Level 1 Traffic and Revenue Study Jefferson Parkway
Transcript of Level 1 Traffic and Revenue Study Jefferson Parkway
Level 1 Traffic and Revenue Study Jefferson Parkway
Revised Final Report April 8
Jefferson Parkway Public Highway Authority (JPPHA)
i
Table of Contents
Executive Summary ....................................................................................................... ES-1 Project Description ........................................................................................................................................................ ES-1
Study Area ............................................................................................................................................................... ES-1
Existing Traffic Trends ................................................................................................................................................. ES-2
Study Area Traffic ................................................................................................................................................ ES-2
Historical Traffic Growth .................................................................................................................................. ES-3
Corridor Growth Assessment .................................................................................................................................... ES-3
Model Development ...................................................................................................................................................... ES-4
Roadway and Transit Network Review ...................................................................................................... ES-4
Vehicle Operating Costs ..................................................................................................................................... ES-4
Values of Time ....................................................................................................................................................... ES-5
Assumed Payment Types and ExpressToll Market Participation Rates ....................................... ES-5
Toll Rate Sensitivity ...................................................................................................................................................... ES-5
Toll Structure ................................................................................................................................................................... ES-6
Estimated Base Case Traffic and Revenue ........................................................................................................... ES-8
Sensitivity Tests .............................................................................................................................................................. ES-8
Disclaimer ....................................................................................................................................................................... ES-12
Chapter 1 - Introduction .................................................................................................. 1-1 Historical Background ................................................................................................................................................... 1-1
Project Description .......................................................................................................................................................... 1-2
Study Area ........................................................................................................................................................................... 1-3
Report Structure ............................................................................................................................................................... 1-4
Chapter 2 – Existing Traffic Trends ................................................................................... 2-1 Existing Traffic .................................................................................................................................................................. 2-1
Historical Traffic Growth .............................................................................................................................................. 2-4
Monthly Traffic Variations ........................................................................................................................................... 2-4
Daily Traffic Variations .................................................................................................................................................. 2-5
Hourly Distribution ......................................................................................................................................................... 2-6
Daily Speed Variation ..................................................................................................................................................... 2-8
Chapter 3 – Corridor Growth Assessment ......................................................................... 3-1 Historical Socioeconomic Trends .............................................................................................................................. 3-1
Population ................................................................................................................................................................. 3-1
Households ............................................................................................................................................................... 3-3
Employment ............................................................................................................................................................. 3-3
Median Household Income ................................................................................................................................ 3-4
Socioeconomic Forecasts .............................................................................................................................................. 3-5
Population ................................................................................................................................................................. 3-6
Households ............................................................................................................................................................... 3-6
Employment ............................................................................................................................................................. 3-7
Chapter 4 – Traffic and Revenue Analysis ......................................................................... 4-1 Model Development ........................................................................................................................................................ 4-1
DRAFT Table of Contents • Jefferson Parkway Level 1 Traffic and Revenue Study
ii
Land Use and Demographic Assumptions ................................................................................................... 4-2
Assumed Payment Types and ExpressToll Market Participation Rates ......................................... 4-2
Adaptation of Trip Tables ................................................................................................................................... 4-2
Roadway and Transit Network Review ........................................................................................................ 4-3
Vehicle Operating Costs ....................................................................................................................................... 4-8
Values of Time .......................................................................................................................................................... 4-8
Model Calibration ............................................................................................................................................................. 4-9
Traffic Diversion Analysis ............................................................................................................................................. 4-9
Projects Configuration and Toll Locations ............................................................................................................ 4-9
Toll Rate Sensitivity ......................................................................................................................................................... 4-9
Toll Structure .................................................................................................................................................................. 4-12
Basic Study Assumptions ........................................................................................................................................... 4-14
Estimated Base Case Traffic and Revenue .......................................................................................................... 4-15
Estimated Average Weekday Traffic Volumes ........................................................................................ 4-15
Estimated Weekday and Annual Transactions and Revenue ........................................................... 4-19
Scenario 1: Initial Build without the Northwest Parkway Extension ................................. 4-19
Scenario 2: Initial Build with the Northwest Parkway Extension ........................................ 4-26
Scenario 3: Ultimate Build without the Northwest Parkway Extension ............................ 4-26
Scenario 4: Ultimate Build with the Northwest Parkway Extension ................................... 4-27
Disclaimer ......................................................................................................................................................................... 4-27
Chapter 5 – Sensitivity Tests ............................................................................................ 5-1 Sensitivity Test 1: Long-Term Reduced Economic Growth ............................................................................ 5-1
Sensitivity Test 2: Long-Term Increased Economic Growth ......................................................................... 5-2
Sensitivity Test 3: Decreased Value of Time ......................................................................................................... 5-3
Sensitivity Test 4: Increased Value of Time .......................................................................................................... 5-5
Sensitivity Test 5: Combined “Low” Scenario ...................................................................................................... 5-6
Sensitivity Test 6: Accelerated Toll Rate Increases ........................................................................................... 5-7
Sensitivity Test 7: Combined “High” Scenario...................................................................................................... 5-9
List of Figures
Figure ES-1. Project Study Area......................................................................................................................................... ES-1
Figure ES-2. Average Weekday Traffic Volumes and Truck Percentages at Selected Count
Locations .......................................................................................................................................................... ES-2
Figure ES-3. Estimated Toll Sensitivity Curves ........................................................................................................... ES-6
Figure ES-4. Estimated Average Weekday Mainline Traffic Volumes ............................................................... ES-9
Figure 1-1. Project Study Area .............................................................................................................................................. 1-2
Figure 2-1. Average Weekday Traffic Volumes and Truck Percentages at Selected Count Locations ... 2-3
Figure 2-2. 2016 Average Monthly Weekday Traffic Variations ............................................................................ 2-5
Figure 2-3. 2016 Average Daily Traffic Variations ....................................................................................................... 2-6
Figure 2-4. Average Weekday Hourly Traffic Distribution ....................................................................................... 2-7
Figure 2-5. Average Speed Trend During AM Peak Period (6:30 AM – 9:00 AM) ........................................... 2-9
Figure 2-6. Average Speed Trend During PM Peak Period (3:00 PM – 7:00 PM) ........................................ 2-10
Figure 3-1. Regional Location of Jefferson Parkway and Adjacent Counties .................................................... 3-2
DRAFT Table of Contents • Jefferson Parkway Level 1 Traffic and Revenue Study
iii
Figure 4-1. Proposed Jefferson Parkway Configuration and Tolling Locations ............................................4-10
Figure 4-2. Estimated Toll Sensitivity Curves ..............................................................................................................4-11
Figure 4-3. Estimated Average Weekday Mainline Traffic Volumes, Scenario 1 and 2 – Initial Build 4-16
Figure 4-4. Estimated Average Weekday Mainline Traffic Volumes, Scenario 3 and 4 – Ultimate
Build .......................................................................................................................................................................4-17
List of Tables
Table ES-1. Forecasted Growth Trends in Population ............................................................................................. ES-3
Table ES-2. Forecasted Growth Trends in Employment ......................................................................................... ES-4
Table ES-3. Jefferson Parkway Passenger Car Toll Rate Assumptions ............................................................. ES-6
Table ES-4. Toll Rate Comparison of Selected Toll Road Agencies ..................................................................... ES-7
Table ES-5. Estimated Base Case Annual Transactions and Revenue (in Thousands) ........................... ES-10
Table ES-6. Comparison of Estimated Sensitivity Test Transactions and Net Toll Revenues .............. ES-11
Table 2-1. Average Weekday Hourly Traffic Volumes and Truck Percentages at Selected Locations .. 2-2
Table 2-2. Historical Traffic Growth at Available Count Locations ...................................................................... 2-4
Table 3-1. Historical Growth Trends in Population .................................................................................................... 3-2
Table 3-2. Historical Growth Trends in Households ................................................................................................... 3-3
Table 3-3. Historical Growth Trends in Employment ................................................................................................ 3-4
Table 3-4. Historical Growth Trends in Median Household Income (in 2016 Inflation-Adjusted
Dollars) ...................................................................................................................................................................... 3-5
Table 3-5. Forecasted Growth Trends in Population .................................................................................................. 3-6
Table 3-6. Forecasted Growth Trends in Households ................................................................................................ 3-7
Table 3-7. Forecasted Growth Trends in Employment .............................................................................................. 3-7
Table 4-1. Programmed Regional Highway Improvements..................................................................................... 4-4
Table 4-2. Estimated Vehicle Operating Costs ............................................................................................................... 4-8
Table 4-3. Estimated Average Values of Time ............................................................................................................... 4-8
Table 4-4. Jefferson Parkway Passenger Car Toll Rate Assumptions ................................................................4-12
Table 4-5. Toll Rate Comparison of Selected Toll Road Agencies .......................................................................4-13
Table 4-6. Estimated Average Weekday Transactions and Gross Toll Revenues, Scenarios 1 and 2
– Initial Build .......................................................................................................................................................4-20
Table 4-7. Estimated Average Weekday Transactions and Gross Toll Revenues, Scenarios 3 and 4
– Ultimate Build ..................................................................................................................................................4-21
Table 4-8. Estimated Annual Transactions and Revenue (in Thousands), Scenario 1: Jefferson
Parkway Initial Build without the Northwest Parkway Extension ...............................................4-22
Table 4-9. Estimated Annual Transactions and Revenue (in Thousands), Scenario 2: Jefferson
Parkway Initial Build with the Northwest Parkway Extension ......................................................4-23
Table 4-10. Estimated Annual Transactions and Revenue (in Thousands), Scenario 3: Jefferson
Parkway Initial Build without the Northwest Parkway Extension ............................................4-24
Table 4-11. Estimated Annual Transactions and Revenue (in Thousands), Scenario 4: Jefferson
Parkway Ultimate Build with the Northwest Parkway Extension .............................................4-25
Table 5-1. Estimated Annual Transactions and Revenue (in Thousands), Sensitivity Test 1: Long-
Term Reduced Economic Growth .................................................................................................................. 5-2
Table 5-2. Estimated Annual Transactions and Revenue (in Thousands), Sensitivity Test 2: Long-
Term Increased Economic Growth ................................................................................................................ 5-3
DRAFT Table of Contents • Jefferson Parkway Level 1 Traffic and Revenue Study
iv
Table 5-3. Estimated Annual Transactions and Revenue (in Thousands), Sensitivity Test 3:
Reduced Value of Time ....................................................................................................................................... 5-4
Table 5-4. Estimated Annual Transactions and Revenue (in Thousands), Sensitivity Test 4:
Increased Value of Time .................................................................................................................................... 5-5
Table 5-5. Estimated Annual Transactions and Revenue (in Thousands), Sensitivity Test 5:
Combined “Low” Scenario (Lower Growth and Lower Value of Time) ......................................... 5-6
Table 5-6. Estimated Annual Transactions and Revenue Stream (in Thousands), Sensitivity Test 6:
Accelerated Toll Rate Increases ...................................................................................................................... 5-8
Table 5-7. Estimated Annual Transactions and Revenue (in Thousands), Sensitivity Test 6:
Accelerated Toll Rate Increases ...................................................................................................................... 5-9
Table 5-8. Estimated Annual Transactions and Revenue Stream (in Thousands), Sensitivity Test 7:
Combined “High” Scenario (Higher Growth and Accelerated Toll Rate Increases) .............. 5-10
Table 5-9. Estimated Annual Transactions and Revenue (in Thousands), Sensitivity Test 7:
Combined “High” Scenario (Higher Growth and Accelerated Toll Rate Increases) .............. 5-10
ES-1 April 16, 2018
Executive Summary
CDM Smith has been requested to provide the Jefferson Parkway Public Highway Authority (JPPHA)
with forecasts of traffic and revenue for the proposed Jefferson Parkway. These forecasts and the
methodology for their development are summarized in this report. This study is intended to assist
JPPHA in the planning and implementation of toll rates, project configurations, and construction
schedules associated with the proposed Jefferson Parkway. This Level-1 study is intended for use by
JPPHA for planning purposes and to solicit interest in the Jefferson Parkway. It does not constitute a
comprehensive study. A further, more detailed analysis would be required to support any financing
effort of the Jefferson Parkway.
As will be presented in this report, the traffic and revenue forecasts produced by this analysis were
based on a Level 1 analysis of the project that utilized the Denver Region Council of Governments’
(DRCOG) Focus 2 model. This model was updated with the latest socioeconomic and highway
improvement assumptions. Following a toll sensitivity analysis, preferred toll rates were selected in
cooperation with JPPHA that serve regional mobility interests as well as produce revenues in support
of the Jefferson Parkway. Forecasts of traffic and toll revenue were developed for a Base Case using
these preferred rates under four hypothetical scenarios. Additional sensitivity tests were also
performed to understand the impacts of various key input assumptions. All standard due-diligence
data review and analyses for this study were performed.
Project Description As shown in Figure ES-1, the proposed Jefferson
Parkway will be a 9.2 -mile toll road running along the
northwestern perimeter of the Denver Metro area,
forming a portion of the originally conceived I-470, the
outer circumferential highway around Denver. The
Jefferson Parkway will extend as a limited-access
expressway, with two lanes of travel in each direction,
from SH 128 south of US 36 to SH 93 south of SH 72. It
is assumed that the Jefferson Parkway will operate in a
cashless environment as an All Electronic Toll (AET)
facility. Customers will be charged a toll either
through the use of an ExpressToll transponder or
through the mail via License Plate Tolling (LPT).
Study Area Based on the proposed project limits, the project study
area is assumed to extend from US 36 in the north, to
SH 121 / Wadsworth Boulevard in the east, to I-70 in
the south and to SH 93 in the west. This study area
includes many roadways that may be affected by the
proposed Jefferson Parkway. These roadways include
US 36, SH 72, SH 93, SH 121, SH 128, 86th Parkway, W 88th Avenue and Indiana Street. Two major
Figure ES-1 Project Study Area
Jefferson Parkway Level 1 Traffic and Revenue Study • Executive Summary
ES-2 April 16, 2018
roadways, I-25 and the Northwest Parkway, lie outside this study area may also be impacted by the
Jefferson Parkway. A number of local roadways in the Interlocken area are also assumed to be
impacted by the proposed Jefferson Parkway based on the specific trips forecasted to use the project.
Existing Traffic Trends Historic and current traffic trends were assembled and reviewed in order to better understand the
existing regional traffic conditions. These include traffic volumes, hourly traffic variations, daily and
seasonal variations and truck traffic within the study area. Regional speed data were also reviewed.
Study Area Traffic The regional travel demand model used in
the traffic and revenue forecasting process
is based on annual average weekday traffic
(AWDT) volumes. Historical traffic data
were assembled from several sources,
including the Colorado Department of
Transportation (CDOT), the Denver
Regional Council of Governments (DRCOG),
and from several past studies. Additionally,
counts were collected at eight supplemental
locations in November 2017. Figure ES-2
summarizes and presents these data for
selected count locations as AWDT volumes
and truck percentages.
Two screenlines were developed to assist
the calibration of travel demand model. A
screenline is theoretical line across several
major roadways. Since volumes can vary by
location, a screenline can represent total
movements in the potential market area. In
general, the volumes across both
screenlines are relatively balanced
directionally. On an average weekday,
almost 75,600 vehicles cross Screenline 1
and 100,000 vehicles cross Screenline 2,
with SH 121 and SH 93 carrying the highest
volumes. Truck traffic across both
screenlines ranges between 3.1 and 7.9
percent and averages 6.0 percent.
The remaining traffic count data summarized in the figure are located near the proposed Jefferson
Parkway alignment. On an average weekday basis, 18.5 percent of traffic occurs during the AM Peak
Period and 32.3 percent of traffic occurs during the PM Peak Period. Truck traffic within the study
area averages 7.4 percent and ranges between 3.1 and 11.9 percent at individual count locations.
Figure ES-2 Average Weekday Traffic Volumes
and Truck Percentages at Selected Count Locations
Jefferson Parkway Level 1 Traffic and Revenue Study • Executive Summary
ES-3 April 16, 2018
Historical Traffic Growth Historical average weekday traffic volumes were available at a limited number of count locations
through Department of Transportation (CDOT) website. Between 2006 and 2016, traffic growth
within the study area varied from -2.9 percent to 2.0 percent per year, with most corridors
experiencing positive traffic growth. The ten-year historical traffic growth within the region averaged
0.6 percent, with the major growth occurring on smaller volume roadways such as SH 93 and SH 128.
Corridor Growth Assessment Forecasts of employment, population and other relevant variables have been developed by DRCOG as
part of the regional travel demand model. These forecasts were recently reviewed and adjusted by
EPS as part of prior CDM Smith studies in the region. The growth assessment included a review of the
Base Year 2015 population, household and employment numbers, as well as an independent analysis
of regional and sub-regional projections and a consideration of major developments within the Denver
region. The result of the assessment was a set of updated forecasts of population, households, and
employment. These forecasts, referred to hereafter as the “EPS” forecasts and presented for
population and employment in Tables ES-1 and ES -2, were then used to develop updated trip
matrices using the DRCOG Focus 2 model process for the purposes of running traffic assignments in
the regional travel demand model.
For the current Level 1 analysis, the recent adjustments recommended by EPS were considered to still
be reasonable and to be relevant to the proposed Jefferson Parkway. These findings served as basic
inputs to the travel demand model which, in turn, was used to develop the traffic and revenue
forecasts for the proposed Jefferson Parkway.
Table ES-1 Forecasted Growth Trends in Population
2015 - 2035
Actual (1) AAPC (2) AAPC (2) AAPC (2) Avg. Annual Incr.
County 2005 '05 to '15 2015 '15 to '25 2025 '25 to '35 2035 Total Number Percent
Adams County 395,384 2.2 491,335 1.7 581,006 1.7 684,728 193,393 9,670 1.7
Arapahoe County 528,214 1.8 631,086 1.3 720,595 1.0 794,818 163,732 8,187 1.2
Boulder County 282,910 1.2 319,387 1.1 354,906 0.7 378,685 59,298 2,965 0.9
Broomfield County 48,251 3.0 65,065 2.4 82,699 1.9 99,582 34,517 1,726 2.2
Denver County 559,459 2.0 682,545 0.9 745,607 0.8 805,602 123,057 6,153 0.8
Douglas County 244,442 2.8 322,391 2.0 393,369 1.5 457,048 134,657 6,733 1.8
Jefferson County 523,517 0.8 565,524 0.8 612,867 0.7 655,166 89,642 4,482 0.7
7-County Total 2,582,177 1.8 3,077,333 1.3 3,491,049 1.1 3,875,629 798,296 39,915 1.2
Influence Area (3) 854,678 1.1 949,976 1.0 1,050,472 0.8 1,133,433 183,457 9,173 0.9
(1) U.S. Census Bureau.
(2) Average Annual Percent Change.
(3) Influence Area Includes Boulder County, Broomfield County and Jefferson County
Source: Economic & Planning Systems.
Jefferson Parkway Level 1 Traffic and Revenue Study • Executive Summary
ES-4 April 16, 2018
Table ES-2 Forecasted Growth Trends in Employment
Model Development The travel demand modeling undertaken for this study utilized, as the basic modeling platform, the
Denver Regional Council of Governments’ (DRCOG) activity-based Focus 2 travel demand model. The
model area covers eleven counties within the Denver metropolitan area and was developed at an
average weekday level. A 2016 base year and future years 2022, 2035 and 2040, were included.
Roadway and Transit Network Review Beginning with the 2017 model, a thorough review of the road network, functional classifications, and
lanes was completed to ensure consistency with the existing network. The forecast year networks
included in the base DRCOG models were then reviewed and compared to the DRCOG 2040 Fiscally
Constrained Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) (Cycle 2, 2015). The RTP identifies new roadways,
additional lanes, and other capacity improvements included in the regional Metro Vision plan, as well
as additions to the transit network consistent with the current FasTracks regional rapid transit
expansion plans. A listing of the projects within the study area is provided in Chapter 4 of this report.
In addition to the RTP project listing, the Northwest Parkway Extension was included in the highway
network based on the project’s proximity to the study corridor. The assumed configuration was based
on the latest project information provided by the Northwest Parkway Toll Authority. Due to the
relative importance of the project, traffic assignments with and without the proposed Northwest
Parkway Extension were conducted in order to estimate the potential traffic and revenue impact to
the Jefferson Parkway.
Vehicle Operating Costs Past studies by CDM Smith have shown that drivers perceive fuel costs in decisions regarding trip
path, but also give some consideration to other usage-related costs, such maintenance, oil, and tires. A
vehicle operating cost of $0.161 per mile for passenger cars in 2016 was assumed. The 2016 vehicle
operating cost was then inflated for future years at an annual rate of 2.3 percent. These inflation rates
were based on an analysis of regional historical CPI data. Operating costs for trucks were assumed at
3.0 times those of passenger cars.
2015 - 2035
Actual (1) AAPC (2) AAPC (2) AAPC (2) Avg. Annual Incr.
County 2005 '05 to '15 2015 '15 to '25 2025 '25 to '35 2035 Total Number Percent
Adams County 147,682 2.7 191,878 2.3 239,871 1.8 287,844 95,966 4,798 2.0
Arapahoe County 271,270 1.6 316,496 1.5 368,751 1.3 418,489 101,993 5,100 1.4
Boulder County 154,367 1.1 172,698 1.0 190,760 0.9 208,525 35,827 1,791 0.9
Broomfield County 28,738 2.3 35,990 3.3 50,000 2.5 63,956 27,966 1,398 2.9
Denver County 424,659 1.2 478,260 0.9 525,244 0.9 572,191 93,931 4,697 0.9
Douglas County 82,930 3.1 112,880 1.9 136,837 1.5 158,888 46,008 2,300 1.7
Jefferson County 206,031 1.0 228,330 0.8 248,303 0.8 268,100 39,770 1,989 0.8
7-County Total 1,315,677 1.6 1,536,532 1.4 1,759,766 1.2 1,977,993 441,461 22,073 1.3
Influence Area (3) 389,136 1.2 437,018 1.1 489,063 1.0 540,581 103,563 5,178 1.1
(1) Bureau of Labor Statistics.
(2) Average Annual Percent Change.
(3) Influence Area Includes Boulder County, Broomfield County and Jefferson County
Source: Economic & Planning Systems.
Jefferson Parkway Level 1 Traffic and Revenue Study • Executive Summary
ES-5 April 16, 2018
Values of Time Motorists’ perception of their Value of Time (VOT) is another key component of the decision to use a
toll facility or an alternative route. People attach different values to their time depending on the
purpose of their trip. For the toll diversion analysis, where the relative advantage of driving on the
Jefferson Parkway toll road is weighed against taking a local route or an alternate route on a major
highway, values of time were developed by TAZ under prior analyses. For the current study effort, the
TAZ-level VOTs were adjusted on an aggregate level based on updated regional VOTs. These updated
regional VOTs were developed based on household income data from the U.S. Census and trip
purposes included in the Denver Regional Council of Governments (DRCOG) model.
The updated VOTs for the model area averaged $0.29 per mile, varying by time of day, method of
payment and vehicle class. The 2016 average VOTs were inflated by 2.3 percent per year based on the
regional ten-year historical average CPI inflation rates. This is a conservative assumption since it does
not assume any increases in VOT due to real income growth. The value of time for commercial vehicle
trips was assumed to be 3.0 times the value for passenger cars.
Assumed Payment Types and ExpressToll Market Participation Rates Consistent with other local toll roads, it was assumed that the Jefferson Parkway will employ a totally
cashless toll collection system, providing two methods of toll payment: ExpressToll and License Plate
Toll (LPT). For ExpressToll transactions, the customer is issued a transponder tag that is read by
overhead equipment at the toll gantries. With LPT, a picture of the customer’s license plate is taken
and connected to an address obtained from the Department of Motor Vehicles.
The assumed market share of ExpressToll and LPT customers was based on historic trends from other
Denver toll facilities and anticipated future increases. The assumed ExpressToll market share was
assumed to be 72 percent in 2022, and to increase to 75 percent for 2035. Beyond 2035, estimated
ExpressToll participation rates are assumed to remain relatively constant over the forecast period.
Toll Rate Sensitivity An analysis of hypothetical toll rate sensitivity was conducted to estimate the traffic and revenue
potential of the proposed Jefferson Parkway at various toll rate levels. Traffic assignments were run
at 2022 levels assuming mainline toll rates ranging from $2.65 to $4.10. The resulting toll sensitivity
curves are presented in Figure ES-3.
The toll sensitivity analysis indicates an estimated maximum toll rate in 2022 of $3.60 for ExpressToll
customers and $5.40 for LPT. A preferred toll rate of $2.65 for ExpressToll customers and $3.95 for
LPT was selected for 2022 following discussion with JPPHA staff. By 2040, an estimated maximum toll
rate of $5.25 is estimated for ExpressToll customers and $7.85 for LPT. A preferred toll rate of $4.00
for ExpressToll customers and $6.00 for LPT was selected for 2040. Commercial vehicles would be
levied proportionally higher tolls. The toll rates presented are below the estimated toll revenue
maximizing point on the curve. Higher tolls may be selected based on agreement between the JPPHA
and Concessionaires.
Jefferson Parkway Level 1 Traffic and Revenue Study • Executive Summary
ES-6 April 16, 2018
Figure ES-3 Estimated Toll Sensitivity Curves
Toll Structure Following a review of the toll rate sensitivity results, the preferred toll rates for the Jefferson Parkway
were selected in coordination with the JPPHA staff. These toll rates are presented for 2022, 2035 and
2040 in Table ES-3. In the opening year of 2022, the toll rate at the mainline toll location was
assumed to be $2.65 for 2-axle ExpressToll customers, representing a cost of $0.288 per-mile for a 9.2-
mile full-length trip on the Jefferson Parkway. LPT customers were assumed to pay a 50 percent
surcharge to cover the additional costs of processing LPT transactions and to cover potential video toll
revenue leakage. Commercial vehicles were assumed to pay by the axle based on an “N-1” system.
Toll rates were escalated by 2.3 percent annually, in line with inflation assumptions.
Table ES-3 Jefferson Parkway Passenger Car Toll Rate Assumptions
Table 4-4Jefferson Parkway Passenger Car Toll Rate Assumptions
Passenger Car Toll Rates
2022 2035 2040
Location ExpressToll LPT ExpressToll LPT ExpressToll LPT
Simms St. Toll T/F North 1.10$ 1.70$ 1.50$ 2.30$ 1.70$ 2.60$
Toll Gantry Mainline 2.65 3.95 3.55 5.35 4.00 6.00
Candellas Pkwy. Toll T/F South 1.10 1.70 1.50 2.30 1.70 2.60
Coal Creek Canyon Rd. Toll T/F South 1.10 1.70 1.50 2.30 1.70 2.60
(1) Toll increases are assumed to be implemented on January 1.
T/F = to/from
Toll Type
Jefferson Parkway Level 1 Traffic and Revenue Study • Executive Summary
ES-7 April 16, 2018
Table ES-4 compares the proposed Jefferson Parkway toll rates against other toll roads in Denver and
around the United States. For comparison purposes, only toll roads less than 50 miles were
considered. The toll rates provided in the table are current as of January 24, 2018 and are reported
for the "most common" peak period rate for full-length through trips. As shown in the table, average
per-mile ETC toll rates range from $0.04 per mile to $1.00 per mile and vary by region based on local
traffic congestion and regional income levels. The average toll rate for the listed toll agencies is $0.16
per mile. However, as shown in the table, per-mile toll rates for Colorado tolling agencies average
higher than the rest of the nation, with $0.31 per mile on E-470 and $0.41 per mile on the Northwest
Parkway. This puts the proposed Jefferson Parkway per-mile toll rates for 2022 above the national
average but below those of the other Colorado tolling agencies.
