4.1 Consideration for Reducing GHG
PPACG has been a proactive partner in evaluating and advancing the implementation of the “Rules Governing Statewide Transportation Planning Process and Transportation Planning Regions” (2 CCR 601-22) since its first draft in 2021. Through ongoing collaboration with CDOT, other MPOs, statewide modeling coordination meetings, and the Inter-Agency Consultation Team (IACT), PPACG has worked to help address unforeseen challenges with practical, data-driven solutions.
Along the way, PPACG technical staff have focused on responsibly using taxpayer MMOF dollars to significantly update the travel demand model, while planners have actively engaged with local government stakeholders to prioritize projects that help meet rule requirements and uphold equitable transportation solutions. These collective efforts have led to several key considerations for PPACG meeting the GHG reduction goal.
4.1.1 Regional Transit Plan
A new Regional Transit Plan was developed by Mountain Metro Transit (MMT) in coordination with PPACG planners and concurrently with the 2050 LRTP to address implementation goals for projects funded through both the LRTP and new state transit programs. The Regional Transit Plan outlines 58 projects divided into short-term (20), medium-term (21), and long-term (17) projects. The projects are categorized by the following investment themes:
- Enhanced Transit Corridors (ETC)
- New Fixed Routes
- Innovative Mobility Zones
- Extend Service Span
- Improve Capital Infrastructure
- Improve Existing Route Frequency
- New Crosstown Routes
4.1.1.1 Enhanced Transit Cooridors
Two Enhanced Transit Corridor (ETC) projects stand out as prime candidates for near-term advancement, based on both demand and the level of planning already completed or underway. MMT has initiated the process of defining an Enhanced Transit project along Academy Boulevard, which is likely to be the first ETC to move forward from the long-term vision. As the highest ridership corridor in the MMT network, this project has the potential to set a precedent for future ETCs and establish a replicable process for advancing projects to implementation, regardless of the eventual funding source.
The City of Colorado Springs recently completed the Platte Avenue Corridor Study, which identified several potential improvements to Route 5 in the Platte Avenue corridor. While the study did not recommend a specific transit project scope, it can serve as a foundation for MMT and its partners to further define the Platte ETC project in the short term, even if the project’s implementation is delayed until the mid-term horizon.
The project team recommends advancing three additional ETC projects after the Academy Boulevard and Platte Avenue corridors: North and South Nevada Avenue and Colorado Avenue. Although the City of Colorado Springs has already studied the North Nevada Avenue corridor, the recommendations from that study should be revisited closer to implementation, with updated corridor conditions and stakeholder engagement to ensure a viable project. Pairing the North Nevada corridor with South Nevada could attract additional outside grant funding by boosting ridership and serving more transit-dependent areas. The Colorado Avenue corridor, already served by MMT’s busy Route 3, would complete the east-west ETC spine (along with the Platte Avenue ETC) through central Colorado Springs.
The project team also recommends implementing two additional ETC projects in the long-term phase. The Airport ETC project would connect Downtown Colorado Springs with the Colorado Springs Airport. Until this project is implemented, improvements to Route 37’s frequency and span, as well as the South Innovative Mobility Zone, are expected to address transit needs in this area. The Tutt Boulevard ETC would upgrade existing routes and introduce a new Briargate Parkway/Tutt Boulevard local route identified in the implementation phase. Implementation could be phased, with the new local service introduced before upgrading part of the route to an ETC. This corridor is experiencing rapid growth and would benefit from additional time to build ridership and make the necessary connectivity and land use improvements to support a competitive ETC project.
4.1.1.2 Innovative Mobility Zones
Although MMT should conduct a more detailed prioritization before launching its first Innovative Mobility Zone, the project team identifies two promising candidates for an initial launch. The Northeast Mobility Zone would serve a rapidly growing area of Colorado Springs that lacks access to fixed-route transit. This zone would provide valuable data on the transit demand in this part of the community, helping to inform future decisions on new fixed routes. The South Mobility Zone would address an area with expanding industrial jobs, offering another opportunity to test innovative mobility solutions for job centers that are harder to serve with traditional transit.
