1/4 mile of high comfort bicycle facilities) Transit (% of population) Nature (% of population within a 10 min walk) Annual relative cost for transit, bicycle, and pedestrian improvements (2018 dollars, does not include transit capital costs or right-of way acquisition) - + + Low Density (Under 5 du/ac) 22,800 Units Medium Density (5-20 du/ac) 14,300 Units High Density (Over 20 du/ac) 4,400 Units 7.8 du/ac Scenario 2 makes targeted changes to achieve community priorities for transportation and housing. Bus rapid transit expands to more areas and the frequency of some existing bus routes increases. Additional density is encouraged in commercial and transit corridors, and we achieve a greater diversity of housing types in new residential development. Existing neighborhoods mostly stay the same except for allowing accessory dwelling units. SCENARIO 2-TARGETED CHANGES What actions are part of this scenario? How will Fort Collins be different? Where will we see the most change? • A greater mix of uses and more dense development will be encouraged along existing and planned transit lines to support transportation investments. • New residential neighborhoods will sup- port more varied types of housing, and established neighborhoods will provide more housing through accessory units. • Bus rapid transit will expand to new areas like North College and West Elizabeth, and buses on existing routes will arrive more frequently. • More resources will be dedicated to bicy- cle and pedestrian connections between transit stops and nearby destinations, making transit a more convenient option. • Requires additional funding to support transportation changes Mixed-use redevelopment along N College Higher density redevelopment near Downtown and CSU Low and medium density residential development in NE Fort Collins More residential and mixed-use development; less employment Pockets of higher intensity redevelop- ment along College and Mason/MAX corridors CSU Housing types (total capacity for new units: 49,500) What are the key benefits and tradeoffs? What will neighborhoods look like? What will commercial areas look like? SCENARIO 2-TARGETED CHANGES More high-frequency transit options and a more coordinated transportation system Greater diversity of housing types and overall housing capacity that meets future demand Denser development near transit and allowing more accessory dwelling units could change the look and feel of the community Requires additional funding, particularly - for transportation improvements What are the impacts? Average residential density in commer- cial areas (dwelling units/acre) Greenhouse gas reductions from transportation (% reduction from existing) 12.0 du/ac Access to... Enhanced bike lanes (% of population within 1/4 mile of high comfort bicycle facilities) Transit (% of population) Nature (% of population within a 10 min walk) Annual relative cost for transit, bicycle, and pedestrian improvements (2018 dollars, does not include transit capital costs or right-of way acquisition) - + + 6% Reduction 69% Low Density (Under 5 du/ac) 22,200 Units Medium Density (5-20 du/ac) 17,100 Units High Density Scenario 3 results in changes to more areas of the community than Scenarios 1 and 2. Transportation investment is increased by expanding our bike and walking infrastructure, adding bus rapid transit in additional corridors and increasing the frequency and coverage of bus routes. Over time, more commercial corridors would see redevelopment of 3-5 story buildings. Changes to established neighborhoods would allow additional types of housing. Scenario 3 requires much higher investment and new funding sources. SCENARIO 3-BROAD CHANGES What actions are part of this scenario? How will Fort Collins be different? Where will we see the most change? • A greater mix of uses and the densest level of development will be encouraged along existing and planned transit lines. • Duplexes and accessory units will be allowed in some areas where only sin- gle-family houses are allowed now. • New residential neighborhoods will include more multifamily buildings, houses on smaller lots, townhomes, etc. • Bus rapid transit will expand to Harmony Road and Mulberry Street • Bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure will be improved on new and existing roads, making biking and walking a more convenient way to move around the city. • Will require significant capital investment and funding for ongoing operations and maintenance. Mixed-use redevelopment along N College Higher density redevelopment near Downtown and CSU Low and medium density residential development in NE Fort Collins More residential and mixed-use develompent; less employment CSU Consistent higher intensity redevelop- ment along College and Mason/MAX corridors Infill and redevelopment along Harmony and Mulberry (long-term) Housing types (total capacity for new units: 62,000) What are the key benefits and tradeoffs? What will neighborhoods look like? What will commercial areas look like? SCENARIO 3-BROAD CHANGES Transit, walking, and biking are all more convenient options for daily travel; reduces need for a vehicle Greater diversity of housing types in new and existing neighborhoods; overall housing capacity exceeds future demand Could increase the city’s population at buildout beyond 2040 Requires significant funding for infrastruc- ture - improvements and ongoing operations What are the impacts? Average residential density in commercial areas (dwelling units/acre) Greenhouse gas reductions from transportation (% reduction from existing) 9% Reduction 18.9 du/ac Access to... Enhanced bike lanes (% of population within 1/4 mile of high comfort bicycle facilities) Transit (% of population) Nature (% of population within a 10 min walk) - + + 72% Low Density (Under 5 du/ac) 16,200 Units Medium Density (5-20 du/ac) 22,200 Units High Density (Over 20 du/ac) 23,600 Units within 1/2 mile of BRT within 1/4 mile of all transit except BRT and regional routes within 1/4 mile of all transit The metrics below illustrate how well each scenario would meet our future needs for housing, jobs, and transportation. The metrics also show how much the proposed transportation improvements could cost and how much progress we could make toward achieving community goals for climate action and access to amenities and services. PUTTING IT ALL TOGETHER How do the scenarios compare? PERFORMANCE METRICS HOW DO THE SCENARIOS COMPARE? CITY FORT PLANNING COLLINS OUR FUTURE. PLAN TOGETHER. CITY FORT PLANNING COLLINS OUR FUTURE. PLAN TOGETHER. SCENARIO 1 SCENARIO 2 SCENARIO 3 Overall Mix of Land Uses The overall mix of land uses is fairly consistent between the three scenarios. Primary distinctions lie in the amount of employment and industrial land, and in the amount of land allocated to suburban mixed-use districts versus urban mixed-use districts. A more detailed breakdown and discussion of these differences is reflected in the metrics below. City and Growth Management Area City and Growth Management Area 8% 30% 15% 26% 0.5% 5% 0.5% 0.9% 6.4% 3.9% 2.4% 0.6% City and Growth Management Area 8% 30% 17% 26% 1.7% 4.3% 0.5% 0.9% 4.5% 4% 2.2% 0.6% City and Growth Management Area 8% 30% 17% PUTTING IT ALL TOGETHER T) n m 2 ng as ce. e se by se. in in ce. / h) is ty ee os an n. s os, os cle ke ys. e s es es st es. g a s e p all in m rs, le se y). y er ue ay a s 1 2. Source: Fort Collins Travel Diary Report (2017) SOV Carpool Walking Bike Transit VMT per person 60.7% 17.4% 12% 23 2,000+ TOTAL PARTICIPANTS PARTICIPANT HOURS 1,022 20.5% UNDER 35 YEARS OLD 80521 21.5% 80524 22.1% 80525 24.9% 80526 21.7% 80528 5.7% Geographic Distribution of Participants By zip code OTHER 4.1% CITY PLAN - SCENARIO INPUT SUMMARY Data and demographic information collected from: • City Plan Public Workshops • Plan Ambassador & Community Partner Organization Events • Online Questionnaire • Board & Commission Presentations & Discussion • City Plan Working Group Meetings ATTACHMENT 2 LAND USE, HOUSING, DEVELOPMENT Do Not Support Some Support Moderate Support Strongly Support No Opinion Incentivize greater density along our commercial corridors to support existing or planned transit 11.9% 14.1% 22.1% 50.3% 1.6% Require greater density along our commercial corridors to support existing or planned transit 15.4% 17.8% 22.3% 43.1% 1.4% Incentivize a greater diversity of housing types, such as small‐lot single family homes, townhomes, or accessory units in future neighborhoods 11.2% 13.7% 24.9% 49.3% 0.9% Require a greater diversity of housing types, such as small‐lot single family homes, townhomes, or accessory units in future neighborhoods 17.2% 15.2% 23.9% 42.3% 1.4% Allow a limited number of new housing types in established neighborhoods, such as accessory units or duplexes 19.8% 18.4% 25.0% 33.7% 3.0% Rezone some areas of existing employment zoning to residential and mixed‐use 7.6% 18.5% 29.4% 39.0% 5.5% TRANSPORTATION Do Not Support Some Support Moderate Support Strong Support No Opinion What is your level of support for additional funding for transportation (cars, transit, bike, walking)? The most likely source of additional funding is from higher taxes and fees. 8.2% 12.9% 23.6% 54.3% 0.9% Decrease No Change Increase Major Increase No Opinion How much spending should the community dedicate to transportation infrastructure and operations compared to today? 1.9% 13.4% 53.6% 29.7% 1.6% Roads / Cars Bikes Sidewalks / Trails Transit No Opinion Where would you prioritize any additional transportation funding for the future? Pick your top two. 14.5% 27.6% 23.7% 33.6% 0.6% Productivity Balance Coverage No Opinion Should Fort Collins prioritize transit service where ridership is highest (productivity), or focus on providing coverage throughout the community? 19.3% 52.0% 26.6% 2.0% COMMUNITY GOALS ‐ Appropriate amount of change No Change Small Changes Moderate Changes Big Changes No Opinion Enhancing transportation & mobility 3.1% 9.4% 27.9% 58.8% 0.8% Improving housing attainability and providing different types of housing 6.4% 15.1% 30.1% 47.1% 1.2% Providing equtiable access to services and community resources 5.6% 14.7% 39.4% 38.9% 1.4% Reducing our greenhouse gas emissions 7.8% 8.6% 26.3% 56.4% 0.9% Neighborhoods 8.8% 33.6% 52.0% 4.8% 0.8% Commercial Corridors 0.0% 5.6% 26.2% 67.5% 0.8% Downtown 6.3% 34.1% 42.9% 15.1% 1.6% Undeveloped land (does NOT include protected lands like floodplains, parks, or natural areas) 6.5% 9.7% 37.1% 45.2% 1.6% Parts of the community that are already developed 4.0% 23.8% 57.9% 13.5% 0.8% Overall community appearance 2.4% 32.5% 56.3% 6.3% 2.4% Community funding/taxes 1.6% 17.5% 54.0% 24.6% 2.4% ALL DATA ‐ PERCENTAGE 1 City Plan Scenarios ATTACHMENT 3 2 City Plan includes updates to: Comprehensive Plan Transportation Master Plan Transit Master Plan Phases 3 1 2 EXISTING CONDITIONS Trends, issues & opportunities, community priorities VISIONING Update & reconfirm a shared community vision for the future 3 SCENARIOS Evaluate different community scenarios to achieve vision & priorities 4 DRAFT PLAN & POLICIES Develop policies & plan document 5 ADOPTION Share, reconfirm & update draft plan with the community Adoption anticipated Spring 2019 4 Scenarios Overview - Scenario 1 Maintains similar land-use & transportation policies & resources Land Use & Development § Higher intensity near Downtown, CSU § New development in NE Fort Collins Transportation § Focus on low-stress bike network buildout § Congestion management § Limited transit enhancements 5 Scenarios Overview - Scenario 2 Targeted changes to land-use & transit; requires additional resources Land Use & Development § Higher intensity near Downtown, CSU, commercial corridors § Shift some employment land to residential § Neighborhoods: ADUs/duplex Transportation § Transit: reduce coverage to increase frequencies on some routes § Congestion management § Greater emphasis on bike/ped 6 Scenarios Overview - Scenario 3 Broader changes to land-use & transit; major additional funding required Land Use & Development § More consistent higher intensity near Downtown, CSU, commercial corridors § Shift some employment land to residential § Neighborhoods: ADUs + ‘plexes’ Transportation § Transit: large expansion in frequency & coverage § Congestion management § Greater emphasis on enhanced infrastructure for bike/ped Community Feedback 7 § 1,000+ responses § Workshops, ambassador/partner events, online questionnaire § Desired feedback § Support for different types of land-use and transportation changes and funding § Impacts, benefits, tradeoffs of potential changes § Goal is to understand all scenario elements; not to select a single scenario § Community feedback and Council direction used to craft preferred scenario Community Feedback 8 General Areas of Agreement § Support for moderate / big changes to achieve community priorities – GHG reductions, transportation improvements, housing, equity § Strong support for higher density development in commercial corridors to support transit § Strong support for greater diversity of housing types in new residential development Community Feedback 9 General Areas of Agreement § Support for additional transportation enhancements and funding; § Prioritize transit and bicycling if additional funding is available § Increase levels of high-frequency service while maintaining coverage Community Feedback 10 General Areas of Tension or Concern § Appropriate amount of change in established neighborhoods § Responsibility and ability to meet future housing demand; regional impacts § Displacement impacts in commercial corridors (residents & businesses) § Change in community character and resources to serve a larger population § Impacts and level of service on parks, natural areas & sensitive lands if there is higher density / more people Community Feedback 11 General Areas of Tension & Concern § Role of transportation services (e.g. microtransit) in our transit system § Mismatch between desired transportation system and the funding / land-use changes required to support it § Strong support to achieve CAP goals, but the most aggressive scenario does not meet assumptions for vehicle miles traveled reduction Community Feedback 12 Other comments & themes § Additional density or higher population should be tied to creating attainable/affordable housing or other community priorities § Concern about rapid changes in community appearance and feel; losing the existing ‘vibe’ of Fort Collins § Impact of funding decisions particularly on lower income residents Preferred Scenario 13 Elements of a preferred scenario (based on community feedback): § Land Use Code changes to support density in commercial and transit corridors, and housing options in new development § Ensure parks, plaza, & public amenities are emphasized alongside increased density § Some level of increased funding to support transportation enhancements § Zoning changes to increase housing capacity & types (shift some employment to residential/mixed-use) § Additional support for attainable & affordable housing development § Level of transit service should be determined by the density and types of underlying land-uses Change in established neighborhoods 14 Appropriate amount of change in established neighborhoods Allow a limited number of new housing types in established neighborhood, such as accessory units or duplexes 19.8% 18.4% 25.0% 33.7% 3.0% Do not Support Some Support Moderate Support Strong Support No Opinion § LIV 7.3 – Encourage Accessory Housing Unit Development (existing policy direction) § Commonly requested as a way to add smaller units in existing neighborhoods § Concern about change in character/appearance & unintended consequences Change in established neighborhoods 15 GMA Vacant Lands Commercial Corridor Zoning § Majority of the community is already developed § Over 2/3rds of our land is dedicated to open space, established neighborhoods & institutional uses § If change in established neighborhoods is not appropriate, we will need to focus on: § Vacant or undeveloped lands § Commercial and mixed-use corridors Community Feedback 16 Desired transportation system & funding support Support for additional funding for transportation (higher taxes and/or fees) 8.2% 12.9% 23.6% 54.3% 0.9% Do not Support Some Support Moderate Support Strong Support No Opinion 1.9% 13.4% 53.6% 29.7% 1.6% Decrease No Change Increase Major Increase No Opinion How much should the community dedicate to transportation compared to today? 17 Direction Sought Feedback from the scenarios phase indicates that residents have wide- ranging opinions about adding density and housing types to established neighborhoods. 1. How would Council like staff to proceed when preparing a preferred scenario? Feedback from the scenarios phase indicates that residents desire an expanded and more frequent transit system while supporting only moderate increases in funding. 2. How would Council like staff to proceed when preparing a preferred scenario? 18 RESOURCE SLIDES Scenario Indicators 19 Additional Housing & Employment Capacity Scenario Indicators 20 Avg. Density in Mixed-Use Areas Scenario Indicators 21 Character of Commercial / Mixed-Use Districts Scenario Indicators 22 Housing Demand & Supply Scenario Indicators 23 Vehicle Miles Traveled Scenario Indicators 24 Per Capita Household Water Consumption Scenario Indicators 25 Per Capita Household Building Energy Community Character 26 Neighborhoods Scenario 1 Scenario 2 Scenario 3 Community Character 27 Employment Areas Scenario 1 Scenario 2 Scenario 3 Community Character 28 Neighborhood Commercial Areas Scenario 1 Scenario 2 Scenario 3 Community Character 29 Neighborhood Commercial Areas Scenario 1 Scenario 2 Scenario 3 7.6% 1.8% 3.32 23.4 TOTAL: 19.75 99% All Facilities Enhanced Facilities (protected and buffered bike lanes) 33% Average Daily Riders Per Hour Average Daily Riders Per Mile 15,000 4,300,000 Average Weekday Ridership Annual Ridership 2.8 35 26,000 7,900,000 5.4 68 28,000 7,900,000 5.6 70 60,000 17,200,000 6.1 85 57.5% 8% 3.3% 16.3% 14.9% 55.7% 9.3% 3.5% 15.9% 15.6% 51.8% 10.9% 6.2% 14.9% 16.2% 99% All Facilities 38% Enhanced Facilities (protected and buffered bike lanes) 99% All Facilities 72% Enhanced Facilities (protected and buffered bike lanes) 99% All Facilities 98% Enhanced Facilities (protected and buffered bike lane 171 VMT per person VMT per person VMT per person 1.6 27 miles per minutes per mile hour 1.7 25 miles per minutes per mile hour 1.7 25 miles per minutes per mile hour 1.7 25 mile per minutes per mile hou .31 30.5 NEIGHBORHOOD GREENWAY 10.66 0 0 19.8 TOTAL: 41.28 NEIGHBORHOOD GREENWAY 37.26 4.02 0 0 TOTAL: 24. 61 113.4 NEIGHBORHOOD GREENWAY 54 75.97 TOT 12% 22% 22% 31% * A threshold of 11,150 residents and employees per square mile was used to be considered “walkable” based on existing conditions Protected Bike Lane Buffered Bike Lane Bike Lane 75% 25% Existing Missing 80% 20% 90% 10% 100% PERFORMANCE METRICS HOW DO THE SCENARIOS COMPARE? LLINS FUTURE. PLAN TOGETHER. LLINS FUTURE. PLAN TOGETHER. EXISTING SCENARIO 1 SCENARIO 2 SCENARIO 3 les Traveled (VMT) per person would decrease in Scenario 1 from ecrease even further in Scenarios 2 a result of successively increasing density in each scenario, as well as e infrastructure and transit service. Mode Share s made by vehicle would decrease nario, while the percent of trips by ng, biking, transit) would increase. t mode share increase the most in a result of the robust investment in e infrastructure and transit service. avel Time (minutes/ e) and Speed (mph) vehicular travel time and speed is six key corridors across the City y slightly, if at all, across all three little variation between scenarios ravel time. These numbers are an indicator of congestion. of Bicycle Facilities facilities increases in all scenarios, onal miles of facilities in Scenarios Scenario 3. The addition of bicycle protected bike lanes, buffered bike nes, and neighborhood greenways. dents Near Bicycle Facilities percent of the population that lives ow-stress bicycle facility increases with Scenario 3 providing the best s to high comfort bicycle facilities. Population Living n a Walkable Area rcent of Sidewalks Complete Transit Ridership would increase from today in all The ridership increase is similar in nario 2 (about 80% growth from ave similar levels of service hours, fferently across the system, while ult in the most dramatic increase out a 300% increase from today). ransit Productivity ity, as measured by ridership per ce mile and ridership per revenue increase significantly from today s. Transit productivity would be a ario 3 as compared to Scenarios 1 and 2. idents Near Transit population with access to transit m the 2012 data in Scenario 1 and os 2 and 3 with increasing service d the addition of new BRT routes. C NSPORTATION AND MOBILITY OPTIONS ormance metrics below illustrate how well each scenario accommodates multimodal transportation Key distinctions for each scenario from a transportation and mobility standpoint include the level of nt in transit, biking and walking infrastructure and service improvements. Source: Fort Collins Travel Diary Report (2017) SOV Carpool Walking Bike Transit VMT per person within 1/2 mile of BRT within 1/4 mile of all transit except BRT and regional routes within 1/4 mile of all transit within 1/2 mile of BRT within 1/4 mile of all transit except BRT and regional routes within 1/4 mile of all transit within 1/2 mile of BRT within 1/4 mile of all transit except BRT, regional transit and mobility innovation services+ within 1/4 mile of all transit within 1/2 mile of BRT within 1/4 mile of all transit except BRT, regional transit and mobility innovation services+ within 1/4 mile of all transit 60.7% 17.4% 12% 7.6% 1.8% 3.32 23.4 TOTAL: 19.75 99% All Facilities Enhanced Facilities (protected and buffered bike lanes) 33% 32% Average Daily Riders Per Hour Average Daily Riders Per Mile 15,000 4,300,000 Average Weekday Ridership Annual Ridership 2.8 35 26,000 7,900,000 5.4 68 28,000 7,900,000 5.6 70 60,000 17,200,000 6.1 85 57.5% 8% 3.3% 16.3% 14.9% 55.7% 9.3% 3.5% 15.9% 15.6% 51.8% 10.9% 6.2% 14.9% 16.2% 99% All Facilities 38% Enhanced Facilities (protected and buffered bike lanes) 99% All Facilities 72% Enhanced Facilities (protected and buffered bike lanes) 99% All Facilities 98% Enhanced Facilities (protected and buffered bike lanes) 171 VMT per person VMT per person VMT per person 1.6 27 miles per minutes per mile hour 1.7 25 miles per minutes per mile hour 1.7 25 miles per minutes per mile hour 1.7 25 miles per minutes per mile hour .31 30.5 NEIGHBORHOOD GREENWAY 10.66 0 0 19.8 TOTAL: 41.28 NEIGHBORHOOD GREENWAY 37.26 4.02 0 0 TOTAL: 24.72 61.12 113.4 NEIGHBORHOOD GREENWAY 54 75.97 TOTAL: 12% 22% 22% 31% * A threshold of 11,150 residents and employees per square mile was used to be considered “walkable” based on existing conditions Protected Bike Lane Buffered Bike Lane Bike Lane 75% 25% Existing Missing 80% 20% 90% 10% 100% 82% 70% 75% 51% 87% 24% 19% PERFORMANCE METRICS HOW DO THE SCENARIOS COMPARE? LINS UTURE. PLAN TOGETHER. LINS UTURE. PLAN TOGETHER. EXISTING SCENARIO 1 SCENARIO 2 SCENARIO 3 es Traveled (VMT) per person ould decrease in Scenario 1 from ease even further in Scenarios 2 result of successively increasing nsity in each scenario, as well as nfrastructure and transit service. Mode Share made by vehicle would decrease rio, while the percent of trips by g, biking, transit) would increase. mode share increase the most in esult of the robust investment in nfrastructure and transit service. vel Time (minutes/ ) and Speed (mph) hicular travel time and speed is x key corridors across the City slightly, if at all, across all three tle variation between scenarios vel time. These numbers are an indicator of congestion. Bicycle Facilities cilities increases in all scenarios, nal miles of facilities in Scenarios enario 3. The addition of bicycle otected bike lanes, buffered bike s, and neighborhood greenways. ents Near Bicycle Facilities cent of the population that lives w-stress bicycle facility increases th Scenario 3 providing the best to high comfort bicycle facilities. Population Living a Walkable Area cent of Sidewalks Complete Transit Ridership would increase from today in all e ridership increase is similar in ario 2 (about 80% growth from e similar levels of service hours, rently across the system, while t in the most dramatic increase t a 300% increase from today). ansit Productivity y, as measured by ridership per mile and ridership per revenue crease significantly from today Transit productivity would be a o 3 as compared to Scenarios 1 C NSPORTATION AND MOBILITY OPTIONS mance metrics below illustrate how well each scenario accommodates multimodal transportation ey distinctions for each scenario from a transportation and mobility standpoint include the level of t in transit, biking and walking infrastructure and service improvements. Source: Fort Collins Travel Diary Report (2017) SOV Carpool Walking Bike Transit VMT per person 60.7% 17.4% 12% 7.6% 1.8% 3.32 23.4 TOTAL: 19.75 99% All Facilities Enhanced Facilities (protected and buffered bike lanes) 33% 15,000 4,300,000 Average Weekday Ridership Annual Ridership 2.8 35 26,000 7,900,000 5.4 68 28,000 7,900,000 5.6 70 60,000 17,200,000 6.1 85 57.5% 8% 3.3% 16.3% 14.9% 55.7% 9.3% 3.5% 15.9% 15.6% 51.8% 10.9% 6.2% 14.9% 16.2% 99% All Facilities 38% Enhanced Facilities (protected and buffered bike lanes) 99% All Facilities 72% Enhanced Facilities (protected and buffered bike lanes) 99% All Facilities 98% Enhanced Facilities (protected and buffered bike lanes) 171 VMT per person VMT per person VMT per person 1.6 27 miles per minutes per mile hour 1.7 25 miles per minutes per mile hour 1.7 25 miles per minutes per mile hour 1.7 25 miles per minutes per mile hour .31 30.5 NEIGHBORHOOD GREENWAY 10.66 0 0 19.8 TOTAL: 41.28 NEIGHBORHOOD GREENWAY 37.26 4.02 0 0 TOTAL: 24.72 61.12 113.4 NEIGHBORHOOD GREENWAY 54 75.97 TOTAL: 12% 22% 22% 31% * A threshold of 11,150 residents and employees per square mile was used to be considered “walkable” based on existing conditions Protected Bike Lane Buffered Bike Lane Bike Lane 75% 25% Existing Missing 80% 20% 90% 10% 100% PERFORMANCE METRICS HOW DO THE SCENARIOS COMPARE? LINS UTURE. PLAN TOGETHER. LINS UTURE. PLAN TOGETHER. EXISTING SCENARIO 1 SCENARIO 2 SCENARIO 3 es Traveled (VMT) per person ould decrease in Scenario 1 from ease even further in Scenarios 2 result of successively increasing nsity in each scenario, as well as nfrastructure and transit service. Mode Share made by vehicle would decrease rio, while the percent of trips by g, biking, transit) would increase. mode share increase the most in esult of the robust investment in nfrastructure and transit service. vel Time (minutes/ ) and Speed (mph) hicular travel time and speed is ix key corridors across the City slightly, if at all, across all three tle variation between scenarios vel time. These numbers are an indicator of congestion. Bicycle Facilities acilities increases in all scenarios, nal miles of facilities in Scenarios enario 3. The addition of bicycle otected bike lanes, buffered bike s, and neighborhood greenways. ents Near Bicycle Facilities cent of the population that lives w-stress bicycle facility increases th Scenario 3 providing the best to high comfort bicycle facilities. Population Living a Walkable Area cent of Sidewalks Complete Transit Ridership would increase from today in all e ridership increase is similar in ario 2 (about 80% growth from e similar levels of service hours, rently across the system, while t in the most dramatic increase t a 300% increase from today). ansit Productivity y, as measured by ridership per mile and ridership per revenue crease significantly from today Transit productivity would be a o 3 as compared to Scenarios 1 C NSPORTATION AND MOBILITY OPTIONS mance metrics below illustrate how well each scenario accommodates multimodal transportation ey distinctions for each scenario from a transportation and mobility standpoint include the level of t in transit, biking and walking infrastructure and service improvements. Source: Fort Collins Travel Diary Report (2017) SOV Carpool Walking Bike Transit VMT per person 60.7% 17.4% 12% 7.6% 1.8% 3.32 23.4 TOTAL: 19.75 99% All Facilities Enhanced Facilities (protected and buffered bike lanes) 33% 15,000 4,300,000 Average Weekday Ridership Annual Ridership 2.8 35 26,000 7,900,000 5.4 68 28,000 7,900,000 5.6 70 60,000 17,200,000 6.1 85 57.5% 8% 3.3% 16.3% 14.9% 55.7% 9.3% 3.5% 15.9% 15.6% 51.8% 10.9% 6.2% 14.9% 16.2% 99% All Facilities 38% Enhanced Facilities (protected and buffered bike lanes) 99% All Facilities 72% Enhanced Facilities (protected and buffered bike lanes) 99% All Facilities 98% Enhanced Facilities (protected and buffered bike lanes) 171 VMT per person VMT per person VMT per person 1.6 27 miles per minutes per mile hour 1.7 25 miles per minutes per mile hour 1.7 25 miles per minutes per mile hour 1.7 25 miles per minutes per mile hour .31 30.5 NEIGHBORHOOD GREENWAY 10.66 0 0 19.8 TOTAL: 41.28 NEIGHBORHOOD GREENWAY 37.26 4.02 0 0 TOTAL: 24.72 61.12 113.4 NEIGHBORHOOD GREENWAY 54 75.97 TOTAL: 12% 22% 22% 31% * A threshold of 11,150 residents and employees per square mile was used to be considered “walkable” based on existing conditions Protected Bike Lane Buffered Bike Lane Bike Lane 75% 25% Existing Missing 80% 20% 90% 10% 100% he most in estment in sit service. nutes/ (mph) d speed is ss the City s all three scenarios ers are an ongestion. cilities scenarios, Scenarios of bicycle ffered bike greenways. icycle cilities n that lives y increases g the best e facilities. Living Area walks mplete ership oday in all s similar in owth from vice hours, tem, while c increase m today). ctivity ership per er revenue rom today would be a cenarios 1 and 2. ransit to transit nario 1 and ng service RT routes. Cost* OT include uire right- costs and pedestrian astructure. M=millions. Transit: $25,700,000 Bike: $436,000 Total: $26,100,000 Transit: $30,100,000 Bike: $470,000 Total: $30,600,000 Transit: $33,500,000 Bike: $1,900,000 Total: $35,400,000 Transit: $77,000,000 Bike: $6,000,000 Total: $83,000,000 Source: Fort Collins Travel Diary Report (2017) SOV Carpool Walking Bike Transit within 1/2 mile of BRT within 1/4 mile of all transit except BRT and regional routes within 1/4 mile of all transit except regional routes within 1/2 mile of BRT within 1/4 mile of all transit except BRT and regional routes within 1/4 mile of all transit except regional routes within 1/2 mile of BRT within 1/4 mile of all transit except BRT, regional transit and mobility innovation services+ within 1/4 mile of all transit except regional routes within 1/2 mile of BRT within 1/4 mile of all transit except BRT, regional transit and mobility innovation services+ within 1/4 mile of all transit except regional routes 3 23.4 TOTAL: 20 99% All Facilities Enhanced Facilities (protected and buffered bike lanes) 33% 32% 82% Average Daily Riders Per Hour Average Daily Riders Per Mile 15,000 4,300,000 Average Weekday Ridership Annual Ridership 2.8 35 26,000 7,900,000 5.4 68 28,000 8,000,000 5.6 70 51,000 14,900,000 6.5 87 15.9% 14.9% 99% All Facilities 38% Enhanced Facilities (protected and buffered bike lanes) 99% All Facilities 72% Enhanced Facilities (protected and buffered bike lanes) 99% All Facilities 98% Enhanced Facilities (protected and buffered bike lanes) +. Mobility Innovation Services will be developed in the future but are intended to be first-last-mile connections to the transit system for lower-density areas in Fort Collins. Examples could include pick-up/drop-off services (similar to Lyft or Urber) to transit stops, microtransit shuttles, or other connections that could be facilitated by new transportation technologies in the future. In general, these services have lower operating costs than fixed route services in low-density 171 d based striping, and therefore negligible at this high level of an estimate. The cost per mile of protected bike lane or buffered bike lane is about $1,000,000. 3. Over 20 years, this equates to $9,273,233 for Scenario 1, $47,779,086 for Scenario 2 1.6 27 miles per minutes per mile hour 1.7 25 miles per minutes per mile hour 1.7 25 miles per minutes per mile hour 1.7 25 miles per minutes per mile hour .4 20 NEIGHBORHOOD GREENWAY 11 0 0 TOTAL: 31 0 NEIGHBORHOOD GREENWAY 37 4 0 TOTAL: 41 236 61 45 NEIGHBORHOOD GREENWAY 54 76 TOTAL: 12% 22% 22% 31% * A threshold of 11,150 residents and employees per square mile was used to be considered “walkable” based on existing conditions Protected Bike Lane Buffered Bike Lane Bike Lane 75% 25% Existing Missing 80% 20% 90% 10% 100% 93% 82% 70% 71% 75% 51% 87% 85% 24% 19% $0.4 M $15 M TOTAL: $15.8 M $0.4 M Transit Bike Walking Total $0.5 M $17 - 20 M TOTAL: $18 - 21 M $0.5 M $2 M $17 - 20 M TOTAL: $20.4 - 23.4 M $1.4 M $6 M $25 - 30 M TOTAL: $33.3 - 38.3 M $2.3 M Shared Street (Existing) Miles of new bike facilities Miles of new bike facilities Miles of new bike facilities Miles of new bike facilities Transportation Energy and GHG Emissions Annual Relative Cost Percent of Population Living Within a Walkable Area Residents Near Transit PERFORMANCE METRICS HOW DO THE SCENARIOS COMPARE? CITY FORT PLANNING COLLINS OUR FUTURE. PLAN TOGETHER. CITY FORT PLANNING COLLINS OUR FUTURE. PLAN TOGETHER. SCENARIO 1 SCENARIO 2 SCENARIO 3 Access to Nature Access to parks, open space, and other natural areas plays a key role in supporting a good quality of life for residents , by providing opportunities for recreation, physical activity, and experiencing nature and the natural environment. In addition, studies have found a link between exposure to nature and improved mental health. By focusing development of housing within close proximity of our existing greenspaces, we can increase the number of residents that are able to reach nature within a 10-minute walking distance. 67% 69% 72% Access to Mixed-Use Areas Expanding residents’ access to mixed-use areas in the city is an important goal for a number of reasons. Expand access means that less people need to drive to reach every-day services they use, such as the grocery store, restaurants, medical services, and retail shops. While this might not be an issue for those with cars who are happy to drive across town to reach these areas, some of our residents do not own cars or cannot drive, and are not so mobile. Second, mixed-use areas near residential areas provides opportunities for residents to live near where they work, and/or work near where they live. As an added bonus, reducing the need to drive to these locations, and allowing more residents to walk, will help us move towards our climate action goals. Transit Access for Vulnerable Populations HEALTH AND EQUITY Housing units, jobs, vehicle miles traveled, carbon emissions. It is important not to forget that a crucial component of what makes Fort Collins a great community is its residents. As we look to the future, we’ll want to consider how each of the scenarios impacts us, particularly those of use who are most vulnerable or in greatest need of access to transit, parks and open space, medical services, etc. At the same time that we must ensure the benefits future growth creates are distributed equitably across our community, we must also be sure that one group is not disproportionately impacted over others by the changes to our city envisioned in the scenarios. Downtown District Urban Mixed-Use District Suburban Mixed-Use District Neighborhood Mixed-Use District Access to Nature Transit: $25,700,000 Bike: $436,000 Total: $26,100,000 Transit: $30,100,000 Bike: $470,000 Total: $30,600,000 Transit: $33,500,000 Bike: $1,900,000 Total: $35,400,000 Transit: $77,000,000 Bike: $6,000,000 Total: $83,000,000 within 1/2 mile of BRT within 1/4 mile of all transit except BRT and regional routes within 1/4 mile of all transit except regional routes within 1/2 mile of BRT within 1/4 mile of all transit except BRT and regional routes within 1/4 mile of all transit except regional routes within 1/2 mile of BRT within 1/4 mile of all transit except BRT, regional transit and mobility innovation services+ within 1/4 mile of all transit except regional routes within 1/2 mile of BRT within 1/4 mile of al except BRT, regiona and mobility innova services+ within 1/4 mile of al except regional rou 99% 33% 32% $77,000,000 $83,000,000 $6,000,000 Transit Bike Total $33,500,000 $1,900,000 $30,100,000 $30,600,000 $470,000 $25,700,000 $26,100,000 $436,000 82% Average Daily Riders Per Hour Average Daily Riders Per Mile 15,000 4,300,000 Average Weekday Ridership Annual Ridership 2.8 35 26,000 7,900,000 5.4 68 28,000 7,900,000 5.6 70 60,000 17,200,000 6.1 85 99% 38% 99% 72% 99% 98 +. Mobility Innovation Services will be developed in the future but are intended to be first-last-mile connections to the transit system for lower-density areas in Fort Collins. Examples could include pick-up/drop-off services (similar to Lyft or Urber) to transit stops, microtransit shuttles, or other con- nections that could be facilitated by new transportation technologies in the future. In general, these services have lower operating costs than fixed route services in low-density areas. osts for each scenario were based on the asusmption that the cost for neighborhood greenways lanes was minimal, consisting only of signing and striping, and therefore negligible at this high n estimate. The cost per mile of protected bike lane or buffered bike lane is about $1,000,000. 0 years, this equates to $9,273,233 for Scenario 1, $47,779,086 for Scenario 2 and $169,017,055 rio 3. st includes the cost for construction, excluding right of way. an Cost: st includes the cost for construction, excluding right of way. 0 years, this equates to $9,321,100 for Scenario 1, $27,611,550 for Scenario 2 and $46,605,566 for 3. 12% 22% 22% 31% * A threshold of 11,150 residents and employees per square mile was used to be considered “walkable” based on existing conditions 75% 25% Existing Missing 80% 20% 90% 10% 10 93% 82% 70% 71% 75% 51% 87% 85% 24% 19% Transit: $25,700,000 Bike: $436,000 Total: $26,100,000 Transit: $30,100,000 Bike: $470,000 Total: $30,600,000 Transit: $33,500,000 Bike: $1,900,000 Total: $35,400,000 Transit: $77,000,000 Bike: $6,000,000 Total: $83,000,000 within 1/2 mile of BRT within 1/4 mile of all transit except BRT and regional routes within 1/4 mile of all transit except regional routes within 1/2 mile of BRT within 1/4 mile of all transit except BRT and regional routes within 1/4 mile of all transit except regional routes within 1/2 mile of BRT within 1/4 mile of all transit except BRT, regional transit and mobility innovation services+ within 1/4 mile of all transit except regional routes within 1/2 mile of BRT within 1/4 mile of al except BRT, regiona and mobility innova services+ within 1/4 mile of al except regional rou 99% Facilities (protected and buffered bike lanes) 33% 32% $77,000,000 $83,000,000 $6,000,000 Transit Bike Total $33,500,000 $1,900,000 $30,100,000 $30,600,000 $470,000 $25,700,000 $26,100,000 $436,000 82% Average Daily Riders Per Hour Average Daily Riders Per Mile 15,000 4,300,000 Average Weekday Ridership Annual Ridership 2.8 35 26,000 7,900,000 5.4 68 28,000 7,900,000 5.6 70 60,000 17,200,000 6.1 85 99% Facilities 38% (protected and buffered bike lanes) 99% Facilities 72% (protected and buffered bike lanes) 99% Facilities 98 (protecte buffered bi +. Mobility Innovation Services will be developed in the future but are intended to be first-last-mile connections to the transit system for lower-density areas in Fort Collins. Examples could include pick-up/drop-off services (similar to Lyft or Urber) to transit stops, microtransit shuttles, or other con- nections that could be facilitated by new transportation technologies in the future. In general, these services have lower operating costs than fixed route services in low-density areas. osts for each scenario were based on the asusmption that the cost for neighborhood greenways lanes was minimal, consisting only of signing and striping, and therefore negligible at this high n estimate. The cost per mile of protected bike lane or buffered bike lane is about $1,000,000. 0 years, this equates to $9,273,233 for Scenario 1, $47,779,086 for Scenario 2 and $169,017,055 rio 3. st includes the cost for construction, excluding right of way. an Cost: st includes the cost for construction, excluding right of way. 0 years, this equates to $9,321,100 for Scenario 1, $27,611,550 for Scenario 2 and $46,605,566 for 3. 12% 22% 22% 31% * A threshold of 11,150 residents and employees per square mile was used to be considered “walkable” based on existing conditions 75% 25% Existing Missing 80% 20% 90% 10% 10 93% 82% 70% 71% 75% 51% 87% 85% 24% 19% PERFORMANCE METRICS HOW DO THE SCENARIOS COMPARE? LLINS FUTURE. PLAN TOGETHER. LLINS FUTURE. PLAN TOGETHER. EXISTING SCENARIO 1 SCENARIO 2 SCENARIO 3 es Traveled (VMT) per person would decrease in Scenario 1 from crease even further in Scenarios 2 a result of successively increasing density in each scenario, as well as infrastructure and transit service. Mode Share s made by vehicle would decrease nario, while the percent of trips by ng, biking, transit) would increase. t mode share increase the most in result of the robust investment in infrastructure and transit service. avel Time (minutes/ e) and Speed (mph) ehicular travel time and speed is six key corridors across the City y slightly, if at all, across all three ittle variation between scenarios avel time. These numbers are an indicator of congestion. f Bicycle Facilities facilities increases in all scenarios, onal miles of facilities in Scenarios Scenario 3. The addition of bicycle rotected bike lanes, buffered bike es, and neighborhood greenways. dents Near Bicycle Facilities ercent of the population that lives ow-stress bicycle facility increases with Scenario 3 providing the best s to high comfort bicycle facilities. Population Living n a Walkable Area rcent of Sidewalks Complete Transit Ridership would increase from today in all he ridership increase is similar in nario 2 (about 80% growth from ve similar levels of service hours, fferently across the system, while ult in the most dramatic increase ut a 300% increase from today). ransit Productivity ty, as measured by ridership per e mile and ridership per revenue ncrease significantly from today . Transit productivity would be a rio 3 as compared to Scenarios 1 C NSPORTATION AND MOBILITY OPTIONS rmance metrics below illustrate how well each scenario accommodates multimodal transportation Key distinctions for each scenario from a transportation and mobility standpoint include the level of nt in transit, biking and walking infrastructure and service improvements. Source: Fort Collins Travel Diary Report (2017) SOV Carpool Walking Bike Transit VMT per person 60.7% 17.4% 12% 7.6% 1.8% 3.32 23.4 TOTAL: 19.75 99% All Facilities Enhanced Facilities (protected and buffered bike lanes) 33% 15,000 4,300,000 Average Weekday Ridership Annual Ridership 2.8 35 26,000 7,900,000 5.4 68 28,000 7,900,000 5.6 70 60,000 17,200,000 6.1 85 57.5% 8% 3.3% 16.3% 14.9% 55.7% 9.3% 3.5% 15.9% 15.6% 51.8% 10.9% 6.2% 14.9% 16.2% 99% All Facilities 38% Enhanced Facilities (protected and buffered bike lanes) 99% All Facilities 72% Enhanced Facilities (protected and buffered bike lanes) 99% All Facilities 98% Enhanced Facilities (protected and buffered bike lanes) 171 VMT per person VMT per person VMT per person 1.6 27 miles per minutes per mile hour 1.7 25 miles per minutes per mile hour 1.7 25 miles per minutes per mile hour 1.7 25 miles per minutes per mile hour .31 30.5 NEIGHBORHOOD GREENWAY 10.66 0 0 19.8 TOTAL: 41.28 NEIGHBORHOOD GREENWAY 37.26 4.02 0 0 TOTAL: 24.72 61.12 113.4 NEIGHBORHOOD GREENWAY 54 75.97 TOTAL: 12% 22% 22% 31% * A threshold of 11,150 residents and employees per square mile was used to be considered “walkable” based on existing conditions Protected Bike Lane Buffered Bike Lane Bike Lane 75% 25% Existing Missing 80% 20% 90% 10% 100% PERFORMANCE METRICS HOW DO THE SCENARIOS COMPARE? LINS UTURE. PLAN TOGETHER. LINS UTURE. PLAN TOGETHER. EXISTING SCENARIO 1 SCENARIO 2 SCENARIO 3 s Traveled (VMT) per person ould decrease in Scenario 1 from ease even further in Scenarios 2 result of successively increasing nsity in each scenario, as well as nfrastructure and transit service. Mode Share made by vehicle would decrease rio, while the percent of trips by , biking, transit) would increase. mode share increase the most in esult of the robust investment in nfrastructure and transit service. vel Time (minutes/ ) and Speed (mph) hicular travel time and speed is x key corridors across the City slightly, if at all, across all three le variation between scenarios vel time. These numbers are an indicator of congestion. Bicycle Facilities cilities increases in all scenarios, al miles of facilities in Scenarios enario 3. The addition of bicycle tected bike lanes, buffered bike , and neighborhood greenways. ents Near Bicycle Facilities cent of the population that lives w-stress bicycle facility increases th Scenario 3 providing the best o high comfort bicycle facilities. Population Living a Walkable Area cent of Sidewalks Complete Transit Ridership ould increase from today in all e ridership increase is similar in rio 2 (about 80% growth from similar levels of service hours, rently across the system, while in the most dramatic increase a 300% increase from today). ansit Productivity , as measured by ridership per mile and ridership per revenue crease significantly from today Transit productivity would be a o 3 as compared to Scenarios 1 C SPORTATION AND MOBILITY OPTIONS mance metrics below illustrate how well each scenario accommodates multimodal transportation ey distinctions for each scenario from a transportation and mobility standpoint include the level of t in transit, biking and walking infrastructure and service improvements. Source: Fort Collins Travel Diary Report (2017) SOV Carpool Walking Bike Transit VMT per person 60.7% 17.4% 12% 7.6% 1.8% 3.32 23.4 TOTAL: 19.75 99% All Facilities Enhanced Facilities (protected and buffered bike lanes) 33% 15,000 4,300,000 Average Weekday Ridership Annual Ridership 2.8 35 26,000 7,900,000 5.4 68 28,000 7,900,000 5.6 70 