Table ES-4
Toll Rate Comparison of Selected Toll Road Agencies
State Agency Facility General LocationAgency
Type
Year Tolling
Began (Roads
& MLs)
Last Toll
Change
Total
Miles
Average
Electronic
PC Toll
Average
Cash PC
Toll
Average
Video PC
Toll
Per Mile
Electronic
PC Toll
UT Adams Avenue Parkway, Inc Adams Avenue Parkway Salt Lake City Private 2001 37069 1 $1.00 $1.00 $1.00
IL Skyway Concession Company Chicago Skyway Chicago Private 1958 43101 7.8 $5.20 $5.20 $0.67
TX Montgomery County Toll Road Authority SH 242 Direct Connector Houston Public 2015 42191 0.8 $0.50 $0.63
VA City of Chesapeake Chesapeake Expressway Chesapeake Public 2001 42511 16 $8.00 $8.00 $0.50
VA DBi Services Pocahontas Parkway Richmond Private 2002 43103 8.8 $4.30 $4.30 $0.49
CA Transportation Corridor Agencies San Joaquin Hills Toll Road Los Angeles Public 1996 42917 15 $7.08 $7.76 $0.47
CO Northwest Parkway, LLC Northwest Parkway Denver Private 2003 43101 9.5 $3.90 $4.50 $0.41
VA Toll Road Investors Partnership II Dulles Greenway Washington DC Suburbs Private 1995 42796 14 $5.50 $5.50 $0.39
DE Delaware Department of Transportation Delaware Turnpike - JFK Memorial Highway Newark to Wilmington Public 1963 39356 11 $4.00 $4.00 $0.36
CA Transportation Corridor Agencies Foothill Toll Road Los Angeles Public 1993 42917 12 $4.21 $6.21 $0.35
CO E-470 Public Highway Authority E-470 Denver Public 1991 43101 46.67 $14.25 $21.80 $0.31
TX Central Texas Regional Mobility Authority Various Expressways Austin Public 2007 to 2017 43108 19.1 $2.22 $2.96 $0.30
CA Transportation Corridor Agencies Eastern Toll Road Los Angeles Public 1998 42917 24 $7.06 $10.06 $0.29
CO Jefferson Parkway Public Highway Authority Jefferson Parkway Denver Public 9.2 $2.65 $3.95 $0.29
VA City of Chesapeake Dominion Boulevard Chesapeake Public 2017 42917 3.8 $1.05 $3.05 $0.28
CA San Diego Association of Governments South Bay Expressway (SR 125) San Diego Public 2007 41090 10 $2.75 $3.50 $5.50 $0.28
VA Metropolitan Washington Airports Authority Dulles Toll Road Washington DC Suburbs Public 1984 41640 13.4 $3.50 $3.50 $0.26
FL Osceola County Expressway Authority Poinciana Parkway Orlando Public 2016 42766 9.7 $2.50 $2.90 $0.26
FL Orchard Pond Greenway, LLC Orchard Pond Parkway Tallahassee Private 2016 42492 5.2 $1.19 $1.69 $0.23
MD Maryland Transportation Authority Inter County Connector Washington DC Public 2011 42186 17.5 $3.86 $5.78 $0.22
TX Harris County Toll Road Authority Various Expressways Houston Public 1987 to 2015 42569 41.4 $2.74 $1.75 $0.22
NC North Carolina Turnpike Authority Triangle Expressway Raleigh Public 2012 43101 18.5 $3.90 $6.00 $0.21
TX Fort Bend County Toll Road Authority Various Expressways Houston Public 2004 to 2014 43046 30 $2.11 $0.00 $0.21
VA Richmond Metropolitan Transportation Authority Downtown Expressway (SR 195) Richmond Public 1976 39699 3.4 $0.70 $0.70 $0.21
VA Richmond Metropolitan Transportation Authority Powhite Parkway Richmond Public 1973 39699 3.4 $0.70 $0.70 $0.21
IL Illinois State Toll Highway Authority IL 390 Chicago Suburbs Public 2016 43101 9.8 $1.90 $3.80 $0.19
FL Tampa-Hillsborough County Expressway Authority Lee Roy Selmon Crosstown Expressway Tampa Public 1976 42917 15 $2.90 $3.40 $0.19
TX Cameron County Regional Mobility Authority SH 550 Brownsville Public 2011 42189 7.9 $1.50 $2.01 $0.19
SC Connector 2000 Association Southern Connector Greenville Private 2001 42371 16 $3.00 $3.50 $0.19
TX North East Texas Regional Mobility Authority Toll 49 Tyler Public 2006 42736 26 $4.80 $6.39 $0.18
TX North Texas Tollway Authority Various Expressways Dallas / Fort Worth Public 1968 to 2009 42917 132.7 $5.46 $8.20 $0.18
TX Texas Department of Transportation Various Expressways Austin / Houston Public 1968 to 2009 43101 130.5 $8.43 $7.20 $0.18
TX SH 130 Concession Company, LLC SH-130 Extension Austin Private 2007 to 2011 42319 41 $7.39 $9.83 $0.18
FL Miami-Dade Expressway Authority Various Expressways Miami Public 1961 to 2010 41958 32.7 $1.52 $3.05 $0.17
FL Osceola County Osceola Parkway Orlando Public 1995 41918 12.4 $2.00 $2.00 $0.16
MA Massachusetts Department of Transportation Boston Extension Boston Public 1964 42671 12 $1.70 $3.55 $0.14
FL Central Florida Expressway Authority Various Expressways Orlando Public 1967 to 2017 42943 114.4 $3.15 $3.55 $4.21 $0.14
PA Pennsylvania Turnpike Commission Various Expressways Various Public 1991 to 2006 43107 84.9 $4.29 $7.28 $4.15 $0.13
IL Illinois State Toll Highway Authority Veterans Memorial Tollway Chicago Suburbs Public 1989 43101 29.8 $3.80 $7.60 $0.13
SC South Carolina Department of Transportation Cross Island Parkway Hilton Head Public 1998 39537 6.8 $0.75 $1.25 $0.11
FL Florida Turnpike Enterprise Various Expressways Various Public 1973 to 2016 43037 184.1 $2.76 $3.26 $4.42 $0.10
FL Mid-Bay Bridge Authority Walter Francis Spence Parkway Panhandle Public 2014 42278 15 $1.50 $2.00 $0.10
FL Florida Department of Transportation Sawgrass Expressway Fort Lauderdale Public 1986 43037 23 $2.14 $2.68 $0.09
NJ South Jersey Transportation Authority Atlantic City Expressway Philadelphia to Atlantic City Public 1964 40316 44 $3.75 $3.75 $0.09
OK Oklahoma Turnpike Authority Various Expressways Various Public 1969 to 1992 43101 162.9 $2.74 $2.95 $0.08
VA Virginia Department of Transportation Powhite Parkway Extension Richmond Public 1988 36342 10 $0.75 $0.75 $0.08
NY New York State Thruway Authority Niagara Thruway Buffalo Public 1959 39817 14 $0.95 $1.00 $0.07
MD Maryland Transportation Authority John F. Kennedy Memorial Highway Northeastern Maryland Public 1963 42186 50 $3.00 $4.00 $6.00 $0.06
NY New York State Thruway Authority New England Thruway New York City Public 1958 39817 15 $0.83 $0.88 $0.06
FL Florida Department of Transportation Pinellas Bayway System Tampa Public 1962 43037 15.2 $0.67 $1.38 $0.04
NH New Hampshire Department of Transportation Various Expressways Various Public 1950 to 1956 39995 88.9 $1.27 $1.81 $0.04
Jefferson Parkway Level 1 Traffic and Revenue Study • Executive Summary
ES-8 April 16, 2018
Estimated Base Case Traffic and Revenue Following the year 2016 calibration process, future-year average weekday traffic assignments were
run for years 2022, 2035 and 2040. Four “Base Case” scenarios were modeled as part of this study
effort. These scenarios considered different interchange configurations and highway improvement
assumptions, as shown in Figure ES-4 and described in detail in Chapter 4. The scenarios are:
▪ Scenario 1: Jefferson Parkway - Initial Build without the Northwest Parkway Extension; ▪ Scenario 2: Jefferson Parkway - Initial Build with the Northwest Parkway Extension; ▪ Scenario 3: Jefferson Parkway – Ultimate Build without the Northwest Parkway Extension; and ▪ Scenario 4: Jefferson Parkway - Ultimate Build with the Northwest Parkway Extension.
Scenarios 1 and 2 assumed the Initial Build configuration, while Scenarios 3 and 4 assumed the
Ultimate Build configuration. Scenarios 2 and 4 assume the construction of the Northwest Parkway
Extension. Estimated AWDT volumes for each of the Jefferson Parkway mainline segments are
provided by scenario in Figure ES-4. All volumes are shown in thousands.
Annual transaction and gross toll revenue streams were developed for each scenario through 2061. In
order to estimate net toll revenues, adjustments for uncollectible and unpaid revenue were developed
based on the leakage experience of other Denver toll facilities. These adjustments account for non-
revenue vehicles, unbillable license plate toll images and unpaid license plate toll transactions. In
2022, total revenue leakage was estimated to be 31.3 percent of gross LPT revenues, or just over 10
percent of total gross revenues. This was estimated to decrease to 28.0 percent of gross LPT revenues,
or just under 9 percent of total gross revenues, by 2035 as a result of improvements in technology and
collections. After 2035, assumed leakage rates were held constant as a conservative assumption.
Lastly, the annual transactions and toll revenue forecasts were adjusted downward to reflect “ramp-
up” during the first three years of operation. Ramp-up is the phenomena whereby toll facility traffic is
less than would be expected during the first few years of operation as motorists become familiar with
the new toll facility. Based on experience with other “greenfield” toll facilities, the estimated annual
transactions and toll revenues for the Jefferson Parkway assumed ramp-up reductions of 15 percent,
10 percent and 5 percent in 2022, 2023 and 2024, respectively.
The resulting annual estimates of transactions and toll revenue for the four Base Case scenarios are
provided in Table ES-5. The transaction and revenue estimates are provided on an annual basis.
Sensitivity Tests As presented in Table ES-6, traffic assignments for seven hypothetical tests were run to estimate the
“sensitivity” of revenue forecasts to changes in certain basic assumptions:
1. Long-Term Reduced Economic Growth (25% Lower Trip Table Growth);
2. Long-Term Increased Economic Growth (25% Higher Trip Table Growth);
3. Decreased Value of Time (25% Lower Value of Time);
4. Increased Value of Time (25% Higher Value of Time);
5. Combined “Low” Scenario (25% Lower Trip Table Growth AND 25% Lower Value of Time);
6. Accelerated Toll Rate Increases (3.1% Annual Increase); and
7. Combined “High” Scenario (25% Higher Trip Table Growth AND 3.1% Annual Toll Increase).
Jefferson Parkway Level 1 Traffic and Revenue Study • Executive Summary
ES-9 April 16, 2018
Figure ES-4 Estimated Average Weekday Mainline Traffic Volumes
Jefferson Parkway Level 1 Traffic and Revenue Study • Executive Summary
ES-10 April 16, 2018
Table ES-5 Estimated Base Case Annual Transactions and Revenue (In Thousands)
Scenario 1 Scenario 2 Scenario 3 Scenario 4Partial Build w/o NWP Ext. Partial Build with NWP Ext. Ultimate Build w/o NWP Ext. Ultimate Build with NWP Ext.
Total Annual Total Annual Total Annual Total Annual Total Annual Total Annual Total Annual Total Annual
Transactions (000s) Net Toll Revenue Transactions (000s) Net Toll Revenue Transactions (000s) Net Toll Revenue Transactions (000s) Net Toll Revenue(000s) ($000s) (2) (000s) ($000s) (2) (000s) ($000s) (2) (000s) ($000s) (2)
2022(3)
4,832 12,585$ 5,566 14,914$ 5,363 13,092$ 6,444 15,975$
2023 (3) 5,235 14,019 6,041 16,633 5,832 14,613 7,011 17,830
2024(3)(4)
5,670 15,598 6,554 18,529 6,339 16,293 7,625 19,881
2025 6,091 17,203 7,053 20,460 6,835 18,007 8,226 21,971
2026 6,232 17,981 7,230 21,413 7,020 18,862 8,453 23,015
2027 6,378 18,795 7,411 22,411 7,210 19,758 8,687 24,109
2028(4)
6,544 19,700 7,618 23,519 7,425 20,753 8,951 25,324
2029 6,678 20,535 7,788 24,547 7,605 21,680 9,174 26,455
2030 6,834 21,465 7,984 25,691 7,811 22,710 9,428 27,713
2031 6,994 22,437 8,184 26,889 8,023 23,789 9,689 29,031
2032 (4) 7,176 23,517 8,413 28,219 8,263 24,988 9,984 30,495
2033 7,324 24,515 8,601 29,454 8,464 26,104 10,233 31,858
2034 7,495 25,626 8,818 30,828 8,694 27,344 10,517 33,374
2035 7,670 26,786 9,040 32,266 8,929 28,644 10,808 34,962
2036 (4) 7,854 28,053 9,296 33,946 9,134 29,962 11,124 36,785
2037 7,999 29,219 9,506 35,518 9,292 31,169 11,387 38,493
2038 8,168 30,517 9,749 37,265 9,478 32,514 11,687 40,390
2039 8,341 31,873 9,997 39,097 9,669 33,916 11,996 42,380
2040 (4) 8,542 33,380 10,280 41,133 9,890 35,476 12,347 44,591
2041 8,699 34,768 10,513 43,038 10,061 36,905 12,638 46,660
2042 8,883 36,312 10,780 45,154 10,263 38,498 12,972 48,960
2043 9,072 37,925 11,055 47,375 10,469 40,158 13,315 51,372
2044 (4) 9,264 39,610 11,337 49,705 10,680 41,891 13,666 53,904
2045 9,434 41,256 11,594 52,007 10,865 43,579 13,989 56,406
2046 9,634 43,089 11,889 54,565 11,083 45,459 14,359 59,186
2047 9,839 45,003 12,192 57,249 11,306 47,420 14,738 62,103
2048 (4) 10,047 47,003 12,502 60,064 11,533 49,465 15,127 65,163
2049 10,232 48,956 12,786 62,846 11,732 51,458 15,484 68,188
2050 10,340 50,032 12,948 64,373 11,850 52,557 15,687 69,848
2051 10,449 51,131 13,111 65,937 11,968 53,678 15,893 71,548
2052 (4) 10,559 52,255 13,277 67,539 12,088 54,824 16,102 73,290
2053 10,642 53,257 13,409 68,991 12,175 55,841 16,269 74,869
2054 10,754 54,427 13,578 70,667 12,297 57,033 16,482 76,692
2055 10,867 55,623 13,750 72,384 12,420 58,250 16,698 78,559
2056(4)
10,982 56,845 13,924 74,143 12,544 59,493 16,917 80,471
2057 11,067 57,935 14,062 75,737 12,635 60,597 17,093 82,205
2058 11,184 59,208 14,240 77,577 12,761 61,891 17,317 84,206
2059 11,302 60,509 14,420 79,462 12,889 63,211 17,544 86,256
2060 (4) 11,421 61,838 14,603 81,392 13,018 64,561 17,774 88,356
2061 11,510 63,024 14,747 83,142 13,112 65,758 17,958 90,260
(1) Gross Toll Revenue represents toll revenues not adjusted for uncollectible or unpaid toll revenue.
(2) Net Toll Revenue represents toll revenues adjusted for uncollectible and unpaid revenues.
(3) Ramp-up has been assumed during the first three years of operation. Transactions and toll revenues are estimated to be 85%, 90% and 95%
of full operations in 2022, 2023, and 2024 respectively.
(4) Leap Year.
Jefferson Parkway Level 1 Traffic and Revenue Study • Executive Summary
ES-11 April 16, 2018
Table ES-6
Comparison of Estimated Sensitivity Test Transactions and Net Toll Revenues
It is important to recognize that all of the sensitivity tests assessed herein, and presented in Table ES-
6, are hypothetical conditions and represent departures from economic forecasts or assumptions used
in the Base Case traffic and revenue estimates. These tests are intended to show potential impacts on
traffic and revenue of these hypothetical changes from basic assumptions and should not be
considered as forecasts themselves.
Est. 2022 Transactions and Revenue (1) Est. 2040 Transactions and Revenue
Transactions (000s) Revenue ($000s) (2) Transactions (000s) Revenue ($000s) (2)
Estimate Difference Estimate Difference Estimate Difference Estimate Difference
Base Case
Scenario 1: Partial w/o NWP Ext. 4,832 --- 12,585$ --- 8,542 --- 33,380$ ---
Scenario 2: Partial with NWP Ext. 5,566 --- 14,914 --- 10,280 --- 41,133 ---
Scenario 3: Ultimate w/o NWP Ext. 5,363 --- 13,092 --- 9,890 --- 35,476 ---
Scenario 4: Ultimate with NWP Ext. 6,444 --- 15,975 --- 12,347 --- 44,591 ---
Sensitivity Test 1: Long-Term 25 Percent Reduction in Economic Growth
Scenario 1: Partial w/o NWP Ext. 4,520 (6.5) 11,796$ (6.3) 7,332 (14.2) 28,534$ (14.5)
Scenario 2: Partial with NWP Ext. 5,199 (6.6) 13,945 (6.5) 8,513 (17.2) 33,807 (17.8)
Scenario 3: Ultimate w/o NWP Ext. 4,975 (7.2) 12,189 (6.9) 8,507 (14.0) 30,488 (14.1)
Scenario 4: Ultimate with NWP Ext. 5,988 (7.1) 14,892 (6.8) 10,131 (17.9) 36,597 (17.9)
Sensitivity Test 2: Long-Term 25 Percent Increase in Economic Growth
Scenario 1: Partial w/o NWP Ext. 5,282 9.3 13,786$ 9.5 11,443 34.0 45,025$ 34.9
Scenario 2: Partial with NWP Ext. 6,098 9.5 16,317 9.4 14,388 40.0 57,993 41.0
Scenario 3: Ultimate w/o NWP Ext. 5,861 9.3 14,307 9.3 12,992 31.4 47,282 33.3
Scenario 4: Ultimate with NWP Ext. 7,144 10.9 17,574 10.0 17,194 39.3 62,286 39.7
Sensitivity Test 3: 25 Percent Decreased Value of Time
Scenario 1: Partial w/o NWP Ext. 4,403 (8.9) 11,344$ (9.9) 7,956 (6.9) 30,856$ (7.6)
Scenario 2: Partial with NWP Ext. 4,893 (12.1) 12,931 (13.3) 9,186 (10.6) 36,183 (12.0)
Scenario 3: Ultimate w/o NWP Ext. 4,825 (10.0) 11,711 (10.5) 9,166 (7.3) 32,729 (7.7)
Scenario 4: Ultimate with NWP Ext. 5,585 (13.3) 13,755 (13.9) 10,887 (11.8) 39,024 (12.5)
Sensitivity Test 4: 25 Percent Increased Value of Time
Scenario 1: Partial w/o NWP Ext. 5,141 6.4 13,506$ 7.3 8,965 5.0 35,227$ 5.5
Scenario 2: Partial with NWP Ext. 6,097 9.5 16,492 10.6 11,038 7.4 44,543 8.3
Scenario 3: Ultimate w/o NWP Ext. 5,737 7.0 14,078 7.5 10,404 5.2 37,441 5.5
Scenario 4: Ultimate with NWP Ext. 7,132 10.7 17,719 10.9 13,370 8.3 48,404 8.6
Sensitivity Test 5: Combined “Low” Scenario (25 Percent Lower Growth and 25 Percent Lower Value of Time)
Scenario 1: Partial w/o NWP Ext. 4,098 (15.2) 10,580$ (15.9) 6,788 (20.5) 26,187$ (21.5)
Scenario 2: Partial with NWP Ext. 4,549 (18.3) 12,045 (19.2) 7,610 (26.0) 29,770 (27.6)
Scenario 3: Ultimate w/o NWP Ext. 4,457 (16.9) 10,853 (17.1) 7,801 (21.1) 27,876 (21.4)
Scenario 4: Ultimate with NWP Ext. 5,165 (19.8) 12,786 (20.0) 8,891 (28.0) 31,942 (28.4)
Sensitivity Test 6: Accelerated Toll Rate Increases (3.1 Percent per Year)
Scenario 1: Partial w/o NWP Ext. 4,832 - 12,585$ - 8,130 (4.8) 37,844$ 13.4
Scenario 2: Partial with NWP Ext. 5,566 - 14,914 - 9,742 (5.2) 46,361 12.7
Scenario 3: Ultimate w/o NWP Ext. 5,363 - 13,092 - 9,333 (5.6) 40,271 13.5
Scenario 4: Ultimate with NWP Ext. 6,444 - 15,975 - 11,635 (5.8) 50,448 13.1
Sensitivity Test 7: Combined “High” Scenario (25 Percent Higher Growth and 3.1 Percent Toll Rate Growth)
Scenario 1: Partial w/o NWP Ext. 5,282 9.3 13,786$ 9.5 10,976 28.5 51,548$ 54.4
Scenario 2: Partial with NWP Ext. 6,098 9.5 16,317 9.4 13,849 34.7 66,518 61.7
Scenario 3: Ultimate w/o NWP Ext. 5,861 9.3 14,307 9.3 12,385 25.2 54,186 52.7
Scenario 4: Ultimate with NWP Ext. 7,144 10.9 17,574 10.0 16,497 33.6 71,748 60.9
(1) Ramp-up has been assumed during the first three years of operation. Transactions and revenues are estimated to be 85% of full operation in 2022.
(2) Net Toll Revenue represents toll revenues adjusted for uncollectible and unpaid revenues.
Sensitivity Test
Jefferson Parkway Level 1 Traffic and Revenue Study • Executive Summary
ES-12 April 16, 2018
Disclaimer Current accepted professional practices and procedures were used in the development of these traffic
and revenue estimates. However, as with any forecast of the future, it should be understood that there
may be differences between forecasted and actual results caused by events and circumstances beyond
the control of the forecasters. In formulating its estimates, CDM Smith has reasonably relied upon the
accuracy and completeness of information provided (both written and oral) by the Jefferson Parkway
Public Highway Authority and other local and state agencies. CDM Smith also has relied upon the
reasonable assurances of some independent parties and is not aware of any facts that would make
such information misleading.
CDM Smith has made qualitative judgments related to several key variables in the development and
analysis of the traffic and revenue estimates that must be considered as a whole; therefore, selecting
portions of any individual result without consideration of the intent of the whole may create a
misleading or incomplete view of the results and the underling methodologies used to obtain the
results. CDM Smith gives no opinion as to the value or merit to partial information extracted from this
report.
All forecasts and projections reported herein are based on CDM Smith’s experience and judgment and
on a review of information obtained from multiple state and local agencies, including the Jefferson
Parkway Public Highway Authority, the Denver Regional Council of Governments, and by independent
third parties. These estimates and projections may not be indicative of actual or future values and are
therefore subject to substantial uncertainty. Future developments, economic conditions cannot be
predicted with certainty, and may affect the estimates or projections expressed in this report, such
that CDM Smith does not specifically guarantee or warrant any estimate or projection contained
within this report.
While CDM Smith believes that some of the projections or other forward-looking statements contained
within the report are based on reasonable assumptions as of the date in the report, such forward
looking statements involve risks and uncertainties that may cause actual results to differ materially
from the results predicted. Therefore, following the date of this report, CDM Smith will take no
responsibility or assume any obligation to advise of changes that may affect its assumptions contained
within the report, as they pertain to socioeconomic and demographic forecasts, proposed residential
or commercial land use development projects and/or potential improvements to the regional
transportation network.
The report and its contents are intended solely for use by the JPPHA and designated parties approved
by JPPHA and CDM Smith. Any use by third-parties, other than as noted above, is expressly prohibited.
In addition, any publication of the report for purposes of financing without the express written
consent of CDM Smith is prohibited.
CDM Smith is not, and has not been, a municipal advisor as defined in Federal law (the Dodd Frank Bill) to
the Jefferson Parkway Public Highway Authority and does not owe a fiduciary duty pursuant to Section 15B
of the Exchange Act to the Jefferson Parkway Public Highway Authority with respect to the information and
material contained in this report. CDM Smith is not recommending and has not recommended any action to
the Jefferson Parkway Public Highway Authority. The Jefferson Parkway Public Highway Authority should
discuss the information and material contained in this report with any and all internal and external
advisors that it deems appropriate before acting on this information.
1-1 April 16, 2018
Chapter 1
Introduction
CDM Smith has been requested to provide the Jefferson Parkway Public Highway Authority (JPPHA)
with forecasts of traffic and revenue for the proposed Jefferson Parkway. These forecasts and the
methodology for their development are summarized in this report. This study is intended to assist
JPPHA in the planning and implementation of toll rates, project configurations, and construction
schedules associated with the proposed Jefferson Parkway. This Level-1 “Level 1” study is intended
for use by JPPHA for planning purposes and to solicit interest in the Jefferson Parkway. It does not
constitute a comprehensive study. A further, more detailed analysis would be required to support any
financing effort of the Jefferson Parkway.
As will be reviewed in the remainder of this report, the traffic and revenue forecasts produced by this
analysis were based on a Level 1 analysis of the project that utilized the Denver Region Council of
Governments’ (DRCOG) Focus 2 model. Following a toll sensitivity analysis, preferred toll rates were
selected in cooperation with JPPHA that serve regional mobility interests as well as produce revenues
in support of the Jefferson Parkway. Forecasts of traffic and toll revenue were developed for a Base
Case using these preferred rates under four hypothetical scenarios. Additional sensitivity tests were
also performed to understand the impacts of various key input assumptions. All standard due-
diligence data review and analyses for this study were performed.
This chapter provides a summary of the historical, regional and economic environment in which the
Jefferson Parkway will be developed. In order to develop the long-term traffic and revenue forecasts
for the Jefferson Parkway Corridor, a clear understanding of this environment is key. Major roadways
within the study area are identified. Lastly, the structure for the report is summarized.
Historical Background Denver was established in 1858 following the discovery of gold at the confluence of Cherry Creek and
the South Platte River in what is today known as Lower Downtown (LoDo). The Denver metropolitan
area developed in a radial fashion out from the original industrial districts and rail yards along the
South Platte River. While development along the western edge of the Metro area is constrained by the
foothills of the Rocky Mountains, recently completed transit corridors, such as RTD’s Fastracks West
Line (light rail) to Golden, and the construction of the Gold Line (commuter rail) extending north to
Arvada have renewed prospects for increased residential and non-residential development and
density. Other parts of the Metro Area also continue to experience growth and development pressure,
including the US 36 Corridor between Denver and Boulder, the Northwest Parkway Corridor (and
generally the northern Metro Area), and the E-470 Corridor to the east.
As it relates to the proposed Jefferson Parkway, this additional pressure to develop the western Metro
Area also increases the demand to complete the circumferential highway network. At the moment,
there are many development plans in the Boulder and northern Metro Area, poised to add jobs and
grow the population over the next 20 years. According to the 2017 Economic and Fiscal Benefits of
Development in the Jefferson Parkway Area Study performed by Development Research Partners, the
Jefferson Parkway will stimulate nonresidential development in the area. Without completion of the
Jefferson Parkway, a portion of this development is likely to shift elsewhere in the Metro Area.
Chapter 1 • Introduction
1-2 April 16, 2018
Project Description As shown in Figure 1-1, the proposed Jefferson Parkway will be a 9.2 -mile toll road running along the
northwestern perimeter of the Denver Metro area, forming a portion of the originally conceived I-470,
the outer circumferential highway around Denver. The Jefferson Parkway will extend as a limited-
access expressway, with two lanes of travel in each direction, from SH 128 south of US 36 to SH 93
south of SH 72. It is assumed that the Jefferson Parkway will operate in a cashless environment as an
All Electronic Toll (AET) facility. Customers will be charged a toll either through the use of an
ExpressToll transponder or through the mail via License Plate Tolling (LPT).
Figure 1-1
Project Study Area
Chapter 1 • Introduction
1-3 April 16, 2018
Study Area Based on the proposed project limits, the project study area is assumed to extend from US 36 in the
north, to SH 121 in the east, to I-70 in the south and to SH 93 in the west. This study area includes
many roadways that may be affected by the proposed Jefferson Parkway. These roadways include:
▪ US 36 - The relevant section of this roadway is the four-lane limited-access segment between
downtown Denver and Boulder. A tolled express lane is also available in each direction and is
tolled so as to maintain free-flow conditions. US 36 travels through Boulder and Broomfield
Counties, which host some of the highest income residents in the Denver Region;
▪ SH 72 – East of SH 93, SH 72 travels east-west as a two-lane arterial with a posted speed limit
up to60 MPH. Little development currently exists along this segment of the roadway. After
reaching Indiana Street and 86th Parkway, SH 93 turns south through various residential areas
of Arvada. SH 72 remains a two-lane arterial, with turning lanes at local intersections and
variations in posted speed limits. After turning east on W 64th Avenue for 1.5 miles, SH 72
continues south again towards 1-25;
▪ SH 93 – This roadway serves as a link between Golden and Boulder. The majority of SH 93
within the study area is two-lane high-speed arterial through sparsely developed areas.
Posted speed limits are 55 MPH due to various signals, curves and grades. SH 93 provides an
additional climbing lane for some grades;
▪ SH 121 – Located on the eastern end of the study corridor, SH 121 travels north-south
between US 36 and I-70. North of W 92nd Street, SH 121 is a four-lane arterial with a median.
South of W 92nd Street, SH 121 is a six-lane arterial with posted speed limits of 45 MPH. Most
segments include either a center median or center turning lanes. It travels through some of
the more densely population areas of Arvada and serves as an arterial bypass of US 36;
▪ SH 128 – SH 128 travels east-west between SH 93 and SH 121. West of Indiana Street it is a
two-lane arterial with a posted speed limit of 55 MPH. This segment travels through the
Rocky Flats National Wildlife Refuge. East of Indiana Street, SH 128 continues as a two-lane
arterial, with additional turning lanes near local intersections. Posted speed limited vary
through the more developed Interlocken area, as SH 128 provides access to corporate office
parks, residential developments and the Rocky Mountain Metropolitan Airport;
▪ SH 170 – The relevant segment of this roadway travels east and west between US 36 and SH
93. Between US 36 and Center Drive, SH 170 is a four-lane arterial with a posted speed limit
of 35 MPH. It provides access to local retailers in the vicinity of US 36. Further from US 36,
the roadway narrows to a two-lane arterial. Posted speed limits through to SH 93 are 50 MPH
as the road travels through open space and sparsely developed land. The roadway provides a
potential bypass of the proposed Jefferson Parkway for those in Superior and Louisville to SH
93 with its connection to SH 93;
▪ 86th Parkway and W 88th Avenue – These two roadways combine to connect SH 72 to US 36.