In the mid-term phase, the plan recommends exploring additional innovative mobility zones in areas experiencing continued growth but not yet ready for fixed-route service, such as the Southeast Zone and the Northgate/Gleneagle Zone. While improvements to fixed-route service frequency and span are being phased in, this phase could also see the implementation of an innovative mobility zone in Central Colorado Springs to further enhance service availability. Depending on the performance of the Northeast Zone, the fixed-route service expansion may prompt adjustments to the zone boundaries to better align with gaps in coverage, or even eliminate the zone entirely.
The final Innovative Mobility Zone, the Northwest Zone, would be implemented in the long term. As other zones are tested and fixed-route services are expanded, some zones may be phased out, or their boundaries may be adjusted to focus resources on areas with the greatest need.
4.1.1.3 Improved Span / Frequency
One of the most promising short-term projects is the expansion of service span on existing routes, particularly on Sunday evenings. This expansion could be achieved with minimal impact on vehicle requirements or the number of operators.
MMT should continue to expand service span during the medium term as vehicle and operator availability allow. If a reliable new funding source is identified, this phase could also include an initial increase in service frequency along routes beyond those identified as ETCs or Crosstown routes.
With the full implementation of the RTP, all routes would be upgraded to at least a 30-minute weekday frequency, with earlier morning and later evening service compared to current schedules, on both weekdays and weekends.
4.1.1.4 Improved Capital Infrastructure
The project team recommends advancing upgrades to the existing Voyager Transit Center in the short term. These upgrades could be incorporated into the Academy Boulevard ETC project, pending the outcome of that study, and would better support the implementation of the I-25/Voyager Express service. In addition to this facility improvement, the short-term implementation period includes a recommendation to launch both a bus stop accessibility/amenity program and a bus speed and reliability program. While initial investments may be limited, establishing a process by which MMT and its partners can systematically improve the passenger experience will provide an important foundation to scale these improvements in future phases of the plan.
Due to the large expansion of fixed-route service in the mid-term phase, the project team has identified several capital projects that would be needed to support the new service. New capital projects include:
- A new transit center at Woodmen Road/Powers Boulevard (near St. Francis Hospital) to serve new local routes along Tutt Blvd and Woodmen Rd.
- A new transit center at Carefree Circle North to connect existing services to new local service along Tutt Boulevard.
- Expansion of the Bus Stop Accessibility/Amenity and Bus Speed and Reliability programs launched during the short-term period
- A new Maintenance Facility to support the expanded bus fleet needed to serve routes launched during this phase and in accordance with expected zero emission vehicle (ZEV) needs as identified in the ZEV Plan
While less pronounced than the medium-term phase, additional capital projects are likely needed to support the remaining projects identified in the long-term horizon. Those include:
- A new transit center near Briargate Parkway and Powers Boulevard to better support network functionality in north/northeast Colorado Springs.
- A new Mobility Hub at Astrozon (near Academy Boulevard and Hancock Expressway) to connect existing services.
- A new Mobility Hub at Innovation Parkway to connect the new Airport ETC to the new Banning Lewis Ranch South route.
- Continuation of the Bus Stop Accessibility/Amenity and Bus Speed and Reliability programs, with the goal to have 100% of bus stops be compliant with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and to address remaining delay points on local routes that do not receive investment as part of an ETC project.
4.1.1.5 Crosstown Routes
The medium-term implementation phase includes the introduction of two new crosstown routes. The Lake Corridor, which largely replaces the existing Route 4, provides new connections between important job centers near the Broadmoor and south/southeast Colorado Springs. The Union Boulevard Crosstown Corridor combines existing routes 18 and 38 and introduces regular fixed-route service to a part of the region that is currently only served by deviated fixed-route service. This new north-south crosstown route would be anchored by the UC Health Memorial medical center in the north and the Astrozon Boulevard/Hancock Expressway/Academy Boulevard area to the south.