60,000 17,200,000 6.1 85 57.5% 8% 3.3% 16.3% 14.9% 55.7% 9.3% 3.5% 15.9% 15.6% 51.8% 10.9% 6.2% 14.9% 16.2% 99% All Facilities 38% Enhanced Facilities (protected and buffered bike lanes) 99% All Facilities 72% Enhanced Facilities (protected and buffered bike lanes) 99% All Facilities 98% Enhanced Facilities (protected and buffered bike lanes) 171 VMT per person VMT per person VMT per person 1.6 27 miles per minutes per mile hour 1.7 25 miles per minutes per mile hour 1.7 25 miles per minutes per mile hour 1.7 25 miles per minutes per mile hour .31 30.5 NEIGHBORHOOD GREENWAY 10.66 0 0 19.8 TOTAL: 41.28 NEIGHBORHOOD GREENWAY 37.26 4.02 0 0 TOTAL: 24.72 61.12 113.4 NEIGHBORHOOD GREENWAY 54 75.97 TOTAL: 12% 22% 22% 31% * A threshold of 11,150 residents and employees per square mile was used to be considered “walkable” based on existing conditions Protected Bike Lane Buffered Bike Lane Bike Lane 75% 25% Existing Missing 80% 20% 90% 10% 100% PERFORMANCE METRICS HOW DO THE SCENARIOS COMPARE? Y OLLINS UR FUTURE. PLAN TOGETHER. Y OLLINS UR FUTURE. PLAN TOGETHER. EXISTING SCENARIO 1 SCENARIO 2 SCENARIO 3 Miles Traveled (VMT) per person son would decrease in Scenario 1 from d decrease even further in Scenarios 2 y as a result of successively increasing on density in each scenario, as well as ycle infrastructure and transit service. Mode Share trips made by vehicle would decrease scenario, while the percent of trips by alking, biking, transit) would increase. ansit mode share increase the most in as a result of the robust investment in ycle infrastructure and transit service. Travel Time (minutes/ mile) and Speed (mph) al vehicular travel time and speed is d on six key corridors across the City only slightly, if at all, across all three e is little variation between scenarios ar travel time. These numbers are an indicator of congestion. s of Bicycle Facilities ycle facilities increases in all scenarios, dditional miles of facilities in Scenarios t in Scenario 3. The addition of bicycle es protected bike lanes, buffered bike e lanes, and neighborhood greenways. sidents Near Bicycle Facilities he percent of the population that lives f a low-stress bicycle facility increases os, with Scenario 3 providing the best cess to high comfort bicycle facilities. of Population Living hin a Walkable Area Percent of Sidewalks Complete Transit Ridership ship would increase from today in all s. The ridership increase is similar in Scenario 2 (about 80% growth from h have similar levels of service hours, differently across the system, while result in the most dramatic increase about a 300% increase from today). Transit Productivity ctivity, as measured by ridership per rvice mile and ridership per revenue uld increase significantly from today rios. Transit productivity would be a enario 3 as compared to Scenarios 1 and 2. esidents Near Transit the population with access to transit from the 2012 data in Scenario 1 and arios 2 and 3 with increasing service and the addition of new BRT routes. C ANSPORTATION AND MOBILITY OPTIONS formance metrics below illustrate how well each scenario accommodates multimodal transportation . Key distinctions for each scenario from a transportation and mobility standpoint include the level of ment in transit, biking and walking infrastructure and service improvements. Source: Fort Collins Travel Diary Report (2017) SOV Carpool Walking Bike Transit VMT per person within 1/2 mile of BRT within 1/4 mile of all transit except BRT and regional routes within 1/4 mile of all transit within 1/2 mile of BRT within 1/4 mile of all transit except BRT and regional routes within 1/4 mile of all transit within 1/2 mile of BRT within 1/4 mile of all transit except BRT, regional transit and mobility innovation services+ within 1/4 mile of all transit within 1/2 mile of BRT within 1/4 mile of all transit except BRT, regional transit and mobility innovation services+ within 1/4 mile of all transit 60.7% 17.4% 12% 7.6% 1.8% 3.32 23.4 TOTAL: 19.75 99% All Facilities Enhanced Facilities (protected and buffered bike lanes) 33% 32% Average Daily Riders Per Hour Average Daily Riders Per Mile 15,000 4,300,000 Average Weekday Ridership Annual Ridership 2.8 35 26,000 7,900,000 5.4 68 28,000 7,900,000 5.6 70 60,000 17,200,000 6.1 85 57.5% 8% 3.3% 16.3% 14.9% 55.7% 9.3% 3.5% 15.9% 15.6% 51.8% 10.9% 6.2% 14.9% 16.2% 99% All Facilities 38% Enhanced Facilities (protected and buffered bike lanes) 99% All Facilities 72% Enhanced Facilities (protected and buffered bike lanes) 99% All Facilities 98% Enhanced Facilities (protected and buffered bike lanes) 171 VMT per person VMT per person VMT per person 1.6 27 miles per minutes per mile hour 1.7 25 miles per minutes per mile hour 1.7 25 miles per minutes per mile hour 1.7 25 miles per minutes per mile hour .31 30.5 NEIGHBORHOOD GREENWAY 10.66 0 0 19.8 TOTAL: 41.28 NEIGHBORHOOD GREENWAY 37.26 4.02 0 0 TOTAL: 24.72 61.12 113.4 NEIGHBORHOOD GREENWAY 54 75.97 TOTAL: 12% 22% 22% 31% * A threshold of 11,150 residents and employees per square mile was used to be considered “walkable” based on existing conditions Protected Bike Lane Buffered Bike Lane Bike Lane 75% 25% Existing Missing 80% 20% 90% 10% 100% 82% 70% 75% 51% 87% 24% 19% PERFORMANCE METRICS HOW DO THE SCENARIOS COMPARE? LINS UTURE. PLAN TOGETHER. LINS UTURE. PLAN TOGETHER. EXISTING SCENARIO 1 SCENARIO 2 SCENARIO 3 s Traveled (VMT) per person ould decrease in Scenario 1 from ease even further in Scenarios 2 result of successively increasing nsity in each scenario, as well as nfrastructure and transit service. Mode Share made by vehicle would decrease rio, while the percent of trips by , biking, transit) would increase. mode share increase the most in esult of the robust investment in nfrastructure and transit service. vel Time (minutes/ ) and Speed (mph) hicular travel time and speed is x key corridors across the City slightly, if at all, across all three le variation between scenarios vel time. These numbers are an indicator of congestion. Bicycle Facilities cilities increases in all scenarios, al miles of facilities in Scenarios enario 3. The addition of bicycle otected bike lanes, buffered bike s, and neighborhood greenways. ents Near Bicycle Facilities cent of the population that lives w-stress bicycle facility increases th Scenario 3 providing the best o high comfort bicycle facilities. Population Living a Walkable Area cent of Sidewalks Complete Transit Ridership ould increase from today in all e ridership increase is similar in rio 2 (about 80% growth from similar levels of service hours, rently across the system, while in the most dramatic increase a 300% increase from today). ansit Productivity , as measured by ridership per mile and ridership per revenue crease significantly from today Transit productivity would be a o 3 as compared to Scenarios 1 and 2. ents Near Transit opulation with access to transit the 2012 data in Scenario 1 and 2 and 3 with increasing service he addition of new BRT routes. C SPORTATION AND MOBILITY OPTIONS mance metrics below illustrate how well each scenario accommodates multimodal transportation ey distinctions for each scenario from a transportation and mobility standpoint include the level of t in transit, biking and walking infrastructure and service improvements. Source: Fort Collins Travel Diary Report (2017) SOV Carpool Walking Bike Transit VMT per person within 1/2 mile of BRT within 1/4 mile of all transit except BRT and regional routes within 1/4 mile of all transit within 1/2 mile of BRT within 1/4 mile of all transit except BRT and regional routes within 1/4 mile of all transit within 1/2 mile of BRT within 1/4 mile of all transit except BRT, regional transit and mobility innovation services+ within 1/4 mile of all transit within 1/2 mile of BRT within 1/4 mile of all transit except BRT, regional transit and mobility innovation services+ within 1/4 mile of all transit 60.7% 17.4% 12% 7.6% 1.8% 3.32 23.4 TOTAL: 19.75 99% All Facilities Enhanced Facilities (protected and buffered bike lanes) 33% 32% Average Daily Riders Per Hour Average Daily Riders Per Mile 15,000 4,300,000 Average Weekday Ridership Annual Ridership 2.8 35 26,000 7,900,000 5.4 68 28,000 7,900,000 5.6 70 60,000 17,200,000 6.1 85 57.5% 8% 3.3% 16.3% 14.9% 55.7% 9.3% 3.5% 15.9% 15.6% 51.8% 10.9% 6.2% 14.9% 16.2% 99% All Facilities 38% Enhanced Facilities (protected and buffered bike lanes) 99% All Facilities 72% Enhanced Facilities (protected and buffered bike lanes) 99% All Facilities 98% Enhanced Facilities (protected and buffered bike lanes) 171 VMT per person VMT per person VMT per person 1.6 27 miles per minutes per mile hour 1.7 25 miles per minutes per mile hour 1.7 25 miles per minutes per mile hour 1.7 25 miles per minutes per mile hour .31 30.5 NEIGHBORHOOD GREENWAY 10.66 0 0 19.8 TOTAL: 41.28 NEIGHBORHOOD GREENWAY 37.26 4.02 0 0 TOTAL: 24.72 61.12 113.4 NEIGHBORHOOD GREENWAY 54 75.97 TOTAL: 12% 22% 22% 31% * A threshold of 11,150 residents and employees per square mile was used to be considered “walkable” based on existing conditions Protected Bike Lane Buffered Bike Lane Bike Lane 75% 25% Existing Missing 80% 20% 90% 10% 100% 82% 70% 75% 51% 87% 24% 19% PERFORMANCE METRICS HOW DO THE SCENARIOS COMPARE? LINS UTURE. PLAN TOGETHER. LINS UTURE. PLAN TOGETHER. EXISTING SCENARIO 1 SCENARIO 2 SCENARIO 3 es Traveled (VMT) per person would decrease in Scenario 1 from rease even further in Scenarios 2 result of successively increasing ensity in each scenario, as well as nfrastructure and transit service. Mode Share made by vehicle would decrease ario, while the percent of trips by g, biking, transit) would increase. mode share increase the most in result of the robust investment in nfrastructure and transit service. avel Time (minutes/ ) and Speed (mph) hicular travel time and speed is six key corridors across the City slightly, if at all, across all three tle variation between scenarios vel time. These numbers are an indicator of congestion. f Bicycle Facilities acilities increases in all scenarios, nal miles of facilities in Scenarios cenario 3. The addition of bicycle otected bike lanes, buffered bike es, and neighborhood greenways. dents Near Bicycle Facilities rcent of the population that lives w-stress bicycle facility increases ith Scenario 3 providing the best to high comfort bicycle facilities. Population Living n a Walkable Area cent of Sidewalks Complete Transit Ridership would increase from today in all e ridership increase is similar in ario 2 (about 80% growth from e similar levels of service hours, erently across the system, while t in the most dramatic increase t a 300% increase from today). ansit Productivity y, as measured by ridership per mile and ridership per revenue ncrease significantly from today Transit productivity would be a o 3 as compared to Scenarios 1 C NSPORTATION AND MOBILITY OPTIONS rmance metrics below illustrate how well each scenario accommodates multimodal transportation ey distinctions for each scenario from a transportation and mobility standpoint include the level of t in transit, biking and walking infrastructure and service improvements. Source: Fort Collins Travel Diary Report (2017) SOV Carpool Walking Bike Transit VMT per person 60.7% 17.4% 12% 7.6% 1.8% 3.32 23.4 TOTAL: 19.75 99% All Facilities Enhanced Facilities (protected and buffered bike lanes) 33% 15,000 4,300,000 Average Weekday Ridership Annual Ridership 2.8 35 26,000 7,900,000 5.4 68 28,000 7,900,000 5.6 70 60,000 17,200,000 6.1 85 57.5% 8% 3.3% 16.3% 14.9% 55.7% 9.3% 3.5% 15.9% 15.6% 51.8% 10.9% 6.2% 14.9% 16.2% 99% All Facilities 38% Enhanced Facilities (protected and buffered bike lanes) 99% All Facilities 72% Enhanced Facilities (protected and buffered bike lanes) 99% All Facilities 98% Enhanced Facilities (protected and buffered bike lanes) 171 VMT per person VMT per person VMT per person 1.6 27 miles per minutes per mile hour 1.7 25 miles per minutes per mile hour 1.7 25 miles per minutes per mile hour 1.7 25 miles per minutes per mile hour .31 30.5 NEIGHBORHOOD GREENWAY 10.66 0 0 19.8 TOTAL: 41.28 NEIGHBORHOOD GREENWAY 37.26 4.02 0 0 TOTAL: 24.72 61.12 113.4 NEIGHBORHOOD GREENWAY 54 75.97 TOTAL: 12% 22% 22% 31% * A threshold of 11,150 residents and employees per square mile was used to be considered “walkable” based on existing conditions Protected Bike Lane Buffered Bike Lane Bike Lane 75% 25% Existing Missing 80% 20% 90% 10% 100% PERFORMANCE METRICS HOW DO THE SCENARIOS COMPARE? PLAN TURE. INS TOGETHER. PLAN TURE. INS TOGETHER. EXISTING SCENARIO 1 SCENARIO 2 SCENARIO 3 s Traveled (VMT) per person uld decrease in Scenario 1 from ase even further in Scenarios 2 esult of successively increasing sity in each scenario, as well as rastructure and transit service. Mode Share ade by vehicle would decrease o, while the percent of trips by biking, transit) would increase. ode share increase the most in ult of the robust investment in rastructure and transit service. el Time (minutes/ and Speed (mph) cular travel time and speed is key corridors across the City ightly, if at all, across all three e variation between scenarios el time. These numbers are an indicator of congestion. Bicycle Facilities ilities increases in all scenarios, l miles of facilities in Scenarios nario 3. The addition of bicycle ected bike lanes, buffered bike and neighborhood greenways. ents Near Bicycle Facilities ent of the population that lives stress bicycle facility increases h Scenario 3 providing the best high comfort bicycle facilities. opulation Living a Walkable Area ent of Sidewalks Complete Transit Ridership uld increase from today in all ridership increase is similar in io 2 (about 80% growth from similar levels of service hours, ently across the system, while n the most dramatic increase a 300% increase from today). nsit Productivity as measured by ridership per mile and ridership per revenue ease significantly from today ansit productivity would be a 3 as compared to Scenarios 1 C SPORTATION AND MOBILITY OPTIONS mance metrics below illustrate how well each scenario accommodates multimodal transportation y distinctions for each scenario from a transportation and mobility standpoint include the level of in transit, biking and walking infrastructure and service improvements. Source: Fort Collins Travel Diary Report (2017) SOV Carpool Walking Bike Transit VMT per person 60.7% 17.4% 12% 7.6% 1.8% 3.32 23.4 TOTAL: 19.75 99% All Facilities Enhanced Facilities (protected and buffered bike lanes) 33% 15,000 4,300,000 Average Weekday Ridership Annual Ridership 2.8 35 26,000 7,900,000 5.4 68 28,000 7,900,000 5.6 70 60,000 17,200,000 6.1 85 57.5% 8% 3.3% 16.3% 14.9% 55.7% 9.3% 3.5% 15.9% 15.6% 51.8% 10.9% 6.2% 14.9% 16.2% 99% All Facilities 38% Enhanced Facilities (protected and buffered bike lanes) 99% All Facilities 72% Enhanced Facilities (protected and buffered bike lanes) 99% All Facilities 98% Enhanced Facilities (protected and buffered bike lanes) 171 VMT per person VMT per person VMT per person 1.6 27 miles per minutes per mile hour 1.7 25 miles per minutes per mile hour 1.7 25 miles per minutes per mile hour 1.7 25 miles per minutes per mile hour .31 30.5 NEIGHBORHOOD GREENWAY 10.66 0 0 19.8 TOTAL: 41.28 NEIGHBORHOOD GREENWAY 37.26 4.02 0 0 TOTAL: 24.72 61.12 113.4 NEIGHBORHOOD GREENWAY 54 75.97 TOTAL: 12% 22% 22% 31% * A threshold of 11,150 residents and employees per square mile was used to be considered “walkable” based on existing conditions Protected Bike Lane Buffered Bike Lane Bike Lane 75% 25% Existing Missing 80% 20% 90% 10% 100% PERFORMANCE METRICS HOW DO THE SCENARIOS COMPARE? CITY FORT PLANNING COLLINS OUR FUTURE. PLAN TOGETHER. CITY FORT PLANNING COLLINS OUR FUTURE. PLAN TOGETHER. SCENARIO 1 SCENARIO 2 SCENARIO 3 Access to Nature Access to parks, open space, and other natural areas plays a key role in supporting a good quality of life for residents , by providing opportunities for recreation, physical activity, and experiencing nature and the natural environment. In addition, studies have found a link between exposure to nature and improved mental health. By focusing development of housing within close proximity of our existing greenspaces, we can increase the number of residents that are able to reach nature within a 10-minute walking distance. 67% 69% 72% Access to Mixed-Use Areas Expanding residents’ access to mixed-use areas in the city is an important goal for a number of reasons. Expand access means that less people need to drive to reach every-day services they use, such as the grocery store, restaurants, medical services, and retail shops. While this might not be an issue for those with cars who are happy to drive across town to reach these areas, some of our residents do not own cars or cannot drive, and are not so mobile. Second, mixed-use areas near residential areas provides opportunities for residents to live near where they work, and/or work near where they live. As an added bonus, reducing the need to drive to these locations, and allowing more residents to walk, will help us move towards our climate action goals. Transit Access for Vulnerable Populations HEALTH AND EQUITY Housing units, jobs, vehicle miles traveled, carbon emissions. It is important not to forget that a crucial component of what makes Fort Collins a great community is its residents. As we look to the future, we’ll want to consider how each of the scenarios impacts us, particularly those of use who are most vulnerable or in greatest need of access to transit, parks and open space, medical services, etc. At the same time that we must ensure the benefits future growth creates are distributed equitably across our community, we must also be sure that one group is not disproportionately impacted over others by the changes to our city envisioned in the scenarios. Downtown District Urban Mixed-Use District Suburban Mixed-Use District Neighborhood Mixed-Use District PERFORMANCE METRICS HOW DO THE SCENARIOS COMPARE? CITY FORT PLANNING COLLINS OUR FUTURE. PLAN TOGETHER. CITY FORT PLANNING COLLINS OUR FUTURE. PLAN TOGETHER. SCENARIO 1 SCENARIO 2 SCENARIO 3 Access to Nature Access to parks, open space, and other natural areas plays a key role in supporting a good quality of life for residents , by providing opportunities for recreation, physical activity, and experiencing nature and the natural environment. In addition, studies have found a link between exposure to nature and improved mental health. By focusing development of housing within close proximity of our existing greenspaces, we can increase the number of residents that are able to reach nature within a 10-minute walking distance. 67% 69% 72% Access to Mixed-Use Areas Expanding residents’ access to mixed-use areas in the city is an important goal for a number of reasons. Expand access means that less people need to drive to reach every-day services they use, such as the grocery store, restaurants, medical services, and retail shops. While this might not be an issue for those with cars who are happy to drive across town to reach these areas, some of our residents do not own cars or cannot drive, and are not so mobile. Second, mixed-use areas near residential areas provides opportunities for residents to live near where they work, and/or work near where they live. As an added bonus, reducing the need to drive to these locations, and allowing more residents to walk, will help us move towards our climate action goals. Transit Access for Vulnerable Populations HEALTH AND EQUITY Housing units, jobs, vehicle miles traveled, carbon emissions. It is important not to forget that a crucial component of what makes Fort Collins a great community is its residents. As we look to the future, we’ll want to consider how each of the scenarios impacts us, particularly those of use who are most vulnerable or in greatest need of access to transit, parks and open space, medical services, etc. At the same time that we must ensure the benefits future growth creates are distributed equitably across our community, we must also be sure that one group is not disproportionately impacted over others by the changes to our city envisioned in the scenarios. Downtown District Urban Mixed-Use District Suburban Mixed-Use District Neighborhood Mixed-Use District urce: Fort Collins Travel Diary Report (2017) SOV Carpool Walking Bike Transit VMT per person 60.7% 17.4% 12% 7.6% 1.8% 3.32 23.4 TOTAL: 19.75 99% All Facilities Enhanced Facilities (protected and buffered bike lanes) 33% Average Daily Riders Per Hour Average Daily Riders Per Mile 15,000 4,300,000 Average Weekday Ridership Annual Ridership 2.8 35 26,000 7,900,000 5.4 68 28,000 7,900,000 5.6 70 60,000 17,200,000 6.1 85 57.5% 8% 3.3% 16.3% 14.9% 55.7% 9.3% 3.5% 15.9% 15.6% 51.8% 10.9% 6.2% 14.9% 16.2% 99% All Facilities 38% Enhanced Facilities (protected and buffered bike lanes) 99% All Facilities 72% Enhanced Facilities (protected and buffered bike lanes) 99% All Facilities 98% Enhanced Facilities (protected and buffered bike lanes) 171 VMT per person VMT per person VMT per person 1.6 27 miles per minutes per mile hour 1.7 25 miles per minutes per mile hour 1.7 25 miles per minutes per mile hour 1.7 25 miles per minutes per mile hour .31 30.5 NEIGHBORHOOD GREENWAY 10.66 0 0 19.8 TOTAL: 41.28 NEIGHBORHOOD GREENWAY 37.26 4.02 0 0 TOTAL: 24.72 61.12 113.4 NEIGHBORHOOD GREENWAY 54 75.97 TOTAL: 12% 22% 22% 31% hreshold of 11,150 residents and employees per square mile was used to be considered “walkable” based on existing conditions Buffered Bike Lane Bike Lane 75% 25% Existing Missing 80% 20% 90% 10% 100% llins Travel Diary Report (2017) SOV Carpool Walking Bike Transit VMT per person 60.7% 7.4% 12% 7.6% 1.8% 32 23.4 TOTAL: 19.75 9% ll ities Enhanced Facilities (protected and buffered bike lanes) 33% Average Daily Riders Per Hour Average Daily Riders Per Mile 15,000 4,300,000 Average Weekday Ridership Annual Ridership 2.8 35 26,000 7,900,000 5.4 68 28,000 7,900,000 5.6 70 60,000 17,200,000 6.1 85 57.5% 8% 3.3% 16.3% 14.9% 55.7% 9.3% 3.5% 15.9% 15.6% 51.8% 10.9% 6.2% 14.9% 16.2% 99% All Facilities 38% Enhanced Facilities (protected and buffered bike lanes) 99% All Facilities 72% Enhanced Facilities (protected and buffered bike lanes) 99% All Facilities 98% Enhanced Facilities (protected and buffered bike lanes) 171 VMT per person VMT per person VMT per person 6 27 miles per per mile hour 1.7 25 miles per minutes per mile hour 1.7 25 miles per minutes per mile hour 1.7 25 miles per minutes per mile hour 1 30.5 NEIGHBORHOOD GREENWAY 10.66 0 0 19.8 TOTAL: 41.28 NEIGHBORHOOD GREENWAY 37.26 4.02 0 0 TOTAL: 24.72 61.12 113.4 NEIGHBORHOOD GREENWAY 54 75.97 TOTAL: 12% 22% 22% 31% 1,150 residents and employees per square mile was used to be considered “walkable” based on existing conditions Buffered Bike Lane Bike Lane 75% 5% Existing Missing 80% 20% 90% 10% 100% Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) per person Vehicular Travel Time (minutes/mile) and Speed (mph) Residents Near Bicycle Facilities Scenarios 2 and 3 reduce personal vehicle trips, create additional transportation choices through transit, bikeability, and walkability, and reduce overall vehicle miles traveled and emissions. VMT per person would decrease in Scenario 1 from today and would decrease even further in Scenarios 2 and3 as a result of successively increasing population density in each scenario, as well as investments in bicycle infrastructure and transit service. The typical vehicular travel time and speed is measured based on six key corridors across the City would change only slightly, if at all, across all three scenarios. The percent of the population that lives within 1/4 mile of a low-stress bicycle facility increases in all scenarios, with Scenario 3 providing the best access to high comfort bicycle facilities. The percent of the population with access to transit decreases from the 2012 data in Scenario 1 and increases in Scenarios 2 and 3 with increasing service and the addition of new BRT routes. A threshold of 11,150 residents and employees per square mile was used to be considered “walkable” based on existing conditions. By focusing development of housing within close proximity of our existing greenspaces, we can increase the number of residents that are able to reach nature within a 10-minute walking distance. The cost estimates in each scenario do NOT include capital costs for transit or costs to acquire right-of-way. They DO include operation costs and construction estimates for bike and pedestrian infrastructure. SCENARIO 1 SCENARIO 2 SCENARIO 3 Transportation Energy and GHG Emissions All three scenarios continue to rely on the personal vehicle for a significant portion of trips. However, scenarios 2 and 3 significantly reduce those trips, create additional transportation choices through transit, bikeability, and walkability, and reduce overall vehicle miles traveled and emissions by XX and YY. And because transportation represents such a sizable portion of the community’s overall greenhouse gas emissions, and because mode shifting can only address a relatively small share of those emissions, supporting the transition to electric vehicles—shared or owned—will be an important supplement to all scenarios. 