The roadways run east-west as a four-lane arterial, separated by a median, and provide access
to numerous residential developments, retail areas and Standley Lake Regional Park. Posted
speed limits on the roadways are 40 MPH; and
Chapter 1 • Introduction
1-4 April 16, 2018
▪ Indiana Street – This roadway travels north south between SH 128 and SH 72 through the
Colorado Hills Open Space. In general, Indiana Street is two lanes with a posted speed limit of
50 MPH.
Two major roadways outside this study area may also be impacted by the Jefferson Parkway. These
roadways are:
▪ I-25 – This major interstate runs north-south through the heart of the Denver Metro Region.
Between downtown and E-470, I-25 has three through lanes per direction, with an additional
auxiliary lane between interchanges. Posted speed limits are 65 MPH. In order to ease traffic
congestion on this segment of the interstate, Express Toll Lanes are open between Speer and
120th Avenue. Additional Express Toll Lanes to E-470 are currently under construction; and
▪ Northwest Parkway – This toll facility extends west and south from I-25 to US 36 in the
northwest quadrant of the Denver Metro Area. It is a four-lane, limited-access toll facility with
posted speeds of 75 MPH. It extends approximately 9 miles from the I-25/E-470 interchange
to 96th Street. At 96th Street the Parkway extends south as a four- to six-lane major arterial
for two additional miles to SH 128 with intermediate access to US 36, Interlocken Business
Park and Flatiron Crossing Mall. In addition to the above-referenced interchange at I-25, the
Parkway currently has interchanges with full-directional access at Sheridan Boulevard and US
287.
A number of local roadways in the Interlocken area are also assumed to be impacted by the proposed
Jefferson Parkway. These include Interlocken Boulevard, Simms Street, Eldorado Boulevard,
Boulevard, Interlocken Loop and Candelas Parkway. Many of these roadways will connect to the
Jefferson Parkway at assumed interchanges. Thus, the impacts at these local roadways will vary based
on the specific trips forecasted to use the project.
Report Structure Chapter 2, Traffic Trends provides a profile of historical trends and variations of traffic on existing
roadways within the study area.
Chapter 3, Corridor Growth Assessment provides a summary of the historical growth within the
Denver Metro Region, as well as the socioeconomic forecasts used in the regional travel demand
model to develop the traffic and revenue forecasts.
Chapter 4, Traffic and Revenue Analysis provides a summary of the modeling methodology, future-
year highway network assumptions and the underlying base assumptions used in the modeling
process. The chapter also includes documentation of the toll rate sensitivity analyses along with a 30-
year forecast of traffic and revenue under four Base Case scenarios.
Chapter 5, Sensitivity Analyses provides 30-year traffic and revenue forecasts for six alternate
scenarios and compares each against the Base Case forecasts. The alternate scenarios include
hypothetical changes in future socioeconomic growth forecasts, value of time assumptions and
assumed highway improvements.
2-1
April 16, 2018
Chapter 2
Existing Traffic Trends
Historic and current traffic trends were assembled and reviewed in order to better understand the
existing regional traffic conditions. These include average weekday traffic volumes, hourly traffic
variations, daily and seasonal traffic variations and truck traffic within the study area. Regional speed
data were also reviewed on major arterials, as presented in this chapter. These data were used as part
of the model calibration process and provide a context for the transaction and revenue forecasts.
Existing Traffic The regional travel demand model used in the traffic and revenue forecasting process is based on
annual average weekday traffic (AWDT) volumes. As an aid in the model calibration process, traffic
data were collected at eight locations in November 2017. In addition, traffic data were collected at
various segments and intersections by Michael Baker International (MBI) as a part of Jefferson
Parkway Traffic Modeling Study in 2016, and by HDR and Atkin as a part of Jefferson Parkway
Supplementary Traffic Impact Study. Additional historical traffic counts were obtained from Colorado
Department of Transportation (CDOT) and the Denver Regional Council of Governments (DRCOG) for
major arterial roadways within the project corridor. Table 2-1 and Figure 2-1 summarize and
present these data for selected count locations as AWDT volumes and truck percentages.
Two screenlines were developed to assist the calibration of travel demand model, as illustrated in
Figure 2-1. A screenline is theoretical line across several major roadways. Since volumes can vary by
location, a screenline can represent total movements in the potential market area. Screenline 1 is
located south of SH 128 and Screenline 2 is located south of 82nd Avenue/80th Avenue. Three parallel
roads cross both Screenlines: SH 93, Indiana Street and SR 121. Traffic crossing these screenlines
represents the potential market for the Jefferson Parkway, as the project will draw from the existing
traffic within these corridors. The approximate location of the proposed Jefferson Parkway alignment
is shown in relation to these screenlines in the figure by the dashed red line.
Almost 75,600 vehicles cross Screenline 1 on an average weekday. The volumes across this screenline
are relatively balanced directionally, indicating that daily round trips are captured within the
screenline. The major roadway within the screenline is SH 121, which carried almost 35,000 vehicles
on the average weekday south of SH 128. For the total screenline, almost 20 percent of traffic occurs
during the AM Peak Period (6:30 – 9:00 AM) and 32.5 percent of traffic occurs during the PM Peak
Period (3:00 – 7:00 PM). Truck traffic across the screenline averages 6.4 percent of total average
weekday traffic and ranges between 3.1 and 7.9 percent at individual count locations. The greatest
percentage of trucks was observed at Simms Street.
The total AWDT is higher across the Screenline 2 when compared with Screenline 1, with volumes
totaling just over 100,000 vehicles. As with Screenline 1, the AWDT volumes across this screenline are
relatively balanced directionally and SH 121 carries the highest volume of traffic, with 46,000 vehicles
on an average weekday. The peak period traffic shares are also similar, with 17.6 percent of traffic
occurring during the AM Peak Period and 31.5 percent of traffic occurring during the PM Peak Period.
Truck traffic across Screenline 2 averages 6.0 percent and ranges between 4.8 and 7.9 percent at
individual count locations. The greatest percentage of trucks was observed at Indiana Street.
Chapter 2 • Existing Traffic Trends
2-2 April 16, 2018
Table 2-1
Average Weekday Hourly Traffic Volumes and Truck Percentages at Selected Locations
AM Peak Mid-Day PM Peak Nighttime Percent
Screenline Count ID Location Direction (6:30-9:00 AM) (9:00-3:00 PM) (3:00-7:00 PM) (7:00 6:30 AM) Total Truck
1 1 SH 93 s/o SH 128 (120th Avenue) NB 2,870 3,340 2,860 1,320 10,390 6.0
s/o SH 128 SB 1,290 2,970 4,060 1,380 9,690
2 Indiana Street s/o SH 128 (120th Avenue) NB 1,830 2,010 1,570 890 6,300 3.1
SB 800 1,780 2,830 1,040 6,440
3 Simms Street s/o SH 128 (120th Avenue) NB 1,000 1,260 1,150 450 3,860 7.9
SB 640 1,180 1,660 550 4,020
4 SH 121 (Wadsworth Parkway) s/o SH 128 (120th Avenue) NB 4,070 6,030 3,950 3,220 17,270 7.6
SB 2,340 5,540 6,550 3,280 17,720
Screenline 1 Total 14,840 24,110 24,630 12,130 75,690 6.4
2 5 SH 93 n/o 82nd Avenue NB 2,320 3,650 3,370 1,520 10,860 4.8
s/o 82nd Ave. SB 1,780 4,010 4,060 1,390 11,230
6 Indiana Street n/o 82nd Avenue NB 2,230 3,550 3,430 1,700 10,900 7.9
SB 2,020 3,350 3,930 1,790 11,090
7 Kipling Street n/o 80th Avenue NB 730 1,860 1,910 800 5,310 5.4
SB 1,100 1,750 1,810 750 5,400
8 SH 121 (Wadsworth Parkway) n/o 80th Avenue NB 3,960 8,310 6,680 4,580 23,540 5.8
SB 3,590 8,030 6,520 4,330 22,460
Screenline 2 Total 17,730 34,510 31,710 16,860 100,790 6.0
Additional 9 120th Ave e/o Interlocken Loop EB 1,070 1,740 1,850 730 5,390 6.2
Count Data WB 1,090 1,680 1,720 780 5,270
10 Interlocken Loop n/o 120th Ave NB 1,270 2,130 2,070 780 6,240 6.2
SB 1,050 1,940 1,910 980 5,870
11 Simms St s/o 120th Ave NB 990 1,200 1,250 440 3,870 3.8
SB 640 1,120 1,550 500 3,820
12 120th Ave w/o Simms St EB 1,360 1,970 2,450 840 6,620 8.4
WB 1,510 1,850 1,950 1,020 6,340
13 120th Ave w/o McCaslin Blvd EB 470 720 1,120 350 2,650 9.5
WB 700 810 740 330 2,580
14 McCaslin Blvd n/o 120th Ave NB 1,120 1,480 1,290 660 4,550 7.6
SB 660 1,470 1,690 660 4,470
15 Indiana St s/o 96th Ave NB 2,000 2,360 2,130 1,260 7,750 7.9
SB 890 2,100 2,940 1,390 7,320
16 Coal Creek Canyon w/o Candela's Pkwy EB 500 1,010 1,240 430 3,170 7.2
WB 660 890 790 500 2,840
17 SH 93 s/o 82nd Ave NB 2,530 3,810 3,690 1,980 12,010 11.9
SB 1,810 3,690 4,160 1,600 11,270
18 64th Ave e/o Virgil Way EB 490 1,170 1,500 710 3,870 10.6
WB 700 1,210 1,310 650 3,860
19 Indiana St s/o 72nd Ave NB 1,410 3,120 2,750 1,830 9,100 7.7
SB 1,770 3,400 2,760 1,860 9,790
20 SH 93 s/o Golden Gate Canyon NB 2,700 5,200 5,370 2,970 16,240 8.7
SB 2,980 5,400 4,910 2,430 15,720
21 6th Ave s/o 19th St NB 3,530 6,810 5,750 3,910 20,010 8.9
SB 2,990 6,150 5,940 4,200 19,280
22 SH 93 s/o 82nd Avenue NB 1,990 4,120 4,440 1,640 12,200 N/A
SB 2,690 4,290 3,880 2,090 12,940
23 SH 128 (120th Avenue) e/o Eldorado Boulevard EB 1,480 2,330 2,620 930 7,360 N/A
WB 1,500 2,100 2,100 1,070 6,760
24 Interlocken Loop s/o Eldorado Boulevard NB 1,460 2,600 2,420 920 7,400 N/A
SB 1,120 2,270 2,370 1,190 6,960
Source: 2016 Jefferson Parkway Supplementary Traffic Impact Study; Counts conducted November 2017.
Chapter 2 • Existing Traffic Trends
2-3 April 16, 2018
Figure 2-1 Average Weekday Traffic Volumes and Truck Percentages at Selected Count Locations
Chapter 2 • Existing Traffic Trends
2-4 April 16, 2018
The remaining traffic count data summarized in the table and figure are located near the proposed
Jefferson Parkway alignment. Observed AWDT volumes within the study area are relatively balanced
directionally. On an average weekday basis, 18.5 percent of traffic occurs during the AM Peak Period
and 32.3 percent of traffic occurs during the PM Peak Period. Truck traffic within the study area
averages 7.4 percent and ranges between 3.1 and 11.9 percent at individual count locations.
Historical Traffic Growth Historical average weekday traffic volumes were available at a limited number of count locations
through Department of Transportation (CDOT) website. Table 2-2 presents the available historical
traffic growth on major roads in the study area. Between 2006 and 2016, traffic growth within the
study area varied from -2.9 percent to 2.0 percent. With exception to SH 93 at north of SH 128 and US
287 at south of Miramonte Boulevard, all corridors experienced positive traffic growth between 2006
and 2016. The ten-year historical traffic growth within the region averaged 0.6 percent, with the
major growth occurring on smaller volume roadways such as SH 93 and SH 128.
Table 2-2 Historical Traffic Growth at Available Count Locations
Monthly Traffic Variations Figure 2-2 provides an index of available 2016 monthly traffic variations at relevant permanent count
locations within the study area. The dashed horizontal line reflects the typical average weekday
volume or an index value of 1.00. In general, average traffic volumes from November through April
were below the annual average, with indexes ranging from 0.88 to 0.95. January and February traffic
volumes would likely be further below the annual average without winter tourism in the region. May
through October were above the annual average with indexes ranging from 1.02 to 1.08. These
monthly variations are consistent with most urban areas, with higher volumes observed during the
summer months and lower volumes during the winter months. Moreover, these observed variations
will likely also be observed on the proposed Jefferson Parkway.
CDOT
Count ID Location 2006 2016
AAPC (1)
(2006 - 2016)
103275 SH 72 Indiana Street n/o 82nd Avenue 16,600 19,400 1.6
103927 SH 93 Foothills Road s/o SH 72 Coal Creek Canyon Road 19,000 23,000 1.9
103929 SH 93 Foothills Road n/o SH 128 18,100 13,500 (2) -2.9
104417 SH 121 Wadsworth Boulevard s/o Pomona Drive 45,000 54,600 (2) 2.0
104422 SH 121 Wadsworth Parkway s/o 104th Avenue 35,900 36,500 (2) 0.2
104523 SH 128 120th Avenue e/o Indiana Street 11,200 12,600 1.2
104524 SH 128 Interlocken Loop ne/o Simms Street 14,800 16,500 1.1
105247 US 287 s/o Miramonte Boulveard 44,500 38,900 -1.4
105248 US 287 n/o Dill Road and Northwest Pkwy 40,500 49,100 2.0
000004 US 36 se/o SH 170 McCaslin Boulevard 77,500 78,700 0.1
(1) Average Annual Percent Change.
(2) Average Weekday Daily volume estimated based on data from prior years.
Source: Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT) count data.
Chapter 2 • Existing Traffic Trends
2-5 April 16, 2018
Figure 2-2 2016 Average Monthly Weekday Traffic Variations
Daily Traffic Variations Figure 2-3 provides a summary of 2017 daily traffic variations at relevant permanent count locations
within the study area. The index value of 1.0 represents the annual average daily traffic (AADT)
volume. Weekday indexes range from roughly 1.00 to 1.12, with the highest volumes observed on
Fridays and the lowest volumes observed on Mondays. Mondays tend to have lower traffic volumes
on average due to the number of holidays that occur on Monday. Fridays tend to have higher volumes
because they combine the commuting patterns of the average weekday with the recreations patterns
of the weekend. These patterns are typical of most urban areas. Weekend volumes fall below the
average day, with Saturdays averaging roughly 92 percent of the average day and Sundays averaging
75 percent of the average day. Saturday traffic tends to be the higher of the two weekend days due to
the fact that weekend work-related trips are greater on Saturday than on Sunday.
0.95 0.92 0.88 1.00 1.03 1.04 1.06 1.08 1.08 1.09 0.95 0.94
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
1.2
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
US 36 Southeast of SH 121
Month
Average Weekday Traffic
0.93 0.94 0.98 0.97 1.02 1.05 1.01 1.07 1.05 1.05 0.97 0.95
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
1.2
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
US 36 South of SH 170
Month
Average Weekday Traffic
Chapter 2 • Existing Traffic Trends
2-6 April 16, 2018
Figure 2-3
2016 Average Daily Traffic Variations
Hourly Distribution Figure 2-4 represents typical hourly traffic volumes at six locations along the project screenlines
previously identified. Given that the proposed Jefferson Parkway will draw traffic from these
roadways, the peaking patterns along these screenlines will likely be reflected on the Jefferson
Parkway itself. Additionally, congestion during peak hours will encourage motorists to pay the toll to
take advantage of the potential time savings of the project.
As shown in the figure, the AM peak occurs primarily between 7:00 and 9:00 AM for both screenlines,
while the PM Peak occurs during the four-hour 3:00 to 7:00 PM period. The locations along Screenline
1 indicate an AM Peak in the northbound direction and a PM Peak in the southbound direction. A
smaller southbound AM Peak and northbound PM Peak are also revealed in the figure along
Screenline 1. The locations along Screenline 2 show relatively even directional distribution of traffic.
0.75 0.99 1.05 1.08 1.07 1.12 0.930
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
1.2
Sunday Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday Saturday
US 36 Southeast of SH 121
Day
Average Daily Traffic
0.76 1.00 1.05 1.08 1.08 1.12 0.910
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
1.2
Sunday Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday Saturday
US 36 South of SH 170
Day
Average Daily Traffic
Chapter 2 • Existing Traffic Trends
2-7
April 16, 2018
Figure 2-4 Average Weekday Hourly Traffic Distribution
Chapter 2 • Existing Traffic Trends
2-8 April 16, 2018
Daily Speed Variation CDM Smith obtained travel time and speed data from INRIX on major routes within the study area.
INRIX is a database of speed information collected passively via GPS-linked devices in car dashboards
and cellular telephones. The data is aggregated by segment and period. Figure 2-5 and Figure 2-6
represents a summary of the average observed weekday speeds for 2016 during the AM Peak (6:30 -
9:00 AM) and PM Peak (3:00 - 7:00 PM) Periods, respectively.
During AM Peak Period, speed conditions tend to be worse in the southern and eastern portions of the
study area. The greatest congestion was observed on SH 72 and McIntyre Street south of 86th
Parkway. Average speeds of 20 to 25 MPH were observed on these segments, with worse conditions
observed near major intersections. Speeds on 30 to 35 MPH were observed on SH 121. SH 93 was
generally free-flow, with speeds observed over 45 MPH except at the intersection with SH 72. Major
congestion was also observed near the US 36 and Interlocken Loop interchange.
PM Peak Period speed conditions were generally observed to similar to those of the AM Peak Period.
However, additional congestion was observed on SH 72 and SH 121. As with the AM Peak Period, the
greatest congestion during the PM Peak Period was observed on SH 72 and McIntyre Street south of
86th Parkway. SH 93 remained generally free-flow during the PM Peak Period, with some congestion
observed at the intersection with SH 72. Conditions observed near the US 36 and Interlocken Loop
interchange appear to be worse during the PM Peak Period.
Chapter 2 • Existing Traffic Trends
2-9 April 16, 2018
Figure 2-5 Average Speed Trend During AM Peak Period (6:30 AM - 9:00 AM)
Chapter 2 • Existing Traffic Trends
2-10 April 16, 2018
Figure 2-6 Average Speed Trend During PM Peak Period (3:00 PM - 7:00 PM)
3-1
April 16, 2018
Chapter 3
Corridor Growth Assessment
Forecasts of employment, population and household have been developed by the Denver Regional
Council of Governments (DRCOG) as part of the regional travel demand model. These forecasts were
reviewed and adjusted in 2017 by Economic & Planning Systems (EPS) as part of prior studies in the
region performed by CDM Smith. The purpose of the review by EPS was to account for economic and
demographic conditions in a dynamic regional market that continues to change and expand. For the
current Level 1 analysis, the recent adjustments recommended by EPS were considered to still be
reasonable and to be relevant to the proposed Jefferson Parkway.
Presented in this chapter is a summary of the historical socioeconomic variables used in the modeling
process. Additionally, an overview is provided of the work performed to review and update the 2015
to 2035 employment, population and household projections of the Denver Regional Council of
Governments (DRCOG). The findings summarized in this chapter were used as a basic input to the
travel demand model which, in turn, aided in the forecasting of the traffic and revenue potential for
the proposed Jefferson Parkway.
Historical Socioeconomic Trends This section presents the historical socioeconomic growth trends in the study area, concentrating on
the four key variables in the travel demand model: total population, households, employment, and
income. In addition to the relevant counties and the entire State of Colorado, socioeconomic growth is
also shown in the tables for the entire Nation for comparative purposes. Figure 3-1 represents the
regional location of the proposed corridor and adjacent counties. The sources from which this
historical data was collected include: the U.S. Census Bureau for population, household and median
household income data, and the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) for employment data.
Population The population growth trends for the 7-County Denver Metro Region are provided in Table 3-1. The
population data is shown by county for 2000, 2005, 2010 and 2016 based on the latest information
available from the U.S. Census Bureau. It should be noted that Broomfield County was not
consolidated as a county until November 2001. As a result, the total shown for Broomfield County
prior to that date represents the Census blocks currently located with Broomfield County.
As presented in the table, population growth for the 7-County Area has ranged between 1.3 percent
per year and 1.8 percent per year over the last 16 years. Among the seven counties, from 2010
through 2016, Broomfield County exhibited the fastest population growth (2.8 percent) and Jefferson
County exhibited the slowest population growth (1.1 percent). High-growth counties such as Douglas
County and Broomfield County have generally seen a reduction in the rate of growth, bringing them in
line with other counties in the region during recent years. The Jefferson Parkway influence area,
which includes Boulder, Broomfield and Jefferson Counties, grew at an average rate of 0.8 per year
over the last 16 years, which is slower than the overall region. However, the rate of population
growth in the influence area increased in recent years, reaching 1.3 percent per year since 2010.
Chapter 3 • Corridor Growth Analysis
3-2 April 16, 2018
Figure 3-1 Regional Location of Jefferson Parkway and Adjacent Counties
Table 3-1 Historical Growth Trends in Population
AAPC (1) AAPC (1) AAPC (1) AAPC (1)
County 2000 2000 - 2005 2005 2005 - 2010 2010 2010 - 2016 2016 2000 - 2016
Adams County 351,735 2.4 395,384 2.3 443,711 1.9 497,673 2.2
Arapahoe County 490,722 1.5 528,214 1.7 574,819 1.7 637,254 1.6
Boulder County 276,255 0.5 282,910 0.9 295,605 1.4 321,989 1.0
Broomfield County 38,544 4.6 48,251 3.1 56,107 2.8 66,252 3.4
Denver County 556,738 0.1 559,459 1.6 604,879 2.3 693,292 1.4
Douglas County 180,510 6.3 244,442 3.3 287,124 2.3 328,330 3.8
Jefferson County 526,718 -0.1 523,517 0.5 535,651 1.1 571,711 0.5
7-County Total 2,421,222 1.3 2,582,177 1.6 2,797,896 1.8 3,116,501 1.6
Influence Area (2) 841,517 0.3 854,678 0.8 887,363 1.3 959,952 0.8
Colorado Statewide 4,301,261 1.2 4,562,244 1.4 4,887,061 1.5 5,359,295 1.4
US Total 281,421,906 0.5 288,378,137 1.1 303,965,272 0.8 318,558,162 0.8
(1) Average Annual Percent Change.
(2) Influence Area Includes Boulder County, Broomfield County and Jefferson County
Source: U.S. Census Bureau
Denver
Int’l
Airport
Golden
Chapter 3 • Corridor Growth Analysis
3-3 April 16, 2018
The average population growth in the 7-County Area was 1.6 percent per year from 2000 through
2016, increasing from 2.4 million in 2000 to 3.1 million in 2016. This exceeded the Colorado
statewide growth rate of 1.4 percent and the national growth rate of 0.8 percent.
Households Growth in the number of households has historically shown a similar trend to that of population. The
household growth trends for the 7-County Denver Metro Region are provided in Table 3-2. Although
the U.S. Census provides population estimates for Broomfield County prior to the 2010 Census, it does
not do so for other socioeconomic and demographic variables. As a result, households in what is
currently Broomfield County are incorporated into the totals for neighboring counties prior to 2010.
Among the seven counties, from 2010 through 2016, Douglas County exhibited the fastest household
growth (4.0 percent) and Boulder County exhibited the slowest household growth (0.5 percent). The
historical household growth rate in the 7-County Area averaged 1.3 percent per annum, with little
variation over the sixteen-year period. The Jefferson Parkway influence area has increased its number
of households at an average rate of 1.0 per year since 2000, which is just below that of the overall
region. These growth rates would suggest an increase in population density since 2005 given the
faster rate of population increase in the region. Total households in the region increased from 0.9
million in 2000 to 1.2 million in 2016.
Table 3-2 Historical Growth Trends in Households
Average household growth in the 7-County Area and Colorado statewide household growth were
roughly similar in aggregate, but only as a result of higher growth at the state level between 2000 and
2005. Household growth for both the 7-County Area and Colorado exceeded the national household
growth rate of 0.7 percent between 2000 and 2016.
Employment The employment data was obtained from BLS by county for 2000, 2005, 2010 and 2016 based on the
latest information available from the U.S. Census Bureau. Employment data for Broomfield County are
unavailable prior to its consolidation in 2001. Employment in what is currently Broomfield County is
incorporated into the totals for neighboring counties prior to 2001.
AAPC (1) AAPC (1) AAPC (1) AAPC (1)
County 2000 2000 - 2005 2005 2005 - 2010 2010 2010 - 2016 2016 2000 - 2016
Adams County 128,156 2.0 141,383 0.9 147,951 1.2 158,748 1.3
Arapahoe County 190,909 1.6 206,250 1.2 218,909 1.0 231,844 1.2
Boulder County 114,680 -0.2 113,405 0.7 117,629 0.8 123,669 0.5
Broomfield County - N/A - N/A 20,116 3.4 24,581 N/A
Denver County 239,235 0.2 241,579 1.0 254,181 1.7 281,072 1.0
Douglas County 60,924 7.5 87,654 2.4 98,725 2.4 114,017 4.0
Jefferson County 206,067 0.5 211,394 0.5 217,018 0.6 225,320 0.6
7-County Total 939,971 1.3 1,001,665 1.4 1,074,529 1.3 1,159,251 1.3
Influence Area (2) 320,747 0.3 324,799 1.8 354,763 0.9 373,570 1.0
Colorado Statewide 1,658,238 1.9 1,819,037 1.1 1,918,959 1.1 2,051,616 1.3
US Total 105,480,101 1.0 111,090,617 0.6 114,235,996 0.5 117,716,237 0.7
(1) Average Annual Percent Change.
(2) Influence Area Includes Boulder County, Broomfield County and Jefferson County
Source: U.S. Census Bureau
Chapter 3 • Corridor Growth Analysis
3-4 April 16, 2018
The employment trends, presented in Table 3-3, resemble the overall economic cycle with relatively
lower growth in the 2000s and a recovery after 2010. For the 7-County Area, employment decreased
by an average of 0.4 percent per year between 2000 and 2005 and then remained flat through 2010.
Since 2010 and as part of the overall economic recovery following the Great Recession of 2008-2009,
the 7-County Area has experienced employment growth averaging 3.1 percent per year. Sixteen-year
employment growth has averaged 1.0 percent per year, with total employment increasing from 1.3
million in 2000 to 1.6 million in 2016. Among the seven counties, between 2010 and 2016, Adams
County and Douglas County exhibited the greatest annual growth in employment, and Boulder County
exhibited the slight decreases in employment. Within the Jefferson Parkway influence area,
employment increased at an average rate of 0.9 per year since 2000, with the majority of the growth
occurring between 2010 and 2016.
Table 3-3 Historical Growth Trends in Employment
Average employment growth in the 7-County Area and Colorado statewide employment growth were
roughly similar in aggregate, with the State of Colorado averaging 0.9 percent growth per year
between 2000 and 2016. Employment growth for both the 7-County Area and Colorado exceeded the
national employment growth rate of 0.5 percent over the same period.
Median Household Income Median Household Income is an important socioeconomic factor as it relates to how much motorists
are willing to pay in tolls in order to obtain travel time savings over congested arterials. The median
household income for the 7-County Area in 2016 inflation-adjusted dollars is provided in Table 3-4.
Again, socioeconomic variables for Broomfield County are unavailable prior to the 2010 Census.
Overall, Douglas County exhibits the highest median household income ($105,759) and Denver County
exhibits the lowest median income ($56,258) among the seven counties. After 2010, all counties
except Douglas and Jefferson County exhibited positive growth in median household income. With the
exception of Denver County, median household income showed a declining trend between 2000 and
2016, with an average annual decrease of 0.3 percent per year. This is primarily due to the
recessionary pressures experienced between 2000 and 2010 in the regional and nationwide.