The final crosstown project is the Garden of the Gods Road/Austin Bluffs Parkway corridor. This project would largely replace two existing local routes that would receive frequency/span improvements in the short- and medium-term phases of the plan and depending on a detailed analysis of impacts to vehicle and operator needs could be accelerated through the first phase of systemwide frequency upgrades.
4.1.1.6 New Routes
The medium-term implementation phase includes the majority of the new fixed-route services recommended in the 2050 RTP. However, it is important to note that implementing such a large expansion of MMT’s services will require the identification of additional, reliable funding sources beyond the existing system’s expected revenue. Most of the new routes in this phase would serve high-growth communities in North and Northeast Colorado Springs, including two new Express routes: one connecting Downtown Colorado Springs to Falcon along US-24, and another linking Downtown Colorado Springs with the Voyager Transit Center along I-25.
The project team recommends implementing the Banning Lewis Ranch South route during the long-term phase, given the expected longer buildout horizon of Banning Lewis Ranch toward US-24 and further south (with the Southeast Zone serving this area in the interim). Additionally, based on long-term growth trends, the team recommends introducing local service between Monument and Voyager Transit Center in the long term. The team also recommends implementing a Garden of the Gods to Manitou Springs circulator in the long-term, following a more thorough study of the benefits and infrastructure needed to operate such a service. Given its focus on serving tourists visiting Manitou Springs and Garden of the Gods Park, this project may be eligible for advancement on a different timeline with unique funding sources that may not be available for other routes in the proposal.
Figure 23: Map of regional transit projects from the transit plan
4.1.2 Transit Connections Study
In 2024, CDOT’s Division of Transit and Rail (DTR) launched the Transit Connections Study (TCS) as part of its effort to build a statewide transit network. The study aims to provide a strategic vision for an interconnected statewide transit system, focusing on expanding and improving the Bustang Family of Services, adding passenger rail services, identifying transit gaps and needs, and fostering connections with intercity, regional, and local transit/mobility providers.
Mountain Metro Transit (MMT), local jurisdictions, and CDOT have developed a project list for inclusion in the TCS. This list identifies projects in the Pikes Peak region that align with CDOT’s transit goals and represents a more aggressive implementation of the vision laid out in the Regional Transit Plan, designed to leverage increasing funding streams. It includes several service enhancement projects, such as express bus service and localized circulators to address last-mile connections. Additionally, the list features express and flex service as part of the Plains to Peak Corridor, along with several stop and station improvements, including mobility hubs and upgrades to existing connection points. This list is included as an addendum to the Regional Transit Plan.
4.1.3 State Multimodal and Transit Initiatives
Many of the projects and mode choice assumptions incorporated in the Regional Transit Plan and the Transit Connections Study are supported by a host of new state legislation, including:
- SB24-032 Methods to Increase the Use of Transit, provides additional funding for transit in the form of an annual allocation of $7 million to the ozone season transit grant program fund.
- HB24-1152 Accessory Dwelling Units, promotes the development of ADUs, which by extension promotes urban infill and correlates with higher probability of walk, bike, and transit mode choices.
- HB24-1304 Minimum Parking Requirements, prohibits a county or municipality, on or after June 30, 2025, from enforcing minimum parking requirements for real property within a MPO to encourage higher residential density and walk, bike, and transit mode choices.
- HB24-1313 Housing in Transit-Oriented Communities, is intended to provide greater access to transit.
- SB24-184 Support Surface Transportation Infrastructure Development, imposes a $3 a day congestion impact fee on car rentals intended to support the development of transit and rail projects, which includes Front Range Passenger Rail (FRPR) service.
- SB24-230 Oil & Gas Production Fees, requires the clean transit enterprise to impose a production fee on oil and gas to be used for clean transit.
4.1.4 Modeling the Mode Choice Changes
The 2050 LRTP has more than doubled the funding for transit and multimodal projects compared to the 2045 plan, supported by coordinated planning and programming with local transit providers like MMT and state transit programs run by CDOT, using a host of new funding resources provided by legislation with the explicit goal of promoting multimodal options and transit use. Supporting these initiatives is PPACG’s new travel demand model (TDM), which provides robust capabilities to evaluate the impacts of proposed projects on both transportation efficiency and environmental sustainability.