7% Reduction 15% Reduction 29% Reduction Building Energy and GHG Emissions Scenarios 2 and 3 increase urban density and create a housing mix with a greater share of multifamily housing units relative to single family. This is an important shift with regard to energy use and GHG emissions as multifamily units in buildings with five or more units use about 64% of the energy of detached single family units. Multifamily buildings with 2-4 units use about 50% less than detached single family units. All Scenarios will reduce energy use per housing unit relative to current conditions, and Scenarios 2 and 3 will reduce energy use per unit even further due to the additional units in each scenario. X% Reduction per Housing Unit 4% Reduction per Housing Unit 12% Reduction per Housing Unit Household Water Consumption Since the largest source of water consumption in single- family housing is irrigation, any scenario that promotes increased density and a higher overall proportion of multifamily housing will reduce the community’s irrigation and overall water consumption relative to the base scenario. Ft. Collins data suggests that multifamily units use 17% less water than single family units, largely due to reduced irrigation. Further, with increasing density, total household water use will approach indoor water use (i.e., irrigation will trend towards zero gallons per multifamily household). As a result Scenario 2 is anticipated to result in a modest 4% reduction in household water use relative to Scenario 1, and Scenario 3 is anticipated to reduce water use by 12%. Reduction per 2% Housing Unit Reduction per 6% Housing Unit Reduction per 14% Housing Unit Human Health City Plan impacts health in a number of ways. Shifting the number of trips from cars to walking, biking, or transit increases physical activity and reduces air pollutants. It also creates more opportunity for the community to have access to green space in the form of parks or nature. As density increases and parks are the city continues to develop parks, greenways, and open space, an increasing number of residents will have access to these amenities. 162,000 Residents 168,000 Residents 175,000 Residents C LTH City Plan will have a significant impact on the community’s ability to meet its broader environmental and human health goals. Increased density and transportation choices result in a smaller land use footprint, reduced vehicle miles traveled, increased walkability and bikeability, and smaller housing units sizes. This in turn translates to reduced energy use, greenhouse gas emissions, and water demand, and improved health outcomes. If done in concern with public greenspace and greenways, it can also yield greater opportunities for habitat, recreation, and connection to the outdoors. SCENARIO 1 SCENARIO 2 SCENARIO 3 Transportation Energy and GHG Emissions All three scenarios continue to rely on the personal vehicle for a significant portion of trips. However, scenarios 2 and 3 significantly reduce those trips, create additional transportation choices through transit, bikeability, and walkability, and reduce overall vehicle miles traveled and emissions by XX and YY. And because transportation represents such a sizable portion of the community’s overall greenhouse gas emissions, and because mode shifting can only address a relatively small share of those emissions, supporting the transition to electric vehicles—shared or owned—will be an important supplement to all scenarios. 7% Reduction 15% Reduction 29% Reduction Building Energy and GHG Emissions Scenarios 2 and 3 increase urban density and create a housing mix with a greater share of multifamily housing units relative to single family. This is an important shift with regard to energy use and GHG emissions as multifamily units in buildings with five or more units use about 64% of the energy of detached single family units. Multifamily buildings with 2-4 units use about 50% less than detached single family units. All Scenarios will reduce energy use per housing unit relative to current conditions, and Scenarios 2 and 3 will reduce energy use per unit even further due to the additional units in each scenario. X% Reduction per Housing Unit 4% Reduction per Housing Unit 12% Reduction per Housing Unit Household Water Consumption Since the largest source of water consumption in single- family housing is irrigation, any scenario that promotes increased density and a higher overall proportion of multifamily housing will reduce the community’s irrigation and overall water consumption relative to the base scenario. Ft. Collins data suggests that multifamily units use 17% less water than single family units, largely due to reduced irrigation. Further, with increasing density, total household water use will approach indoor water use (i.e., irrigation will trend towards zero gallons per multifamily household). As a result Scenario 2 is anticipated to result in a modest 4% reduction in household water use relative to Scenario 1, and Scenario 3 is anticipated to reduce water use by 12%. Reduction per 2% Housing Unit Reduction per 6% Housing Unit Reduction per 14% Housing Unit Human Health City Plan impacts health in a number of ways. Shifting the number of trips from cars to walking, biking, or transit increases physical activity and reduces air pollutants. It also creates more opportunity for the community to have access to green space in the form of parks or nature. As density increases and parks are the city continues to develop parks, greenways, and open space, an increasing number of residents will have access to these amenities. 162,000 Residents 168,000 Residents 175,000 Residents C LTH City Plan will have a significant impact on the community’s ability to meet its broader environmental and human health goals. Increased density and transportation choices result in a smaller land use footprint, reduced vehicle miles traveled, increased walkability and bikeability, and smaller housing units sizes. This in turn translates to reduced energy use, greenhouse gas emissions, and water demand, and improved health outcomes. If done in concern with public greenspace and greenways, it can also yield greater opportunities for habitat, recreation, and connection to the outdoors. SCENARIO 1 SCENARIO 2 SCENARIO 3 Transportation Energy and GHG Emissions All three scenarios continue to rely on the personal vehicle for a significant portion of trips. However, scenarios 2 and 3 significantly reduce those trips, create additional transportation choices through transit, bikeability, and walkability, and reduce overall vehicle miles traveled and emissions by XX and YY. And because transportation represents such a sizable portion of the community’s overall greenhouse gas emissions, and because mode shifting can only address a relatively small share of those emissions, supporting the transition to electric vehicles—shared or owned—will be an important supplement to all scenarios. 7% Reduction 15% Reduction 29% Reduction Building Energy and GHG Emissions Scenarios 2 and 3 increase urban density and create a housing mix with a greater share of multifamily housing units relative to single family. This is an important shift with regard to energy use and GHG emissions as multifamily units in buildings with five or more units use about 64% of the energy of detached single family units. Multifamily buildings with 2-4 units use about 50% less than detached single family units. All Scenarios will reduce energy use per housing unit relative to current conditions, and Scenarios 2 and 3 will reduce energy use per unit even further due to the additional units in each scenario. X% Reduction per Housing Unit 4% Reduction per Housing Unit 12% Reduction per Housing Unit Household Water Consumption Since the largest source of water consumption in single- family housing is irrigation, any scenario that promotes increased density and a higher overall proportion of multifamily housing will reduce the community’s irrigation and overall water consumption relative to the base scenario. Ft. Collins data suggests that multifamily units use 17% less water than single family units, largely due to reduced irrigation. Further, with increasing density, total household water use will approach indoor water use (i.e., irrigation will trend towards zero gallons per multifamily household). As a result Scenario 2 is anticipated to result in a modest 4% reduction in household water use relative to Scenario 1, and Scenario 3 is anticipated to reduce water use by 12%. Reduction per 2% Housing Unit Reduction per 6% Housing Unit Reduction per 14% Housing Unit Human Health City Plan impacts health in a number of ways. Shifting the number of trips from cars to walking, biking, or transit increases physical activity and reduces air pollutants. It also creates more opportunity for the community to have access to green space in the form of parks or nature. As density increases and parks are the city continues to develop parks, greenways, and open space, an increasing number of residents will have access to these amenities. 162,000 Residents 168,000 Residents 175,000 Residents C LTH City Plan will have a significant impact on the community’s ability to meet its broader environmental and human health goals. Increased density and transportation choices result in a smaller land use footprint, reduced vehicle miles traveled, increased walkability and bikeability, and smaller housing units sizes. This in turn translates to reduced energy use, greenhouse gas emissions, and water demand, and improved health outcomes. If done in concern with public greenspace and greenways, it can also yield greater opportunities for habitat, recreation, and connection to the outdoors. within 1/2 mile of BRT within 1/4 mile of all transit except regional routes within 1/2 mile of BRT within 1/2 mile of BRT within 1/4 mile of all transit except regional routes within 1/4 mile of all transit except regional routes ost in ent in rvice. es/ ph) ed is City three arios re an stion. ies arios, arios cycle bike ways. cle ies lives eases best lities. ng ea lks ete hip in all lar in from ours, while ease day). ity p per enue oday be a rios 1 nd 2. nsit ansit 1 and rvice utes. st* clude ight- s and trian cture. ions. Transit: $25,700,000 Bike: $436,000 Total: $26,100,000 Transit: $30,100,000 Bike: $470,000 Total: $30,600,000 Transit: $33,500,000 Bike: $1,900,000 Total: $35,400,000 Transit: $77,000,000 Bike: $6,000,000 Total: $83,000,000 Source: Fort Collins Travel Diary Report (2017) SOV Carpool Walking Bike Transit within 1/2 mile of BRT within 1/4 mile of all transit except BRT and regional routes within 1/4 mile of all transit except regional routes within 1/2 mile of BRT within 1/4 mile of all transit except BRT and regional routes within 1/4 mile of all transit except regional routes within 1/2 mile of BRT within 1/4 mile of all transit except BRT, regional transit and mobility innovation services+ within 1/4 mile of all transit except regional routes within 1/2 mile of BRT within 1/4 mile of all transit except BRT, regional transit and mobility innovation services+ within 1/4 mile of all transit except regional routes 3 23.4 TOTAL: 20 99% All Facilities Enhanced Facilities (protected and buffered bike lanes) 33% 32% 82% Average Daily Riders Per Hour Average Daily Riders Per Mile 15,000 4,300,000 Average Weekday Ridership Annual Ridership 2.8 35 26,000 7,900,000 5.4 68 28,000 8,000,000 5.6 70 51,000 14,900,000 6.5 87 15.9% 14.9% 99% All Facilities 38% Enhanced Facilities (protected and buffered bike lanes) 99% All Facilities 72% Enhanced Facilities (protected and buffered bike lanes) 99% All Facilities 98% Enhanced Facilities (protected and buffered bike lanes) +. Mobility Innovation Services will be developed in the future but are intended to be first-last-mile connections to the transit system for lower-density areas in Fort Collins. Examples could include pick-up/drop-off services (similar to Lyft or Urber) to transit stops, microtransit shuttles, or other connections that could be facilitated by new transportation technologies in the future. In general, these services have lower operating costs than fixed route services in low-density 171 striping, and therefore negligible at this high level of an estimate. The cost per mile of protected bike lane or buffered bike lane is about $1,000,000. 3. Over 20 years, this equates to $9,273,233 for Scenario 1, $47,779,086 for Scenario 2 1.6 27 miles per minutes per mile hour 1.7 25 miles per minutes per mile hour 1.7 25 miles per minutes per mile hour 1.7 25 miles per minutes per mile hour .4 20 NEIGHBORHOOD GREENWAY 11 0 0 TOTAL: 31 0 NEIGHBORHOOD GREENWAY 37 4 0 TOTAL: 41 236 61 45 NEIGHBORHOOD GREENWAY 54 76 TOTAL: 12% 22% 22% 31% * A threshold of 11,150 residents and employees per square mile was used to be considered “walkable” based on existing conditions Protected Bike Lane Buffered Bike Lane Bike Lane 75% 25% Existing Missing 80% 20% 90% 10% 100% 93% 82% 70% 71% 75% 51% 87% 85% 24% 19% $0.4 M $15 M TOTAL: $15.8 M $0.4 M Transit Bike Walking Total $0.5 M $17 - 20 M TOTAL: $18 - 21 M $0.5 M $2 M $17 - 20 M TOTAL: $20.4 - 23.4 M $1.4 M $6 M $25 - 30 M TOTAL: $33.3 - 38.3 M $2.3 M Shared Street (Existing) Miles of new bike facilities Miles of new bike facilities Miles of new bike facilities Miles of new bike facilities ease the most in st investment in d transit service. (minutes/ ed (mph) me and speed is across the City across all three ween scenarios numbers are an r of congestion. Facilities s in all scenarios, ties in Scenarios dition of bicycle es, buffered bike hood greenways. r Bicycle Facilities ulation that lives acility increases oviding the best bicycle facilities. on Living ble Area idewalks Complete Ridership rom today in all ease is similar in 0% growth from f service hours, e system, while amatic increase se from today). ductivity by ridership per hip per revenue ntly from today vity would be a d to Scenarios 1 and 2. ar Transit ccess to transit n Scenario 1 and creasing service ew BRT routes. ive Cost* do NOT include o acquire right- ation costs and and pedestrian infrastructure. ars, M=millions. Transit: $25,700,000 Bike: $436,000 Total: $26,100,000 Transit: $30,100,000 Bike: $470,000 Total: $30,600,000 Transit: $33,500,000 Bike: $1,900,000 Total: $35,400,000 Transit: $77,000,000 Bike: $6,000,000 Total: $83,000,000 Source: Fort Collins Travel Diary Report (2017) SOV Carpool Walking Bike Transit within 1/2 mile of BRT within 1/4 mile of all transit except BRT and regional routes within 1/4 mile of all transit except regional routes within 1/2 mile of BRT within 1/4 mile of all transit except BRT and regional routes within 1/4 mile of all transit except regional routes within 1/2 mile of BRT within 1/4 mile of all transit except BRT, regional transit and mobility innovation services+ within 1/4 mile of all transit except regional routes within 1/2 mile of BRT within 1/4 mile of all transit except BRT, regional transit and mobility innovation services+ within 1/4 mile of all transit except regional routes 3 23.4 TOTAL: 20 99% All Facilities Enhanced Facilities (protected and buffered bike lanes) 33% 32% 82% Average Daily Riders Per Hour Average Daily Riders Per Mile 15,000 4,300,000 Average Weekday Ridership Annual Ridership 2.8 35 26,000 7,900,000 5.4 68 28,000 8,000,000 5.6 70 51,000 14,900,000 6.5 87 15.9% 14.9% 99% All Facilities 38% Enhanced Facilities (protected and buffered bike lanes) 99% All Facilities 72% Enhanced Facilities (protected and buffered bike lanes) 99% All Facilities 98% Enhanced Facilities (protected and buffered bike lanes) +. Mobility Innovation Services will be developed in the future but are intended to be first-last-mile connections to the transit system for lower-density areas in Fort Collins. Examples could include pick-up/drop-off services (similar to Lyft or Urber) to transit stops, microtransit shuttles, or other connections that could be facilitated by new transportation technologies in the future. In general, these services have lower operating costs than fixed route services in low-density 171 capital or s estimated based striping, and therefore negligible at this high level of an estimate. The cost per mile of protected bike lane or buffered bike lane is about $1,000,000. 3. Over 20 years, this equates to $9,273,233 for Scenario 1, $47,779,086 for Scenario 2 1.6 27 miles per minutes per mile hour 1.7 25 miles per minutes per mile hour 1.7 25 miles per minutes per mile hour 1.7 25 miles per minutes per mile hour .4 20 NEIGHBORHOOD GREENWAY 11 0 0 TOTAL: 31 0 NEIGHBORHOOD GREENWAY 37 4 0 TOTAL: 41 236 61 45 NEIGHBORHOOD GREENWAY 54 76 TOTAL: 12% 22% 22% 31% * A threshold of 11,150 residents and employees per square mile was used to be considered “walkable” based on existing conditions Protected Bike Lane Buffered Bike Lane Bike Lane 75% 25% Existing Missing 80% 20% 90% 10% 100% 93% 82% 70% 71% 75% 51% 87% 85% 24% 19% $0.4 M $15 M TOTAL: $15.8 M $0.4 M Transit Bike Walking Total $0.5 M $17 - 20 M TOTAL: $18 - 21 M $0.5 M $2 M $17 - 20 M TOTAL: $20.4 - 23.4 M $1.4 M $6 M $25 - 30 M TOTAL: $33.3 - 38.3 M $2.3 M Shared Street (Existing) Miles of new bike facilities Miles of new bike facilities Miles of new bike facilities Miles of new bike fac ese numbers are an ator of congestion. e Facilities ases in all scenarios, acilities in Scenarios e addition of bicycle lanes, buffered bike borhood greenways. ear Bicycle Facilities population that lives cle facility increases 3 providing the best ort bicycle facilities. tion Living kable Area Sidewalks Complete t Ridership se from today in all ncrease is similar in t 80% growth from els of service hours, s the system, while t dramatic increase crease from today). roductivity ed by ridership per ership per revenue ficantly from today uctivity would be a ared to Scenarios 1 and 2. ear Transit th access to transit ta in Scenario 1 and h increasing service of new BRT routes. ative Cost* rio do NOT include ts to acquire right- operation costs and bike and pedestrian infrastructure. dollars, M=millions. Transit: $25,700,000 Bike: $436,000 Total: $26,100,000 Transit: $30,100,000 Bike: $470,000 Total: $30,600,000 Transit: $33,500,000 Bike: $1,900,000 Total: $35,400,000 Transit: $77,000,000 Bike: $6,000,000 Total: $83,000,000 within 1/2 mile of BRT within 1/4 mile of all transit except BRT and regional routes within 1/4 mile of all transit except regional routes within 1/2 mile of BRT within 1/4 mile of all transit except BRT and regional routes within 1/4 mile of all transit except regional routes within 1/2 mile of BRT within 1/4 mile of all transit except BRT, regional transit and mobility innovation services+ within 1/4 mile of all transit except regional routes wit BR wit exc and ser wit exc 3 23.4 TOTAL: 20 99% All Facilities Enhanced Facilities (protected and buffered bike lanes) 33% 32% 82% Average Daily Riders Per Hour Average Daily Riders Per Mile 15,000 4,300,000 Average Weekday Ridership Annual Ridership 2.8 35 26,000 7,900,000 5.4 68 28,000 8,000,000 5.6 70 14 99% All Facilities 38% Enhanced Facilities (protected and buffered bike lanes) 99% All Facilities 72% Enhanced Facilities (protected and buffered bike lanes) 99% Al Facili +. Mobility Innovation Services will be developed in the future but are intended to be first-last-mile connections to the transit system for lower-density areas in Fort Collins. Examples could include pick-up/drop-off services (similar to Lyft or Urber) to transit stops, microtransit shuttles, or other connections that could be facilitated by new transportation 171 nclude capital or rio was estimated based striping, and therefore negligible at this high level of an estimate. The cost per mile of protected bike lane or buffered bike lane is about $1,000,000. 