AAPC (1) AAPC (1) AAPC (1) AAPC (1)
County 2000 2000 - 2005 2005 2005 - 2010 2010 2010 - 2016 2016 2000 - 2016
Adams County 144,502 0.4 147,682 0.0 147,987 5.0 198,368 2.0
Arapahoe County 283,927 -0.9 271,270 -0.1 270,339 2.9 321,758 0.8
Boulder County 179,599 -3.0 154,367 -0.3 152,118 2.5 176,652 -0.1
Broomfield County - N/A 28,738 0.8 29,919 3.6 36,968 N/A
Denver County 468,995 -2.0 424,659 -0.2 420,505 2.8 494,890 0.3
Douglas County 56,656 7.9 82,930 1.6 89,826 4.5 116,821 4.6
Jefferson County 210,315 -0.4 206,031 -0.3 202,557 2.4 233,337 0.7
7-County Total 1,343,994 -0.4 1,315,677 0.0 1,313,251 3.1 1,578,794 1.0
Influence Area (2) 389,914 0.0 389,136 -0.2 384,594 2.5 446,957 0.9
Colorado Statewide 2,185,010 0.0 2,189,516 -0.1 2,176,986 2.7 2,558,997 1.0
US Total 129,879,584 0.3 131,571,623 -0.6 127,820,442 1.7 141,546,742 0.5
(1) Average Annual Percent Change.
(2) Influence Area Includes Boulder County, Broomfield County and Jefferson County
Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics
Chapter 3 • Corridor Growth Analysis
3-5 April 16, 2018
Table 3-4 Historical Growth Trends in Median Household Income (in 2016 Inflation-Adjusted Dollars)
As shown in the table, trends for the Jefferson Parkway influence area were comparable to those of the
7-County Area. Average median household income growth in the 7-County Area and Colorado
statewide household growth were roughly similar in aggregate, and have mirrored national trends.
Over the last 16 years, median household income has declined by 0.3 percent at all analysis levels.
Socioeconomic Forecasts Forecasts of employment, population and household have been developed by DRCOG as part of the
regional travel demand model. These forecasts were recently reviewed and adjusted by EPS as part of
prior CDM Smith studies in the region. The methodology for this growth assessment incorporated a
review and analysis of the model input variables from both a macroscopic (county) and microscopic
(Transportation Analysis Zone [TAZ]) perspective. This included a review of the Base Year 2015
population, household and employment numbers, an independent analysis of regional and sub-
regional projections and a TAZ-level assessment of the major developments within the Denver region.
The result of this review was a set of updated forecasts of population, households, and employment.
These forecasts, referred to hereafter as the “EPS” forecasts, were then used to develop updated trip
matrices using the DRCOG Focus 2 model process for the purposes of running traffic assignments in
the regional travel demand model.
It should be noted that Development Research Partners prepared a recent study, “The Economic Fiscal
Benefits of Development in the Jefferson Parkway Area”, for Jefferson County Economic Development
Corporation, October 2017. The report presents the development and net benefits associated with the
Jefferson Parkway. Based on the EPS methodology, the current Level 1 analysis of the proposed
Jefferson Parkway considered the developments identified by the Development Research Partners
report as part of the socioeconomic inputs to the extent that those developments were currently
scheduled for construction or were likely to be constructed.
For the current Level 1 analysis, the recent adjustments recommended by EPS were considered to still
be reasonable and to be relevant to the proposed Jefferson Parkway. The following sections present
the EPS forecasts by county and it should be noted that forecasted growth rates presented in this
AAPC (1) AAPC (1) AAPC (1) AAPC (1)
County 2000 2000 - 2005 2005 2005 - 2010 2010 2010 - 2016 2016 2000 - 2016
Adams County 65,810$ -1.1 62,255$ -0.7 60,163$ 0.4 61,444$ -0.4
Arapahoe County 74,390 -2.0 67,403 -0.8 64,624 0.4 66,288 -0.7
Boulder County 77,606 -1.9 70,677 0.2 71,359 0.2 72,282 -0.4
Broomfield County - N/A - N/A 83,191 0.0 83,334 N/A
Denver County 54,801 -1.0 52,078 -0.8 50,077 2.0 56,258 0.2
Douglas County 115,100 -1.3 107,757 0.3 109,174 -0.5 105,759 -0.5
Jefferson County 79,553 -1.2 74,908 -0.6 72,720 -0.2 72,017 -0.6
7-County Total 72,397$ -1.1 68,466$ -0.3 67,382$ 0.4 69,189$ -0.3
Influence Area (2) 78,857$ -1.4 73,431$ -0.2 72,862$ 0.0 72,849$ -0.5
Colorado Statewide 65,523$ -1.0 62,257$ 0.0 62,133$ 0.1 62,520$ -0.3
US Total 58,333$ -0.5 56,837$ 0.1 57,135$ -0.5 55,322$ -0.3
(1) Average Annual Percent Change.
(2) Influence Area Includes Boulder County, Broomfield County and Jefferson County
Source: U.S. Census Bureau
Chapter 3 • Corridor Growth Analysis
3-6 April 16, 2018
chapter reflect long-term rates, and that actual year-over-year growth may be higher or lower than
projected, as growth does not often occur linearly.
Population The forecasted population growth trends for the 7-County Denver Metro Region are provided in Table
3-5, along with the actual 2005 population data for historical context. Among the seven counties, all
counties are estimated to experience population growth from 2015 through 2035. Under the EPS
forecasts, Adams County is estimated to add the most people (193,400) by 2035, followed by
Arapahoe (163,700) and Douglas (134,700) Counties. Broomfield County is estimated to add the least
population (35,400) by 2035. In terms of the forecasted growth rate, Broomfield County is estimated
to have the fastest population growth and Jefferson County is estimated to have the slowest. As per
the EPS forecasts, the average population growth in the Jefferson Parkway influence area is estimated
to be 0.9 percent per year from 2015 through 2035, increasing from 0.9 million in 2015 to 1.1 million
in 2035. This is slightly lower than the 7-County Area average growth rate of 1.2 percent.
Table 3-5 Forecasted Growth Trends in Population
Households As was observed historically, the growth in the number of households is expected to follow a similar
growth trend to that of population. The forecasted growth trends for households, along with the
actual 2005 data. in the 7-County Denver Metro Region are provided in Table 3-6. As with
population, all counties are estimated to experience growth in the number of households between
2015 and 2035. Under the EPS forecasts, Adams County is estimated to add the most households
(82,500) by 2035, while Broomfield County is estimated to add the least (14,500). Broomfield County
is estimated to have the fastest household growth and Jefferson County is estimated to have the
slowest. Similar to the population forecast, households in the Jefferson Parkway influence area are
estimated to increase at a slightly slower rate (0.3 percent per year) than the 7-County Area.
2015 - 2035
Actual (1) AAPC (2) AAPC (2) AAPC (2) Avg. Annual Incr.
County 2005 '05 to '15 2015 '15 to '25 2025 '25 to '35 2035 Total Number Percent
Adams County 395,384 2.2 491,335 1.7 581,006 1.7 684,728 193,393 9,670 1.7
Arapahoe County 528,214 1.8 631,086 1.3 720,595 1.0 794,818 163,732 8,187 1.2
Boulder County 282,910 1.2 319,387 1.1 354,906 0.7 378,685 59,298 2,965 0.9
Broomfield County 48,251 3.0 65,065 2.4 82,699 1.9 99,582 34,517 1,726 2.2
Denver County 559,459 2.0 682,545 0.9 745,607 0.8 805,602 123,057 6,153 0.8
Douglas County 244,442 2.8 322,391 2.0 393,369 1.5 457,048 134,657 6,733 1.8
Jefferson County 523,517 0.8 565,524 0.8 612,867 0.7 655,166 89,642 4,482 0.7
7-County Total 2,582,177 1.8 3,077,333 1.3 3,491,049 1.1 3,875,629 798,296 39,915 1.2
Influence Area (3) 854,678 1.1 949,976 1.0 1,050,472 0.8 1,133,433 183,457 9,173 0.9
(1) U.S. Census Bureau.
(2) Average Annual Percent Change.
(3) Influence Area Includes Boulder County, Broomfield County and Jefferson County
Source: Economic & Planning Systems.
Chapter 3 • Corridor Growth Analysis
3-7 April 16, 2018
Table 3-6 Forecasted Growth Trends in Households
Employment The forecasted employment growth trends for the 7-County Denver Metro Region are provided in
Table 3-7, along with actual 2005 employment data for historical context. Among the seven counties,
all counties are estimated to experience employment growth from 2015 through 2035. Under the EPS
forecasts, Arapahoe County is estimated to add the most jobs (102,000) by 2035, followed by Adams
(96,000) and Denver (93,900) Counties. Broomfield County is estimated to add the least number of
jobs (14,500) by 2035. In terms of the forecasted growth rate, Broomfield County is estimated to have
the fastest household growth and Jefferson County is estimated to have the slowest. According to the
EPS forecasts, the average employment growth in the Jefferson Parkway influence area will be 1.1
percent per year from 2015 through 2035, increasing from 0.4 million in 2015 to 0.5 million in 2035.
This is just below the 7-County Area growth rate of 1.3 percent.
Table 3-7 Forecasted Growth Trends in Employment
2015 - 2035
Actual (1) AAPC (2) AAPC (2) AAPC (2) Avg. Annual Incr.
County 2005 '05 to '15 2015 '15 to '25 2025 '25 to '35 2035 Total Number Percent
Adams County 141,383 1.2 159,313 2.4 202,496 1.8 241,809 82,496 4,125 2.1
Arapahoe County 206,250 1.3 233,947 1.4 269,460 1.1 300,271 66,324 3,316 1.3
Boulder County 113,405 0.9 124,615 1.3 141,594 0.8 153,568 28,953 1,448 1.1
Broomfield County - N/A 25,553 2.6 32,872 2.0 40,062 14,509 725 2.3
Denver County 241,579 1.7 287,070 1.0 317,890 0.9 349,027 61,957 3,098 1.0
Douglas County 87,654 3.1 118,609 2.4 149,659 1.8 178,302 59,693 2,985 2.1
Jefferson County 211,394 0.7 226,929 1.0 250,945 0.8 270,558 43,629 2,181 0.9
7-County Total 1,001,665 1.6 1,176,036 1.5 1,364,916 1.2 1,533,597 357,561 17,878 1.3
Influence Area (3) 324,799 1.5 377,097 1.2 425,411 0.9 464,188 87,091 4,355 1.0
(1) U.S. Census Bureau.
(2) Average Annual Percent Change.
(3) Influence Area Includes Boulder County, Broomfield County and Jefferson County
Source: Economic & Planning Systems.
2015 - 2035
Actual (1) AAPC (2) AAPC (2) AAPC (2) Avg. Annual Incr.
County 2005 '05 to '15 2015 '15 to '25 2025 '25 to '35 2035 Total Number Percent
Adams County 147,682 2.7 191,878 2.3 239,871 1.8 287,844 95,966 4,798 2.0
Arapahoe County 271,270 1.6 316,496 1.5 368,751 1.3 418,489 101,993 5,100 1.4
Boulder County 154,367 1.1 172,698 1.0 190,760 0.9 208,525 35,827 1,791 0.9
Broomfield County 28,738 2.3 35,990 3.3 50,000 2.5 63,956 27,966 1,398 2.9
Denver County 424,659 1.2 478,260 0.9 525,244 0.9 572,191 93,931 4,697 0.9
Douglas County 82,930 3.1 112,880 1.9 136,837 1.5 158,888 46,008 2,300 1.7
Jefferson County 206,031 1.0 228,330 0.8 248,303 0.8 268,100 39,770 1,989 0.8
7-County Total 1,315,677 1.6 1,536,532 1.4 1,759,766 1.2 1,977,993 441,461 22,073 1.3
Influence Area (3) 389,136 1.2 437,018 1.1 489,063 1.0 540,581 103,563 5,178 1.1
(1) Bureau of Labor Statistics.
(2) Average Annual Percent Change.
(3) Influence Area Includes Boulder County, Broomfield County and Jefferson County
Source: Economic & Planning Systems.
4-1
April 16, 2018
Chapter 4
Traffic and Revenue Analysis
Chapter 4 provides a summary of the traffic and revenue forecasts for the proposed Jefferson
Parkway. The chapter details the proposed project configuration and proposed toll rates, as well as
the assumptions underlying these forecasts, such as values of time, vehicle operating costs and toll
revenue leakage. The following text presents the analytical methodology, study assumptions, steps
taken to reflect the latest socioeconomic forecasts, and the results of an analysis of a toll sensitivity
analysis. The final products of the study, as summarized in this chapter, are the estimates of annual
traffic and toll revenue for the Jefferson Parkway. Additional sensitivity tests were also conducted to
estimate the impacts of various future year highway improvements or of modifying input
assumptions, such as value of time.
Model Development As part of this Level 1 traffic and revenue study, a regional travel demand model was employed to
assist with the estimation of the future year transactions and toll revenue estimates. The travel
demand modeling undertaken for this study utilized, as the basic modeling platform, the Denver
Regional Council of Governments’ (DRCOG) Focus 2 travel demand model. The model area covers
eleven counties within the Denver metropolitan area and is divided into approximately 2,800 traffic
analysis zones (TAZ). The Focus 2 travel demand model used in this study was developed at an
average weekday level and included a 2016 base year and future years: 2022, 2035 and 2040.
Unlike prior models developed by DRCOG, the Focus 2 model is an activity-based model. This
modeling process differs from the traditional four-step modeling process in that it seeks to estimate
trips and travel patterns based on the likely decisions and travel behaviors of individuals over the
course of a typical weekday, as opposed to using trip generation assumptions based on aggregate
socioeconomic and demographic estimates. This process is an improvement over the traditional four-
step modeling process in that it links together and adjusts trips based on changes in socioeconomic
assumptions and time-of-day preferences. Based on the trips generated through the synthesized
population process, the model then develops a traditional origin and destination trip table matrix
linked to the TAZs. These trip table matrices, which are provided by time period, serve as inputs to
the final traffic assignment step used to develop estimates of traffic volumes by roadway link across
the model highway network.
CDM Smith has utilized the DRCOG Focus 2 model during prior studies within the region. Additional
refinements were made to the model as part of these prior analyses, including a review of the regional
socioeconomic input variables (as described in Chapter 3), a review of the regional highway network
and assumed highway improvements, origin-destination travel patterns based on recent survey data,
and additional calibration adjustments. Given these additional refinements and updates, the modified
DRCOG model was deemed appropriate for use in this Level 1 study of the Jefferson Parkway. The
following section describes the major refinements made to the DRCOG Focus 2 model as part of prior
efforts, as well as the additional adjustments made specifically as part of this study.
Chapter 4 • Traffic and Revenue Analysis
4-2 April 16, 2018
Land Use and Demographic Assumptions A summary of the socio-economic forecast assumptions for years 2015, 2025, and 2035 were
provided in Chapter 3. As part of a recent prior study, independent economist Economic & Planning
Systems (EPS) reviewed the DRCOG forecasts for population, household and employment and
provided recommended updates based on their review of regional development. These
recommendations were ultimately used by DRCOG staff to generate new trip table matrices based on
the updated forecasts. The traffic and revenue estimates developed in this study were based on these
updated forecasts and trip tables.
Assumed Payment Types and ExpressToll Market Participation Rates Consistent with other local toll roads, it was assumed that the Jefferson Parkway will employ a totally
cashless toll collection system, providing two methods of toll payment: ExpressToll and License Plate
Toll (LPT). For ExpressToll transactions, the customer is issued a transponder tag that is read by
overhead equipment at the toll gantries. The appropriate toll is then automatically debited from their
ExpressToll account, which is replenished as needed automatically for credit card accounts and via
mailed invoice for check paying customers. With LPT, a picture of the customer’s license plate is taken
and connected to an address obtained from the Department of Motor Vehicles.
The market share of ExpressToll and LPT customers for this analysis was based on historic trends
from other Denver toll facilities and anticipated future increases. The ExpressToll market share was
assumed to be 72 percent in 2022, and to increase to 75 percent for 2035. Beyond 2035, estimated
ExpressToll participation rates are forecasted to remain relatively constant over the forecast period.
These assumptions were used as input to the traffic modeling process for each model year and
represent the total ExpressToll market participation for the model area.
Adaptation of Trip Tables For the purposes of the travel demand model, the updated trip matrices were disaggregated into the
ExpressToll and LPT payment types. This was done in order to perform traffic assignments based on
method of toll payment using CDM Smith’s proprietary toll diversion algorithms. Based on prior study
experience, this adjustment improves the modeling, calibration and traffic and revenue forecasts and
produces results that more accurately reflect actual traffic conditions.
Additionally, the regional travel demand trip tables were split between passenger cars and commercial vehicles. Commercial vehicles were estimated to represent 4 percent of all trips within the model area, based on the vehicle type split assumed by DRCOG and the observed percent of truck traffic on other Denver toll facilities.
The Focus 2 model also employs a time-of-day model, meaning that the average weekday model is run
separately for various time periods. Since hourly traffic volumes were not necessary at this level of
analysis, four time periods were developed in order to model peak and off-peak travel patterns:
▪ AM peak period (6:30 AM – 9:00 AM);
▪ Midday period (9:00 AM – 3:00 PM);
▪ PM peak period (3:00 PM - 7:00 PM); and
▪ Nighttime period (7:00 PM – 6:30 AM).
This adjustment allowed for a simplification of the modelling process while maintaining a distinction
in hourly variations in congestion typical of urban toll facilities.
Chapter 4 • Traffic and Revenue Analysis
4-3 April 16, 2018
Roadway and Transit Network Review A thorough review was completed of the roadway and transit networks included in the base DRCOG
travel demand models for the base and future years. Beginning with the 2016 model, a thorough
review of the road network, functional classifications, and lanes was completed to ensure consistency
with the existing network. The forecast year networks included in the base DRCOG models were then
reviewed and compared to the DRCOG 2040 Fiscally Constrained Regional Transportation Plan (RTP)
(Cycle 2, 2015). The planning document identifies new roadways, additional lanes, and additions to
the transit network consistent with the current FasTracks regional rapid transit expansion plans. A
listing of the regional Metro Vision projects within the study area is included as Table 4-1.
The toll forecasting process was designed to provide traffic revenue forecasts for interim years
between the available travel demand model years (2016, 2022, 2035 and 2040). In order to develop
forecasts for the Jefferson Parkway that were more representative of existing travel demands
throughout the system, the RTP was reviewed to determine if any projects have already been
completed since the models were established in 2015. Several key projects were identified, and the
improvements were added into the base 2016 travel demand model. Specific key projects identified
are listed below.
▪ I-25 Widening – Widening between Ridge Gate Parkway and County Line Road was
completed in 2016. This project increased the number of through lanes from six to eight.
▪ I-25 Managed Lanes – A single new managed lane in each direction was added between US
36 and 120th Avenue, with the improvement opening in 2016.
▪ US 36 Managed Lanes – A single new managed lane in each direction was added between I-
25 and Table Mesa Drive, with the improvement opening in 2015.
Besides the Jefferson Parkway itself, three specific future-year corridor improvements were explored
based on their relation to the RTP listing. These improvements represent significant improvements
within the region and were incorporated into the future year highway networks.
▪ I-70 East Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) – The I-70 East EIS included a
Record of Decision and the resulting improvements were included in the RTP. Improvements
to I-70 between I-25 and Chambers Road have been scheduled for completion by 2024 and
include the addition of a new managed lane in each direction.
▪ C-470 Toll Express Lanes – The C-470 Corridor Coalition completed the environmental
planning process and improvements were included in the RTP. Anticipated opening day of the
first stage, which includes a single managed lane between Wadsworth Boulevard and I-25 in
each direction, is expected during 2018. A second stage of development extends the single
managed lane to Kipling Street and provides a second managed lane for the eastern portion of
the corridor. This second stage is expected to be complete by 2034.
▪ I-25 Managed Lanes Extension – The RTP listing includes the extension of the single
managed lanes in each direction along I-25 between 120th Avenue and SH 7.
Chapter 4 • Traffic and Revenue Analysis
4-4 April 16, 2018
Faci
lity
Nam
eFr
om
ToIm
pro
vem
en
tLe
ngt
hC
ou
nti
es
20
22
E-4
70
Par
ker
Rd
.Q
uin
cy A
ve.
Wid
en f
rom
4 t
o 6
lan
es8
.1A
rap
aho
e/D
ou
glas
20
22
E-4
70
48
th A
ve.
Ad
d N
ew In
terc
han
geA
dam
s
20
22
E-4
70
88
th A
ve.
Ad
d N
ew In
terc
han
geA
dam
s
20
35
10
4th
Ave
.G
ran
dvi
ew P
on
ds
McK
ay R
d.
Wid
en f
rom
2 t
o 4
Lan
es0
.7A
dam
s2
03
51
04
th A
ve.
US-
85
SH-2
Wid
en f
rom
2 t
o 4
Lan
es1
.8A
dam
s2
03
51
44
th A
ve.
US-
28
7Zu
ni S
t.W
iden
fro
m 2
to
4 L
anes
3.5
Bro
om
fiel
d2
03
51
44
th A
ve.
Was
hin
gto
n S
t.Yo
rk S
t.W
iden
fro
m 2
to
4 L
anes
1.0
Ad
ams
20
35
14
4th
Ave
.Yo
rk S
t.C
olo
rad
o B
lvd
.W
iden
fro
m 2
to
4 L
anes
1.0
Ad
ams
20
35
16
0th
Ave
.Lo
wel
l Blv
d.
Sher
idan
Pkw
y.N
ew 2
Lan
es1
.0B
roo
mfi
eld
20
35
48
th A
ve.
Pic
adill
y R
d.
Po
wh
ato
n R
d.
New
6 L
anes
3.0
Ad
ams
20
35
56
th A
ve.
Du
nki
rk S
t.H
imal
aya
St.
Wid
en f
rom
4 t
o 6
Lan
es0
.5D
enve
r2
03
55
6th
Ave
.E-
47
0Im
bo
den
Rd
.W
iden
fro
m 2
to
6 L
anes
7.0
Ad
ams
20
35
56
th A
ve.
Hav
ana
St.
Pen
a B
lvd
.W
iden
fro
m 2
to
6 L
anes
4.3
Den
ver
20
35
56
th A
ve.
Him
alay
a St
.P
icad
illy
Rd
.W
iden
fro
m 2
to
6 L
anes
1.0
Den
ver
20
35
56
th A
ve.
Pen
a B
lvd
.To
wer
Rd
.W
iden
fro
m 4
to
6 L
anes
0.7
Den
ver
20
35
56
th A
ve.
Pic
adill
y R
d.
E-4
70
Wid
en f
rom
2 t
o 6
Lan
es1
.0A
dam
s2
03
56
4th
Ave
.D
enve
r/A
uro
ra C
ity
Lim
itH
imal
aya
St.
Wid
en f
rom
2 t
o 6
Lan
es0
.5A
dam
s2
03
56
4th
Ave
.H
arve
st R
d.
Po
wh
ato
n R
d.
New
2 L
anes
1.0
Ad
ams
20
35
64
th A
ve.
Him
alay
a R
d.
Har
vest
Rd
.W
iden
fro
m 2
to
4 L
anes
3.0
Ad
ams
20
35
64
th A
ve.
Po
wh
ato
n R
d.
Mo
nag
han
Rd
.N
ew 4
Lan
es1
.0A
dam
s2
03
56
4th
Ave
.To
wer
Rd
.D
enve
r/A
uro
ra C
ity
Lim
its
Wid
en f
rom
2 t
o 4
Lan
es0
.5D
enve
r2
03
56
th A
ve.
Air
po
rt B
lvd
.To
wer
Rd
.W
iden
fro
m 2
to
6 L
anes
1.0
Ara
pah
oe
20
35
6th
Ave
./6
th P
kwy.
6th
Pkw
y.H
arve
st R
d.
Wid
en f
rom
2 t
o 6
Lan
es0
.4A
rap
aho
e2
03
56
th A
ve./
SH 3
0To
wer
Rd
.6
th P
kwy.
Wid
en f
rom
2 t
o 6
Lan
es1
.6A
rap
aho
e2
03
56
th P
kwy
SH-3
0E-
47
0N
ew 2
Lan
e R
oad
1.3
Ara
pah
oe
20
35
6th
Pkw
y.E-
47
0G
un
Clu
b R
d.
Wid
en f
rom
2 t
o 6
Lan
es0
.3A
rap
aho
e2
03
59
6th
St.
96
th S
t. a
t N
ort
hw
est
Pkw
y.SH
-12
8A
dd
To
ll La
nes
2.3
Bro
om
fiel
d2
03
5A
rap
aho
e R
d.
Pin
ey C
reek
Cir
cle
Him
alay
a St
.W
iden
fro
m 4
to
6 L
anes
1.3
Ara
pah
oe
20
35
Bro
nco
s P
kwy.
Jord
an R
d.
Par
ker
Rd
.W
iden
fro
m 4
to
6 L
anes
0.8
Ara
pah
oe
20
35
Bro
nco
s P
kwy.
(Ea
ster
Ave
.)H
avan
a St
.P
eori
a St
.W
iden
fro
m 4
to
6 L
anes
1.0
Ara
pah
oe
20
35
Bu
ckle
y R
d.
11
8th
Ave
.C
amer
on
Dr.
Wid
en f
rom
2 t
o 6
Lan
es1
.3A
dam
s2
03
5B
uck
ley
Rd
.1
36
th A
ve.
Bro
mle
y Ln
.W
iden
fro
m 2
to
4 la
nes
2.0
Ad
ams
20
35
C-4
70
Co
lora
do
Blv
d.
Wad
swo
rth
Blv
d.
WB
: A
dd
New
Man
aged
Lan
es8
.2D
ou
glas
/Jef
fers
on
20
35
C-4
70
I-2
5C
olo
rad
o B
lvd
.W
B:
Ad
d N
ew M
anag
ed L
anes
4.1
Do
ugl
as2
03
5C
-47
0W
adsw
ort
h B
lvd
.I-
25
EB:
Ad
d N
ew M
anag
ed L
anes
10
.8D
ou
glas
/Jef
fers
on
20
35
Ch
amb
ers
Rd
.M
ain
Str
eet
Lin
coln
Ave
.W
iden
fro
m 2
to
4 L
anes
1.4
Do
ugl
as2
03
5E.
Bro
mle
y Ln
.To
wer
Rd
.I-
76
Wid
en f
rom
4 t
o 6
Lan
es1
.1A
dam
s2
03
5E-
47
0I-
76
So
uth
Ram
ps
Ad
d N
ew In
terc
han
geA
dam
s
Ne
two
rk Y
ear
of
Imp
rove
me
nt
Tab
le 4
-1
Pro
gram
med
Reg
ion
al H
igh
way
Imp
rove
men
ts
Chapter 4 • Traffic and Revenue Analysis
4-5 April 16, 2018
Faci
lity
Nam
eFr
om
ToIm
pro
vem
en
tLe
ngt
hC
ou
nti
es
20
35
E-4
70
Po
tom
acA
dd
New
Inte
rch
ange
Ad
ams
20
35
Gre
en V
alle
y R
anch
Blv
d.
Ch
amb
ers
Rd
.Te
lluri
de
St.
Wid
en f
rom
4 t
o 6
Lan
es1
.5D
enve
r2
03
5G
reen
Val
ley
Ran
ch B
lvd
.C
ham
ber
s R
d.
Pen
a B
lvd
.W
iden
fro
m 2
to
4 L
anes
1.0
Den
ver
20
35
Gre
en V
alle
y R
anch
Blv
d.
Tellu
rid
e St
.To
wer
Rd
.W
iden
fro
m 4
to
6 L
anes
0.5
Den
ver
20
35
Gu
n C
lub
Rd
.1
.5 M
iles
s/o
f Q
uin
cy A
ve.
Qu
incy
Ave
.W
iden
fro
m 2
to
6 L
anes
1.6
Ara
pah
oe
20
35
Ham
pd
en A
ve.
Pic
adill
y R
d.
Gu
n C
lub
Rd
.W
iden
fro
m 2
to
4 L
anes
1.1
Ara
pah
oe
20
35
Har
vest
Rd
.5
6th
Ave
.6
4th
Ave
.N
ew 3
Lan
es1
.0A
dam
s2
03
5H
arve
st R
d.
6th
Ave
.I-
70
New
6 L
anes
1.1
Ad
ams
20
35
Har
vest
Rd
.A
lam
eda
Ave
.6
th A
ve.
Wid
en f
rom
3 t
o 6
Lan
es1
.0A
rap
aho
e2
03
5H
arve
st R
d.
I-7
05
6th
Ave
.N
ew 6
Lan
es4
.1A
dam
s2
03
5H
arve
st R
d.
Mis
siss
ipp
i Ave
.A
lam
eda
Ave
.N
ew 6
Lan
es1
.0A
rap
aho
e2
03
5H
uro
n S
t.1
50
th A
ve.
16
0th
Ave
.W
iden
fro
m 2
to
4 la
nes
1.3
Bro
om
fiel
d2
03
5H
uro
n S
t.1
60
th A
ve.
SH-7
Wid
en f
rom
2 t
o 4
lan
es1
.2B
roo
mfi
eld
20
35
I-2
51
20
th A
ve.
SH-7
Ad
d 1
To
ll/M
anag
ed L
ane
each
dir
ecti
on
6.0
Ad
ams/
Bro
om
fiel
d2
03
5I-
25
US-
36
Tho
rnto
n P
kwy.