The following changes were made compared to the 2020 base year model to account for the impacts these initiatives might have on the transportation network. These models constitute what is considered the GHG reduction or action scenarios for each forecast year.
- The transit mode choice probability was increased for general office workers, college students, and individuals over 65 years, for most trip types. This increase in forecasted transit attractiveness as a mode choice also models expected rebound of very low transit boardings in the base year, which likely influenced model calibration.
- In 2030, four new transit routes/lines were added: University of Colorado, Colorado Springs /Colorado College service to downtown, Monument line, Falcon line, and Woodmen line. The North Academy and Voyager lines were coded with shorter 10 minute headway times to reflect planned service improvements.
- In 2040, one new transit line was added: the Union South line. Shorter headways were coded to reflect improved service on the South Academy, Citadel, Union North, and Security Widefield lines.
- In 2050, the FRPR station was added in downtown Colorado Springs with a 30 minute headway service to Denver, and one a new transit line was added to Banning Lewis Ranch. The existing Amazon and Las Vegas transit lines were noticed to not be coded properly to all their stops and were repaired (there was no time to fix this problem in the 2030 and 2040 years before submission), and shorter 15 minute headway service was coded to all routes not already improved in 2030 and 2040.
- Walk mode choice probability for all adults was increased for non-work trips within 2 miles to be more attractive.
- Remote work probability was increased slightly by 4% for office workers and 2% for service workers, for a total remote work probability of around 14%.
Figure 24: Table of total trips by mode choice in the 2050 LRTP model across all model years
| Mode | 2020 | 2020 Percentage | 2030 | 2030 Percentage | 2040 | 2040 Percentage | 2050 | 2050 Percentage |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Auto | 1,845,542 | 68.87% | 2,028,456 | 68.00% | 2,300,422 | 68.81% | 2,418,511 | 68.05% |
| Auto Shared | 694,974 | 25.93% | 740,937 | 24.84% | 825,435 | 24.69% | 868,281 | 24.43% |
| Transit | 12,691 | 0.47% | 81,389 | 2.73% | 83,731 | 2.50% | 127,559 | 3.59% |
| Walk | 109,029 | 4.07% | 114,512 | 3.84% | 113,822 | 3.40% | 118,262 | 3.33% |
| Bike | 17,524 | 0.65% | 17,757 | 0.60% | 19,917 | 0.60% | 21,390 | 0.60% |
| Total Trips | 2,679,761 | 2,983,047 | 3,343,380 | 3,554,003 |
Figure 25: Table of total vehicle miles traveled (VMT) in the 2050 LRTP model across all model years calculated using both the traditional static assignment and the newer simulation based assignment
| 2020 | 2030 | 2040 | 2050 | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Static VMT | SBA VMT | Static VMT | SBA VMT | Static VMT | SBA VMT | Static VMT | SBA VMT |
| 14,571,122 | 14,672,365 | 15,289,668 | 15,393,629 | 17,415,561 | 17,810,938 | 18,742,836 | 17,472,327 |
4.1.5 New Baseline Model
The GHG rule, “Rules Governing Statewide Transportation Planning Process and Transportation Planning Regions” (2 CCR 601-22), requires that baseline GHG emissions be determined from modeling the regional plan adopted by the MPO when the rule became effective in January 2022. PPACG understood this to mean that the 2045 LRTP travel demand model – being the adopted plan when the rule became effective – would be used to establish the GHG baseline emissions, as its land use and transportation network were utilized to calculate the GHG reduction requirements in Table 1 of the rule. However, in September 2024, CDOT shared their interpretation and instructed PPACG to develop a new baseline model using the 2050 LRTP travel demand model.