3. Over 20 years, this equates to $9,273,233 for Scenario 1, $47,779,086 for Scenario 2 27 minutes per mile hour 25 minutes per mile hour 25 minutes per mile hour minutes .4 20 NEIGHBORHOOD GREENWAY 11 0 0 TOTAL: 31 0 NEIGHBORHOOD GREENWAY 37 4 0 TOTAL: 41 45 54 12% 22% 22% * A threshold of 11,150 residents and employees per square mile was used to be considered “walkable” based on existing conditions Protected Bike Lane Buffered Bike Lane Bike Lane 75% 25% Existing Missing 80% 20% 90% 10% 93% 82% 70% 71% 75% 51% 87% 85% 24% 19% $0.4 M $15 M TOTAL: $15.8 M $0.4 M Transit Bike Walking Total $0.5 M $17 - 20 M TOTAL: $18 - 21 M $0.5 M $2 M $17 - 20 M TOTAL: $20.4 - 23.4 M $1.4 M TO Shared Street (Existing) Miles of new bike facilities Miles of new bike facilities Miles of new bike facilities All numbers are in 2018 dollars, M=millions. SOV Carpool Walking Bike Transit Average Weekday Ridership Annual Ridership 26,000 7,900,000 28,000 7,900,000 60,000 17,200,000 57.5% 8% 3.3% 16.3% 14.9% 55.7% 9.3% 3.5% 15.9% 15.6% 51.8% 10.9% 6.2% 14.9% 16.2% 99% All Facilities 38% Enhanced Facilities (protected and buffered bike lanes) 99% All Facilities 72% Enhanced Facilities (protected and buffered bike lanes) 99% All Facilities 98% Enhanced Facilities (protected and buffered bike lanes) 1.7 25 miles per minutes per mile hour 1.7 25 miles per minutes per mile hour 1.7 25 miles per minutes per mile hour 30.5 NEIGHBORHOOD GREENWAY 10.66 0 0 19.8 TOTAL: 41.28 NEIGHBORHOOD GREENWAY 37.26 4.02 0 0 TOTAL: 24.72 61.12 113.4 NEIGHBORHOOD GREENWAY 54 75.97 TOTAL: 22% 22% 31% quare mile was used to be considered “walkable” based on existing conditions Existing Missing 80% 20% 90% 10% 100% y Report (2017) SOV Carpool Walking Bike Transit 60.7% 23.4 TOTAL: 75 Enhanced Facilities protected and ffered bike lanes) 33% 00 000 Average Weekday Ridership Annual Ridership 26,000 7,900,000 28,000 7,900,000 60,000 17,200,000 57.5% 8% 3.3% 16.3% 14.9% 55.7% 9.3% 3.5% 15.9% 15.6% 51.8% 10.9% 6.2% 14.9% 16.2% 99% All Facilities 38% Enhanced Facilities (protected and buffered bike lanes) 99% All Facilities 72% Enhanced Facilities (protected and buffered bike lanes) 99% All Facilities 98% Enhanced Facilities (protected and buffered bike lane 171 27 miles per hour 1.7 25 miles per minutes per mile hour 1.7 25 miles per minutes per mile hour 1.7 25 mil per minutes per mile hou 30.5 NEIGHBORHOOD GREENWAY 10.66 0 0 19.8 TOTAL: 41.28 NEIGHBORHOOD GREENWAY 37.26 4.02 0 0 TOTAL: 24 61 113.4 NEIGHBORHOOD GREENWAY 54 75.97 TOT 12% 22% 22% 31% and employees per square mile was used to be considered “walkable” based on existing conditions Bike Lane 75% Existing Missing 80% 20% 90% 10% 100% ort Collins Travel Diary Report (2017) SOV Carpool Walking Bike Transit 60.7% 17.4% 12% 7.6% 1.8% 3.32 23.4 TOTAL: 19.75 99% All Facilities Enhanced Facilities (protected and buffered bike lanes) 33% 15,000 4,300,000 Average Weekday Ridership Annual Ridership 26,000 7,900,000 28,000 7,900,000 60 17,20 57.5% 8% 3.3% 16.3% 14.9% 55.7% 9.3% 3.5% 15.9% 15.6% 10.9% 6.2% 14.9 16.2% 99% All Facilities 38% Enhanced Facilities (protected and buffered bike lanes) 99% All Facilities 72% Enhanced Facilities (protected and buffered bike lanes) 99% All Facilities 171 1.6 27 miles per nutes per mile hour 1.7 25 miles per minutes per mile hour 1.7 25 miles per minutes per mile hour 1.7 minutes per m .31 30.5 NEIGHBORHOOD GREENWAY 10.66 0 0 19.8 TOTAL: 41.28 NEIGHBORHOOD GREENWAY 37.26 4.02 0 0 TOTAL: 113.4 N 54 7 12% 22% 22% old of 11,150 residents and employees per square mile was used to be considered “walkable” based on existing conditions Buffered Bike Lane Bike Lane 75% 25% Existing Missing 80% 20% 90% 10% 93% 51% n that lives increases g the best e facilities. Living Area walks mplete ership oday in all similar in owth from ice hours, em, while c increase m today). ctivity ership per r revenue om today would be a cenarios 1 and 2. ransit to transit ario 1 and ng service RT routes. Cost* Transit: $25,700,000 Bike: $436,000 Total: $26,100,000 Transit: $30,100,000 Bike: $470,000 Total: $30,600,000 Transit: $33,500,000 Bike: $1,900,000 Total: $35,400,000 Transit: $77,000,000 Bike: $6,000,000 Total: $83,000,000 within 1/2 mile of BRT within 1/4 mile of all transit except BRT and regional routes within 1/4 mile of all transit except regional routes within 1/2 mile of BRT within 1/4 mile of all transit except BRT and regional routes within 1/4 mile of all transit except regional routes within 1/2 mile of BRT within 1/4 mile of all transit except BRT, regional transit and mobility innovation services+ within 1/4 mile of all transit except regional routes within 1 BRT within 1 except and mo services within 1 except 99% 33% 32% $77,0 $83,0 $6,0 Transit Bike Total $33,500,000 $1,900,000 $30,100,000 $30,600,000 $470,000 $25,700,000 $26,100,000 $436,000 82% Average Daily Riders Per Hour Average Daily Riders Per Mile 15,000 4,300,000 Average Weekday Ridership Annual Ridership 2.8 35 26,000 7,900,000 5.4 68 28,000 7,900,000 5.6 70 60 17,20 99% 38% 99% 72% 99% +. Mobility Innovation Services will be developed in the future but are intended to be first-last-mile connections to the transit system for lower-density areas in Fort Collins. Examples could include pick-up/drop-off services (similar to Lyft or Urber) to transit stops, microtransit shuttles, or other con- nections that could be facilitated by new transportation technologies in the future. In general, these services have lower operating costs than fixed route services in low-density areas. Tran- eekday 3-2016 imated ates do and 2. Bike costs for each scenario were based on the asusmption that the cost for neighborhood greenways and bike lanes was minimal, consisting only of signing and striping, and therefore negligible at this high level of an estimate. The cost per mile of protected bike lane or buffered bike lane is about $1,000,000. 3. Over 20 years, this equates to $9,273,233 for Scenario 1, $47,779,086 for Scenario 2 and $169,017,055 for Scenario 3. 4. This just includes the cost for construction, excluding right of way. Pedestrian Cost: 1. This just includes the cost for construction, excluding right of way. 2. Over 20 years, this equates to $9,321,100 for Scenario 1, $27,611,550 for Scenario 2 and $46,605,566 for Scenario 3. 12% 22% 22% * A threshold of 11,150 residents and employees per square mile was used to be considered “walkable” based on existing conditions 75% 25% Existing Missing 80% 20% 90% 10% 93% 82% 70% 71% 75% 51% 87% 85% 24% 19% ilities n that lives increases g the best e facilities. Living Area walks mplete ership oday in all similar in owth from ice hours, em, while c increase m today). ctivity ership per r revenue om today would be a cenarios 1 and 2. ransit to transit ario 1 and ng service RT routes. Cost* Transit: $25,700,000 Bike: $436,000 Total: $26,100,000 Transit: $30,100,000 Bike: $470,000 Total: $30,600,000 Transit: $33,500,000 Bike: $1,900,000 Total: $35,400,000 Transit: $77,000,000 Bike: $6,000,000 Total: $83,000,000 within 1/2 mile of BRT within 1/4 mile of all transit except BRT and regional routes within 1/4 mile of all transit except regional routes within 1/2 mile of BRT within 1/4 mile of all transit except BRT and regional routes within 1/4 mile of all transit except regional routes within 1/2 mile of BRT within 1/4 mile of all transit except BRT, regional transit and mobility innovation services+ within 1/4 mile of all transit except regional routes within 1 BRT within 1 except and mo services within 1 except 99% Facilities (protected and buffered bike lanes) 33% 32% $77,0 $83,0 $6,0 Transit Bike Total $33,500,000 $1,900,000 $30,100,000 $30,600,000 $470,000 $25,700,000 $26,100,000 $436,000 82% Average Daily Riders Per Hour Average Daily Riders Per Mile 15,000 4,300,000 Average Weekday Ridership Annual Ridership 2.8 35 26,000 7,900,000 5.4 68 28,000 7,900,000 5.6 70 60 17,20 99% Facilities 38% (protected and buffered bike lanes) 99% Facilities 72% (protected and buffered bike lanes) 99% Facilities +. Mobility Innovation Services will be developed in the future but are intended to be first-last-mile connections to the transit system for lower-density areas in Fort Collins. Examples could include pick-up/drop-off services (similar to Lyft or Urber) to transit stops, microtransit shuttles, or other con- nections that could be facilitated by new transportation technologies in the future. In general, these services have lower operating costs than fixed route services in low-density areas. Tran- eekday 3-2016 imated ates do and 2. Bike costs for each scenario were based on the asusmption that the cost for neighborhood greenways and bike lanes was minimal, consisting only of signing and striping, and therefore negligible at this high level of an estimate. The cost per mile of protected bike lane or buffered bike lane is about $1,000,000. 3. Over 20 years, this equates to $9,273,233 for Scenario 1, $47,779,086 for Scenario 2 and $169,017,055 for Scenario 3. 4. This just includes the cost for construction, excluding right of way. Pedestrian Cost: 1. This just includes the cost for construction, excluding right of way. 2. Over 20 years, this equates to $9,321,100 for Scenario 1, $27,611,550 for Scenario 2 and $46,605,566 for Scenario 3. 12% 22% 22% * A threshold of 11,150 residents and employees per square mile was used to be considered “walkable” based on existing conditions 75% 25% Existing Missing 80% 20% 90% 10% 93% 82% 70% 71% 75% 51% 87% 85% 24% 19% 26% 3.1% 3.1% 0.5% 0.9% 5.4% 2.7% 2.2% 0.6% Rural Neighborhood Single-Family Neighborhood Mixed Neighborhood Neighborhood Mixed-Use District Suburban Mixed-Use District Urban Mixed-Use District Downtown District Employment District Industrial District Campus District Community Separator Natural and Protected Lands Character of Mixed-Use Development All three scenarios promote a broader mix of uses along major corridors and in activity centers, such as Downtown. However, the type of mixed-use development that is encouraged in different locations varies. Scenario 1 largely maintains the suburban character of existing centers and corridors in Fort Collins, but seeks to promote retrofits or redevelopment that introduces a wider range of uses. Under Scenarios 2 and 3, more of these areas would redevelop with a more urban character, supporting a greater mix of uses, taller buildings, and less space devoted to surface parking lots. Downtown Urban Mixed-Use Suburban Mixed-Use Neighborhood Mixed-Use 13% 7% 73% 7% 12% 22% 59% 7% Downtown Urban Mixed-Use Suburban Mixed-Use Neighborhood Mixed-Use 12% 40% 41% 7% Downtown Urban Mixed-Use Suburban Mixed-Use Neighborhood Mixed-Use Average Density in Mixed-Use Areas All three scenarios assume that infill and redevelopment will largely be focused in the four mixed-use districts: downtown, urban mixed-use, suburban mixed-use, and neighborhood mixed-use. However, the density of this development varies by scenario. Average densities assumed to occur in mixed-use districts increases from Scenario 1 to Scenario 3 to help support the community’s desire for more robust transit system. 7.8 du/ac 12.0 du/ac 18.9 du/ac Overall Capacity for Non-Residential Development The city’s current supply of non-residential land is more than adequate to meet future demand. However, the scenarios vary in the amount of surplus commercial/ mixed-use, industrial, and employment land capacity created. The scenarios also vary in terms of the location of non-residential lands. (See Economic Health metrics for more detailed information.) DEMAND SURPLUS 580 ac Industrial 930 ac Employment 360 ac Commercial/Mixed-Use DEMAND SURPLUS 610 ac Industrial 210 ac Employment 290 ac Commercial/Mixed-Use DEMAND SURPLUS 230 ac Industrial 580 ac Employment 230 ac Commercial/Mixed-Use Overall Capacity for Residential Development The city’s current supply of residential lands is not sufficient to meet expected demand by 2040. While each scenario expands our supply enough to account for future demand, the amount of surplus capacity created—and the mix of housing options that could be accommodated— varies by scenario. (See Housing Access metrics for a breakdown of residential capacity by housing type.) DEMAND SURPLUS 11,000 Dwelling Units 30,480 Dwelling Units DEMAND SURPLUS 17,600 Dwelling Units 30,480 Dwelling Units DEMAND SURPLUS 30,000 Dwelling Units 30,480 EC C Dwelling Units HEALTH BUILDOUT AND LAND SUPPLY The performance metrics below illustrate how well each scenario would meet our needs for different types of residential and non-residential development in the future, as well as what the City’s ultimate capacity for future growth would be under each scenario. Key distinctions in the scenarios from a buildout and land supply standpoint include the overall mix and distribution of certain land uses—such as mixed-use areas and employment/industrial areas, and the overall density/intensity of development in these areas. PERFORMANCE METRICS HOW DO THE SCENARIOS COMPARE? CITY FORT PLANNING COLLINS OUR FUTURE. PLAN TOGETHER. CITY FORT PLANNING COLLINS OUR FUTURE. PLAN TOGETHER. SCENARIO 1 SCENARIO 2 SCENARIO 3 Diversity of Housing Types Each scenario represents potential shifts to better meet the city’s increasing demand for more diverse housing options. Scenario 1 maintains the historic trend with a large majority of the residential land continuing a low density development pattern. Scenario 2 and 3 reflect the recent construction trends with Scenario 3 shifting towards higher density multifamily development. Low Density (Under 5 du/ac) 22,800 Units Medium Density (5-20 du/ac) 14,300 Units High Density (Over 20 du/ac) 4,400 Units Low Density (Under 5 du/ac) 22,200 Units Medium Density (5-20 du/ac) 17,100 Units High Density (Over 20 du/ac) 10,200 Units Low Density (Under 5 du/ac) 16,200 Units Medium Density (5-20 du/ac) 22,200 Units High Density (Over 20 du/ac) 23,600 Units Housing Capacity versus Housing Demand Each scenario provides a mix of housing types (low, medium, and high density). Scenario 1 provides an excess supply of low and medium-density residential, but lacks the capacity to accommodate demand for high-density residential. Scenario 2 exceeds the demand for low and medium-density residential, but is closely aligned with demand for high-density residential. Scenario 3 generally balances supply and demand for low-density residential while resulting in excess capacity for medium and high-density residential. 22,800 14,300 4,400 CAPACITY DEMAND 10,700 6,200 13,700 22,200 17,100 10,700 CAPACITY DEMAND 10,200 6,200 13,700 16,200 22,200 10,700 CAPACITY DEMAND 23,600 6,200 13,700 Low Density Demand (Under 5 du/ac) Medium Density Demand (5 to 20 du/ac) High Density Demand (Over 20 du/ac) Low Density Capacity (Under 5 du/ac) Medium Density Capacity (5 to 20 du/ac) High Density Capacity (Over 20 du/ac) Proximity and Connectivity of Housing and Jobs Another major component of housing access is the ability of residents to live close to where they work. Ensuring that diverse housing housing options are located near existing and planned employment areas and the city’s BRT and high frequency bus lines will increase housing access. While each scenario supports these objectives, the number of housing units that are available in more accessible locations, and the diversity of housing options in those locations increases progressively. Housing Costs/Affordability While not a direct proxy for housing cost and affordability, the degree to which each scenario has capacity for a mix of housing types will influence the range of housing options that are available in terms of unit size, cost, and location. All three scenarios are aligned with future housing demand; however, they vary in the degree to which they increase capacity for medium and high density housing and overall land supply for housing. Aligns with future housing demand? Somewhat Somewhat Somewhat Increases capacity for medium and high density housing? Somewhat Somewhat Fully/Mostly Increases land supply for housing? Does Not Fully/Mostly Fully/Mostly Housing Programs and Policies The City of Fort Collins has a number of programs and policies aimed at expanding and maintaining the city’s supply of affordable and workforce housing. In conjunction with any of the scenarios, the City could choose to either maintain current programs and policies, or to pursue more agressive approaches to further augment this supply. KEY POLICY QUESTIONS Should the City define specific locations where more affordable housing is needed? Should the City dedicate more funding from existing revenue streams, or establish a dedicated revenue stream to help build affordable housing? Should the City incentivize and/or require the inclusion of affordable housing units in certain types of developments? EC C HEALTH HOUSING ACCESS Fort Collins continues to be a desirable place to live and work. At the same time, the demographics of the city are changing, creating demand for more diverse housing options. High rates of employment growth coupled with a lack of residential land, low-density development patterns, and stagnant household incomes have all contributed to the city’s affordability challenges. More accessible housing options are needed to reduce commuting impacts on the transportation system and allow residents of all income levels to live in the city. The scenarios explore ways in which the city’s land use patterns can help increase housing access - through variations in the mix of housing types and densities and by shifting some land currently designated for employment uses to residential uses. Potential programs to encourage and preserve affordable or workforce housing could be used to supplement any of the land use scenarios. PERFORMANCE METRICS HOW DO THE SCENARIOS COMPARE? CITY FORT PLANNING COLLINS OUR FUTURE. PLAN TOGETHER. CITY FORT PLANNING COLLINS OUR FUTURE. PLAN TOGETHER. SCENARIO 1 SCENARIO 2 SCENARIO 3 Jobs/Housing Balance Fort Collins currently has a job-to-housing unit ratio of 1.27, meaning the number of jobs available in the city is larger than the number of housing units. Fort Collins is a regional job center in northern Colorado and a portion of people employed in Fort Collins commute in from outside the City. Going forward, reducing the number of people employed in Fort Collins having to commute into the community can help with the City’s climate action and transportation goals. However, maintaining current economic growth and providing additional opportunities for employees at all wage levels to live in Fort Collins will be challenging as surrounding communities increasingly offer affordable housing options. At buildout, the city’s job-to-housing unit ratio would vary significantly by scenario. 1.43 162,500 Jobs 113,900 Housing Units 1.26 147,900 Jobs 117,000 Housing Units 1.07 154,300 Jobs 144,584 Housing Units New Job and New Housing Unit Capacity Fort Collins’ ability to achieve a more balanced job-to- housing unit ratio will require a focus on expanding capacity for both new jobs and new housing. While Scenarios 1 and 2 both add signficant new job capacity, they provide significantly less new housing capacity than Scenario 3. As a result of this housing focus, Scenario 3 translates to a job-to-housing ratio that is much lower than the current ratio. New Job Capacity 77,300 47,200 New Housing Unit Capacity New Job Capacity 62,800 50,300 New Housing Unit Capacity New Job Capacity 78,000 69,100 New Housing Unit Capacity Competitiveness of Employment, Commercial, and Industrial lands While competitiveness is not something that can Short Term Opportunities Long Term Opportunities Low High Short Term Opportunities Long Term Opportunities Low Investment High Investment Short Term Opportunities Long Term Opportunities Low Investment High Investment ECONOMIC HEALTH Employment growth is outpacing housing growth both in the City of Fort Collins and Larimer County. This trend, if it continues, could result in more people living outside of the city and commuting in for work. Fort Collins is capturing a smaller share of county employment growth and development growth has shifted from the US 287 corridor and towards the I-25 corridor. Additionally, employment demand is shifting within the city and areas currently planned for employment growth may not meet future demand. While the city has an adequate supply of employment and industrial lands, not all planned employment areas are located in areas that are attractive to businesses. A significant amount of the employment land is located in areas that lack infrastructure and services needed to support development. The scenarios explore a range of ways to accomodate future employment demand and help better position the city to capture future employers and employees. SCENARIO 1 SCENARIO 2 SCENARIO 3 Overall Mix of Land Uses The overall mix of land uses is fairly consistent between the three scenarios. Primary distinctions lie in the amount of employment and industrial land, and in the amount of land allocated to suburban mixed-use districts versus urban mixed-use districts. A more detailed breakdown and discussion of these differences is reflected in the metrics below. City and Growth Management Area City and Growth Management Area 8% 30% 15% 26% 0.5% 5% 0.5% 0.9% 6.4% 3.9% 2.4% 0.6% City and Growth Management Area 8% 30% 17% 26% 1.7% 4.3% 0.5% 0.9% 4.5% 4% 2.2% 0.6% City and Growth Management Area 8% 30% 17% 26% 3.1% 3.1% 0.5% 0.9% 5.4% 2.7% 2.2% 0.6% Rural Neighborhood Single-Family Neighborhood Mixed Neighborhood Neighborhood Mixed-Use District Suburban Mixed-Use District Urban Mixed-Use District Downtown District Employment District Industrial District Campus District Community Separator Natural and Protected Lands Character of Mixed-Use Development All three scenarios promote a broader mix of uses along major corridors and in activity centers, such as Downtown. However, the type of mixed-use development that is encouraged in different locations varies. Scenario 1 largely maintains the suburban character of existing centers and corridors in Fort Collins, but seeks to promote retrofits or redevelopment that introduces a wider range of uses. Under Scenarios 2 and 3, more of these areas would redevelop with a more urban character, supporting a greater mix of uses, taller buildings, and less space devoted to surface parking lots. Downtown Urban Mixed-Use Suburban Mixed-Use Neighborhood Mixed-Use 13% 7% 73% 7% 12% 22% 59% 7% Downtown Urban Mixed-Use Suburban Mixed-Use Neighborhood Mixed-Use 12% 40% 41% 7% Downtown Urban Mixed-Use Suburban Mixed-Use Neighborhood Mixed-Use Average Density in Mixed-Use Areas All three scenarios assume that infill and redevelopment will largely be focused in the four mixed-use districts: downtown, urban mixed-use, suburban mixed-use, and neighborhood mixed-use. However, the density of this development varies by scenario. Average densities assumed to occur in mixed-use districts increases from Scenario 1 to Scenario 3 to help support the community’s desire for more robust transit system. 7.8 du/ac 12.0 du/ac 18.9 du/ac Overall Capacity for Non-Residential Development The city’s current supply of non-residential land is more than adequate to meet future demand. However, the scenarios vary in the amount of surplus commercial/ mixed-use, industrial, and employment land capacity created. The scenarios also vary in terms of the location of non-residential lands. (See Economic Health metrics for more detailed information.) DEMAND SURPLUS 580 ac Industrial 930 ac Employment 360 ac Commercial/Mixed-Use DEMAND SURPLUS 610 ac Industrial 210 ac Employment 290 ac Commercial/Mixed-Use DEMAND SURPLUS 230 ac Industrial 580 ac Employment 230 ac Commercial/Mixed-Use Overall Capacity for Residential Development The city’s current supply of residential lands is not sufficient to meet expected demand by 2040. While each scenario expands our supply enough to account for future demand, the amount of surplus capacity created—and the mix of housing options that could be accommodated— varies by scenario. (See Housing Access metrics for a breakdown of residential capacity by housing type.) DEMAND SURPLUS 11,000 Dwelling Units 30,480 Dwelling Units DEMAND SURPLUS 17,600 Dwelling Units 30,480 Dwelling Units DEMAND SURPLUS 30,000 Dwelling Units 30,480 EC C Dwelling Units HEALTH and employment/industrial areas, and the overall density/intensity of development in these areas. New Job and New Housing Unit Capacity Jobs/Housing Balance Character of Mixed-Use Development Average Density in Mixed-Use Areas Diversity of Housing Types PERFORMANCE METRICS HOW DO THE SCENARIOS COMPARE? CITY FORT PLANNING COLLINS OUR FUTURE. PLAN TOGETHER. CITY FORT PLANNING COLLINS OUR FUTURE. PLAN TOGETHER. SCENARIO 1 SCENARIO 2 SCENARIO 3 Transportation Energy and GHG Emissions All three scenarios continue to rely on the personal vehicle for a significant portion of trips. However, scenarios 2 and 3 significantly reduce those trips, create additional transportation choices through transit, bikeability, and walkability, and reduce overall vehicle miles traveled and emissions by XX and YY. And because transportation represents such a sizable portion of the community’s overall greenhouse gas emissions, and because mode shifting can only address a relatively small share of those emissions, supporting the transition to electric vehicles—shared or owned—will be an important supplement to all scenarios. 