Ad
d 1
New
SB
Lan
e2
.8A
dam
s2
03
5I-
70
Har
vest
Rd
.A
dd
New
Inte
rch
ange
Ad
ams/
Ara
pah
oe
20
35
I-7
0I-
25
Ch
amb
ers
Rd
.A
dd
2 N
ew M
anag
ed L
anes
3.8
Den
ver/
Ad
ams
20
35
I-7
0P
icad
illy
Rd
.A
dd
New
Inte
rch
ange
Ad
ams
20
35
Jew
ell A
ve.
E-4
70
Gu
n C
lub
Rd
.W
iden
fro
m 2
to
6 L
anes
0.5
Ara
pah
oe
20
35
Jew
ell A
ve.
Gu
n C
lub
Rd
.H
arve
st R
d.
Wid
en f
rom
2 t
o 6
Lan
es1
.0A
rap
aho
e2
03
5Je
wel
l Ave
.H
imal
aya
Rd
.E-
47
0W
iden
fro
m 3
to
6 L
anes
1.4
Ara
pah
oe
20
35
Lin
coln
Ave
.K
eyst
on
e B
lvd
.P
arke
r R
d.
Wid
en f
rom
4 t
o 6
Lan
es1
.6D
ou
glas
20
35
Lin
coln
Ave
.P
eori
a St
.1
st A
ve.
Wid
en f
rom
4 t
o 6
Lan
es0
.7D
ou
glas
20
35
Pen
a B
lvd
.Ja
ckso
n G
ap S
t. W
est
Ram
ps
DIA
Ter
min
alW
iden
fro
m 6
to
8 L
anes
1.7
Den
ver
20
35
Pen
a B
lvd
.To
wer
Rd
.A
dd
on
-ram
p t
o W
B P
ena
Den
ver
20
35
Pen
a B
lvd
.I-
70
E-4
70
Wid
en f
rom
4 t
o 8
Lan
es6
.4D
enve
r2
03
5P
eori
a St
.E-
47
0.7
5 m
iles
s/o
Lin
coln
Ave
.W
iden
fro
m 2
to
4 L
anes
1.9
Do
ugl
as2
03
5P
icad
illy
Rd
.4
8th
Ave
.5
6th
Ave
.W
iden
fro
m 2
to
6 la
nes
1.2
Ad
ams
20
35
Pic
adill
y R
d.
56
th A
ve.
70
th A
ve./
Au
rora
Cit
y Li
mit
sN
ew 6
Lan
es1
.7A
dam
s2
03
5P
icad
illy
Rd
.6
th A
ve.
Co
lfax
Ave
.W
iden
fro
m 2
to
6 L
anes
1.6
Ara
pah
oe
20
35
Pic
adill
y R
d.
70
th A
ve.
82
nd
Ave
.N
ew 6
Lan
es1
.5D
enve
r2
03
5P
icad
illy
Rd
.C
olf
ax A
ve.
I-7
0N
ew 6
Lan
es0
.3A
dam
s2
03
5P
icad
illy
Rd
.Je
wel
l Ave
.6
th P
kwy.
New
4 L
anes
2.7
Ara
pah
oe
20
35
Pic
adill
y R
d.
l-7
0Sm
ith
Rd
.W
iden
fro
m 2
to
6 L
anes
0.5
Ad
ams
20
35
Pic
adill
y R
d.
Smit
h R
d.
48
th A
ve.
Wid
en f
rom
2 t
o 6
Lan
es2
.2A
dam
s2
03
5Q
ueb
ec S
t.1
20
th A
ve.
12
8th
Ave
.W
iden
fro
m 2
to
4 L
anes
1.0
Ad
ams
20
35
Qu
ebec
St.
13
2n
d A
ve.
16
0th
Ave
.W
iden
fro
m 2
to
4 L
anes
3.S
Ad
ams
20
35
Qu
incy
Ave
.P
lain
s P
kwy.
/Co
pp
erle
af B
lvd
.G
un
Clu
b R
d.
Wid
en f
rom
2 t
o 6
Lan
es0
.6A
rap
aho
e
Ne
two
rk Y
ear
of
Imp
rove
me
nt
Tab
le 4
-1 (
Co
nti
nu
ed)
Pro
gram
med
Reg
ion
al H
igh
way
Imp
rove
men
ts
Chapter 4 • Traffic and Revenue Analysis
4-6 April 16, 2018
Faci
lity
Nam
eFr
om
ToIm
pro
vem
en
tLe
ngt
hC
ou
nti
es
20
35
Rid
gega
te P
kwy.
(M
ain
stre
et)
Hav
ana
St.
Lon
e Tr
ee E
. Cit
y Li
mit
Wid
en f
rom
2 t
o 4
Lan
es1
.8D
ou
glas
20
35
SH-2
72
nd
Ave
.I-
76
Wid
en f
rom
2 t
o 4
Lan
es7
.5A
dam
s2
03
5SH
-7B
ou
lder
Co
un
ty L
ine
Sher
idan
Pkw
y.W
iden
fro
m 2
to
4 L
anes
2.5
Bro
om
fiel
d2
03
5SH
-7Sh
erid
an P
kwy.
I-2
5W
iden
fro
m 2
to
6 L
anes
1.5
Bro
om
fiel
d2
03
5Sh
erd
an P
kwy.
NW
Pkw
y.SH
-7W
iden
fro
m 2
to
4 L
anes
1.3
Bro
om
fiel
d2
03
5Sh
erid
an B
lvd
.Lo
wel
l Blv
d.
NW
Pkw
y.W
iden
fro
m 2
to
4 L
anes
1.1
Bro
om
fiel
d2
03
5To
wer
Rd
.3
8th
/40
th A
ve.
Gre
en V
alle
y R
anch
Blv
d.
Wid
en f
rom
2/4
to
6 L
anes
1.0
Den
ver
20
35
Tow
er R
d.
48
th A
ve.
56
th A
ve.
Wid
en f
rom
4 t
o 6
Lan
es1
.0D
enve
r2
03
5To
wer
Rd
.5
6th
Ave
.P
ena
Blv
d.
Wid
en f
rom
4 t
o 6
Lan
es2
.4D
enve
r2
03
5To
wer
Rd
.6
th A
ve.
Co
lfax
Ave
.N
ew 2
Lan
es1
.0A
rap
aho
e2
03
5To
wer
Rd
.C
olf
ax A
ve.
Smit
h R
d.
Wid
en f
rom
2 t
o 6
Lan
es1
.0A
dam
s2
03
5To
wer
Rd
.P
ena
Blv
d.
10
4th
Ave
.W
iden
fro
m 2
to
4 L
anes
3.8
Ad
ams
20
35
Tow
er/B
uck
ley
Rd
.1
05
th A
ve.
11
8th
Ave
.N
ew 4
Lan
es2
.0A
dam
s2
03
5W
ash
ingt
on
St.
14
4th
Ave
.1
52
Ave
.W
iden
fro
m 2
to
4 L
anes
0.7
Ad
ams
20
35
Was
hin
gto
n S
t.1
52
nd
Ave
.1
60
Ave
.W
iden
fro
m 2
to
4 L
anes
1.4
Ad
ams
20
35
York
St.
16
0th
Ave
. (SH
-7)
16
8th
Ave
.W
iden
fro
m 2
to
4 L
anes
1.0
Ad
ams
20
35
York
St.
E-4
70
SH-7
Wid
en f
rom
2 t
o 4
Lan
es0
.7A
dam
s2
03
51
04
th A
ve.
Mar
ion
St.
Co
lora
do
Blv
d.
Wid
en f
rom
4 t
o 6
Lan
es1
.6A
dam
s2
03
51
04
th A
ve.
McK
ay R
oad
US-
85
Wid
en f
rom
2 t
o 4
Lan
es1
.9A
dam
s2
03
51
20
th A
ve.
E-4
70
Pic
adill
y R
d.
Wid
en f
rom
2 t
o 6
Lan
es2
.6A
dam
s2
03
51
20
th A
ve.
Sab
le B
lvd
.E-
47
0W
iden
fro
m 2
to
6 L
anes
2.0
Ad
ams
20
35
15
2n
d A
ve.
Was
hin
gto
n S
t.Yo
rk S
t.W
iden
fro
m 2
to
4 L
anes
1.2
Ad
ams
20
35
48
th A
ve.
Imb
od
en R
d.
Qu
ail R
un
Rd
.W
iden
fro
m 2
to
6 L
anes
1.0
Ad
ams
20
35
48
th A
ve.
Po
wh
ato
n R
d.
Mo
nag
han
Rd
.N
ew 6
Lan
es1
.0A
dam
s2
03
56
4th
Ave
.H
arve
st R
d.
Po
wh
ato
n R
d.
Wid
en f
rom
2 t
o 4
Lan
es1
.0A
dam
s2
03
56
th P
kwy.
SH-3
0E-
47
0W
iden
fro
m 2
to
6 L
anes
1.3
Ara
pah
oe
20
35
96
th A
ve.
SH-2
Tow
er R
oad
Wid
en f
rom
2 t
o 4
Lan
es5
.0A
dam
s2
03
59
6th
Ave
.To
wer
Rd
.P
icad
illy
Rd
.W
iden
fro
m 2
to
6 L
anes
2.0
Ad
ams
20
35
Ara
pah
oe
Rd
.H
imal
aya
Way
Live
rpo
ol S
t.W
iden
fro
m 4
to
6 la
nes
0.5
Ara
pah
oe
20
35
C-4
70
Bro
adw
ayI-
25
EB:
Ad
d 1
To
ll/M
anag
ed L
ane
6.6
Do
ugl
as2
03
5C
-47
0C
olo
rad
o B
lvd
.Lu
cen
t B
lvd
.W
B:
Ad
d 1
To
ll/M
anag
ed L
ane
3.7
Do
ugl
as2
03
5C
-47
0S.
Kip
ling
Pkw
y.W
adsw
ort
h B
lvd
.EB
: A
dd
1 T
oll/
Man
aged
Lan
e3
.0Je
ffer
son
20
35
C-4
70
Wad
swo
rth
Blv
d.
S. K
iplin
g P
kwy.
WB
: A
dd
1 T
oll/
Man
aged
Lan
e1
.4Je
ffer
son
20
35
Co
lora
do
Blv
d.
14
4th
Ave
.1
68
th A
ve.
Wid
en f
rom
0/2
to
4 L
anes
3.7
Ad
ams
20
35
E. B
rom
ley
Ln.
Hw
y 8
5Sa
ble
Blv
d.
Wid
en f
rom
4 t
o 6
Lan
es0
.5A
dam
s2
03
5E-
47
0I-
25
So
uth
Par
ker
Rd
.W
iden
fro
m 6
to
8 L
anes
5.5
Ara
pah
oe
20
35
E-4
70
I-2
5 N
ort
hI-
76
Wid
en f
rom
4 t
o 6
Lan
es1
1.0
Ad
ams
20
35
E-4
70
I-7
0P
ena
Blv
d.
Wid
en f
rom
4 t
o 6
Lan
es7
.4A
dam
s/D
enve
r
Ne
two
rk Y
ear
of
Imp
rove
me
nt
Tab
le 4
-1 (
Co
nti
nu
ed)
Pro
gram
med
Reg
ion
al H
igh
way
Imp
rove
men
ts
Chapter 4 • Traffic and Revenue Analysis
4-7 April 16, 2018
Faci
lity
Nam
eFr
om
ToIm
pro
vem
en
tLe
ngt
hC
ou
nti
es
20
35
E-4
70
Pen
a B
lvd
.I-
76
Wid
en f
rom
4 t
o 6
an
es7
.6A
dam
s/D
enve
r2
03
5E-
47
0Q
uin
cy A
ve.
I-7
0W
iden
fro
m 4
to
6 L
anes
7.0
Ara
pah
oe
20
35
E-4
70
Par
ker
Rd
.Q
uin
cy A
ve.
Wid
en f
rom
6 t
o 8
lan
es8
.1A
rap
aho
e/D
ou
glas
20
35
Gu
n C
lub
Rd
.Ya
le A
ve.
Mis
siss
ipp
i Ave
.W
iden
fro
m 2
/4 t
o 6
Lan
es2
.1A
rap
aho
e2
03
5H
amp
den
Ave
./H
avan
a St
. (SH
- Fl
ore
nce
St.
s/o
Yal
e A
ve.
Wid
en f
rom
5 t
o 6
Lan
es1
.4D
enve
r2
03
5H
arve
st R
d.
56
th A
ve.
64
th A
ve.
Wid
en f
rom
3 t
o 6
Lan
es1
.0A
dam
s2
03
5H
arve
st R
d.
Jew
ell A
ve.
Mis
siss
ipp
i Ave
.W
iden
fro
m 2
to
6 la
nes
1.0
Ara
pah
oe
20
35
I-2
25
I-2
5Yo
sem
ite
St.
Inte
rch
ange
Cap
acit
yD
enve
r2
03
5I-
70
E-4
70
Inte
rch
ange
Cap
acit
yA
dam
s/A
rap
aho
e2
03
5Im
bo
den
Rd
.4
8th
Ave
.5
6th
Ave
.W
iden
fro
m 2
to
6 L
anes
1.0
Ad
ams
20
35
Lin
coln
Ave
.1
st S
t.K
eyst
on
e B
lvd
.W
iden
fro
m 4
to
6 L
anes
1.8
Do
ugl
as2
03
5M
ain
Str
eet
Lon
e Tr
ee E
. Cit
y Li
mit
Ch
amb
ers
Rd
.W
iden
fro
m 2
to
4 la
nes
0.9
Do
ugl
as2
03
5M
on
agh
an R
d.
Qu
incy
Ave
.Ya
le A
ve.
New
6 L
anes
2.0
Ara
pah
oe
20
35
Par
ker
Rd
. (SH
-83
)Q
uin
cy A
ve.
Ham
pd
en A
ve.
Wid
en f
rom
6 t
o 8
Lan
es1
.0A
rap
aho
e2
03
5P
eori
a St
..7
5 m
iles
s/o
Lin
coln
Ave
.M
ain
Str
eet
Wid
en f
rom
2 t
o 4
Lan
es0
.5D
ou
glas
20
35
Pic
adill
y R
d.
82
nd
Ave
.9
6th
Ave
.N
ew 6
Lan
es1
.8A
dam
s2
03
5P
icad
illy
Rd
.9
6th
Ave
.1
20
th A
ve.
New
6 L
anes
3.0
Ad
ams
20
35
Po
wh
ato
n R
d.
Smo
ky H
ill R
d.
Co
un
ty L
ine
Rd
.W
iden
fro
m 2
to
6 L
anes
1.0
Ara
pah
oe
20
35
Qu
ail R
un
Rd
.I-
70
48
th A
ve.
New
6 L
anes
3.0
Ad
ams
20
35
Qu
incy
Ave
.H
ayes
mo
un
t R
d.
Wat
kin
s R
d.
Wid
en f
rom
2 t
o 6
Lan
es2
.0A
rap
aho
e2
03
5Q
uin
cy A
ve.
Mo
nag
han
Rd
.H
ayes
mo
un
t R
d.
Wid
en f
rom
2 t
o 6
Lan
es1
.1A
rap
aho
e2
03
5SH
-7R
iver
dal
e R
d.
US-
85
Wid
en f
rom
2 t
o 4
Lan
es1
.1A
dam
s2
03
5SH
-71
64
th A
ve.
Dah
lia S
t.W
iden
fro
m 2
to
4 L
anes
2.2
Ad
ams
20
35
Smo
ky H
ill R
d.
Ph
easa
nt
Ru
n P
kwy.
Ver
saill
es P
kwy.
Wid
en f
rom
4 t
o 6
Lan
es4
.4A
rap
aho
e2
03
5To
wer
Rd
.6
th A
ve.
Co
lfax
Ave
.W
iden
fro
m 2
to
6 L
anes
1.0
Ara
pah
oe
20
35
Tow
er R
d.
Pen
a B
lvd
.1
04
th A
ve.
Wid
en f
rom
4 t
o 6
Lan
es3
.8A
dam
s2
03
5W
atki
ns
Rd
.Q
uin
cy A
ve.
I-7
0W
iden
fro
m 2
to
6 L
anes
7.1
Ara
pah
oe
20
35
Yale
Ave
.M
on
agh
an R
d.
Hay
esm
ou
nt
Rd
.W
iden
fro
m 2
to
6 L
anes
1.1
Ara
pah
oe
20
35
York
St.
15
2n
d A
ve.
E-4
70
Wid
en f
rom
2 t
o 4
Lan
es0
.2A
dam
s
Ne
two
rk Y
ear
of
Imp
rove
me
nt
Tab
le 4
-1 (
Co
nti
nu
ed)
Pro
gram
med
Reg
ion
al H
igh
way
Imp
rove
men
ts
Chapter 4 • Traffic and Revenue Analysis
4-8 April 16, 2018
In addition to the RTP project listing, the Northwest Parkway Extension was included in the highway
network based on the project’s proximity to the study corridor. The assumed configuration was based
on the latest project information provided by the Northwest Parkway Toll Authority. The Northwest
Parkway Extension will be a two-lane limited-access facility constructed between 96th Street and SH
128. Access to US 36 from 96th Street and Flatiron Crossing Drive will be provided via free local
frontage roadways. Additional interchanges will be constructed at 96th Street, Interlocken Boulevard
and El Dorado Boulevard. Local access to Flatiron Boulevard and Environmental Way will be retained.
Due to the relative importance of the project, traffic assignments with and without the proposed
Northwest Parkway Extension were conducted in order to estimate the potential traffic and revenue
impact to the Jefferson Parkway.
Vehicle Operating Costs Past studies by CDM Smith have shown that drivers perceive primarily the fuel cost in decisions
regarding trip path, but also give some consideration to other usage-related costs, such maintenance,
oil, and tires at a discounted level. Factors such as depreciation and insurance are not included in the
operating cost estimate. A vehicle operating cost of
$0.161 per mile for passenger cars in 2016 was
assumed. The 2016 vehicle operating cost was
then inflated for future years at an annual rate of
2.3 percent. These inflation rates were based on an
analysis of regional historical CPI data. Operating
costs for trucks were assumed at 3 times those of
passenger cars. The estimated vehicle operating
costs used in this study are shown in Table 4-2.
Values of Time Motorists’ perception of their Value of Time (VOT) is another key component of the decision to use a
toll facility or an alternative route. People attach different values to their time depending on the
purpose of their trip. For the toll diversion analysis, where the relative advantage of driving on the
Jefferson Parkway toll road is weighed against taking a local route or an alternate route on a major
highway, values of time were developed by TAZ under prior analyses. For the current study effort, the
TAZ-level VOTs were adjusted on an aggregate level based on updated regional VOTs. These updated
regional VOTs were developed based on household income data from the U.S. Census and trip
purposes included in the Denver Regional Council of Governments (DRCOG) model.
The updated VOTs for the model area averaged
$0.29 per mile, varying by time of day, method of
payment and vehicle class. The resulting average
model area VOTs are provided in Table 4-3. The
2016 average VOTs were inflated by 2.3 percent per
year based on the regional ten-year historical
average CPI inflation rates. This is a conservative
assumption since it does not assume any increases
in VOT due to real income growth. The value of
time for commercial vehicle trips was assumed to
be 3.0 times the value for passenger cars.
Estimated Vehicle Operating Costs
Model Year Passenger Car Truck
2016 0.161$ 0.480$
2022 0.176 0.526
2035 0.237 0.707
2040 0.266 0.792
Table 4-2
Estimated Vehicle Operating Costs
Table 4-3
Estimated Average Values of Time
Value of Time
Model Year Per Minute Per Hour
2016 0.290$ 17.40$
2022 0.318 19.06
2035 0.427 25.61
2040 0.478 28.70
Chapter 4 • Traffic and Revenue Analysis
4-9 April 16, 2018
Model Calibration Following the development of trip tables based on the revised socioeconomic and highway
improvement inputs, as well as the adjustments previously described, traffic assignments at 2016
levels were run. These assignments served as starting point for the model calibration process, which
included a comparison of network speeds, non-toll road volumes and volumes within the Jefferson
Parkway corridor against available actual traffic counts from CDOT. As calibration progressed,
additional minor adjustments and corrections to the model inputs were made in an attempt to obtain
a better fit between the actual 2016 AWDT volumes and the assigned volumes. These adjustments
included the correction of highway network errors, minor capacity or input speed changes, and
adjustments to specific movements within the trip tables. These adjustments were based upon
observed count and speed data, as well as professional judgment based on experience with traffic
modeling in the Denver region.
Traffic Diversion Analysis Following calibration of the model, future trip tables incorporating the calibration adjustments were
developed at 2022, 2035 and 2040 levels and traffic assignments were run for those years. The traffic
assignments were generated using CDM Smith’s proprietary diversion assignment technique. This
process involves comparing travel times and distances for each movement using the Jefferson
Parkway (if appropriate) with the best available toll-free alternate route. The traffic estimated to use
Jefferson Parkway is a function of travel time and distance savings, the assumed monetary value of
these savings, and the toll rate being tested in any given assignment. In general, as the total cost to use
the Jefferson Parkway increases, the traffic on it decreases. Based on this methodology, a series of
traffic assignments were run incorporating the modeling adjustments and input assumptions
previously described. The results of these traffic assignments served as the basis for the toll
sensitivity analysis, as well as the development of the future year transaction and revenue forecasts.
Project Configuration and Toll Locations Two project configurations were run as part of this analysis: an Initial Build and an Ultimate Build
scenario. The two project configurations are shown in Figure 4-1.
The Initial Build assumes the construction of the four-lane Jefferson Parkway between SH 128 and SH
93. A full interchange is assumed at SH 72 / Coal Creek, with toll gantries on the ramps to and from
the south. Partial interchanges are assumed at Candelas Parkway and Indiana Street. A mainline toll
location is assumed between Candelas Parkway and Indiana Street.
The Ultimate Build assumes the same alignment as the Initial Build and includes full interchanges at
Candelas Parkway and a future realignment of Simms Street. Additional toll locations are assumed at
these interchanges as well. Both termini at SH 128 and SH 93 are assumed to be developed as full
interchanges as opposed to arterial intersections. As with the Initial Build, a mainline toll location is
assumed between Candelas Parkway and Indiana Street.
Toll Rate Sensitivity An analysis of hypothetical toll rate sensitivity was conducted to provide an indication of the traffic
and revenue potential at various toll rate levels of the proposed Jefferson Parkway. Toll sensitivity
traffic assignments were run at 2022 and 2040 levels. The resulting toll sensitivity curves are
presented for all vehicles an average weekday in Figure 4-2.
Chapter 4 • Traffic and Revenue Analysis
4-10 April 16, 2018
Figu
re 4
-1
Pro
po
sed
Jef
fers
on
Par
kway
Co
nfi
gura
tio
n a
nd
To
llin
g Lo
cati
on
s
Chapter 4 • Traffic and Revenue Analysis
4-11 April 16, 2018
Figu
re 4
-2
Esti
mat
ed T
oll
Sen
siti
vity
Cu
rves
Chapter 4 • Traffic and Revenue Analysis
4-12 April 16, 2018
In theory, the absolute optimum toll rate would be that which produces the maximum revenue.
However, CDM Smith recommends a rate which is below the maximum point on the curve. This will
allow for some latitude in the rate structure adjustments in the future. Also, the forecasting process
itself is based on a range of assumptions, such as estimates of values of time and perceived operating
costs, etc. While the technical approach and assumptions are reasonable, selecting a toll rate below
the maximum point on the curve helps to mitigate the potential uncertainty inherent in any forecast.
The toll sensitivity analysis shows an estimated maximum toll rate in 2022 of $3.60 for ExpressToll
customers and $5.40 for LPT. A preferred toll rate of $2.65 for ExpressToll customers and $3.95 for
LPT was selected for 2022 following discussion with the Jefferson Parkway Public Highway Authority
(JPPHA) staff. By 2040, an estimated maximum toll rate of $5.25 is estimated for ExpressToll
customers and $7.85 for LPT. A preferred toll rate of $4.00 for ExpressToll customers and $6.00 for
LPT was selected for 2040. The toll rate presented is below the estimated revenue maximizing point
on the curve. Proportionally higher toll rates would be levied for commercial vehicles.
Toll Structure Following a review of the toll rate sensitivity results, the preferred toll rates for the Jefferson Parkway
were selected in coordination with the JPPHA staff. These toll rates are presented for 2022, 2035 and
2040 in Table 4-4. In the opening year of 2022, the toll rate at the mainline toll location was assumed
to be $2.65 for 2-axle ExpressToll customers, representing a cost of $0.288 per-mile for a 9.2-mile full-
length trip on the Jefferson Parkway. By comparison, the current tolls on E-470 and Northwest
Parkway represent per-mile toll rates of $0.31 per mile and $0.41 per mile, respectively. This
represents a nominal toll cost and per-mile rate comparable to other Denver toll facilities. At ramp
toll locations, the toll rate in 2022 was assumed to be $1.10 for ExpressToll customers. LPT customers
were assumed to pay a 50 percent surcharge to cover the additional costs of processing LPT
transactions and to cover potential video toll revenue leakage. Commercial vehicles were assumed to
pay by the axle based on an “N-1” system. Higher tolls may be selected based on agreement between
the JPPHA and Concessionaires.
Toll rates were escalated by 2.3 percent annually, in line with inflation assumptions. This produced a
mainline toll rate of $3.55 in 2035 and $4.00 in 2040. The resulting per-mile toll rate in 2035 and
2040, respectively, were $0.386 and $0.435per mile. Ramp toll locations were assumed to increase to
$1.50 in 2035 and to $1.70 in 2040.
Table 4-4Jefferson Parkway Passenger Car Toll Rate Assumptions
Passenger Car Toll Rates
2022 2035 2040
Location ExpressToll LPT ExpressToll LPT ExpressToll LPT
Simms St. Toll T/F North 1.10$ 1.70$ 1.50$ 2.30$ 1.70$ 2.60$
Toll Gantry Mainline 2.65 3.95 3.55 5.35 4.00 6.00
Candellas Pkwy. Toll T/F South 1.10 1.70 1.50 2.30 1.70 2.60
Coal Creek Canyon Rd. Toll T/F South 1.10 1.70 1.50 2.30 1.70 2.60
(1) Toll increases are assumed to be implemented on January 1.
T/F = to/from
Toll Type
Chapter 4 • Traffic and Revenue Analysis
4-13 April 16, 2018
Table 4-5 compares the proposed Jefferson Parkway toll rates against other toll roads in Denver and
around the United States. For comparison purposes, only toll roads less than 50 miles were
considered. The toll rates provided in the table are current as of January 24, 2018 and are reported
for the "most common" peak period rate for full-length through trips. Discount rates based on special
program membership or frequent use have not been included. The agencies are ordered based on the
per-mile electronic toll collection (ETC) toll rate. The proposed 2022 toll rates for the Jefferson
Parkway are shaded blue, while the 2018 toll rates for other Colorado tolling agencies are shown in
bold.
As shown in the table, average per-mile ETC toll rates for toll roads 50 miles or less range from $0.04
per mile (Florida Department of Transportation and New Hampshire Department of Transportation)
to $1.00 per mile (Adams Avenue Parkway, Inc.) and vary by region based on local traffic congestion
and regional income levels. The average per-mile ETC toll rate for the listed toll agencies is $0.16 per
mile. This puts the proposed 2022 Jefferson Parkway ETC per-mile toll rates slightly above the
current national average. However, as shown in the table, per-mile toll rates for Colorado tolling
agencies are above the national average, with $0.31 per mile being charged on E-470 and $0.41 per
mile being charged on the Northwest Parkway. This puts the proposed Jefferson Parkway per-mile
toll rates for 2022 below those of the other Colorado tolling agencies in the current year.