PPACG staff and CDOT engaged in several discussions to determine how best to accomplish this, as the 2050 LRTP model represents a substantial improvement over the previous model and includes numerous changes that are incompatible with its predecessor. Some of these challenges include:
- The 2050 model has over 100 new TAZs, with different boundaries and household/employment composition
- Different population and household data, such as income and age brackets, between the models
- The 2045 model uses three worker classes, with no certainty to correctly parse them into the five worker types used in the 2050 model
- The 2045 model network does not have the geometric detail or attributes required for simulation based assignment for 69 centerline miles of major roadway projects removed from the 2050 LRTP
Working closely with CDOT, PPACG used the new 2050 LRTP model to generate a GHG baseline model with the following considerations to the 2045 LRTP:
- The baseline uses the 2045 LRTP land use and population distribution, but scaled to the 2050 LRTP population control total
- The baseline uses the 2050 LRTP workforce and employment distribution
- The baseline reflects the 2045 LRTP model’s remote work and mode choice trip distributions
- The baseline contains the 2045 LRTP model’s transportation network, using generic intersection geometry adopted where necessary to facilitate simulation based assignment (SBA) and PPACG staff’s best estimate for project timelines
While the vehicle miles traveled (VMT) in the new GHG baseline models closely align with the VMT from the adopted 2045 LRTP, the lower average speeds in the baseline models reveal significant congestion in 2040 and 2050, to the point that not all trips in the baseline could be modeled to completion in those years. This is primarily attributed to the conflicting land use forecasts and the transportation project mix adopted in the 2045 LRTP. In retrospect, the nonsynchronous nature of the 2045 plan is apparent; however, it’s important to note that as the Pikes Peak Area MPO is in attainment, previous plans did not have emissions budgets. Consequently, previous plans often employed a broader and less constricted approach conducive to their ability to be easily revised in four years’ time. The lack of project implementation timelines in previous plans can be considered an example of this approach.
Figure 26: Tables of VMT in the original 2045 LRTP model and the new GHG baseline model, and comparisons of average vehicle speeds in the GHG baseline model and the 2050 LRTP model
| 2030 | 2040 | 2045 | |
| VMT in the 2045 LRTP for the MPO | 16,800,165 | 18,120,837 | 18,319,508 |
| 2030 | 2040 | 2050 | |
| VMT in the new GHG Baseline for the MPO | 16,470,841 | 18,170,984 | 18,841,427 |
GHG Baseline Model Average Speeds
| Roadway | 2030 | 2040 | 2050 | 2040 PM Rush hour (4 p.m. – 7 p.m.) | 2050 PM Rush hour (4 p.m. – 7 p.m.) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Interetate | 69.5 mph | 56.5 mph | 55.2 mph | 38.1 mph | 37.1 mph |
| Highways | 48.0 mph | 36.7 mph | 36.5 mph | 22.0 mph | 23.5 mph |
| Principal Arterials | 38.6 mph | 30.2 mph | 29.6 mph | 18.5 mph | 18.4 mph |
| Minor Arterials | 34.9 mph | 28.7 mph | 27.5 mph | 19.8 mph | 17.8 mph |
| Major Collectors | 29.3 mph | 25.0 mph | 24.0 mph | 18.7 mph | 17.1 mph |
| Minor Collectors | 24.7 mph | 23.6 mph | 23.6 mph | 22.7 mph | 22.9 mph |
GHG Reduction Scenario Model Average Speeds
| Roadway | 2030 | 2040 | 2050 | 2040 PM Rush hour (4 p.m. – 7 p.m.) | 2050 PM Rush hour (4 p.m. – 7 p.m.) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Interetate | 69.2 mph | 68.8 mph | 68.5 mph | 67.7 mph | 66.3 mph |
| Highways | 48.5 mph | 48.3 mph | 47.5 mph | 47.3 mph | 45.0 mph |
| Principal Arterials | 38.6 mph | 38.3 mph | 38.3 mph | 37.7 mph | 37.4 mph |
| Minor Arterials | 34.9 mph | 34.9 mph | 34.8 mph | 34.7 mph | 34.4 mph |
| Major Collectors | 29.3 mph | 29.2 mph | 29.2 mph | 29.0 mph | 28.9 mph |
| Minor Collectors | 24.2 mph | 24.2 mph | 24.2 mph | 24.1 mph | 24.1 mph |
The baseline models underscore the substantial benefits achievable through a harmonious land use and transportation planning strategy, such as the approach implemented in the 2050 Long Range Transportation Plan. This recent planning effort has yielded more than just a transportation project list and land use forecast; it has been the impetus to establish two new regional forums that enhance collaboration among local government planners. These forums represent a significant step forward, fostering the collective vision and coordination needed to drive meaningful, positive change across the region, and will help ensure the progress made on the 2050 LRTP continues into the next plan.
