Colorado § 43-1-1103 - Transportation planning.

§ 43-1-1103. Transportation planning.

(1) A twenty-year transportation plan shall be required for each transportation planning region that includes the metropolitan area of a metropolitan planning organization. Other transportation planning regions may, through intergovernmental agreements defined in section 30-28-105, C.R.S., prepare and submit such a transportation plan. A regional transportation plan shall include, but shall not be limited to, the following:

(a) Identification of transportation facilities and services, including expansion or improvement of existing facilities and services, required to meet the estimated demand for transportation in the region over the twenty-year period;

(b) Time schedules for completion of transportation projects which are included in the transportation plan;

(c) Additional funding amount need and identification of anticipated funding sources;

(d) Expected environmental, social, and economic impacts of the recommendations contained in the transportation plan, including an objective evaluation of the full range of reasonable transportation alternatives, including traffic system management options, travel demand management strategies and other transportation modes, as well as improvements to the existing facilities and new facilities, in order to provide for the transportation and environmental needs of the area in a safe and efficient manner; and

(e) Shall assist other agencies in developing transportation control measures for utilization in accordance with state and federal statutes or regulations, and the state implementation plan, and shall identify and evaluate measures that show promise of supporting clean air objectives.

(2) A regional transportation plan shall state the fiscal need to maintain mobility and what can be reasonably expected to be implemented with the estimated revenues which are likely to be available.

(3) (a) Any regional planning commissions formed for the purpose of conducting regional transportation planning or any transportation planning region shall be responsible, in cooperation with the state and other governmental agencies, for carrying out necessary continuing, cooperative, and comprehensive transportation planning for the region represented by such commission and for the purpose of meeting the requirements of subsection (4) of this section.

(b) In the absence of a locally generated regional transportation plan by a duly formed regional planning commission, the department shall include these areas in the statewide transportation plan and shall be responsible for the appropriate level of planning and analysis to incorporate the needs and recommendations of the region in an equitable and consistent manner with other regions of the state.

(4) The regional transportation plan for any region may recommend the priority for any transportation improvements planned for such region. The commission shall consider the priorities contained in such plan in making decisions concerning transportation improvements.

(5) The department shall integrate and consolidate the regional transportation plans for the transportation planning regions into a comprehensive statewide transportation plan. The formation of the state plan shall be accomplished through a statewide planning process set by rules and regulations promulgated by the commission. The state plan shall address but shall not be limited to the following factors:

(a) An emphasis on multi-modal transportation considerations, including the connectivity between modes of transportation;

(b) An emphasis on coordination with county and municipal land use planning, including examination of the impact of land use decisions on transportation needs and the exploration of opportunities for preservation of transportation corridors;

(b.5) Coordination with federal military installations in the state to identify the transportation infrastructure needs of the installations and ensure that those needs are given full consideration during the formation of the state plan;

(c) The development of areawide multi-modal management plans in coordination with the process of developing the elements of the state plan;

(d) The targeting of infrastructure investments, including preservation of the existing transportation system commonly known as "fixing it first" to support the economic vitality of the state and region;

(e) Safety enhancement;

(f) Strategic mobility and multimodal choice;

(g) The support of urban or rural mass transit;

(h) Environmental stewardship;

(i) Effective, efficient, and safe freight transport; and

(j) Reduction of greenhouse gas emissions.

(5.5) The department of transportation shall conduct a study that identifies:

(a) Policy barriers and opportunities within the department that includes an examination of policies within the state access code, roadway design standards, and the treatment of pedestrian and bicycle crossings. The study shall examine the impact of these policies on neighborhood centers and transit centers, including the impact on housing production, the implementation of context-sensitive design, complete streets, and pedestrian-bicycle safety measures.

(b) The portions of state highway that pass through locally identified transit centers and neighborhood centers that are appropriate for context-sensitive design, complete streets as defined in the "Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act", Pub.L. 117-5, and pedestrian-bicycle safety measures.

(6) Repealed.

(7) On and after September 1, 2023, the board of directors, committee, or other governing body, however named, of the transportation planning organization for each transportation planning region must include at least one voting representative to represent all transit agencies in the transportation planning region. The representative must be appointed by the transit agency or, if multiple transit agencies provide service in the transportation planning region, by agreement of the transit agencies.

Source: L. 91: Entire part added, p. 1043, § 2, effective July 1. L. 94: (6) added, p. 1820, § 8, effective June 1. L. 97: (6) repealed, p. 161, § 3, effective March 28. L. 98: IP(1) amended, p. 463, § 2, effective April 21. L. 2009: IP(5) amended and (5)(d), (5)(e), (5)(f), (5)(g), (5)(h), (5)(i), and (5)(j) added, (SB 09-108), ch. 5, p. 54, § 15, effective March 2. L. 2016: IP(5) amended and (5)(b.5) added, (HB 16-1061), ch. 57, p. 138, § 2, effective August 10. L. 2023: (7) added, (HB 23-1101), ch. 132, p. 509, § 5, effective April 28. L. 2024: (5.5) added, (HB 24-1313), ch. 168, p. 868, § 5, effective May 13.

Cross references: For the legislative declaration in HB 16-1061, see section 1 of chapter 57, Session Laws of Colorado 2016. For the legislative declaration in HB 23-1101, see section 1 of chapter 132, Session Laws of Colorado 2023.

ANNOTATION

No manifest or irreconcilable conflict between statutory provisions governing areas and activities of state interest and statutory provisions contained in this title. Although this title vests the Colorado department of transportation (CDOT) with broad authority over the planning and construction of highways, the exercise of this authority does not require that CDOT be free of every conceivable regulation under this article. Indeed, this title and article 65.1 of title 24 are easily reconciled because the schemes advance compatible goals. Although CDOT has the final word over the state's transportation plan, under subsection (5)(b), it must consider local concerns "including examination of the impact of land use decisions on transportation needs and the exploration of opportunities for preservation of transportation corridors". Similarly, consistent with § 24-65.1-204 (5)(c), local governments must exercise their regulatory powers in a manner that does not conflict with state transportation plans. Dept. of Transp. v. City of Idaho Springs, 192 P.3d 490 (Colo. App. 2008).

No express or implied preemption by state of city's ability to regulate transportation planning or construction under statutory provisions governing areas and activities of state interest. With respect to express preemption argument, contrary to CDOT's argument, § 43-1-1101 does not express an unequivocal intent to preempt all local regulation of transportation issues. The statute does not foreclose all regulation; it remains open to the possibility that the statewide planning process will leave some questions unresolved and that local governments may decide those matters by regulation. With respect to implied preemption, the court cannot conclude that CDOT was meant to occupy the entire field of transportation planning when the legislature has indicated that local governments may regulate the site selection of airports, transit terminals, and highways. CDOT's role in transportation planning does not necessarily conflict with, or dominate, the city's interest in preserving the use and value of land. Dept. of Transp. v. City of Idaho Springs, 192 P.3d 490 (Colo. App. 2008).