Table 4-5 Toll Rate Comparison of Selected Toll Road Agencies
State Agency Facility General LocationAgency
Type
Year Tolling
Began (Roads
& MLs)
Last Toll
Change
Total
Miles
Average
Electronic
PC Toll
Average
Cash PC
Toll
Average
Video PC
Toll
Per Mile
Electronic
PC Toll
UT Adams Avenue Parkway, Inc Adams Avenue Parkway Salt Lake City Private 2001 37069 1 $1.00 $1.00 $1.00
IL Skyway Concession Company Chicago Skyway Chicago Private 1958 43101 7.8 $5.20 $5.20 $0.67
TX Montgomery County Toll Road Authority SH 242 Direct Connector Houston Public 2015 42191 0.8 $0.50 $0.63
VA City of Chesapeake Chesapeake Expressway Chesapeake Public 2001 42511 16 $8.00 $8.00 $0.50
VA DBi Services Pocahontas Parkway Richmond Private 2002 43103 8.8 $4.30 $4.30 $0.49
CA Transportation Corridor Agencies San Joaquin Hills Toll Road Los Angeles Public 1996 42917 15 $7.08 $7.76 $0.47
CO Northwest Parkway, LLC Northwest Parkway Denver Private 2003 43101 9.5 $3.90 $4.50 $0.41
VA Toll Road Investors Partnership II Dulles Greenway Washington DC Suburbs Private 1995 42796 14 $5.50 $5.50 $0.39
DE Delaware Department of Transportation Delaware Turnpike - JFK Memorial Highway Newark to Wilmington Public 1963 39356 11 $4.00 $4.00 $0.36
CA Transportation Corridor Agencies Foothill Toll Road Los Angeles Public 1993 42917 12 $4.21 $6.21 $0.35
CO E-470 Public Highway Authority E-470 Denver Public 1991 43101 46.67 $14.25 $21.80 $0.31
TX Central Texas Regional Mobility Authority Various Expressways Austin Public 2007 to 2017 43108 19.1 $2.22 $2.96 $0.30
CA Transportation Corridor Agencies Eastern Toll Road Los Angeles Public 1998 42917 24 $7.06 $10.06 $0.29
CO Jefferson Parkway Public Highway Authority Jefferson Parkway Denver Public 9.2 $2.65 $3.95 $0.29
VA City of Chesapeake Dominion Boulevard Chesapeake Public 2017 42917 3.8 $1.05 $3.05 $0.28
CA San Diego Association of Governments South Bay Expressway (SR 125) San Diego Public 2007 41090 10 $2.75 $3.50 $5.50 $0.28
VA Metropolitan Washington Airports Authority Dulles Toll Road Washington DC Suburbs Public 1984 41640 13.4 $3.50 $3.50 $0.26
FL Osceola County Expressway Authority Poinciana Parkway Orlando Public 2016 42766 9.7 $2.50 $2.90 $0.26
FL Orchard Pond Greenway, LLC Orchard Pond Parkway Tallahassee Private 2016 42492 5.2 $1.19 $1.69 $0.23
MD Maryland Transportation Authority Inter County Connector Washington DC Public 2011 42186 17.5 $3.86 $5.78 $0.22
TX Harris County Toll Road Authority Various Expressways Houston Public 1987 to 2015 42569 41.4 $2.74 $1.75 $0.22
NC North Carolina Turnpike Authority Triangle Expressway Raleigh Public 2012 43101 18.5 $3.90 $6.00 $0.21
TX Fort Bend County Toll Road Authority Various Expressways Houston Public 2004 to 2014 43046 30 $2.11 $0.00 $0.21
VA Richmond Metropolitan Transportation Authority Downtown Expressway (SR 195) Richmond Public 1976 39699 3.4 $0.70 $0.70 $0.21
VA Richmond Metropolitan Transportation Authority Powhite Parkway Richmond Public 1973 39699 3.4 $0.70 $0.70 $0.21
IL Illinois State Toll Highway Authority IL 390 Chicago Suburbs Public 2016 43101 9.8 $1.90 $3.80 $0.19
FL Tampa-Hillsborough County Expressway Authority Lee Roy Selmon Crosstown Expressway Tampa Public 1976 42917 15 $2.90 $3.40 $0.19
TX Cameron County Regional Mobility Authority SH 550 Brownsville Public 2011 42189 7.9 $1.50 $2.01 $0.19
SC Connector 2000 Association Southern Connector Greenville Private 2001 42371 16 $3.00 $3.50 $0.19
TX North East Texas Regional Mobility Authority Toll 49 Tyler Public 2006 42736 26 $4.80 $6.39 $0.18
TX North Texas Tollway Authority Various Expressways Dallas / Fort Worth Public 1968 to 2009 42917 132.7 $5.46 $8.20 $0.18
TX Texas Department of Transportation Various Expressways Austin / Houston Public 1968 to 2009 43101 130.5 $8.43 $7.20 $0.18
TX SH 130 Concession Company, LLC SH-130 Extension Austin Private 2007 to 2011 42319 41 $7.39 $9.83 $0.18
FL Miami-Dade Expressway Authority Various Expressways Miami Public 1961 to 2010 41958 32.7 $1.52 $3.05 $0.17
FL Osceola County Osceola Parkway Orlando Public 1995 41918 12.4 $2.00 $2.00 $0.16
MA Massachusetts Department of Transportation Boston Extension Boston Public 1964 42671 12 $1.70 $3.55 $0.14
FL Central Florida Expressway Authority Various Expressways Orlando Public 1967 to 2017 42943 114.4 $3.15 $3.55 $4.21 $0.14
PA Pennsylvania Turnpike Commission Various Expressways Various Public 1991 to 2006 43107 84.9 $4.29 $7.28 $4.15 $0.13
IL Illinois State Toll Highway Authority Veterans Memorial Tollway Chicago Suburbs Public 1989 43101 29.8 $3.80 $7.60 $0.13
SC South Carolina Department of Transportation Cross Island Parkway Hilton Head Public 1998 39537 6.8 $0.75 $1.25 $0.11
FL Florida Turnpike Enterprise Various Expressways Various Public 1973 to 2016 43037 184.1 $2.76 $3.26 $4.42 $0.10
FL Mid-Bay Bridge Authority Walter Francis Spence Parkway Panhandle Public 2014 42278 15 $1.50 $2.00 $0.10
FL Florida Department of Transportation Sawgrass Expressway Fort Lauderdale Public 1986 43037 23 $2.14 $2.68 $0.09
NJ South Jersey Transportation Authority Atlantic City Expressway Philadelphia to Atlantic City Public 1964 40316 44 $3.75 $3.75 $0.09
OK Oklahoma Turnpike Authority Various Expressways Various Public 1969 to 1992 43101 162.9 $2.74 $2.95 $0.08
VA Virginia Department of Transportation Powhite Parkway Extension Richmond Public 1988 36342 10 $0.75 $0.75 $0.08
NY New York State Thruway Authority Niagara Thruway Buffalo Public 1959 39817 14 $0.95 $1.00 $0.07
MD Maryland Transportation Authority John F. Kennedy Memorial Highway Northeastern Maryland Public 1963 42186 50 $3.00 $4.00 $6.00 $0.06
NY New York State Thruway Authority New England Thruway New York City Public 1958 39817 15 $0.83 $0.88 $0.06
FL Florida Department of Transportation Pinellas Bayway System Tampa Public 1962 43037 15.2 $0.67 $1.38 $0.04
NH New Hampshire Department of Transportation Various Expressways Various Public 1950 to 1956 39995 88.9 $1.27 $1.81 $0.04
Chapter 4 • Traffic and Revenue Analysis
4-14 April 16, 2018
Basic Study Assumptions Traffic and toll revenue estimates for the Jefferson Parkway are predicated upon the following
assumptions, which are considered reasonable:
1. The Jefferson Parkway will be constructed under the assumed configuration(s) as a four-lane
limited-access facility with a posted speed limit of 65 MPH and will be well-maintained and
effectively signed.
2. Improvements to the present highway and local road system in the travel corridor will be
limited to those described in this report. No other competing facilities, or capacity expansions,
will occur in the forecast period.
3. Vehicle operating costs (VOC) and values of time (VOT) will occur as assumed in this chapter.
4 The share of commercial vehicles for the Denver region and using the Jefferson Parkway will
generally occur as previously described in this chapter.
5. The Jefferson Parkway will operate as an all-electronic toll facility, with both ExpressToll and
LPT will be employed. The percentage share of ExpressToll and LPT customers will occur as
previously described in this chapter.
6. The toll collection concept and toll schedules for the Jefferson Parkway will be implemented as
shown in this report.
7. Revenue leakage due to unreadable plates or uncollectable ExpressToll or LPT transactions will
happen and will occur at the rates described in this chapter.
8. The phenomenon of “ramp-up” will occur, and will have the effect of reducing annual
transactions and toll revenues by 15, 10 and 5 percent in 2022, 2023 and 2024, respectively.
9. The comparative relationship between average weekday and average daily transactions will
occur such that a full year will be generally equivalent to 323 weekdays for ExpressToll
transactions and 328 for LPT transactions.
10. Inflation will average 2.3 percent during the study period, in line with prior historical trends.
11. Regional and corridor growth will be generally as forecast by DRCOG as reviewed and refined
for use in this study, as discussed in Chapter 3.
12. No major recession or significant economic restructuring will occur which would substantially
reduce traffic in the region.
13. Over the long-term, motor fuel will remain in adequate supply, and future increases in fuel price
will not significantly exceed the overall rate of inflation.
14. No natural disasters will occur that could significantly alter travel patterns through the area.
15. No local, regional, or national emergency will arise that would abnormally restrict the use of
motor vehicles.
Chapter 4 • Traffic and Revenue Analysis
4-15 April 16, 2018
Any significant departure from these basic assumptions could materially affect estimated traffic and
toll revenue for the Jefferson Parkway.
Estimated Base Case Traffic and Revenue Following the year 2016 calibration process, future-year average weekday traffic assignments were
run for years 2022, 2035 and 2040. The preferred toll rates identified as part of the toll sensitivity
analysis were assumed, with toll rates increasing annually at the assumed 2.3 percent per year rate of
inflation. Values of time were also assumed to increase at the 2.3 percent per year rate of inflation.
Four “Base Case” scenarios were modeled as part of this study effort. These scenarios considered
different interchange configurations and highway improvement assumptions. The scenarios are:
▪ Scenario 1: Jefferson Parkway - Initial Build without the Northwest Parkway Extension;
▪ Scenario 2: Jefferson Parkway - Initial Build with the Northwest Parkway Extension;
▪ Scenario 3: Jefferson Parkway – Ultimate Build without the Northwest Parkway Extension; and
▪ Scenario 4: Jefferson Parkway - Ultimate Build with the Northwest Parkway Extension.
The interchange and tolling configurations assumed for these scenarios were previously depicted in
Figure 4-1. Scenarios 1 and 2 assumed the Initial Build configuration, while Scenarios 3 and 4
assumed the Ultimate Build configuration. Scenarios 2 and 4 assume the construction of the
Northwest Parkway Extension.
Estimated Average Weekday Traffic Volumes Estimated AWDT volumes for each of the Jefferson Parkway mainline segments are provided by
scenario in Figures 4-3 and Figure 4-4. AWDT estimates are shown for model years 2022, 2035 and
2040. All volumes are shown in thousands.
Under Scenario 1, which assumes the Initial Build configuration without the Northwest Parkway
Extension, mainline volumes range from 10,400 to 15,100 vehicles per average weekday in 2022 and
from 17,400 to 23,500 vehicles per average weekday in 2040. As shown in Figure 4-3, The greatest
traffic volumes are located at the proposed mainline toll gantry north of Candelas Parkway. This is
likely due to the lack of competing roadways in this section of the proposed Jefferson Parkway
alignment. Estimated 2022 volumes are 15,100 vehicles for the average weekday under Scenario 1,
increasing to 23,500 vehicles per average weekday by 2040. This represents an average annual
increase of 2.5 percent per year between 2022 and 2040, consistent with historical traffic growth
trends on other Denver toll facilities. At the proposed SH 72 toll ramps, average weekday traffic
volumes are estimated to increase from 2,500 vehicles in 2022 to 2,900 vehicles in 2040.
Average weekday volumes are estimated to be greater at all mainline locations under Scenario 2, as a
result of the additional traffic feeding into the project from the assumed Northwest Parkway
Extension. This is demonstrated by the fact that the estimated mainline volumes differ most between
Scenarios 1 and 2 closest to the proposed Northwest Parkway Extension. As illustrated in Figure 4-3,
Mainline volumes range from 14,500 to 18,400 vehicles per average weekday in 2022 and from
23,200 to 29,800 vehicles per average weekday in 2040. This is a difference over Scenario 1 of
between 1,000 and 5,400 vehicles per average weekday in 2022 and 2,900 to 8,700 vehicles in 2040.
At the mainline toll location, estimated weekday traffic volumes in 2022 are 18,400 under Scenario 2,
a 21.9 percent or 3,300-vehicle increase over Scenario 1 as a result of the assumed Northwest
Chapter 4 • Traffic and Revenue Analysis
4-16 April 16, 2018
Figu
re 4
-3
Esti
mat
ed A
vera
ge W
eekd
ay M
ain
line
Traf
fic
Vo
lum
es
Sce
nar
ios
1 a
nd
2 –
Init
ial B
uild
Chapter 4 • Traffic and Revenue Analysis
4-17 April 16, 2018
Figu
re 4
-4
Esti
mat
ed A
vera
ge W
eekd
ay M
ain
line
Traf
fic
Vo
lum
es
Sce
nar
ios
3 a
nd
4 –
Ult
imat
e B
uild
Chapter 4 • Traffic and Revenue Analysis
4-18 April 16, 2018
Parkway Extension. Estimated weekday traffic volumes at the mainline toll location under Scenario 2
increase to 29,800 by 2040, representing an average annual increase of 2.7 percent. Average weekday
volumes at the mainline toll location are estimated to be 26.8 percent greater in 2040 under Scenario
2 as a result of the assumed Northwest Parkway Extension, or 6,300 vehicles per weekday. In contrast
to the differences at the mainline locations, volumes are estimated to be lower at the proposed SH 72
toll ramps, with 1,800 vehicles per average weekday estimated in 2022 and 2,000 vehicles estimated
in 2040. As evidenced by the similar mainline volumes south of SH 72, the lower ramp volumes are
the result of an estimated shift of vehicles from competing routes to the Jefferson Parkway mainline as
a result of the time savings offered by the Northwest Parkway Extension.
Figure 4-4 (previously shown) illustrates the estimated average weekday volumes for the Jefferson
Parkway for the Ultimate Build scenarios. Under Scenario 3, which does not assume the Northwest
Parkway Extension, mainline volumes range from 10,200 to 14,800 vehicles per average weekday in
2022 and from 17,300 to 23,100 vehicles per average weekday in 2040. This is slightly lower than
under Scenario 1, since the additional interchange locations allow motorists to reduce their total trip
length on the Jefferson Parkway. As with the Initial Build scenarios, the greatest traffic volumes are
located at the proposed mainline toll gantry north of Candelas Parkway. Estimated 2022 volumes are
14,800 vehicles for the average weekday under Scenario 3, increasing to 23,100 vehicles per average
weekday by 2040. This represents an average annual increase of 2.5 percent per year between 2022
and 2040, comparable to that of Scenario 1. Average weekday volumes at the proposed Simms Street,
Candelas Parkway and SH 72 toll ramps are estimated to be 2,200 vehicles, 500 vehicles and 2,100
vehicles in 2022, respectively. Those volumes are estimated to increase to 3,800 vehicles, 900
vehicles and 2,800 vehicles per average weekday by 2040
As a result of the additional traffic carried by the assumed Northwest Parkway Extension, mainline
volumes under Scenario 4 are estimated to increase over those of Scenario 3. As shown in Figure 4-4
(previously shown), estimated mainline volumes range from 14,500 to 18,800 vehicles per average
weekday in 2022 and from 23,200 to 31,600 vehicles per average weekday in 2040. In 2022,
estimated weekday traffic volumes at the mainline toll location are 18,400 under Scenario 4, a 24.3
percent or 3,600-vehicle increase over Scenario 3 as a result of the assumed Northwest Parkway
Extension. Estimated weekday traffic volumes at the mainline toll location increase to 29,500 by 2040
under Scenario 4, representing an average annual increase of 2.7 percent. This represents an
estimated 6,400 more vehicles per average weekday than under Scenario 2, or 27.7 percent, as a
result of the assumed Northwest Parkway Extension. These differences are consistent with those
estimated between Scenarios 1 and 2, indicating that the impacts of the Northwest Parkway Extension
are similar under both the Initial and Ultimate Build configurations. Additionally, the estimated traffic
growth at the mainline toll gantry are similar across all four Base Case scenarios.
Scenario 4 is the only one of the Base Case scenarios where the estimated volume south of the
assumed Northwest Parkway Extension exceed those of at the proposed mainline toll gantry.
Moreover, the volumes at the proposed Simms Street toll ramps are the only toll ramp volumes to
increase as a result of the Northwest Parkway Extension. This is because traffic entering the project
from the assumed Northwest Parkway Extension uses the Simms Street to avoid the mainline toll
location and/or to access local destinations. Average weekday volumes at the proposed Simms Street,
Candelas Parkway and SH 72 toll ramps under Scenario 4 are estimated to be 3,000 vehicles, 400
vehicles and 1,700 vehicles in 2022, respectively. Those volumes are estimated to increase to 6,000
vehicles, 800 vehicles and 1,900 vehicles per average weekday by 2040.
Chapter 4 • Traffic and Revenue Analysis
4-19 April 16, 2018
Estimated Weekday and Annual Transactions and Revenue Although previously discussed on a total basis, average weekday volumes were estimated for the
project by method of payment and vehicle class. The volumes at each toll location were multiplied by
the assumed toll rates (previously shown in Table 4-4) to develop estimates of average weekday
transactions and gross toll revenue. These estimates are summarized for the Initial Build scenarios in
Table 4-6 and for the Ultimate Build Scenarios is Table 4-7.
In order to reflect the relationship between an average weekday and the annual total, the average
weekday transaction estimates were factored using an annualization factor. This was done by method
of payment in order to recognize the differences in trip frequency between ExpressToll and LPT
customers. Based on actual 2016 data provided by other Denver toll facilities and adjusted for the
impacts of the leap year, annualization factors of 316.6 and 344.0 were calculated for ExpressToll and
LPT transactions, respectively. Annualization factors were also similarly calculated for toll revenue,
recognizing the different mix of vehicle types between weekday and weekend traffic.
Based on the annualized transaction and revenue estimates, and adjustments for leap years, an annual
transaction and gross toll revenue streams were developed for each scenario through 2061. In order
to estimate net toll revenues, adjustments for uncollectible and unpaid revenue were developed based
on the leakage experience of other Denver toll facilities. These adjustments account for non-revenue
vehicles, unbillable license plate toll images and unpaid license plate toll transactions. Based on
historical reductions in leakage rates for the other Denver toll facilities since 2009, CDM Smith
assumed the 2022 leakage rates would be reduced slightly over the forecast period as toll collection
technology and enforcement improve. In 2022, total revenue leakage was estimated to be 31.3
percent of gross LPT revenues, or just over 10 percent of total gross revenues. This was estimated to
decrease to 28.0 percent of gross LPT revenues, or just under 9 percent of total gross revenues, by
2035 as a result of improvements in technology and collections. After 2035, assumed leakage rates
were held constant as a conservative assumption.
Lastly, the annual transactions and toll revenue forecasts were adjusted downward to reflect “ramp-
up” during the first three years of operation. Ramp-up is the phenomena whereby toll facility traffic is
less than would be expected during the first few years of operation as motorists become familiar with
the new toll facility and “test the waters” regarding its usage. Based on experience with other
“greenfield” toll facilities, the estimated annual transactions and toll revenues for the Jefferson
Parkway assumed ramp-up reductions of 15 percent, 10 percent and 5 percent in 2022, 2023 and
2024, respectively.
The resulting annual estimates of transactions and toll revenue for the four Base Case scenarios are
provided in Tables 4-8 through 4-11. The transaction and revenue estimates are provided by
method of payment.
Scenario 1: Initial Build without the Northwest Parkway Extension
Under Scenario 1, 3.6 million ExpressToll transactions are estimated in the assumed opening year of
2022 and 1.2 million LPT transactions. As shown in Table 4-8, total annual transactions are
estimated at 4.8 million, which includes the estimated impacts of ramp-up. These transactions are
estimated to generate ExpressToll and LPT gross toll revenues of $9.4 million and $4.7 million,
respectively. Thus, ExpressToll transactions are estimated to represent 74.5 percent of total
Chapter 4 • Traffic and Revenue Analysis
4-20 April 16, 2018
SCEN
AR
IO 1
: Je
ffe
rso
n P
arkw
ay In
itia
l Bu
ild w
ith
ou
t N
WP
Ext
en
sio
nSC
ENA
RIO
2:
Jeff
ers
on
Par
kway
Init
ial B
uild
wit
h N
WP
Ext
en
sio
n
20
22
Avg
. We
ekd
ay T
ran
sact
ion
s2
02
2 A
vg. W
ee
kday
Gro
ss T
oll
Re
ven
ue
(1
)2
02
2 A
vg. W
ee
kday
Tra
nsa
ctio
ns
20
22
Avg
. We
ekd
ay G
ross
To
ll R
eve
nu
e (
1)
Toll
Loca
tio
nTo
ll Ty
pe
Exp
ress
Toll
LPT
Tota
lEx
pre
ssTo
llLP
TTo
tal
Exp
ress
Toll
LPT
Tota
lEx
pre
ssTo
llLP
TTo
tal
Sim
ms
St.
Ram
ps
t/f
No
rth
-
-
-
-
$
-$
-
$
-
-
-
-
$
-$
-
$
N o
f C
and
elas
Pkw
y.M
ain
line
11
,54
0
3
,53
0
15
,07
0
3
2,2
20
14
,78
0
4
7,0
00
14
,12
0
4
,30
0
18
,43
0
3
9,2
60
17
,94
0
5
7,2
10
Can
del
as P
kwy.
Ram
ps
t/f
Sou
th-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
SR 7
2R
amp
s t/
f So
uth
1,8
30
6
90
2,5
20
2
,17
0
1,2
20
3
,38
0
1,3
40
5
00
1,8
40
1
,58
0
88
0
2
,46
0
Tota
l We
ekd
ay1
3,3
70
4,2
20
1
7,5
90
34
,38
0$
1
6,0
00
$
50
,38
0$
1
5,4
60
4,8
00
2
0,2
60
40
,84
0$
1
8,8
20
$
59
,67
0$
An
nu
aliz
atio
n F
acto
r3
16
.6
34
4.0
3
23
.2
32
0.6
3
44
.0
32
8.0
3
16
.6
34
4.0
3
23
.1
32
0.6
3
44
.0
32
8.0
Tota
l An
nu
al4
,23
3,0
00
1,4
52
,00
0
5
,68
5,0
00
11
,02
4,0
00
$
5
,50
3,0
00
$
16
,52
7,0
00
$
4
,89
5,0
00
1,6
53
,00
0
6
,54
8,0
00
13
,09
5,0
00
$
6
,47
6,0
00
$
19
,57
1,0
00
$
20
35
Avg
. We
ekd
ay T
ran
sact
ion
s2
03
5 A
vg. W
ee
kday
Gro
ss T
oll
Re
ven
ue
(1
)2
03
5 A
vg. W
ee
kday
Tra
nsa
ctio
ns
20
35
Avg
. We
ekd
ay G
ross
To
ll R
eve
nu
e (
1)
Toll
Loca
tio
nTo
ll Ty
pe
Exp
ress
Toll
LPT
Tota
lEx
pre
ssTo
llLP
TTo
tal
Exp
ress
Toll
LPT
Tota
lEx
pre
ssTo
llLP
TTo
tal
Sim
ms
St.
Ram
ps
t/f
No
rth
-
-
-
-
$
-$
-
$
-
-
-
-
$
-$
-
$
N o
f C
and
elas
Pkw
y.M
ain
line
16
,40
0
4
,60
0
21
,00
0
5
9,6
00
25
,24
0
8
4,8
40
20
,35
0
5
,61
0
25
,96
0
7
3,6
40
30
,68
0
1
04
,32
0
Can
del
as P
kwy.
Ram
ps
t/f
Sou
th-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
SR 7
2R
amp
s t/
f So
uth
2,0
70
7
00
2,7
70
3
,20
0
1,6
10
4
,81
0
1,5
40
5
20
2,0
60
2
,38
0
1,1
90
3
,57
0
Tota
l We
ekd
ay1
8,4
70
5,3
00
2
3,7
70
62
,81
0$
2
6,8
50
$
89
,66
0$
2
1,8
90
6,1
30
2
8,0
20
76
,02
0$
3
1,8
70
$
10
7,8
90
$
An
nu
aliz
atio
n F
acto
r3
16
.6
34
4.0
3
22
.7
32
0.6
3
44
.0
32
7.6
3
16
.6
34
4.0
3
22
.6
32
0.6
3
44
.0
32
7.5
Tota
l An
nu
al5
,84
8,0
00
1,8
22
,00
0
7
,67
0,0
00
20
,13
7,0
00
$
9
,23
6,0
00
$
29
,37
2,0
00
$
6
,93
2,0
00
2,1
08
,00
0
9
,04
0,0
00
24
,37
2,0
00
$
1
0,9
63
,00
0$
35
,33
6,0
00
$
20
40
Avg
. We
ekd
ay T
ran
sact
ion
s2
04
0 A
vg. W
ee
kday
Gro
ss T
oll
Re
ven
ue
(1
)2
04
0 A
vg. W
ee
kday
Tra
nsa
ctio
ns
20
40
Avg
. We
ekd
ay G
ross
To
ll R
eve
nu
e (
1)
Toll
Loca
tio
nTo
ll Ty
pe
Exp
ress
Toll
LPT
Tota
lEx
pre
ssTo
llLP
TTo
tal
Exp
ress
Toll
LPT
Tota
lEx
pre
ssTo
llLP
TTo
tal
Sim
ms
St.
Ram
ps
t/f
No
rth
-
-
-
-
$
-$
-
$
-
-
-
-
$
-$
-
$
N o
f C
and
elas
Pkw
y.M
ain
line
18
,30
0
5
,20
0
23
,49
0
7
4,2
80
31
,57
0
1
05
,85
0
23
,32
0
6
,47
0
29
,79
0
9
4,1
90
39
,14
0
1
33
,33
0
Can
del
as P
kwy.
Ram
ps
t/f
Sou
th-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
SR 7
2R
amp
s t/
f So
uth
2,1
70
7
30
2,9
00
3
,71
0
1,8
70
5
,58
0
1,4
90
5
00
1,9
90
2
,53
0
1,2
70
3
,81
0
Tota
l We
ekd
ay2
0,4
60
5,9
30
2
6,3
90
77
,99
0$
3
3,4
50
$
11
1,4
40
$
2
4,8
10
6,9
70
3
1,7
70
96
,72
0$
4
0,4
10
$
13
7,1
40
$
An
nu
aliz
atio
n F
acto
r3
16
.6
34
4.0
3
22
.8
32
0.6
3
44
.0
32
7.6
3
16
.6
34
4.0
3
22
.6
32
0.6
3
44
.0
32
7.5
Tota
l An
nu
al6
,47
9,0
00
2,0
40
,00
0
8
,51
8,0
00
25
,00
4,0
00
$
1
1,5
06
,00
0$
36
,51
0,0
00
$
7
,85
4,0
00
2,3
97
,00
0
1
0,2
52
,00
0
31
,01
0,0
00
$
1
3,9
02
,00
0$
44
,91
3,0
00
$
(1)
Gro
ss T
oll
Rev
enu
e re
pre
sen
ts t
oll
reve
nu
es n
ot
adju
sted
fo
r u
nco
llect
ible
or
un
pai
d t
oll
reve
nu
e.
Tab
le 4
-6
Esti
mat
ed A
vera
ge W
eekd
ay T
ran
sact
ion
s an
d G
ross
To
ll R
eve
nu
es
Sce
nar
ios
1 a
nd
2 –
Init
ial B
uild
Chapter 4 • Traffic and Revenue Analysis
4-21 April 16, 2018
SCEN
AR
IO 3
: Je
ffe
rso
n P
arkw
ay U
ltim
ate
Bu
ild w
ith
ou
t N
WP
Ext
en
sio
nSC
ENA
RIO
4:
Jeff
ers
on
Par
kway
Ult
imat
e B
uild
wit
h N
WP
Ext
en
sio
n
20
22
Avg
. We
ekd
ay T
ran
sact
ion
s2
02
2 A
vg. W
ee
kday
Gro
ss T
oll
Re
ven
ue
(1
)2
02
2 A
vg. W
ee
kday
Tra
nsa
ctio
ns
20
22
Avg
. We
ekd
ay G
ross
To
ll R
eve
nu
e (
1)
Toll
Loca
tio
nTo
ll Ty
pe
Exp
ress
Toll
LPT
Tota
lEx
pre
ssTo
llLP
TTo
tal
Exp
ress
Toll
LPT
Tota
lEx
pre
ssTo
llLP
TTo
tal
Sim
ms
St.
Ram
ps
t/f
No
rth
1,7
80
4
60
2,2
40
2
,15
0$
82
0$
2
,97
0$
2,3
60
6
20
2,9
80
2
,83
0$
1,0
90
$
3
,92
0$
N o
f C
and
elas
Pkw
y.M
ain
line
11
,30
0
3
,45
0
14
,75
0
3
1,5
70
14
,44
0
4
6,0
00
14
,12
0
4
,30
0
18
,42
0
3
9,2
60
17
,93
0
5
7,1
80
Can
del
as P
kwy.