7% Reduction 15% Reduction 29% Reduction Building Energy and GHG Emissions Scenarios 2 and 3 increase urban density and create a housing mix with a greater share of multifamily housing units relative to single family. This is an important shift with regard to energy use and GHG emissions as multifamily units in buildings with five or more units use about 64% of the energy of detached single family units. Multifamily buildings with 2-4 units use about 50% less than detached single family units. All Scenarios will reduce energy use per housing unit relative to current conditions, and Scenarios 2 and 3 will reduce energy use per unit even further due to the additional units in each scenario. X% Reduction per Housing Unit 4% Reduction per Housing Unit 12% Reduction per Housing Unit Household Water Consumption Since the largest source of water consumption in single- family housing is irrigation, any scenario that promotes increased density and a higher overall proportion of multifamily housing will reduce the community’s irrigation and overall water consumption relative to the base scenario. Ft. Collins data suggests that multifamily units use 17% less water than single family units, largely due to reduced irrigation. Further, with increasing density, total household water use will approach indoor water use (i.e., irrigation will trend towards zero gallons per multifamily household). As a result Scenario 2 is anticipated to result in a modest 4% reduction in household water use relative to Scenario 1, and Scenario 3 is anticipated to reduce water use by 12%. Reduction per 2% Housing Unit Reduction per 6% Housing Unit Reduction per 14% Housing Unit Human Health CLIMATE ACTION City Plan will have a significant impact on the community’s ability to meet its broader environmental and human health goals. Increased density and transportation choices result in a smaller land use footprint, reduced vehicle miles traveled, increased walkability and bikeability, and smaller housing units sizes. This in turn translates to reduced energy use, greenhouse gas emissions, and water demand, and improved health outcomes. If done in concern with public greenspace and greenways, it can also yield greater opportunities for habitat, recreation, and connection to the outdoors. Household Water Consumption PERFORMANCE METRICS HOW DO THE SCENARIOS COMPARE? CITY FORT PLANNING COLLINS OUR FUTURE. PLAN TOGETHER. CITY FORT PLANNING COLLINS OUR FUTURE. PLAN TOGETHER. SCENARIO 1 SCENARIO 2 SCENARIO 3 Transportation Energy and GHG Emissions All three scenarios continue to rely on the personal vehicle for a significant portion of trips. However, scenarios 2 and 3 significantly reduce those trips, create additional transportation choices through transit, bikeability, and walkability, and reduce overall vehicle miles traveled and emissions by XX and YY. And because transportation represents such a sizable portion of the community’s overall greenhouse gas emissions, and because mode shifting can only address a relatively small share of those emissions, supporting the transition to electric vehicles—shared or owned—will be an important supplement to all scenarios. 7% Reduction 15% Reduction 29% Reducti Building Energy and GHG Emissions Scenarios 2 and 3 increase urban density and create a housing mix with a greater share of multifamily housing units relative to single family. This is an important shift with regard to energy use and GHG emissions as multifamily units in buildings with five or more units use about 64% of the energy of detached single family units. Multifamily buildings with 2-4 units use about 50% less than detached single family units. All Scenarios will reduce energy use per housing unit relative to current conditions, and Scenarios 2 and 3 will reduce energy use per unit even further due to the additional units in each scenario. X% Reduction per Housing Unit 4% Reduction per Housing Unit 12% Reduction Housing Un Household Water Consumption Since the largest source of water consumption in single- family housing is irrigation, any scenario that promotes increased density and a higher overall proportion of multifamily housing will reduce the community’s irrigation and overall water consumption relative to the base scenario. Ft. Collins data suggests that multifamily units use 17% less water than single family units, largely due to reduced irrigation. Further, with increasing density, total household water use will approach indoor water use (i.e., irrigation will trend towards zero gallons per multifamily household). As a result Scenario 2 is anticipated to result in a modest 4% reduction in household water use relative to Scenario 1, and Scenario 3 is anticipated to reduce water use by 12%. Reduction per 2% Housing Unit Reduction per 6% Housing Unit Reduction per 14% Housing Unit Human Health CLIMATE ACTION City Plan will have a significant impact on the community’s ability to meet its broader environmental and human health goals. Increased density and transportation choices result in a smaller land use footprint, reduced vehicle miles traveled, increased walkability and bikeability, and smaller housing units sizes. This in turn translates to reduced energy use, greenhouse gas emissions, and water demand, and improved health outcomes. If done in concern with public greenspace and greenways, it can also yield greater opportunities for habitat, recreation, and connection to the outdoors. PERFORMANCE METRICS HOW DO THE SCENARIOS COMPARE? CITY FORT PLANNING COLLINS OUR FUTURE. PLAN TOGETHER. CITY FORT PLANNING COLLINS OUR FUTURE. PLAN TOGETHER. SCENARIO 1 SCENARIO 2 SCENARIO 3 Transportation Energy and GHG Emissions All three scenarios continue to rely on the personal vehicle for a significant portion of trips. However, scenarios 2 and 3 significantly reduce those trips, create additional transportation choices through transit, bikeability, and walkability, and reduce overall vehicle miles traveled and emissions by XX and YY. And because transportation represents such a sizable portion of the community’s overall greenhouse gas emissions, and because mode shifting can only address a relatively small share of those emissions, supporting the transition to electric vehicles—shared or owned—will be an important supplement to all scenarios. 7% Reduction 15% Reduction 29% Reduction Building Energy and GHG Emissions Scenarios 2 and 3 increase urban density and create a housing mix with a greater share of multifamily housing units relative to single family. This is an important shift with regard to energy use and GHG emissions as multifamily units in buildings with five or more units use about 64% of the energy of detached single family units. Multifamily buildings with 2-4 units use about 50% less than detached single family units. All Scenarios will reduce energy use per housing unit relative to current conditions, and Scenarios 2 and 3 will reduce energy use per unit even further due to the additional units in each scenario. X% Reduction per Housing Unit 4% Reduction per Housing Unit 12% Reduction per Housing Unit Household Water Consumption Since the largest source of water consumption in single- family housing is irrigation, any scenario that promotes increased density and a higher overall proportion of multifamily housing will reduce the community’s irrigation and overall water consumption relative to the base scenario. Ft. Collins data suggests that multifamily units use 17% less water than single family units, largely due to reduced irrigation. Further, with increasing density, total household water use will approach indoor water use (i.e., irrigation will trend towards zero gallons per multifamily household). As a result Scenario 2 is anticipated to result in a modest 4% reduction in household water use relative to Scenario 1, and Scenario 3 is anticipated to reduce water use by 12%. Reduction per 2% Housing Unit Reduction per 6% Housing Unit Reduction per 14% Housing Unit Human Health CLIMATE ACTION City Plan will have a significant impact on the community’s ability to meet its broader environmental and human health goals. Increased density and transportation choices result in a smaller land use footprint, reduced vehicle miles traveled, increased walkability and bikeability, and smaller housing units sizes. This in turn translates to reduced energy use, greenhouse gas emissions, and water demand, and improved health outcomes. If done in concern with public greenspace and greenways, it can also yield greater opportunities for habitat, recreation, and connection to the outdoors. PERFORMANCE METRICS HOW DO THE SCENARIOS COMPARE? CITY FORT PLANNING COLLINS OUR FUTURE. PLAN TOGETHER. CITY FORT PLANNING COLLINS OUR FUTURE. PLAN TOGETHER. SCENARIO 1 SCENARIO 2 SCENARIO 3 Jobs/Housing Balance Fort Collins currently has a job-to-housing unit ratio of 1.27, meaning the number of jobs available in the city is larger than the number of housing units. Fort Collins is a regional job center in northern Colorado and a portion of people employed in Fort Collins commute in from outside the City. Going forward, reducing the number of people employed in Fort Collins having to commute into the community can help with the City’s climate action and transportation goals. However, maintaining current economic growth and providing additional opportunities for employees at all wage levels to live in Fort Collins will be challenging as surrounding communities increasingly offer affordable housing options. At buildout, the city’s job-to-housing unit ratio would vary significantly by scenario. 1.43 162,500 Jobs 113,900 Housing Units 1.26 147,900 Jobs 117,000 Housing Units 1.07 154,300 Jobs 144,584 Housing Units New Job and New Housing Unit Capacity Fort Collins’ ability to achieve a more balanced job-to- housing unit ratio will require a focus on expanding capacity for both new jobs and new housing. While Scenarios 1 and 2 both add signficant new job capacity, they provide significantly less new housing capacity than Scenario 3. As a result of this housing focus, Scenario 3 translates to a job-to-housing ratio that is much lower than the current ratio. New Job Capacity 77,300 47,200 New Housing Unit Capacity New Job Capacity 62,800 50,300 New Housing Unit Capacity New Job Capacity 78,000 69,100 New Housing Unit Capacity Competitiveness of Employment, Commercial, and Industrial lands While competitiveness is not something that can be measured quantitatively, there are a number of factors that contribute to the competitiveness of the city’s employment lands, including: the attractiveness of existing buildings and land for companies, access and connectivity to labor, presence of adequate utility service and infrastructure, and surrounding uses and businesses. Having a competitive supply of employment land will better position Fort Collins to compete with other locations in the region in terms of its ability to capture future employers. Fort Collins has made concerted efforts in the past to plan for and preserve employment lands. As Fort Collins approaches build- out, the viability of remaining employment land will be critical factor in the health of the city’s economy. Short Term Opportunities Long Term Opportunities Low Investment High Investment Short Term Opportunities Long Term Opportunities Low Investment High Investment Short Term Opportunities Long Term Opportunities Low Investment High Investment • Maintains current areas designated for employment, providing ample supply • Large portions of land designated for employment may not be desirable or viable within the planning horizon due to access and infrastructure limitations • Provides opportunities for more urban employment nodes and shifts the locations of opportunities for employment uses, although not necessarily aligned with the City’s strategy and desired land use objectives in some areas, that most likely viable in the near term and require less investment to attract opportunities. • Shifts some employment land to create more residential land. • Plans for a future that aims to realign the types and distribution of employment lands to match with future trends and support the City’s economic health strategy • May require significant investment and a longer time period to capture opportunities. • Similar to Sceanario2, this scenario also shifts some employment land to create more residential land. Fiscal Impact /Cost to the City to provide services Not all vacant lands in the City’s Growth Management Area (GMA) are development ready. Some lack the infrastructure and services, such as water, necessary to support new development. The costs to the city for serving these areas will vary depending on the location, the service provider, the use, and the intensity of development, all of which vary by scenario. An order of magnitude comparison of the fiscal impacts (revenues and costs) to the City for providing services/ infrastructure was developed based on the acres of employment/industrial land that would be contingent upon major infrastructure investments and a citywide $1,073,000 per acre (Above Citywide average of $1M per acre) $968,000 per acre (Below Citywide average of $1M per acre) $1,154,000 per acre (Above Citywide average of $1M per acre) • Maintains significant amount of land capacity within Employment and Industrial designations, especially on the eastern edge of the city • Promotes a continuation of more suburban mixed use that has occurred along major corridors in the past 10 to 20 years • Limited additional areas for urban mixed- use • Results in a slight increase value generated • Shifts employment lands to plan for uses that are more likely to develop in the near term and would require less investment in order to attract development/employers. • Limited opportunities for higher-intensity employment uses (i.e. office) and more land for industrial, flex-industrial, and suburban retail uses. • Converts land currently designated for employment and industrial in areas least • Shifts a significant amount of employment- oriented land towards industrial uses • Reduces capacity for employment uses overall to provide more capacity for housing development. • Expands urban mixed use areas • Focuses new employment near existing employment areas and high-frequency transit ECONOMIC HEALTH Employment growth is outpacing housing growth both in the City of Fort Collins and Larimer County. This trend, if it continues, could result in more people living outside of the city and commuting in for work. Fort Collins is capturing a smaller share of county employment growth and development growth has shifted from the US 287 corridor and towards the I-25 corridor. Additionally, employment demand is shifting within the city and areas currently planned for employment growth may not meet future demand. While the city has an adequate supply of employment and industrial lands, not all planned employment areas are located in areas that are attractive to businesses. A significant amount of the employment land is located in areas that lack infrastructure and services needed to support development. The scenarios explore a range of ways to accomodate future employment demand and help better position the city to capture future employers and employees. PERFORMANCE METRICS HOW DO THE SCENARIOS COMPARE? CITY FORT PLANNING COLLINS OUR FUTURE. PLAN TOGETHER. CITY FORT PLANNING COLLINS OUR FUTURE. PLAN TOGETHER. SCENARIO 1 SCENARIO 2 SCENARIO 3 Diversity of Housing Types Each scenario represents potential shifts to better meet the city’s increasing demand for more diverse housing options. Scenario 1 maintains the historic trend with a large majority of the residential land continuing a low density development pattern. Scenario 2 and 3 reflect the recent construction trends with Scenario 3 shifting towards higher density multifamily development. Low Density (Under 5 du/ac) 22,800 Units Medium Density (5-20 du/ac) 14,300 Units High Density (Over 20 du/ac) 4,400 Units Low Density (Under 5 du/ac) 22,200 Units Medium Density (5-20 du/ac) 17,100 Units High Density (Over 20 du/ac) 10,200 Units Low Density (Under 5 du/ac) 16,200 Units Medium Density (5-20 du/ac) 22,200 Units High Density (Over 20 du/ac) 23,600 Units Housing Capacity versus Housing Demand Each scenario provides a mix of housing types (low, medium, and high density). Scenario 1 provides an excess supply of low and medium-density residential, but lacks the capacity to accommodate demand for high-density residential. Scenario 2 exceeds the demand for low and medium-density residential, but is closely aligned with demand for high-density residential. Scenario 3 generally balances supply and demand for low-density residential while resulting in excess capacity for medium and high-density residential. 22,800 14,300 4,400 CAPACITY DEMAND 10,700 6,200 13,700 22,200 17,100 10,700 CAPACITY DEMAND 10,200 6,200 13,700 16,200 22,200 10,700 CAPACITY DEMAND 23,600 6,200 13,700 Low Density Demand (Under 5 du/ac) Medium Density Demand (5 to 20 du/ac) High Density Demand (Over 20 du/ac) Low Density Capacity (Under 5 du/ac) Medium Density Capacity (5 to 20 du/ac) High Density Capacity (Over 20 du/ac) Proximity and Connectivity of Housing and Jobs Another major component of housing access is the ability of residents to live close to where they work. Ensuring that diverse housing housing options are located near existing and planned employment areas and the city’s BRT and high frequency bus lines will increase housing access. While each scenario supports these objectives, the number of housing units that are available in more accessible locations, and the diversity of housing options in those locations increases progressively. Housing Costs/Affordability While not a direct proxy for housing cost and affordability, the degree to which each scenario has capacity for a mix of housing types will influence the range of housing options that are available in terms of unit size, cost, and location. All three scenarios are aligned with future housing demand; however, they vary in the degree to which they increase capacity for medium and high density housing and overall land supply for housing. Aligns with future housing demand? Somewhat Somewhat Somewhat Increases capacity for medium and high density housing? Somewhat Somewhat Fully/Mostly Increases land supply for housing? Does Not Fully/Mostly Fully/Mostly Housing Programs and Policies The City of Fort Collins has a number of programs and policies aimed at expanding and maintaining the city’s supply of affordable and workforce housing. In conjunction with any of the scenarios, the City could choose to either maintain current programs and policies, or to pursue more agressive approaches to further augment this supply. KEY POLICY QUESTIONS Should the City define specific locations where more affordable housing is needed? Should the City dedicate more funding from existing revenue streams, or establish a dedicated revenue stream to help build affordable housing? Should the City incentivize and/or require the inclusion of affordable housing units in certain types of developments? EC C HEALTH HOUSING ACCESS Fort Collins continues to be a desirable place to live and work. At the same time, the demographics of the city are changing, creating demand for more diverse housing options. High rates of employment growth coupled with a lack of residential land, low-density development patterns, and stagnant household incomes have all contributed to the city’s affordability challenges. More accessible housing options are needed to reduce commuting impacts on the transportation system and allow residents of all income levels to live in the city. The scenarios explore ways in which the city’s land use patterns can help increase housing access - through variations in the mix of housing types and densities and by shifting some land currently designated for employment uses to residential uses. Potential programs to encourage and preserve affordable or workforce housing could be used to supplement any of the land use scenarios. SCENARIO 1 SCENARIO 2 SCENARIO 3 Overall Mix of Land Uses The overall mix of land uses is fairly consistent between the three scenarios. Primary distinctions lie in the amount of employment and industrial land, and in the amount of land allocated to suburban mixed-use districts versus urban mixed-use districts. A more detailed breakdown and discussion of these differences is reflected in the metrics below. City and Growth Management Area City and Growth Management Area 8% 30% 15% 26% 0.5% 5% 0.5% 0.9% 6.4% 3.9% 2.4% 0.6% City and Growth Management Area 8% 30% 17% 26% 1.7% 4.3% 0.5% 0.9% 4.5% 4% 2.2% 0.6% City and Growth Management Area 8% 30% 17% 26% 3.1% 3.1% 0.5% 0.9% 5.4% 2.7% 2.2% 0.6% Rural Neighborhood Single-Family Neighborhood Mixed Neighborhood Neighborhood Mixed-Use District Suburban Mixed-Use District Urban Mixed-Use District Downtown District Employment District Industrial District Campus District Community Separator Natural and Protected Lands Character of Mixed-Use Development All three scenarios promote a broader mix of uses along major corridors and in activity centers, such as Downtown. However, the type of mixed-use development that is encouraged in different locations varies. Scenario 1 largely maintains the suburban character of existing centers and corridors in Fort Collins, but seeks to promote retrofits or redevelopment that introduces a wider range of uses. Under Scenarios 2 and 3, more of these areas would redevelop with a more urban character, supporting a greater mix of uses, taller buildings, and less space devoted to surface parking lots. Downtown Urban Mixed-Use Suburban Mixed-Use Neighborhood Mixed-Use 13% 7% 73% 7% 12% 22% 59% 7% Downtown Urban Mixed-Use Suburban Mixed-Use Neighborhood Mixed-Use 12% 40% 41% 7% Downtown Urban Mixed-Use Suburban Mixed-Use Neighborhood Mixed-Use Average Density in Mixed-Use Areas All three scenarios assume that infill and redevelopment will largely be focused in the four mixed-use districts: downtown, urban mixed-use, suburban mixed-use, and neighborhood mixed-use. However, the density of this development varies by scenario. Average densities assumed to occur in mixed-use districts increases from Scenario 1 to Scenario 3 to help support the community’s desire for more robust transit system. 