4.2 GHG Target Reporting
For each compliance year required under the rule, PPACG provided two sets of Excel file outputs from its travel demand model to the Air Pollution Control Division (APCD) of the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment (CDPHE) for greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions evaluation using the MOtor Vehicle Emission Simulator (MOVES). These files were also supplied to CDOT, and included hourly traffic volumes, hourly average speeds, and details such as functional class, urban classification, number of lanes, and speed limits for each traffic link within the MPO network. The first file output was from the GHG baseline model derived from the adopted 2045 plan’s land use and network, while the second file output was from the GHG action/reduction model from the new 2050 plan.
The result of the emissions analysis done by the APCD using the MOVES tool in rates mode to evaluate PPACG’s 2050 LRTP through its travel demand model outputs in the following compliance years for Carbon Dioxide equivalent (CO2e) GHG emissions are as follows:
Figure 27: Tables comparing GHG baseline emissions and action/reduction scenario emissions
| Baseline Year | Pollutant ID | HMPSid | Total (tons) | Action Year | Pollutant ID | HMPSid | Total (tons) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2030 | 98 | 11 | 11.69 | 2030 | 98 | 11 | 10.63 |
| 2030 | 98 | 21 | 2,127.58 | 2030 | 98 | 21 | 1,679.36 |
| 2030 | 98 | 30 | 3,049.30 | 2030 | 98 | 30 | 2,467.42 |
| 2030 | 98 | 40 | 25.49 | 2030 | 98 | 40 | 20.92 |
| 2030 | 98 | 50 | 65.56 | 2030 | 98 | 50 | 51.02 |
| 2030 | 98 | 60 | 336.82 | 2030 | 98 | 60 | 266.38 |
| 5,616.44 | 4,495.73 | ||||||
| 2040 | 98 | 11 | 19.49 | 2040 | 98 | 11 | 12.48 |
| 2040 | 98 | 21 | 1,470.33 | 2040 | 98 | 21 | 620.73 |
| 2040 | 98 | 30 | 4,743.79 | 2040 | 98 | 30 | 2,089.30 |
| 2040 | 98 | 40 | 35.63 | 2040 | 98 | 40 | 22.35 |
| 2040 | 98 | 50 | 95.48 | 2040 | 98 | 50 | 56.23 |
| 2040 | 98 | 60 | 438.14 | 2040 | 98 | 60 | 275.80 |
| 6,802.86 | 3,076.89 | ||||||
| 2050 | 98 | 11 | 21.76 | 2050 | 98 | 11 | 14.26 |
| 2050 | 98 | 21 | 233.90 | 2050 | 98 | 21 | 98.60 |
| 2050 | 98 | 30 | 2,970.43 | 2050 | 98 | 30 | 1,306.47 |
| 2050 | 98 | 40 | 38.80 | 2050 | 98 | 40 | 24.55 |
| 2050 | 98 | 50 | 105.67 | 2050 | 98 | 50 | 61.02 |
| 2050 | 98 | 60 | 483.41 | 2050 | 98 | 60 | 295.38 |
| 3,853.97 | 1,800.28 |
| 2030 | 2040 | 2050 | |
|---|---|---|---|
| GHG Baseline Model | 1.72 | 2.09 | 1.18 |
| 2050 Plan Action/Reduction Model | 1.38 | 0.94 | .55 |
| Reduction Amount | .34 | 1.15 | .63 |
| Required Reduction in the Rule | .15 | .12 | .07 |
| Pass/Fail | Pass | Pass | Pass |
These values reported in Million Metric Tons (MMT) of CO2e emissions