Ram
ps
t/f
Sou
th3
40
11
0
4
50
39
0
1
90
59
0
2
80
90
3
80
32
0
1
60
48
0
SR 7
2R
amp
s t/
f So
uth
1,5
10
5
70
2,0
80
1
,79
0
1,0
10
2
,80
0
1,2
30
4
60
1,7
00
1
,46
0
82
0
2
,28
0
Tota
l We
ekd
ay1
4,9
30
4,6
00
1
9,5
30
35
,89
0$
1
6,4
70
$
52
,36
0$
1
8,0
00
5,4
70
2
3,4
70
43
,87
0$
2
0,0
00
$
63
,87
0$
An
nu
aliz
atio
n F
acto
r3
16
.6
34
4.0
3
23
.1
32
0.6
3
44
.0
32
8.0
3
16
.6
34
4.0
3
23
.0
32
0.6
3
44
.0
32
7.9
Tota
l An
nu
al4
,72
8,0
00
1,5
81
,00
0
6
,30
9,0
00
11
,50
8,0
00
$
5
,66
5,0
00
$
17
,17
3,0
00
$
5
,69
8,0
00
1,8
83
,00
0
7
,58
1,0
00
14
,06
5,0
00
$
6
,88
0,0
00
$
20
,94
5,0
00
$
20
35
Avg
. We
ekd
ay T
ran
sact
ion
s2
03
5 A
vg. W
ee
kday
Gro
ss T
oll
Re
ven
ue
(1
)2
03
5 A
vg. W
ee
kday
Tra
nsa
ctio
ns
20
35
Avg
. We
ekd
ay G
ross
To
ll R
eve
nu
e (
1)
Toll
Loca
tio
nTo
ll Ty
pe
Exp
ress
Toll
LPT
Tota
lEx
pre
ssTo
llLP
TTo
tal
Exp
ress
Toll
LPT
Tota
lEx
pre
ssTo
llLP
TTo
tal
Sim
ms
St.
Ram
ps
t/f
No
rth
2,8
60
6
80
3,5
50
4
,54
0$
1,5
80
$
6
,12
0$
4,1
60
1
,00
0
5,1
60
6
,50
0$
2,2
90
$
8
,79
0$
N o
f C
and
elas
Pkw
y.M
ain
line
16
,20
0
4
,54
0
20
,74
0
5
8,9
00
24
,93
0
8
3,8
40
20
,21
0
5
,57
0
25
,78
0
7
3,1
40
30
,47
0
1
03
,61
0
Can
del
as P
kwy.
Ram
ps
t/f
Sou
th5
50
16
0
7
00
83
0
3
50
1,1
80
4
80
14
0
6
20
73
0
3
10
1,0
40
SR 7
2R
amp
s t/
f So
uth
2,0
00
6
80
2,6
80
3
,11
0
1,5
60
4
,67
0
1,4
70
4
90
1,9
60
2
,26
0
1,1
30
3
,39
0
Tota
l We
ekd
ay2
1,6
20
6,0
60
2
7,6
80
67
,38
0$
2
8,4
30
$
95
,81
0$
2
6,3
20
7,2
00
3
3,5
10
82
,63
0$
3
4,1
90
$
11
6,8
30
$
An
nu
aliz
atio
n F
acto
r3
16
.6
34
4.0
3
22
.6
32
0.6
3
44
.0
32
7.6
3
16
.6
34
4.0
3
22
.5
32
0.6
3
44
.0
32
7.5
Tota
l An
nu
al6
,84
5,0
00
2,0
85
,00
0
8
,92
9,0
00
21
,60
3,0
00
$
9
,78
0,0
00
$
31
,38
3,0
00
$
8
,33
2,0
00
2,4
76
,00
0
1
0,8
08
,00
0
26
,49
3,0
00
$
1
1,7
63
,00
0$
38
,25
5,0
00
$
20
40
Avg
. We
ekd
ay T
ran
sact
ion
s2
04
0 A
vg. W
ee
kday
Gro
ss T
oll
Re
ven
ue
(1
)2
04
0 A
vg. W
ee
kday
Tra
nsa
ctio
ns
20
40
Avg
. We
ekd
ay G
ross
To
ll R
eve
nu
e (
1)
Toll
Loca
tio
nTo
ll Ty
pe
Exp
ress
Toll
LPT
Tota
lEx
pre
ssTo
llLP
TTo
tal
Exp
ress
Toll
LPT
Tota
lEx
pre
ssTo
llLP
TTo
tal
Sim
ms
St.
Ram
ps
t/f
No
rth
3,0
40
7
30
3,7
60
5
,33
0$
1,8
90
$
7
,21
0$
4,8
20
1
,17
0
5,9
80
8
,31
0$
2,9
90
$
1
1,2
90
$
N o
f C
and
elas
Pkw
y.M
ain
line
17
,98
0
5
,11
0
23
,08
0
7
3,0
10
31
,04
0
1
04
,05
0
23
,11
0
6
,42
0
29
,54
0
9
3,3
80
38
,87
0
1
32
,25
0
Can
del
as P
kwy.
Ram
ps
t/f
Sou
th7
00
20
0
9
00
1,1
70
5
10
1,6
80
5
90
17
0
7
70
1,0
00
4
30
1,4
30
SR 7
2R
amp
s t/
f So
uth
2,1
10
7
10
2,8
20
3
,60
0
1,8
30
5
,43
0
1,4
20
4
70
1,8
90
2
,41
0
1,2
10
3
,62
0
Tota
l We
ekd
ay2
3,8
10
6,7
50
3
0,5
70
83
,11
0$
3
5,2
60
$
11
8,3
70
$
2
9,9
40
8,2
40
3
8,1
80
10
5,1
00
$
4
3,4
90
$
14
8,5
90
$
An
nu
aliz
atio
n F
acto
r3
16
.6
34
4.0
3
22
.7
32
0.6
3
44
.0
32
7.6
3
16
.6
34
4.0
3
22
.5
32
0.6
3
44
.0
32
7.5
Tota
l An
nu
al7
,54
0,0
00
2,3
23
,00
0
9
,86
3,0
00
26
,64
6,0
00
$
1
2,1
30
,00
0$
38
,77
6,0
00
$
9
,48
0,0
00
2,8
33
,00
0
1
2,3
13
,00
0
33
,69
7,0
00
$
1
4,9
61
,00
0$
48
,65
8,0
00
$
(1)
Gro
ss T
oll
Rev
enu
e re
pre
sen
ts t
oll
reve
nu
es n
ot
adju
sted
fo
r u
nco
llect
ible
or
un
pai
d t
oll
reve
nu
e.
Tab
le 4
-7
Esti
mat
ed A
vera
ge W
eekd
ay T
ran
sact
ion
s an
d G
ross
To
ll R
eve
nu
es
Sce
nar
ios
3 a
nd
4 –
Ult
imat
e B
uild
Chapter 4 • Traffic and Revenue Analysis
4-22 April 16, 2018
Table 4-8 Estimated Annual Transactions and Revenue (In Thousands)
SCENARIO 1: Jefferson Parkway Initial Build without the Northwest Parkway Extension
Total AnnualTotal Annual Transactions (000s) Total Annual Gross Toll Revenue ($000s) (1) Uncollectible Unpaid Net Toll Revenue
ExpressToll LPT Total AAPC ExpressToll LPT Total AAPC Revenue Revenue ($000s) (2) AAPC
2022(3)
3,598 1,234 4,832 - 9,370$ 4,678$ 14,048$ - 982$ 480$ 12,585$ -
2023(3)
3,906 1,330 5,235 8.3 10,392 5,154 15,546 10.7 1,031 497 14,019 11.4
2024(3)(4)
4,238 1,432 5,670 8.3 11,521 5,677 17,198 10.6 1,086 515 15,598 11.3
2025 4,561 1,530 6,091 7.4 12,668 6,202 18,870 9.7 1,136 531 17,203 10.3
2026 4,675 1,557 6,232 2.3 13,269 6,454 19,723 4.5 1,193 548 17,981 4.5
2027 4,793 1,584 6,378 2.3 13,899 6,716 20,615 4.5 1,252 567 18,795 4.5
2028 (4) 4,927 1,617 6,544 2.6 14,598 7,008 21,606 4.8 1,318 588 19,700 4.8
2029 5,037 1,641 6,678 2.1 15,248 7,273 22,521 4.2 1,380 606 20,535 4.2
2030 5,164 1,670 6,834 2.3 15,972 7,568 23,540 4.5 1,449 626 21,465 4.5
2031 5,294 1,699 6,994 2.3 16,729 7,876 24,605 4.5 1,521 647 22,437 4.5
2032 (4) 5,442 1,734 7,176 2.6 17,571 8,218 25,789 4.8 1,601 671 23,517 4.8
2033 5,564 1,760 7,324 2.1 18,354 8,529 26,883 4.2 1,676 692 24,515 4.2
2034 5,704 1,791 7,495 2.3 19,225 8,875 28,100 4.5 1,760 715 25,626 4.5
2035 5,848 1,822 7,670 2.3 20,137 9,236 29,372 4.5 1,847 739 26,786 4.5
2036 (4) 5,985 1,869 7,854 2.4 21,086 9,677 30,763 4.7 1,935 774 28,053 4.7
2037 6,092 1,906 7,999 1.8 21,958 10,084 32,043 4.2 2,017 807 29,219 4.2
2038 6,219 1,950 8,168 2.1 22,930 10,538 33,468 4.4 2,108 843 30,517 4.4
2039 6,347 1,994 8,341 2.1 23,945 11,011 34,956 4.4 2,202 881 31,873 4.4
2040 (4) 6,496 2,045 8,542 2.4 25,073 11,537 36,610 4.7 2,307 923 33,380 4.7
2041 6,613 2,086 8,699 1.8 26,111 12,023 38,134 4.2 2,405 962 34,768 4.2
2042 6,750 2,133 8,883 2.1 27,266 12,563 39,830 4.4 2,513 1,005 36,312 4.4
2043 6,889 2,182 9,072 2.1 28,473 13,128 41,601 4.4 2,626 1,050 37,925 4.4
2044 (4) 7,032 2,232 9,264 2.1 29,733 13,718 43,451 4.4 2,744 1,097 39,610 4.4
2045 7,158 2,276 9,434 1.8 30,964 14,295 45,259 4.2 2,859 1,144 41,256 4.2
2046 7,306 2,328 9,634 2.1 32,334 14,938 47,272 4.4 2,988 1,195 43,089 4.4
2047 7,458 2,381 9,839 2.1 33,765 15,609 49,374 4.4 3,122 1,249 45,003 4.4
2048(4)
7,612 2,435 10,047 2.1 35,259 16,310 51,569 4.4 3,262 1,305 47,003 4.4
2049 7,748 2,484 10,232 1.8 36,719 16,997 53,716 4.2 3,399 1,360 48,956 4.2
2050 7,828 2,512 10,340 1.1 37,522 17,375 54,897 2.2 3,475 1,390 50,032 2.2
2051 7,909 2,540 10,449 1.1 38,344 17,761 56,104 2.2 3,552 1,421 51,131 2.2
2052 (4) 7,990 2,569 10,559 1.1 39,183 18,155 57,338 2.2 3,631 1,452 52,255 2.2
2053 8,050 2,591 10,642 0.8 39,931 18,508 58,439 1.9 3,702 1,481 53,257 1.9
2054 8,133 2,621 10,754 1.1 40,805 18,920 59,724 2.2 3,784 1,514 54,427 2.2
2055 8,217 2,650 10,867 1.1 41,698 19,340 61,038 2.2 3,868 1,547 55,623 2.2
2056 (4) 8,302 2,680 10,982 1.1 42,610 19,770 62,380 2.2 3,954 1,582 56,845 2.2
2057 8,364 2,703 11,067 0.8 43,424 20,154 63,578 1.9 4,031 1,612 57,935 1.9
2058 8,450 2,734 11,184 1.1 44,374 20,602 64,976 2.2 4,120 1,648 59,208 2.2
2059 8,537 2,765 11,302 1.1 45,346 21,060 66,405 2.2 4,212 1,685 60,509 2.2
2060 (4) 8,625 2,796 11,421 1.1 46,338 21,528 67,866 2.2 4,306 1,722 61,838 2.2
2061 8,690 2,820 11,510 0.8 47,223 21,946 69,169 1.9 4,389 1,756 63,024 1.9
(1) Gross Toll Revenue represents toll revenues not adjusted for uncollectible or unpaid toll revenue.
(2) Net Toll Revenue represents toll revenues adjusted for uncollectible and unpaid revenues.
(3) Ramp-up has been assumed during the first three years of operation. Transactions and toll revenues are estimated to be 85%, 90% and 95%
of full operations in 2022, 2023, and 2024 respectively.
(4) Leap Year.
Chapter 4 • Traffic and Revenue Analysis
4-23 April 16, 2018
Table 4-9 Estimated Annual Transactions and Revenue (In Thousands)
SCENARIO 2: Jefferson Parkway Initial Build with the Northwest Parkway Extension
Total AnnualTotal Annual Transactions (000s) Total Annual Gross Toll Revenue ($000s) (1) Uncollectible Unpaid Net Toll Revenue
ExpressToll LPT Total AAPC ExpressToll LPT Total AAPC Revenue Revenue ($000s) (2) AAPC
2022(3)
4,161 1,405 5,566 - 11,131$ 5,504$ 16,635$ - 1,156$ 565$ 14,914$ -
2023(3)
4,525 1,516 6,041 8.5 12,363 6,069 18,432 10.8 1,214 585 16,633 11.5
2024(3)(4)
4,920 1,635 6,554 8.5 13,726 6,689 20,415 10.8 1,279 606 18,529 11.4
2025 5,304 1,748 7,053 7.6 15,114 7,312 22,426 9.9 1,340 626 20,460 10.4
2026 5,448 1,781 7,230 2.5 15,854 7,614 23,468 4.6 1,408 647 21,413 4.7
2027 5,596 1,815 7,411 2.5 16,629 7,929 24,559 4.6 1,479 669 22,411 4.7
2028 (4) 5,764 1,854 7,618 2.8 17,491 8,279 25,771 4.9 1,558 694 23,519 4.9
2029 5,904 1,884 7,788 2.2 18,297 8,598 26,895 4.4 1,632 716 24,547 4.4
2030 6,064 1,920 7,984 2.5 19,193 8,954 28,146 4.7 1,714 741 25,691 4.7
2031 6,228 1,956 8,184 2.5 20,132 9,324 29,456 4.7 1,801 766 26,889 4.7
2032 (4) 6,415 1,998 8,413 2.8 21,175 9,736 30,911 4.9 1,897 795 28,219 4.9
2033 6,571 2,031 8,601 2.2 22,151 10,110 32,261 4.4 1,987 820 29,454 4.4
2034 6,749 2,069 8,818 2.5 23,235 10,528 33,763 4.7 2,087 848 30,828 4.7
2035 6,932 2,108 9,040 2.5 24,372 10,963 35,336 4.7 2,193 877 32,266 4.7
2036 (4) 7,127 2,169 9,296 2.8 25,645 11,528 37,173 5.2 2,306 922 33,946 5.2
2037 7,287 2,219 9,506 2.3 26,837 12,056 38,893 4.6 2,411 964 35,518 4.6
2038 7,471 2,277 9,749 2.5 28,162 12,642 40,804 4.9 2,528 1,011 37,265 4.9
2039 7,660 2,336 9,997 2.5 29,552 13,257 42,809 4.9 2,651 1,061 39,097 4.9
2040(4)
7,876 2,404 10,280 2.8 31,095 13,940 45,036 5.2 2,788 1,115 41,133 5.2
2041 8,053 2,460 10,513 2.3 32,541 14,579 47,120 4.6 2,916 1,166 43,038 4.6
2042 8,256 2,524 10,780 2.5 34,147 15,288 49,435 4.9 3,058 1,223 45,154 4.9
2043 8,465 2,590 11,055 2.5 35,832 16,032 51,864 4.9 3,206 1,283 47,375 4.9
2044(4)
8,679 2,657 11,337 2.5 37,601 16,812 54,412 4.9 3,362 1,345 49,705 4.9
2045 8,875 2,719 11,594 2.3 39,349 17,581 56,930 4.6 3,516 1,406 52,007 4.6
2046 9,099 2,790 11,889 2.5 41,291 18,437 59,727 4.9 3,687 1,475 54,565 4.9
2047 9,329 2,863 12,192 2.5 43,328 19,333 62,662 4.9 3,867 1,547 57,249 4.9
2048(4)
9,565 2,937 12,502 2.5 45,467 20,274 65,741 4.9 4,055 1,622 60,064 4.9
2049 9,780 3,005 12,786 2.3 47,581 21,202 68,783 4.6 4,240 1,696 62,846 4.6
2050 9,903 3,044 12,948 1.3 48,741 21,712 70,452 2.4 4,342 1,737 64,373 2.4
2051 10,028 3,084 13,111 1.3 49,929 22,234 72,162 2.4 4,447 1,779 65,937 2.4
2052(4)
10,154 3,124 13,277 1.3 51,146 22,768 73,914 2.4 4,554 1,821 67,539 2.4
2053 10,253 3,156 13,409 1.0 52,250 23,251 75,501 2.1 4,650 1,860 68,991 2.1
2054 10,382 3,196 13,578 1.3 53,524 23,810 77,334 2.4 4,762 1,905 70,667 2.4
2055 10,513 3,238 13,750 1.3 54,829 24,383 79,211 2.4 4,877 1,951 72,384 2.4
2056 (4) 10,645 3,280 13,924 1.3 56,165 24,969 81,134 2.4 4,994 1,997 74,143 2.4
2057 10,749 3,313 14,062 1.0 57,377 25,499 82,876 2.1 5,100 2,040 75,737 2.1
2058 10,884 3,356 14,240 1.3 58,776 26,112 84,888 2.4 5,222 2,089 77,577 2.4
2059 11,021 3,399 14,420 1.3 60,209 26,739 86,949 2.4 5,348 2,139 79,462 2.4
2060 (4) 11,159 3,443 14,603 1.3 61,677 27,382 89,059 2.4 5,476 2,191 81,392 2.4
2061 11,269 3,478 14,747 1.0 63,008 27,963 90,972 2.1 5,593 2,237 83,142 2.1
(1) Gross Toll Revenue represents toll revenues not adjusted for uncollectible or unpaid toll revenue.
(2) Net Toll Revenue represents toll revenues adjusted for uncollectible and unpaid revenues.
(3) Ramp-up has been assumed during the first three years of operation. Transactions and toll revenues are estimated to be 85%, 90% and 95%
of full operations in 2022, 2023, and 2024 respectively.
(4) Leap Year.
Chapter 4 • Traffic and Revenue Analysis
4-24 April 16, 2018
Table 4-10 Estimated Annual Transactions and Revenue (In Thousands)
SCENARIO 3: Jefferson Parkway Ultimate Build without the Northwest Parkway Extension
Total AnnualTotal Annual Transactions (000s) Total Annual Gross Toll Revenue ($000s) (1) Uncollectible Unpaid Net Toll Revenue
ExpressToll LPT Total AAPC ExpressToll LPT Total AAPC Revenue Revenue ($000s) (2) AAPC
2022(3)
4,019 1,344 5,363 - 9,782$ 4,815$ 14,597$ - 1,011$ 495$ 13,092$ -
2023(3)
4,378 1,454 5,832 8.7 10,872 5,317 16,189 10.9 1,064 512 14,613 11.6
2024(3)(4)
4,768 1,572 6,339 8.7 12,078 5,869 17,948 10.9 1,122 532 16,293 11.5
2025 5,150 1,685 6,835 7.8 13,308 6,426 19,734 10.0 1,178 550 18,007 10.5
2026 5,298 1,721 7,020 2.7 13,969 6,701 20,670 4.7 1,239 569 18,862 4.7
2027 5,451 1,758 7,210 2.7 14,662 6,989 21,651 4.7 1,303 590 19,758 4.7
2028 (4) 5,624 1,801 7,425 3.0 15,432 7,309 22,741 5.0 1,375 613 20,753 5.0
2029 5,770 1,835 7,605 2.4 16,154 7,601 23,755 4.5 1,443 633 21,680 4.5
2030 5,937 1,874 7,811 2.7 16,956 7,927 24,883 4.7 1,518 656 22,710 4.8
2031 6,108 1,915 8,023 2.7 17,798 8,267 26,065 4.7 1,597 679 23,789 4.8
2032 (4) 6,302 1,961 8,263 3.0 18,732 8,646 27,378 5.0 1,684 706 24,988 5.0
2033 6,466 1,998 8,464 2.4 19,608 8,992 28,600 4.5 1,767 729 26,104 4.5
2034 6,653 2,041 8,694 2.7 20,581 9,377 29,959 4.8 1,859 755 27,344 4.8
2035 6,845 2,085 8,929 2.7 21,603 9,780 31,383 4.8 1,956 782 28,644 4.8
2036 (4) 6,998 2,136 9,134 2.3 22,591 10,238 32,829 4.6 2,048 819 29,962 4.6
2037 7,115 2,177 9,292 1.7 23,494 10,659 34,154 4.0 2,132 853 31,169 4.0
2038 7,254 2,225 9,478 2.0 24,501 11,129 35,630 4.3 2,226 890 32,514 4.3
2039 7,396 2,273 9,669 2.0 25,551 11,618 37,169 4.3 2,324 929 33,916 4.3
2040(4)
7,561 2,329 9,890 2.3 26,719 12,163 38,882 4.6 2,433 973 35,476 4.6
2041 7,687 2,374 10,061 1.7 27,788 12,664 40,451 4.0 2,533 1,013 36,905 4.0
2042 7,838 2,426 10,263 2.0 28,978 13,221 42,199 4.3 2,644 1,058 38,498 4.3
2043 7,991 2,479 10,469 2.0 30,220 13,803 44,023 4.3 2,761 1,104 40,158 4.3
2044(4)
8,147 2,533 10,680 2.0 31,515 14,410 45,926 4.3 2,882 1,153 41,891 4.3
2045 8,283 2,581 10,865 1.7 32,776 15,004 47,780 4.0 3,001 1,200 43,579 4.0
2046 8,445 2,638 11,083 2.0 34,180 15,664 49,844 4.3 3,133 1,253 45,459 4.3
2047 8,610 2,695 11,306 2.0 35,645 16,353 51,999 4.3 3,271 1,308 47,420 4.3
2048(4)
8,779 2,754 11,533 2.0 37,173 17,073 54,246 4.3 3,415 1,366 49,465 4.3
2049 8,926 2,807 11,732 1.7 38,660 17,776 56,436 4.0 3,555 1,422 51,458 4.0
2050 9,012 2,837 11,850 1.0 39,479 18,163 57,642 2.1 3,633 1,453 52,557 2.1
2051 9,100 2,868 11,968 1.0 40,316 18,558 58,875 2.1 3,712 1,485 53,678 2.1
2052(4)
9,188 2,899 12,088 1.0 41,171 18,962 60,133 2.1 3,792 1,517 54,824 2.1
2053 9,252 2,923 12,175 0.7 41,929 19,322 61,251 1.9 3,864 1,546 55,841 1.9
2054 9,342 2,955 12,297 1.0 42,818 19,743 62,561 2.1 3,949 1,579 57,033 2.1
2055 9,433 2,987 12,420 1.0 43,726 20,173 63,899 2.1 4,035 1,614 58,250 2.1
2056 (4) 9,525 3,019 12,544 1.0 44,653 20,612 65,265 2.1 4,122 1,649 59,493 2.1
2057 9,591 3,044 12,635 0.7 45,475 21,003 66,478 1.9 4,201 1,680 60,597 1.9
2058 9,685 3,077 12,761 1.0 46,439 21,460 67,899 2.1 4,292 1,717 61,891 2.1
2059 9,779 3,110 12,889 1.0 47,424 21,928 69,351 2.1 4,386 1,754 63,211 2.1
2060 (4) 9,874 3,144 13,018 1.0 48,429 22,405 70,834 2.1 4,481 1,792 64,561 2.1
2061 9,943 3,170 13,112 0.7 49,321 22,830 72,151 1.9 4,566 1,826 65,758 1.9
(1) Gross Toll Revenue represents toll revenues not adjusted for uncollectible or unpaid toll revenue.
(2) Net Toll Revenue represents toll revenues adjusted for uncollectible and unpaid revenues.
(3) Ramp-up has been assumed during the first three years of operation. Transactions and toll revenues are estimated to be 85%, 90% and 95%
of full operations in 2022, 2023, and 2024 respectively.
(4) Leap Year.
Chapter 4 • Traffic and Revenue Analysis
4-25 April 16, 2018
Table 4-11 Estimated Annual Transactions and Revenue (In Thousands)
SCENARIO 4: Jefferson Parkway Ultimate Build with the Northwest Parkway Extension
Total AnnualTotal Annual Transactions (000s) Total Annual Gross Toll Revenue ($000s) (1) Uncollectible Unpaid Net Toll Revenue
ExpressToll LPT Total AAPC ExpressToll LPT Total AAPC Revenue Revenue ($000s) (2) AAPC
2022(3)
4,843 1,601 6,444 - 11,955$ 5,848$ 17,803$ - 1,228$ 601$ 15,975$ -
2023(3)
5,280 1,731 7,011 8.8 13,291 6,453 19,743 10.9 1,291 622 17,830 11.6
2024(3)(4)
5,754 1,871 7,625 8.8 14,769 7,117 21,887 10.9 1,361 645 19,881 11.5
2025 6,220 2,006 8,226 7.9 16,278 7,786 24,064 9.9 1,427 666 21,971 10.5
2026 6,405 2,049 8,453 2.8 17,091 8,114 25,205 4.7 1,500 690 23,015 4.8
2027 6,595 2,092 8,687 2.8 17,944 8,456 26,400 4.7 1,577 714 24,109 4.8
2028 (4) 6,809 2,143 8,951 3.0 18,891 8,836 27,727 5.0 1,662 741 25,324 5.0
2029 6,992 2,182 9,174 2.5 19,779 9,183 28,963 4.5 1,743 765 26,455 4.5
2030 7,199 2,229 9,428 2.8 20,767 9,570 30,337 4.7 1,832 792 27,713 4.8
2031 7,413 2,276 9,689 2.8 21,803 9,973 31,776 4.7 1,926 820 29,031 4.8
2032 (4) 7,653 2,331 9,984 3.1 22,954 10,422 33,376 5.0 2,030 851 30,495 5.0
2033 7,859 2,374 10,233 2.5 24,034 10,831 34,865 4.5 2,129 878 31,858 4.5
2034 8,092 2,424 10,517 2.8 25,233 11,287 36,521 4.7 2,238 909 33,374 4.8
2035 8,332 2,476 10,808 2.8 26,493 11,763 38,255 4.8 2,353 941 34,962 4.8
2036 (4) 8,573 2,551 11,124 2.9 27,874 12,376 40,251 5.2 2,475 990 36,785 5.2
2037 8,773 2,613 11,387 2.4 29,168 12,951 42,119 4.6 2,590 1,036 38,493 4.6
2038 9,003 2,685 11,687 2.6 30,606 13,589 44,195 4.9 2,718 1,087 40,390 4.9
2039 9,238 2,758 11,996 2.6 32,114 14,258 46,372 4.9 2,852 1,141 42,380 4.9
2040(4)
9,506 2,841 12,347 2.9 33,789 15,002 48,791 5.2 3,000 1,200 44,591 5.2
2041 9,727 2,911 12,638 2.4 35,357 15,698 51,056 4.6 3,140 1,256 46,660 4.6
2042 9,982 2,990 12,972 2.6 37,100 16,472 53,572 4.9 3,294 1,318 48,960 4.9
2043 10,243 3,072 13,315 2.6 38,928 17,284 56,212 4.9 3,457 1,383 51,372 4.9
2044(4)
10,510 3,156 13,666 2.6 40,847 18,135 58,982 4.9 3,627 1,451 53,904 4.9
2045 10,756 3,233 13,989 2.4 42,743 18,977 61,720 4.6 3,795 1,518 56,406 4.6
2046 11,037 3,322 14,359 2.6 44,849 19,912 64,761 4.9 3,982 1,593 59,186 4.9
2047 11,325 3,413 14,738 2.6 47,059 20,893 67,953 4.9 4,179 1,671 62,103 4.9
2048(4)
11,621 3,506 15,127 2.6 49,379 21,923 71,302 4.9 4,385 1,754 65,163 4.9
2049 11,893 3,592 15,484 2.4 51,671 22,940 74,611 4.6 4,588 1,835 68,188 4.6
2050 12,047 3,640 15,687 1.3 52,929 23,499 76,427 2.4 4,700 1,880 69,848 2.4
2051 12,203 3,690 15,893 1.3 54,217 24,071 78,288 2.4 4,814 1,926 71,548 2.4
2052(4)
12,362 3,740 16,102 1.3 55,537 24,657 80,194 2.4 4,931 1,973 73,290 2.4
2053 12,488 3,780 16,269 1.0 56,734 25,188 81,922 2.2 5,038 2,015 74,869 2.2
2054 12,650 3,832 16,482 1.3 58,115 25,801 83,916 2.4 5,160 2,064 76,692 2.4
2055 12,815 3,884 16,698 1.3 59,530 26,429 85,959 2.4 5,286 2,114 78,559 2.4
2056 (4) 12,981 3,936 16,917 1.3 60,979 27,073 88,051 2.4 5,415 2,166 80,471 2.4
2057 13,114 3,979 17,093 1.0 62,293 27,656 89,949 2.2 5,531 2,212 82,205 2.2
2058 13,284 4,033 17,317 1.3 63,809 28,329 92,138 2.4 5,666 2,266 84,206 2.4
2059 13,456 4,088 17,544 1.3 65,363 29,019 94,381 2.4 5,804 2,322 86,256 2.4
2060 (4) 13,631 4,143 17,774 1.3 66,954 29,725 96,679 2.4 5,945 2,378 88,356 2.4
2061 13,771 4,188 17,958 1.0 68,396 30,366 98,762 2.2 6,073 2,429 90,260 2.2
(1) Gross Toll Revenue represents toll revenues not adjusted for uncollectible or unpaid toll revenue.