7.8 du/ac 12.0 du/ac 18.9 du/ac Overall Capacity for Non-Residential Development The city’s current supply of non-residential land is more than adequate to meet future demand. However, the scenarios vary in the amount of surplus commercial/ mixed-use, industrial, and employment land capacity created. The scenarios also vary in terms of the location of non-residential lands. (See Economic Health metrics for more detailed information.) DEMAND SURPLUS 580 ac Industrial 930 ac Employment 360 ac Commercial/Mixed-Use DEMAND SURPLUS 610 ac Industrial 210 ac Employment 290 ac Commercial/Mixed-Use DEMAND SURPLUS 230 ac Industrial 580 ac Employment 230 ac Commercial/Mixed-Use Overall Capacity for Residential Development The city’s current supply of residential lands is not sufficient to meet expected demand by 2040. While each scenario expands our supply enough to account for future demand, the amount of surplus capacity created—and the mix of housing options that could be accommodated— varies by scenario. (See Housing Access metrics for a breakdown of residential capacity by housing type.) DEMAND SURPLUS 11,000 Dwelling Units 30,480 Dwelling Units DEMAND SURPLUS 17,600 Dwelling Units 30,480 Dwelling Units DEMAND SURPLUS 30,000 Dwelling Units 30,480 EC C Dwelling Units HEALTH and employment/industrial areas, and the overall density/intensity of development in these areas. SCENARIO 1 SCENARIO 2 SCENARIO 3 Overall Mix of Land Uses The overall mix of land uses is fairly consistent between the three scenarios. Primary distinctions lie in the amount of employment and industrial land, and in the amount of land allocated to suburban mixed-use districts versus urban mixed-use districts. A more detailed breakdown and discussion of these differences is reflected in the metrics below. City and Growth Management Area City and Growth Management Area 8% 30% 15% 26% 0.5% 5% 0.5% 0.9% 6.4% 3.9% 2.4% 0.6% City and Growth Management Area 8% 30% 17% 26% 1.7% 4.3% 0.5% 0.9% 4.5% 4% 2.2% 0.6% City and Growth Management Area 8% 30% 17% 26% 3.1% 3.1% 0.5% 0.9% 5.4% 2.7% 2.2% 0.6% Rural Neighborhood Single-Family Neighborhood Mixed Neighborhood Neighborhood Mixed-Use District Suburban Mixed-Use District Urban Mixed-Use District Downtown District Employment District Industrial District Campus District Community Separator Natural and Protected Lands Character of Mixed-Use Development All three scenarios promote a broader mix of uses along major corridors and in activity centers, such as Downtown. However, the type of mixed-use development that is encouraged in different locations varies. Scenario 1 largely maintains the suburban character of existing centers and corridors in Fort Collins, but seeks to promote retrofits or redevelopment that introduces a wider range of uses. Under Scenarios 2 and 3, more of these areas would redevelop with a more urban character, supporting a greater mix of uses, taller buildings, and less space devoted to surface parking lots. Downtown Urban Mixed-Use Suburban Mixed-Use Neighborhood Mixed-Use 13% 7% 73% 7% 12% 22% 59% 7% Downtown Urban Mixed-Use Suburban Mixed-Use Neighborhood Mixed-Use 12% 40% 41% 7% Downtown Urban Mixed-Use Suburban Mixed-Use Neighborhood Mixed-Use Average Density in Mixed-Use Areas All three scenarios assume that infill and redevelopment will largely be focused in the four mixed-use districts: downtown, urban mixed-use, suburban mixed-use, and neighborhood mixed-use. However, the density of this development varies by scenario. Average densities assumed to occur in mixed-use districts increases from Scenario 1 to Scenario 3 to help support the community’s desire for more robust transit system. 7.8 du/ac 12.0 du/ac 18.9 du/ac Overall Capacity for Non-Residential Development The city’s current supply of non-residential land is more than adequate to meet future demand. However, the scenarios vary in the amount of surplus commercial/ mixed-use, industrial, and employment land capacity created. The scenarios also vary in terms of the location of non-residential lands. (See Economic Health metrics for more detailed information.) DEMAND SURPLUS 580 ac Industrial 930 ac Employment 360 ac Commercial/Mixed-Use DEMAND SURPLUS 610 ac Industrial 210 ac Employment 290 ac Commercial/Mixed-Use DEMAND SURPLUS 230 ac Industrial 580 ac Employment 230 ac Commercial/Mixed-Use Overall Capacity for Residential Development The city’s current supply of residential lands is not sufficient to meet expected demand by 2040. While each scenario expands our supply enough to account for future demand, the amount of surplus capacity created—and the mix of housing options that could be accommodated— varies by scenario. (See Housing Access metrics for a breakdown of residential capacity by housing type.) DEMAND SURPLUS 11,000 Dwelling Units 30,480 Dwelling Units DEMAND SURPLUS 17,600 Dwelling Units 30,480 Dwelling Units DEMAND SURPLUS 30,000 Dwelling Units 30,480 EC C Dwelling Units HEALTH and employment/industrial areas, and the overall density/intensity of development in these areas. PERFORMANCE METRICS HOW DO THE SCENARIOS COMPARE? CITY FORT PLANNING COLLINS OUR FUTURE. PLAN TOGETHER. CITY FORT PLANNING COLLINS OUR FUTURE. PLAN TOGETHER. SCENARIO 1 SCENARIO 2 SCENARIO 3 Overall Mix of Land Uses The overall mix of land uses is fairly consistent between the three scenarios. Primary distinctions lie in the amount of employment and industrial land, and in the amount of land allocated to suburban mixed-use districts versus urban mixed-use districts. A more detailed breakdown and discussion of these differences is reflected in the metrics below. City and Growth Management Area City and Growth Management Area 8% 30% 15% 26% 0.5% 5% 0.5% 0.9% 6.4% 3.9% 2.4% 0.6% City and Growth Management Area 8% 30% 17% 26% 1.7% 4.3% 0.5% 0.9% 4.5% 4% 2.2% 0.6% City and Growth Management Area 8% 30% 17% 26% 3.1% 3.1% 0.5% 0.9% 5.4% 2.7% 2.2% 0.6% Rural Neighborhood Single-Family Neighborhood Mixed Neighborhood Neighborhood Mixed-Use District Suburban Mixed-Use District Urban Mixed-Use District Downtown District Employment District Industrial District Campus District Community Separator Natural and Protected Lands Character of Mixed-Use Development All three scenarios promote a broader mix of uses along major corridors and in activity centers, such as Downtown. However, the type of mixed-use development that is encouraged in different locations varies. Scenario 1 largely maintains the suburban character of existing centers and corridors in Fort Collins, but seeks to promote retrofits or redevelopment that introduces a wider range of uses. Under Scenarios 2 and 3, more of these areas would redevelop with a more urban character, supporting a greater mix of uses, taller buildings, and less space devoted to surface parking lots. Downtown Urban Mixed-Use Suburban Mixed-Use Neighborhood Mixed-Use 13% 7% 73% 7% 12% 22% 59% 7% Downtown Urban Mixed-Use Suburban Mixed-Use Neighborhood Mixed-Use 12% 40% 41% 7% Downtown Urban Mixed-Use Suburban Mixed-Use Neighborhood Mixed-Use Average Density in Mixed-Use Areas All three scenarios assume that infill and redevelopment will largely be focused in the four mixed-use districts: downtown, urban mixed-use, suburban mixed-use, and neighborhood mixed-use. However, the density of this development varies by scenario. Average densities assumed to occur in mixed-use districts increases from Scenario 1 to Scenario 3 to help support the community’s desire for more robust transit system. 7.8 du/ac 12.0 du/ac 18.9 du/ac Overall Capacity for Non-Residential Development The city’s current supply of non-residential land is more than adequate to meet future demand. However, the scenarios vary in the amount of surplus commercial/ mixed-use, industrial, and employment land capacity created. The scenarios also vary in terms of the location of non-residential lands. (See Economic Health metrics for more detailed information.) DEMAND SURPLUS 580 ac Industrial 930 ac Employment 360 ac Commercial/Mixed-Use DEMAND SURPLUS 610 ac Industrial 210 ac Employment 290 ac Commercial/Mixed-Use DEMAND SURPLUS 230 ac Industrial 580 ac Employment 230 ac Commercial/Mixed-Use Overall Capacity for Residential Development The city’s current supply of residential lands is not sufficient to meet expected demand by 2040. While each scenario expands our supply enough to account for future demand, the amount of surplus capacity created—and the mix of housing options that could be accommodated— varies by scenario. (See Housing Access metrics for a breakdown of residential capacity by housing type.) DEMAND SURPLUS 11,000 Dwelling Units 30,480 Dwelling Units DEMAND SURPLUS 17,600 Dwelling Units 30,480 Dwelling Units DEMAND SURPLUS 30,000 Dwelling Units 30,480 EC C Dwelling Units HEALTH BUILDOUT AND LAND SUPPLY The performance metrics below illustrate how well each scenario would meet our needs for different types of residential and non-residential development in the future, as well as what the City’s ultimate capacity for future growth would be under each scenario. Key distinctions in the scenarios from a buildout and land supply standpoint include the overall mix and distribution of certain land uses—such as mixed-use areas and employment/industrial areas, and the overall density/intensity of development in these areas. PERFORMANCE METRICS HOW DO THE SCENARIOS COMPARE? CITY FORT PLANNING COLLINS OUR FUTURE. PLAN TOGETHER. CITY FORT PLANNING COLLINS OUR FUTURE. PLAN TOGETHER. SCENARIO 1 SCENARIO 2 SCENARIO 3 Overall Mix of Land Uses The overall mix of land uses is fairly consistent between the three scenarios. Primary distinctions lie in the amount of employment and industrial land, and in the amount of land allocated to suburban mixed-use districts versus urban mixed-use districts. A more detailed breakdown and discussion of these differences is reflected in the metrics below. City and Growth Management Area City and Growth Management Area 8% 30% 15% 26% 0.5% 5% 0.5% 0.9% 6.4% 3.9% 2.4% 0.6% City and Growth Management Area 8% 30% 17% 26% 1.7% 4.3% 0.5% 0.9% 4.5% 4% 2.2% 0.6% City and Growth Management Area 8% 30% 17% 26% 3.1% 3.1% 0.5% 0.9% 5.4% 2.7% 2.2% 0.6% Rural Neighborhood Single-Family Neighborhood Mixed Neighborhood Neighborhood Mixed-Use District Suburban Mixed-Use District Urban Mixed-Use District Downtown District Employment District Industrial District Campus District Community Separator Natural and Protected Lands Character of Mixed-Use Development All three scenarios promote a broader mix of uses along major corridors and in activity centers, such as Downtown. However, the type of mixed-use development that is encouraged in different locations varies. Scenario 1 largely maintains the suburban character of existing centers and corridors in Fort Collins, but seeks to promote retrofits or redevelopment that introduces a wider range of uses. Under Scenarios 2 and 3, more of these areas would redevelop with a more urban character, supporting a greater mix of uses, taller buildings, and less space devoted to surface parking lots. Downtown Urban Mixed-Use Suburban Mixed-Use Neighborhood Mixed-Use 13% 7% 73% 7% 12% 22% 59% 7% Downtown Urban Mixed-Use Suburban Mixed-Use Neighborhood Mixed-Use 12% 40% 41% 7% Downtown Urban Mixed-Use Suburban Mixed-Use Neighborhood Mixed-Use Average Density in Mixed-Use Areas All three scenarios assume that infill and redevelopment will largely be focused in the four mixed-use districts: downtown, urban mixed-use, suburban mixed-use, and neighborhood mixed-use. However, the density of this development varies by scenario. Average densities assumed to occur in mixed-use districts increases from Scenario 1 to Scenario 3 to help support the community’s desire for more robust transit system. 7.8 du/ac 12.0 du/ac 18.9 du/ac Overall Capacity for Non-Residential Development The city’s current supply of non-residential land is more than adequate to meet future demand. However, the scenarios vary in the amount of surplus commercial/ mixed-use, industrial, and employment land capacity created. The scenarios also vary in terms of the location of non-residential lands. (See Economic Health metrics for more detailed information.) DEMAND SURPLUS 580 ac Industrial 930 ac Employment 360 ac Commercial/Mixed-Use DEMAND SURPLUS 610 ac Industrial 210 ac Employment 290 ac Commercial/Mixed-Use DEMAND SURPLUS 230 ac Industrial 580 ac Employment 230 ac Commercial/Mixed-Use Overall Capacity for Residential Development The city’s current supply of residential lands is not sufficient to meet expected demand by 2040. While each scenario expands our supply enough to account for future demand, the amount of surplus capacity created—and the mix of housing options that could be accommodated— varies by scenario. (See Housing Access metrics for a breakdown of residential capacity by housing type.) DEMAND SURPLUS 11,000 Dwelling Units 30,480 Dwelling Units DEMAND SURPLUS 17,600 Dwelling Units 30,480 Dwelling Units DEMAND SURPLUS 30,000 Dwelling Units 30,480 EC C Dwelling Units HEALTH BUILDOUT AND LAND SUPPLY The performance metrics below illustrate how well each scenario would meet our needs for different types of residential and non-residential development in the future, as well as what the City’s ultimate capacity for future growth would be under each scenario. Key distinctions in the scenarios from a buildout and land supply standpoint include the overall mix and distribution of certain land uses—such as mixed-use areas and employment/industrial areas, and the overall density/intensity of development in these areas. PERFORMANCE METRICS HOW DO THE SCENARIOS COMPARE? CITY FORT PLANNING COLLINS OUR FUTURE. PLAN TOGETHER. CITY FORT PLANNING COLLINS OUR FUTURE. PLAN TOGETHER. SCENARIO 1 SCENARIO 2 SCENARIO 3 Jobs/Housing Balance Fort Collins currently has a job-to-housing unit ratio of 1.27, meaning the number of jobs available in the city is larger than the number of housing units. Fort Collins is a regional job center in northern Colorado and a portion of people employed in Fort Collins commute in from outside the City. Going forward, reducing the number of people employed in Fort Collins having to commute into the community can help with the City’s climate action and transportation goals. However, maintaining current economic growth and providing additional opportunities for employees at all wage levels to live in Fort Collins will be challenging as surrounding communities increasingly offer affordable housing options. At buildout, the city’s job-to-housing unit ratio would vary significantly by scenario. 1.43 162,500 Jobs 113,900 Housing Units 1.26 147,900 Jobs 117,000 Housing Units 1.07 154,300 Jobs 144,584 Housing Units New Job and New Housing Unit Capacity Fort Collins’ ability to achieve a more balanced job-to- housing unit ratio will require a focus on expanding capacity for both new jobs and new housing. While Scenarios 1 and 2 both add signficant new job capacity, they provide significantly less new housing capacity than Scenario 3. As a result of this housing focus, Scenario 3 translates to a job-to-housing ratio that is much lower than the current ratio. New Job Capacity 77,300 47,200 New Housing Unit Capacity New Job Capacity 62,800 50,300 New Housing Unit Capacity New Job Capacity 78,000 69,100 New Housing Unit Capacity Competitiveness of Employment, Commercial, and Industrial lands While competitiveness is not something that can be measured quantitatively, there are a number of factors that contribute to the competitiveness of the city’s employment lands, including: the attractiveness of existing buildings and land for companies, access and connectivity to labor, presence of adequate utility service and infrastructure, and surrounding uses and businesses. Having a competitive supply of employment land will better position Fort Collins to compete with other locations in the region in terms of its ability to capture future employers. Fort Collins has made concerted efforts in the past to plan for and preserve employment lands. As Fort Collins approaches build- out, the viability of remaining employment land will be critical factor in the health of the city’s economy. Short Term Opportunities Long Term Opportunities Low Investment High Investment Short Term Opportunities Long Term Opportunities Low Investment High Investment Short Term Opportunities Long Term Opportunities Low Investment High Investment • Maintains current areas designated for employment, providing ample supply • Large portions of land designated for employment may not be desirable or viable within the planning horizon due to access and infrastructure limitations • Provides opportunities for more urban employment nodes and shifts the locations of opportunities for employment uses, although not necessarily aligned with the City’s strategy and desired land use objectives in some areas, that most likely viable in the near term and require less investment to attract opportunities. • Shifts some employment land to create more residential land. • Plans for a future that aims to realign the types and distribution of employment lands to match with future trends and support the City’s economic health strategy • May require significant investment and a longer time period to capture opportunities. • Similar to Sceanario2, this scenario also shifts some employment land to create more residential land. Fiscal Impact /Cost to the City to provide services Not all vacant lands in the City’s Growth Management Area (GMA) are development ready. Some lack the infrastructure and services, such as water, necessary to support new development. The costs to the city for serving these areas will vary depending on the location, the service provider, the use, and the intensity of development, all of which vary by scenario. An order of magnitude comparison of the fiscal impacts (revenues and costs) to the City for providing services/ infrastructure was developed based on the acres of employment/industrial land that would be contingent upon major infrastructure investments and a citywide $1,073,000 per acre (Above Citywide average of $1M per acre) $968,000 per acre (Below Citywide average of $1M per acre) $1,154,000 per acre (Above Citywide average of $1M per acre) • Maintains significant amount of land capacity within Employment and Industrial designations, especially on the eastern edge of the city • Promotes a continuation of more suburban mixed use that has occurred along major corridors in the past 10 to 20 years • Limited additional areas for urban mixed- use • Results in a slight increase value generated • Shifts employment lands to plan for uses that are more likely to develop in the near term and would require less investment in order to attract development/employers. • Limited opportunities for higher-intensity employment uses (i.e. office) and more land for industrial, flex-industrial, and suburban retail uses. • Converts land currently designated for employment and industrial in areas least • Shifts a significant amount of employment- oriented land towards industrial uses • Reduces capacity for employment uses overall to provide more capacity for housing development. • Expands urban mixed use areas • Focuses new employment near existing employment areas and high-frequency transit ECONOMIC HEALTH Employment growth is outpacing housing growth both in the City of Fort Collins and Larimer County. This trend, if it continues, could result in more people living outside of the city and commuting in for work. Fort Collins is capturing a smaller share of county employment growth and development growth has shifted from the US 287 corridor and towards the I-25 corridor. Additionally, employment demand is shifting within the city and areas currently planned for employment growth may not meet future demand. While the city has an adequate supply of employment and industrial lands, not all planned employment areas are located in areas that are attractive to businesses. A significant amount of the employment land is located in areas that lack infrastructure and services needed to support development. The scenarios explore a range of ways to accomodate future employment demand and help better position the city to capture future employers and employees. PERFORMANCE METRICS HOW DO THE SCENARIOS COMPARE? CITY FORT PLANNING COLLINS OUR FUTURE. PLAN TOGETHER. CITY FORT PLANNING COLLINS OUR FUTURE. PLAN TOGETHER. SCENARIO 1 SCENARIO 2 SCENARIO 3 Jobs/Housing Balance Fort Collins currently has a job-to-housing unit ratio of 1.27, meaning the number of jobs available in the city is larger than the number of housing units. Fort Collins is a regional job center in northern Colorado and a portion of people employed in Fort Collins commute in from outside the City. Going forward, reducing the number of people employed in Fort Collins having to commute into the community can help with the City’s climate action and transportation goals. However, maintaining current economic growth and providing additional opportunities for employees at all wage levels to live in Fort Collins will be challenging as surrounding communities increasingly offer affordable housing options. At buildout, the city’s job-to-housing unit ratio would vary significantly by scenario. 1.43 162,500 Jobs 113,900 Housing Units 1.26 147,900 Jobs 117,000 Housing Units 1.07 154,300 Jobs 144,584 Housing Units New Job and New Housing Unit Capacity Fort Collins’ ability to achieve a more balanced job-to- housing unit ratio will require a focus on expanding capacity for both new jobs and new housing. While Scenarios 1 and 2 both add signficant new job capacity, they provide significantly less new housing capacity than Scenario 3. As a result of this housing focus, Scenario 3 translates to a job-to-housing ratio that is much lower than the current ratio. New Job Capacity 77,300 47,200 New Housing Unit Capacity New Job Capacity 62,800 50,300 New Housing Unit Capacity New Job Capacity 78,000 69,100 New Housing Unit Capacity Competitiveness of Employment, Commercial, and Industrial lands While competitiveness is not something that can be measured quantitatively, there are a number of factors that contribute to the competitiveness of the city’s employment lands, including: the attractiveness of existing buildings and land for companies, access and connectivity to labor, presence of adequate utility service and infrastructure, and surrounding uses and businesses. Having a competitive supply of employment land will better position Fort Collins to compete with other locations in the region in terms of its ability to capture future employers. Fort Collins has made concerted efforts in the past to plan for and preserve employment lands. As Fort Collins approaches build- out, the viability of remaining employment land will be critical factor in the health of the city’s economy. Short Term Opportunities Long Term Opportunities Low Investment High Investment Short Term Opportunities Long Term Opportunities Low Investment High Investment Short Term Opportunities Long Term Opportunities Low Investment High Investment • Maintains current areas designated for employment, providing ample supply • Large portions of land designated for employment may not be desirable or viable within the planning horizon due to access and infrastructure limitations • Provides opportunities for more urban employment nodes and shifts the locations of opportunities for employment uses, although not necessarily aligned with the City’s strategy and desired land use objectives in some areas, that most likely viable in the near term and require less investment to attract opportunities. • Shifts some employment land to create more residential land. • Plans for a future that aims to realign the types and distribution of employment lands to match with future trends and support the City’s economic health strategy • May require significant investment and a longer time period to capture opportunities. • Similar to Sceanario2, this scenario also shifts some employment land to create more residential land. Fiscal Impact /Cost to the City to provide services Not all vacant lands in the City’s Growth Management Area (GMA) are development ready. Some lack the infrastructure and services, such as water, necessary to support new development. The costs to the city for serving these areas will vary depending on the location, the service provider, the use, and the intensity of development, all of which vary by scenario. An order of magnitude comparison of the fiscal impacts (revenues and costs) to the City for providing services/ infrastructure was developed based on the acres of employment/industrial land that would be contingent upon major infrastructure investments and a citywide $1,073,000 per acre (Above Citywide average of $1M per acre) $968,000 per acre (Below Citywide average of $1M per acre) $1,154,000 per acre (Above Citywide average of $1M per acre) • Maintains significant amount of land capacity within Employment and Industrial designations, especially on the eastern edge of the city • Promotes a continuation of more suburban mixed use that has occurred along major corridors in the past 10 to 20 years • Limited additional areas for urban mixed- use • Results in a slight increase value generated • Shifts employment lands to plan for uses that are more likely to develop in the near term and would require less investment in order to attract development/employers. • Limited opportunities for higher-intensity employment uses (i.e. office) and more land for industrial, flex-industrial, and suburban retail uses. • Converts land currently designated for employment and industrial in areas least • Shifts a significant amount of employment- oriented land towards industrial uses • Reduces capacity for employment uses overall to provide more capacity for housing development. • Expands urban mixed use areas • Focuses new employment near existing employment areas and high-frequency transit ECONOMIC HEALTH Employment growth is outpacing housing growth both in the City of Fort Collins and Larimer County. This trend, if it continues, could result in more people living outside of the city and commuting in for work. Fort Collins is capturing a smaller share of county employment growth and development growth has shifted from the US 287 corridor and towards the I-25 corridor. Additionally, employment demand is shifting within the city and areas currently planned for employment growth may not meet future demand. While the city has an adequate supply of employment and industrial lands, not all planned employment areas are located in areas that are attractive to businesses. A significant amount of the employment land is located in areas that lack infrastructure and services needed to support development. The scenarios explore a range of ways to accomodate future employment demand and help better position the city to capture future employers and employees. PERFORMANCE METRICS HOW DO THE SCENARIOS COMPARE? CITY FORT PLANNING COLLINS OUR FUTURE. PLAN TOGETHER. CITY FORT PLANNING COLLINS OUR FUTURE. PLAN TOGETHER. SCENARIO 1 SCENARIO 2 SCENARIO 3 Jobs/Housing Balance Fort Collins currently has a job-to-housing unit ratio of 1.27, meaning the number of jobs available in the city is larger than the number of housing units. Fort Collins is a regional job center in northern Colorado and a portion of people employed in Fort Collins commute in from outside the City. Going forward, reducing the number of people employed in Fort Collins having to commute into the community can help with the City’s climate action and transportation goals. However, maintaining current economic growth and providing additional opportunities for employees at all wage levels to live in Fort Collins will be challenging as surrounding communities increasingly offer affordable housing options. At buildout, the city’s job-to-housing unit ratio would vary significantly by scenario. 1.43 162,500 Jobs 113,900 Housing Units 1.26 147,900 Jobs 117,000 Housing Units 1.07 154,300 Jobs 144,584 Housing Units New Job and New Housing Unit Capacity Fort Collins’ ability to achieve a more balanced job-to- housing unit ratio will require a focus on expanding capacity for both new jobs and new housing. While Scenarios 1 and 2 both add signficant new job capacity, they provide significantly less new housing capacity than Scenario 3. As a result of this housing focus, Scenario 3 translates to a job-to-housing ratio that is much lower than the current ratio. New Job Capacity 77,300 47,200 New Housing Unit Capacity New Job Capacity 62,800 50,300 New Housing Unit Capacity New Job Capacity 78,000 69,100 New Housing Unit Capacity Competitiveness of Employment, Commercial, and Industrial lands While competitiveness is not something that can Short Term Opportunities Long Term Opportunities Low High Short Term Opportunities Long Term Opportunities Low Investment High Investment Short Term Opportunities Long Term Opportunities Low Investment High Investment ECONOMIC HEALTH Employment growth is outpacing housing growth both in the City of Fort Collins and Larimer County. This trend, if it continues, could result in more people living outside of the city and commuting in for work. Fort Collins is capturing a smaller share of county employment growth and development growth has shifted from the US 287 corridor and towards the I-25 corridor. Additionally, employment demand is shifting within the city and areas currently planned for employment growth may not meet future demand. While the city has an adequate supply of employment and industrial lands, not all planned employment areas are located in areas that are attractive to businesses. A significant amount of the employment land is located in areas that lack infrastructure and services needed to support development. The scenarios explore a range of ways to accomodate future employment demand and help better position the city to capture future employers and employees. PERFORMANCE METRICS HOW DO THE SCENARIOS COMPARE? CITY FORT PLANNING COLLINS OUR FUTURE. PLAN TOGETHER. CITY FORT PLANNING COLLINS OUR FUTURE. PLAN TOGETHER. SCENARIO 1 SCENARIO 2 SCENARIO 3 Jobs/Housing Balance Fort Collins currently has a job-to-housing unit ratio of 1.27, meaning the number of jobs available in the city is larger than the number of housing units. Fort Collins is a regional job center in northern Colorado and a portion of people employed in Fort Collins commute in from outside the City. Going forward, reducing the number of people employed in Fort Collins having to commute into the community can help with the City’s climate action and transportation goals. However, maintaining current economic growth and providing additional opportunities for employees at all wage levels to live in Fort Collins will be challenging as surrounding communities increasingly offer affordable housing options. At buildout, the city’s job-to-housing unit ratio would vary significantly by scenario. 1.43 162,500 Jobs 113,900 Housing Units 1.26 147,900 Jobs 117,000 Housing Units 1.07 154,300 Jobs 144,584 Housing Units New Job and New Housing Unit Capacity Fort Collins’ ability to achieve a more balanced job-to- housing unit ratio will require a focus on expanding capacity for both new jobs and new housing. While Scenarios 1 and 2 both add signficant new job capacity, they provide significantly less new housing capacity than Scenario 3. As a result of this housing focus, Scenario 3 translates to a job-to-housing ratio that is much lower than the current ratio. New Job Capacity 77,300 47,200 New Housing Unit Capacity New Job Capacity 62,800 50,300 New Housing Unit Capacity New Job Capacity 78,000 69,100 New Housing Unit Capacity Competitiveness of Employment, Commercial, and Industrial lands While competitiveness is not something that can Short Term Opportunities Long Term Opportunities Low High Short Term Opportunities Long Term Opportunities Low Investment High Investment Short Term Opportunities Long Term Opportunities Low Investment High Investment ECONOMIC HEALTH Employment growth is outpacing housing growth both in the City of Fort Collins and Larimer County. This trend, if it continues, could result in more people living outside of the city and commuting in for work. Fort Collins is capturing a smaller share of county employment growth and development growth has shifted from the US 287 corridor and towards the I-25 corridor. Additionally, employment demand is shifting within the city and areas currently planned for employment growth may not meet future demand. While the city has an adequate supply of employment and industrial lands, not all planned employment areas are located in areas that are attractive to businesses. A significant amount of the employment land is located in areas that lack infrastructure and services needed to support development. The scenarios explore a range of ways to accomodate future employment demand and help better position the city to capture future employers and employees. PERFORMANCE METRICS HOW DO THE SCENARIOS COMPARE? CITY FORT PLANNING COLLINS OUR FUTURE. PLAN TOGETHER. CITY FORT PLANNING COLLINS OUR FUTURE. PLAN TOGETHER. SCENARIO 1 SCENARIO 2 SCENARIO 3 Transportation Energy and GHG Emissions All three scenarios continue to rely on the personal vehicle for a significant portion of trips. However, scenarios 2 and 3 significantly reduce those trips, create additional transportation choices through transit, bikeability, and walkability, and reduce overall vehicle miles traveled and emissions by XX and YY. And because transportation represents such a sizable portion of the community’s overall greenhouse gas emissions, and because mode shifting can only address a relatively small share of those emissions, supporting the transition to electric vehicles—shared or owned—will be an important supplement to all scenarios. 7% Reduction 15% Reduction 29% Reduction Building Energy and GHG Emissions Scenarios 2 and 3 increase urban density and create a housing mix with a greater share of multifamily housing units relative to single family. This is an important shift with regard to energy use and GHG emissions as multifamily units in buildings with five or more units use about 64% of the energy of detached single family units. Multifamily buildings with 2-4 units use about 50% less than detached single family units. All Scenarios will reduce energy use per housing unit relative to current conditions, and Scenarios 2 and 3 will reduce energy use per unit even further due to the additional units in each scenario. X% Reduction per Housing Unit 4% Reduction per Housing Unit 12% Reduction per Housing Unit Household Water Consumption Since the largest source of water consumption in single- family housing is irrigation, any scenario that promotes increased density and a higher overall proportion of multifamily housing will reduce the community’s irrigation and overall water consumption relative to the base scenario. Ft. Collins data suggests that multifamily units use 17% less water than single family units, largely due to reduced irrigation. Further, with increasing density, total household water use will approach indoor water use (i.e., irrigation will trend towards zero gallons per multifamily household). As a result Scenario 2 is anticipated to result in a modest 4% reduction in household water use relative to Scenario 1, and Scenario 3 is anticipated to reduce water use by 12%. Reduction per 2% Housing Unit Reduction per 6% Housing Unit Reduction per 14% Housing Unit Human Health City Plan impacts health in a number of ways. Shifting the number of trips from cars to walking, biking, or transit increases physical activity and reduces air pollutants. It also creates more opportunity for the community to have access to green space in the form of parks or nature. As density increases and parks are the city continues to develop parks, greenways, and open space, an increasing number of residents will have access to these amenities. 162,000 Residents 168,000 Residents 175,000 Residents C LTH CLIMATE ACTION City Plan will have a significant impact on the community’s ability to meet its broader environmental and human health goals. Increased density and transportation choices result in a smaller land use footprint, reduced vehicle miles traveled, increased walkability and bikeability, and smaller housing units sizes. This in turn translates to reduced energy use, greenhouse gas emissions, and water demand, and improved health outcomes. If done in concern with public greenspace and greenways, it can also yield greater opportunities for habitat, recreation, and connection to the outdoors. PERFORMANCE METRICS HOW DO THE SCENARIOS COMPARE? CITY FORT PLANNING COLLINS OUR FUTURE. PLAN TOGETHER. CITY FORT PLANNING COLLINS OUR FUTURE. PLAN TOGETHER. SCENARIO 1 SCENARIO 2 SCENARIO 3 Transportation Energy and GHG Emissions All three scenarios continue to rely on the personal vehicle for a significant portion of trips. However, scenarios 2 and 3 significantly reduce those trips, create additional transportation choices through transit, bikeability, and walkability, and reduce overall vehicle miles traveled and emissions by XX and YY. And because transportation represents such a sizable portion of the community’s overall greenhouse gas emissions, and because mode shifting can only address a relatively small share of those emissions, supporting the transition to electric vehicles—shared or owned—will be an important supplement to all scenarios. 7% Reduction 15% Reduction 29% Reduction Building Energy and GHG Emissions Scenarios 2 and 3 increase urban density and create a housing mix with a greater share of multifamily housing units relative to single family. This is an important shift with regard to energy use and GHG emissions as multifamily units in buildings with five or more units use about 64% of the energy of detached single family units. Multifamily buildings with 2-4 units use about 50% less than detached single family units. All Scenarios will reduce energy use per housing unit relative to current conditions, and Scenarios 2 and 3 will reduce energy use per unit even further due to the additional units in each scenario. X% Reduction per Housing Unit 4% Reduction per Housing Unit 12% Reduction per Housing Unit Household Water Consumption Since the largest source of water consumption in single- family housing is irrigation, any scenario that promotes increased density and a higher overall proportion of multifamily housing will reduce the community’s irrigation and overall water consumption relative to the base scenario. Ft. Collins data suggests that multifamily units use 17% less water than single family units, largely due to reduced irrigation. Further, with increasing density, total household water use will approach indoor water use (i.e., irrigation will trend towards zero gallons per multifamily household). As a result Scenario 2 is anticipated to result in a modest 4% reduction in household water use relative to Scenario 1, and Scenario 3 is anticipated to reduce water use by 12%. Reduction per 2% Housing Unit Reduction per 6% Housing Unit Reduction per 14% Housing Unit Human Health City Plan impacts health in a number of ways. Shifting the number of trips from cars to walking, biking, or transit increases physical activity and reduces air pollutants. It also creates more opportunity for the community to have access to green space in the form of parks or nature. As density increases and parks are the city continues to develop parks, greenways, and open space, an increasing number of residents will have access to these amenities. 162,000 Residents 168,000 Residents 175,000 Residents C LTH CLIMATE ACTION City Plan will have a significant impact on the community’s ability to meet its broader environmental and human health goals. Increased density and transportation choices result in a smaller land use footprint, reduced vehicle miles traveled, increased walkability and bikeability, and smaller housing units sizes. This in turn translates to reduced energy use, greenhouse gas emissions, and water demand, and improved health outcomes. If done in concern with public greenspace and greenways, it can also yield greater opportunities for habitat, recreation, and connection to the outdoors. PERFORMANCE METRICS HOW DO THE SCENARIOS COMPARE? CITY FORT PLANNING COLLINS OUR FUTURE. PLAN TOGETHER. CITY FORT PLANNING COLLINS OUR FUTURE. PLAN TOGETHER. SCENARIO 1 SCENARIO 2 SCENARIO 3 Transportation Energy and GHG Emissions All three scenarios continue to rely on the personal vehicle for a significant portion of trips. However, scenarios 2 and 3 significantly reduce those trips, create additional transportation choices through transit, bikeability, and walkability, and reduce overall vehicle miles traveled and emissions by XX and YY. And because transportation represents such a sizable portion of the community’s overall greenhouse gas emissions, and because mode shifting can only address a relatively small share of those emissions, supporting the transition to electric vehicles—shared or owned—will be an important supplement to all scenarios. 7% Reduction 15% Reduction 29% Reduction Building Energy and GHG Emissions Scenarios 2 and 3 increase urban density and create a housing mix with a greater share of multifamily housing units relative to single family. This is an important shift with regard to energy use and GHG emissions as multifamily units in buildings with five or more units use about 64% of the energy of detached single family units. Multifamily buildings with 2-4 units use about 50% less than detached single family units. All Scenarios will reduce energy use per housing unit relative to current conditions, and Scenarios 2 and 3 will reduce energy use per unit even further due to the additional units in each scenario. X% Reduction per Housing Unit 4% Reduction per Housing Unit 12% Reduction per Housing Unit Household Water Consumption Since the largest source of water consumption in single- family housing is irrigation, any scenario that promotes increased density and a higher overall proportion of multifamily housing will reduce the community’s irrigation and overall water consumption relative to the base scenario. Ft. Collins data suggests that multifamily units use 17% less water than single family units, largely due to reduced irrigation. Further, with increasing density, total household water use will approach indoor water use (i.e., irrigation will trend towards zero gallons per multifamily household). As a result Scenario 2 is anticipated to result in a modest 4% reduction in household water use relative to Scenario 1, and Scenario 3 is anticipated to reduce water use by 12%. Reduction per 2% Housing Unit Reduction per 6% Housing Unit Reduction per 14% Housing Unit Human Health City Plan impacts health in a number of ways. Shifting the number of trips from cars to walking, biking, or transit increases physical activity and reduces air pollutants. It also creates more opportunity for the community to have access to green space in the form of parks or nature. As density increases and parks are the city continues to develop parks, greenways, and open space, an increasing number of residents will have access to these amenities. 162,000 Residents 168,000 Residents 175,000 Residents C LTH CLIMATE ACTION City Plan will have a significant impact on the community’s ability to meet its broader environmental and human health goals. Increased density and transportation choices result in a smaller land use footprint, reduced vehicle miles traveled, increased walkability and bikeability, and smaller housing units sizes. This in turn translates to reduced energy use, greenhouse gas emissions, and water demand, and improved health outcomes. If done in concern with public greenspace and greenways, it can also yield greater opportunities for habitat, recreation, and connection to the outdoors. Scenario 1 maintains the historic trend with a large majority of the residential land continuing a low density development pattern. Scenario 2 and 3 reflect the recent construction trends with Scenario 3 shifting towards higher density multifamily development. The scenarios assume that the greatest amount of infill and redevelopment will occur in the four mixed-use districts. Average densities assumed to occur in mixed-use districts increases from Scenario 1 to Scenario 3, to help support the community’s desire for more robust transit system. Scenario 1 largely maintains the suburban character of existing centers and corridors while scenarios 2 and 3 show redevelop with a more urban character, supporting a greater mix of uses and less surface for parking lots. While Scenarios 1 and 2 both add signficant new job capacity, they provide significantly less new housing capacity than Scenario 3. As a result of this housing focus, Scenario 3 translates to a job-to-housing ratio that is much lower than the current ratio. Fort Collins currently has a job-to-housing unit ratio of 1.27, meaning the number of jobs available in the city is larger than the number of housing units. At buildout, the city’s job-to-housing unit ratio would vary significantly by scenario. Since the largest source of water consumption in single- family housing is irrigation, any scenario that promotes increased density and a higher overall proportion of multifamily housing will reduce the community’s irrigation and overall water consumption. except regional routes 51% 87% $6 M $25 - 30 M TOTAL: $33.3 - 38.3 M $2.3 M 93% * current annual cost is around $15.8 million total Annual relative cost for transit, bicycle, and pedestrian improvements (2018 dollars, does not include transit capital costs or right-of way acquisition) 98% (Over 20 du/ac) 10,200 Units within 1/2 mile of BRT within 1/4 mile of all transit except BRT and regional routes within 1/4 mile of all transit except regional routes 75% 32% 85% * current annual cost is around $15.8 million total $2 M $17 - 20 M TOTAL: $20.4 - 23.4 M $1.4 M 72% 67% within 1/2 mile of BRT within 1/4 mile of all transit except BRT and regional routes within 1/4 mile of all transit except regional routes 19% 70% 71% 38% * current annual cost is around $15.8 million total $0.5 M $17 - 20 M TOTAL: $18 - 21 M $0.5 M