(2) Net Toll Revenue represents toll revenues adjusted for uncollectible and unpaid revenues.
(3) Ramp-up has been assumed during the first three years of operation. Transactions and toll revenues are estimated to be 85%, 90% and 95%
of full operations in 2022, 2023, and 2024 respectively.
(4) Leap Year.
Chapter 4 • Traffic and Revenue Analysis
4-26 April 16, 2018
transactions and 66.7 percent of total gross toll revenues. Total gross toll revenues are estimated to
be $14.1 million. Based on the leakage assumptions previously discussed, total net toll revenues in
2022 are estimated to be $12.6 million.
By 2040, a total of 8.5 million transactions are estimated under Scenario 1, representing an average
annual increase of 3.2 percent. This is estimated to include 6.5 million ExpressToll transactions and
2.0 million LPT transactions, or an ExpressToll participation rate of 76.0 percent. These transactions
are estimated to generate $25.1 million in gross toll revenue from ExpressToll customers and $11.5
million from LPT customers. Gross ExpressToll revenues represent 68.4 percent of total estimated
gross revenues. Due to assumed annual toll increases, toll revenues are estimated to increase at a
faster rate that transactions, with gross toll revenues increasing by an average of 5.5 percent to $36.6
million in 2040. Collected toll revenues are estimated to be $33.4 million in 2040.
Scenario 2: Initial Build with the Northwest Parkway Extension
Estimated annual transactions and toll revenues are summarized for Scenario 2 in Table 4-9. An
estimated 4.2 million ExpressToll transactions and 1.4 million LPT transactions are anticipated in the
opening year of 2022. This represents an ExpressToll participation rate of 74.8 percent. Total annual
transactions, including the estimated impacts of ramp-up, are estimated at 5.6 million in 2022.
Opening year ExpressToll and LPT gross toll revenues of $11.1 million and $5.5 million, respectively,
are estimated for the Jefferson Parkway. ExpressToll gross revenues represent 66.9 percent of the
estimated $16.6 million in total 2022 gross toll revenues. Total net toll revenues in 2022 are
estimated to be $14.9 million, based on the previously summarized leakage assumptions.
Total transactions under Scenario 2 are estimated to increase at an average annual rate of 3.5 percent
per year to 10.3 million in 2040. ExpressToll transactions are estimated to be 7.9 million and LPT
transactions are estimated to be 2.4 million at that time. This represents an estimated ExpressToll
participation rate of 76.6 percent. These transactions are estimated to generate $31.1 million in gross
toll revenue from ExpressToll customers, or 69.0 percent of total gross toll revenues, and $13.9
million from LPT customers. Gross toll revenues are estimated to increase by an average of 5.7
percent annually after the opening year as a result of assumed toll increases to $45.0 million in 2040.
Collected toll revenues are estimated to be $41.1 million in 2040.
Scenario 3: Ultimate Build without the Northwest Parkway Extension
Under Scenario 3, 4.0 million ExpressToll transactions are estimated in the assumed opening year of
2022 and 1.3 million LPT transactions. As previously shown in Table 4-10, total annual transactions
are estimated at 5.8 million, which includes the estimated impacts of ramp-up. These transactions are
estimated to generate ExpressToll and LPT gross toll revenues of $9.8 million and $4.8 million,
respectively. Thus, ExpressToll transactions are estimated to represent 74.9 percent of total
transactions and 67.0 percent of total gross toll revenues. Total gross toll revenues are estimated to
be $14.6 million. Based on the leakage assumptions previously discussed, total net toll revenues in
2022 are estimated to be $13.1 million.
By 2040, a total of 9.9 million transactions are estimated under Scenario 3, representing an average
annual increase of 3.5 percent. This is estimated to include 7.6 million ExpressToll transactions and
2.3 million LPT transactions, or an ExpressToll participation rate of 76.4 percent. These transactions
are estimated to generate $26.7 million in gross toll revenue from ExpressToll customers and $12.2
million from LPT customers. Gross ExpressToll revenues represent 68.7 percent of total estimated
gross revenues. Due to assumed annual toll increases, toll revenues are estimated to increase at a
Chapter 4 • Traffic and Revenue Analysis
4-27 April 16, 2018
faster rate that transactions, with gross toll revenues increasing by an average of 5.6 percent to $38.9
million in 2040. Collected toll revenues are estimated to be $35.5 million in 2040.
Scenario 4: Ultimate Build with the Northwest Parkway Extension
Estimated annual transactions and toll revenues are summarized for Scenario 4 in Table 4-11
(previously shown). An estimated 4.8 million ExpressToll transactions and 1.6 million LPT
transactions are anticipated in the opening year of 2022. This represents an ExpressToll participation
rate of 75.2 percent. Total annual transactions, including the estimated impacts of ramp-up, are
estimated at 6.4 million in 2022. Opening year ExpressToll and LPT gross toll revenues of $12.0
million and $5.8 million, respectively, are estimated for the Jefferson Parkway. ExpressToll gross
revenues represent 67.2 percent of the estimated $17.8 million in total 2022 gross toll revenues. Total
net toll revenues in 2022 are estimated to be $16.0 million, based on the previously summarized
leakage assumptions.
Total transactions under Scenario 4 are estimated to increase at an average annual rate of 3.7 percent
per year to 12.3 million in 2040. ExpressToll transactions are estimated to be 9.5 million and LPT
transactions are estimated to be 2.8 million at that time. This represents an estimated ExpressToll
participation rate of 77.0 percent. These transactions are estimated to generate $33.8 million in gross
toll revenue from ExpressToll customers, or 69.3 percent of total gross toll revenues, and $15.0
million from LPT customers. Gross toll revenues are estimated to increase by an average of 5.8
percent annually after the opening year as a result of assumed toll increases to $48.8 million in 2040.
Collected toll revenues are estimated to be $44.6 million in 2040.
Disclaimer Current accepted professional practices and procedures were used in the development of these traffic
and revenue estimates. However, as with any forecast of the future, it should be understood that there
may be differences between forecasted and actual results caused by events and circumstances beyond
the control of the forecasters. In formulating its estimates, CDM Smith has reasonably relied upon the
accuracy and completeness of information provided (both written and oral) by the Jefferson Parkway
Public Highway Authority and other local and state agencies. CDM Smith also has relied upon the
reasonable assurances of some independent parties and is not aware of any facts that would make
such information misleading.
CDM Smith has made qualitative judgments related to several key variables in the development and
analysis of the traffic and revenue estimates that must be considered as a whole; therefore, selecting
portions of any individual result without consideration of the intent of the whole may create a
misleading or incomplete view of the results and the underling methodologies used to obtain the
results. CDM Smith gives no opinion as to the value or merit to partial information extracted from this
report.
All forecasts and projections reported herein are based on CDM Smith’s experience and judgment and
on a review of information obtained from multiple state and local agencies, including the Jefferson
Parkway Public Highway Authority, the Denver Regional Council of Governments, and by independent
third parties. These estimates and projections may not be indicative of actual or future values, and are
therefore subject to substantial uncertainty. Future developments, economic conditions cannot be
predicted with certainty, and may affect the estimates or projections expressed in this report, such
that CDM Smith does not specifically guarantee or warrant any estimate or projection contained
within this report.
Chapter 4 • Traffic and Revenue Analysis
4-28 April 16, 2018
While CDM Smith believes that some of the projections or other forward-looking statements contained
within the report are based on reasonable assumptions as of the date in the report, such forward
looking statements involve risks and uncertainties that may cause actual results to differ materially
from the results predicted. Therefore, following the date of this report, CDM Smith will take no
responsibility or assume any obligation to advise of changes that may affect its assumptions contained
within the report, as they pertain to socioeconomic and demographic forecasts, proposed residential
or commercial land use development projects and/or potential improvements to the regional
transportation network.
The report and its contents are intended solely for use by the JPPHA and designated parties approved
by JPPHA and CDM Smith. Any use by third-parties, other than as noted above, is expressly prohibited.
In addition, any publication of the report for purposes of financing without the express written
consent of CDM Smith is prohibited.
CDM Smith is not, and has not been, a municipal advisor as defined in Federal law (the Dodd Frank
Bill) to the Jefferson Parkway Public Highway Authority and does not owe a fiduciary duty pursuant to
Section 15B of the Exchange Act to the Jefferson Parkway Public Highway Authority with respect to
the information and material contained in this report. CDM Smith is not recommending and has not
recommended any action to the Jefferson Parkway Public Highway Authority. The Jefferson Parkway
Public Highway Authority should discuss the information and material contained in this report with
any and all internal and external advisors that it deems appropriate before acting on this information.
5-1 April 16, 2018
Chapter 5
Sensitivity Tests
The Base Case traffic and revenue forecasts included in the report are based on certain assumptions
and forecast of future economic growth and other events which are ultimately subject to some level of
uncertainty. As such, it is typical in traffic and revenue studies of this nature to conduct sensitivity
tests aimed at identifying the “sensitivity” of revenue forecasts to potential changes in certain basic
assumptions or future forecasts of underlying variables. Sensitivity tests typically include hypothetical
changes in future socioeconomic growth forecasts, value of time assumptions and so forth. For
purposes of this study, traffic assignments for seven different sensitivity tests were run. As will be
discussed in more detail below, Sensitivity Tests 1 through 5 were run for years 2022 and 2040.
Sensitivity Tests 6 and 7, which assume accelerated toll rate increases, provide a full toll revenue
stream between 2022 and 2061.
For each of the various sensitivity tests, the alternative transaction and revenue estimate is shown for
each respective year of tests and the percent impact as compared with the Base Case estimates. The
sensitivity tests were developed using all of the same socioeconomic inputs, highway improvements,
values of time, vehicle operating costs, toll rates, and toll revenue leakage assumptions as the Base
Case forecasts, except those being assessed in the particular sensitivity test. The seven sensitivity
tests considered in this study include:
1. Long-Term Reduced Economic Growth (25% Lower Trip Table Growth);
2. Long-Term Increased Economic Growth (25% Higher Trip Table Growth);
3. Decreased Value of Time (25% Lower Value of Time);
4. Increased Value of Time (25% Higher Value of Time);
5. Combined “Low” Scenario (25% Lower Trip Table Growth AND 25% Lower Value of Time);
6. Accelerated Toll Rate Increases (3.1% Annual Increase); and
7. Combined “High” Scenario (25% Higher Trip Table Growth AND 3.1% Annual Toll Increase).
It is important to recognize that all of the sensitivity tests assessed herein are hypothetical conditions
and represent departures from economic forecasts or assumptions used in the Base Case traffic and
revenue estimates. These tests are intended to show potential impacts on traffic and revenue of these
hypothetical changes from basic assumptions, and should not be considered as forecasts themselves.
Sensitivity Test 1: Long-Term Reduced Economic Growth A key underlying parameter of any traffic and revenue forecast is estimated future economic growth
in the project corridor. This particular sensitivity test was intended to evaluate the impact of a
hypothetical long-term reduced level of overall economic growth throughout the entire corridor. It
was simulated by reducing the net growth in trips in the trip tables by 25 percent from the rate of
growth assumed in the Base Case forecasts. The 25 percent reduction in growth resulted in overall
trip table reductions of 2.2 percent in 2022 and 6.5 percent in 2040. Traffic assignments were rerun
at 2022 and 2040 levels under the reduced growth assumptions and estimates of transactions and
collected toll revenue were developed for those years. Table 5-1 compares the resulting sensitivity
test estimates of annual transactions and collected toll revenue against the four Base Case forecasts.
Chapter 5 • Sensitivity Tests
5-2 April 16, 2018
Table 5-1 Estimated Annual Transactions and Revenue (In Thousands)
Sensitivity Test 1: Long-Term Reduced Economic Growth
Total transactions in 2022 range from 4.5 million to 6.0 million under the reduced growth
assumptions of Sensitivity Test 1. This represents a reduction in transactions of between 6.5 percent
and 7.2 percent over the Base Case scenarios. In 2022, the transaction impact of the growth reduction
is slightly greater under the Ultimate Build configuration, likely as a result of a reduction in local trips.
A larger negative transaction impact is forecasted for 2040, with estimated reductions ranging from
14.2 percent to 17.9 percent. These impacts are based on total estimated transactions for Sensitivity
Test 1 ranging from 7.3 million to 10.1 million. The transaction impacts in 2040 tend to be greatest
under the scenarios that assume the Northwest Parkway Extension. This suggests that the lower
growth assumptions have a greater impact to trips traveling to and from the northeast.
Impacts to collected toll revenues in 2022 and 2040 are comparable to the impacts estimated for
transactions. This means that the lower growth assumptions are not expected to significantly impact
the ExpressToll participation rates or the vehicle class distribution estimated under the Base Case
scenarios. Total collected toll revenues under the reduced growth assumptions of Sensitivity Test 1
range from $11.8 million to $14.9 million in 2022 and from $28.5 million to $36.6 million in 2040.
Sensitivity Test 2: Long-Term Increased Economic Growth As with previous test, Sensitivity Test 2 was intended to evaluate the sensitivity of the proposed
Jefferson Parkway to a hypothetical long-term increase in economic growth. The net growth in trips
in the trip tables was increased by 25 percent over the rate of growth assumed in the Base Case
forecasts, resulting in overall trip table increases of 2.3 percent in 2022 and 9.4 percent in 2040.
Traffic assignments were rerun at 2022 and 2040 levels under these assumptions. Table 5-2
compares the resulting sensitivity test estimates of annual transactions and collected toll revenue
against the four Base Case forecasts.
Est. 2022 Transactions and Revenue (1) Est. 2040 Transactions and Revenue
Collected Toll Collected Toll
Transactions (000s) Revenue ($000s) (2) Transactions (000s) Revenue ($000s) (2)
Base Case
Scenario 1: Initial Build w/o NWP Extension 4,832 12,585$ 8,542 33,380$
Scenario 2: Initial Build with NWP Extension 5,566 14,914$ 10,280 41,133$
Scenario 3: Ultimate Build w/o NWP Extension 5,363 13,092$ 9,890 35,476$
Scenario 4: Ultimate Build with NWP Extension 6,444 15,975$ 12,347 44,591$
Sensitivity Test 1: Long-Term 25 Percent Reduction in Economic Growth
Scenario 1: Initial Build w/o NWP Extension 4,520 11,796$ 7,332 28,534$
Scenario 2: Initial Build with NWP Extension 5,199 13,945$ 8,513 33,807$
Scenario 3: Ultimate Build w/o NWP Extension 4,975 12,189$ 8,507 30,488$
Scenario 4: Ultimate Build with NWP Extension 5,988 14,892$ 10,131 36,597$
Percent Difference
Scenario 1: Initial Build w/o NWP Extension (6.5) (6.3) (14.2) (14.5)
Scenario 2: Initial Build with NWP Extension (6.6) (6.5) (17.2) (17.8)
Scenario 3: Ultimate Build w/o NWP Extension (7.2) (6.9) (14.0) (14.1)
Scenario 4: Ultimate Build with NWP Extension (7.1) (6.8) (17.9) (17.9)
(1) Ramp-up has been assumed during the first three years of operation. Transactions and revenues are estimated to be 85% of full operation in 2022.
(2) Net Toll Revenue represents toll revenues adjusted for uncollectible and unpaid revenues.
Chapter 5 • Sensitivity Tests
5-3 April 16, 2018
Table 5-2 Estimated Annual Transactions and Revenue (In Thousands)
Sensitivity Test 2: Long-Term Increased Economic Growth
Overall, the transaction and collected toll revenue forecasts under Sensitivity Test 2 represent the
mirror image of those estimated under Sensitivity Test 1. Under the increased growth assumptions,
total transactions in 2022 range from 5.3 million to 7.1 million, or an increase over the Base Case
scenarios of between 9.3 percent and 10.9 percent. A larger positive transaction impact is forecasted
for 2040, with estimated increases over the Base Case scenarios ranging from 31.4 percent to 40.0
percent. These impacts are based on total estimated transactions for Sensitivity Test 2 of between
11.4 million to 12.7 million. The transaction impacts for Sensitivity Test 2 for both 2022 and 2040
tend to be greatest under the scenarios that assume the Northwest Parkway Extension. This suggests
that the increases in assumed regional growth have the greatest impact to trips traveling to and from
the northeast of the study area.
Impacts to collected toll revenues in 2022 and 2040 are generally comparable to the impacts
estimated for transactions. As noted in Sensitivity Test 1, this suggests that the lower growth
assumptions are not expected to significantly impact the ExpressToll participation rates or the vehicle
class distribution estimated under the Base Case scenarios. Total collected toll revenues under the
increased growth assumptions of Sensitivity Test 2 range from $13.8 million to $17.6 million in 2022
and from $45.0 million to $62.3 million in 2040.
Sensitivity Test 3: Decreased Value of Time Value of time is an important input parameter in estimating motorists’ willingness to pay tolls. With a
reduction in the assumed value of time, motorists would be less willing to pay a toll to take advantage
of the potential time savings provided by the proposed Jefferson Parkway. A sensitivity test was
requested to evaluate the impact of a hypothetical 25 percent decrease in the value of time. Under the
Base Case scenarios, the value of time averaged $0.318 per minute in 2022 and $0.478 per minute in
Est. 2022 Transactions and Revenue (1) Est. 2040 Transactions and Revenue
Collected Toll Collected Toll
Transactions (000s) Revenue ($000s) (2) Transactions (000s) Revenue ($000s) (2)
Base Case
Scenario 1: Initial Build w/o NWP Extension 4,832 12,585$ 8,542 33,380$
Scenario 2: Initial Build with NWP Extension 5,566 14,914$ 10,280 41,133$
Scenario 3: Ultimate Build w/o NWP Extension 5,363 13,092$ 9,890 35,476$
Scenario 4: Ultimate Build with NWP Extension 6,444 15,975$ 12,347 44,591$
Sensitivity Test 2: Long-Term 25 Percent Increase in Economic Growth
Scenario 1: Initial Build w/o NWP Extension 5,282 13,786$ 11,443 45,025$
Scenario 2: Initial Build with NWP Extension 6,098 16,317$ 14,388 57,993$
Scenario 3: Ultimate Build w/o NWP Extension 5,861 14,307$ 12,992 47,282$
Scenario 4: Ultimate Build with NWP Extension 7,144 17,574$ 17,194 62,286$
Percent Difference
Scenario 1: Initial Build w/o NWP Extension 9.3 9.5 34.0 34.9
Scenario 2: Initial Build with NWP Extension 9.6 9.4 40.0 41.0
Scenario 3: Ultimate Build w/o NWP Extension 9.3 9.3 31.4 33.3
Scenario 4: Ultimate Build with NWP Extension 10.9 10.0 39.3 39.7
(1) Ramp-up has been assumed during the first three years of operation. Transactions and revenues are estimated to be 85% of full operation in 2022.
(2) Net Toll Revenue represents toll revenues adjusted for uncollectible and unpaid revenues.
Chapter 5 • Sensitivity Tests
5-4 April 16, 2018
2040. These values were reduced under this sensitivity test to an average of $0.239 per minute in
2022 and $0.359 per minute in 2040. Traffic assignments were then rerun at 2022 and 2040 levels
under the reduced value of time assumptions and estimates of transactions and collected toll revenue
were developed for those years. Table 5-3 compares the resulting sensitivity test estimates of annual
transactions and collected toll revenue against the four Base Case forecasts.
Table 5-3 Estimated Annual Transactions and Revenue (In Thousands)
Sensitivity Test 3: Reduced Value of Time
Total transactions in 2022 range from 4.4 million to 5.6 million under the reduced value of time
assumptions of Sensitivity Test 3. This represents a reduction in transactions of between 8.9 percent
and 13.3 percent over the Base Case scenarios. A smaller negative transaction impact is forecasted for
2040, ranging from 6.9 percent to 11.8 percent, as inflation reduces the impact of the value of time
reduction. These impacts are based on total estimated transactions for Sensitivity Test 3 ranging from
8.0 million to 10.9 million. The transaction impacts for both 2022 and 2040 tend to be greatest under
the scenarios that assume the Northwest Parkway Extension. This is due to the fact that a reduction in
the assumed value of time would make all toll facilities less attractive, reducing the number of trips
entering the Jefferson Parkway from the Northwest Parkway.
Impacts to collected toll revenues in 2022 are roughly 1 percent greater than the impacts estimated
for transactions. This is due to the fact that a reduction in the assumed value of time will affect LPT
customers to a greater degree than ExpressToll customers due to the fact that the former pay a higher
toll rate. As result, those paying higher tolls are disproportionally discouraged from the roadway,
reducing the average toll, and impacting collected toll revenues to a greater degree than transactions.
Total collected toll revenues in 2022 range from $11.3 million to $13.8 million under Sensitivity Test
3. By 2040, the difference between the collected toll revenue and transaction impacts under
Senstivity Test 3 have largely been reduced to less than 1 percent as a result of inflation. Total 2040
collected toll revenues under Sensitivity Test 3 are estimated between $30.9 million to $39.0 million.
Est. 2022 Transactions and Revenue (1) Est. 2040 Transactions and Revenue
Collected Toll Collected Toll
Transactions (000s) Revenue ($000s) (2) Transactions (000s) Revenue ($000s) (2)
Base Case
Scenario 1: Initial Build w/o NWP Extension 4,832 12,585$ 8,542 33,380$
Scenario 2: Initial Build with NWP Extension 5,566 14,914$ 10,280 41,133$
Scenario 3: Ultimate Build w/o NWP Extension 5,363 13,092$ 9,890 35,476$
Scenario 4: Ultimate Build with NWP Extension 6,444 15,975$ 12,347 44,591$
Sensitivity Test 3: 25 Percent Decreased Value of Time
Scenario 1: Initial Build w/o NWP Extension 4,403 11,344$ 7,956 30,856$
Scenario 2: Initial Build with NWP Extension 4,893 12,931$ 9,186 36,183$
Scenario 3: Ultimate Build w/o NWP Extension 4,825 11,711$ 9,166 32,729$
Scenario 4: Ultimate Build with NWP Extension 5,585 13,755$ 10,887 39,024$
Percent Difference
Scenario 1: Initial Build w/o NWP Extension (8.9) (9.9) (6.9) (7.6)
Scenario 2: Initial Build with NWP Extension (12.1) (13.3) (10.6) (12.0)
Scenario 3: Ultimate Build w/o NWP Extension (10.0) (10.5) (7.3) (7.7)
Scenario 4: Ultimate Build with NWP Extension (13.3) (13.9) (11.8) (12.5)
(1) Ramp-up has been assumed during the first three years of operation. Transactions and revenues are estimated to be 85% of full operation in 2022.
(2) Net Toll Revenue represents toll revenues adjusted for uncollectible and unpaid revenues.
Chapter 5 • Sensitivity Tests
5-5 April 16, 2018
Sensitivity Test 4: Increased Value of Time As with previous test, Sensitivity Test 4 was intended to evaluate the sensitivity of the proposed
Jefferson Parkway to a hypothetical change in the assumed value of time. Given an increase in the
assumed value of time, motorists would be more willing to pay a toll to take advantage of the potential
time savings provided by the proposed Jefferson Parkway. As noted above, value of times averaging
$0.318 per minute in 2022 and $0.478 per minute in 2040 were assumed under the Base Case
scenarios. These values were increased under this sensitivity test to an average of $0.398 per minute
in 2022 and $0.598 per minute in 2040. Traffic assignments were then rerun at 2022 and 2040 levels
under the increased value of time assumptions and estimates of transactions and collected toll
revenue were developed for those years. Table 5-4 compares the resulting sensitivity test estimates
of annual transactions and collected toll revenue against the four Base Case forecasts.
Table 5-4 Estimated Annual Transactions and Revenue (In Thousands)
Sensitivity Test 4: Increased Value of Time
Total transactions in 2022 range from 5.1 million to 7.1 million under the increased value of time
assumptions of Sensitivity Test 4, representing increases of between 6.4 percent and 7.1 percent over
the Base Case scenarios. A smaller transaction impact is forecasted for 2040, ranging from 5.0 percent
to 8.3 percent, as inflation reduces the impact of the value of time increase. These impacts are based
on total estimated transactions for 2040 ranging from 9.0 million to 13.4 million. As with Sensitivity
Test 3, the transaction impacts for both 2022 and 2040 tend to be greatest under the scenarios that
assume the Northwest Parkway Extension.
Under Sensitivity Test 4, impacts to collected toll revenues are generally greater than those estimated
for transactions. As noted previously, this is due to the fact that changes in the assumed value of time
will affect LPT customers to a greater degree than ExpressToll customers. With an increase in
assumed values of time, those paying higher tolls are disproportionally encouraged to use the
Est. 2022 Transactions and Revenue (1) Est. 2040 Transactions and Revenue
Collected Toll Collected Toll
Transactions (000s) Revenue ($000s) (2) Transactions (000s) Revenue ($000s) (2)
Base Case
Scenario 1: Initial Build w/o NWP Extension 4,832 12,585$ 8,542 33,380$
Scenario 2: Initial Build with NWP Extension 5,566 14,914$ 10,280 41,133$
Scenario 3: Ultimate Build w/o NWP Extension 5,363 13,092$ 9,890 35,476$
Scenario 4: Ultimate Build with NWP Extension 6,444 15,975$ 12,347 44,591$
Sensitivity Test 4: 25 Percent Increased Value of Time
Scenario 1: Initial Build w/o NWP Extension 5,141 13,506$ 8,965 35,227$
Scenario 2: Initial Build with NWP Extension 6,097 16,492$ 11,038 44,543$
Scenario 3: Ultimate Build w/o NWP Extension 5,737 14,078$ 10,404 37,441$
Scenario 4: Ultimate Build with NWP Extension 7,132 17,719$ 13,370 48,404$
Percent Difference
Scenario 1: Initial Build w/o NWP Extension 6.4 7.3 5.0 5.5
Scenario 2: Initial Build with NWP Extension 9.5 10.6 7.4 8.3
Scenario 3: Ultimate Build w/o NWP Extension 7.0 7.5 5.2 5.5
Scenario 4: Ultimate Build with NWP Extension 10.7 10.9 8.3 8.6
(1) Ramp-up has been assumed during the first three years of operation. Transactions and revenues are estimated to be 85% of full operation in 2022.
(2) Net Toll Revenue represents toll revenues adjusted for uncollectible and unpaid revenues.
Chapter 5 • Sensitivity Tests
5-6 April 16, 2018
roadway, increasing the average toll, and impacting collected toll revenues to a greater degree than
transactions. Total collected toll revenues under Sensitivity Test 4 range from $13.5 million to $17.7
million in 2022 and from $35.2 million to $48.4 million in 2040.
Sensitivity Test 5: Combined “Low” Scenario In an environment where regional growth is slowing, personal wages and household income can also
be negatively affected. Since values of time are correlated with wages and income, a reduction or
slowed increase in regional household income may lead to a reduction in value of time as people shift
their priorities away from time savings. As such, Sensitivity Test 5 estimates the potential impact to
the Jefferson Parkway of a combined 25 percent reduction in the rate of growth and a 25 percent
reduction in the assumed value of time. As in Sensitivity Test 1, a 25 percent reduction in the rate of
growth was simulated by reducing the overall trip tables by 2.2 percent in 2022 and 1.3 percent in
2040. The assumed values of time were adjusted to an average of $0.239 per minute in 2022 and
$0.359 per minute in 2040, similar to Sensitivity Test 3. Traffic assignments were then rerun at 2022
and 2040 levels under these combined “low” case assumptions. Table 5-5 compares the resulting
estimates of annual transactions and collected toll revenue against the four Base Case forecasts.
Table 5-5 Estimated Annual Transactions and Revenue (In Thousands)
Sensitivity Test 5: Combined “Low” Scenario (Lower Growth and Lower Value of Time)
Total transactions in 2022 range from 4.1 million to 5.2 million, representing decreases of between
15.2 percent and 19.8 percent over the Base Case scenarios. A larger transaction impact is forecasted
for 2040, ranging from 20.5 percent to 28.0 percent, based on total estimated transactions for 2040
ranging from 6.8 million to 8.9 million. The transaction impacts for both 2022 and 2040 tend to be
greatest under the scenarios that assume the Northwest Parkway Extension. This is due to both the
reduction in growth to the northeast of the Jefferson Parkway and the fact that a reduction in the
Est. 2022 Transactions and Revenue (1) Est. 2040 Transactions and Revenue
Collected Toll Collected Toll
Transactions (000s) Revenue ($000s) (2) Transactions (000s) Revenue ($000s) (2)
Base Case
Scenario 1: Initial Build w/o NWP Extension 4,832 12,585$ 8,542 33,380$
Scenario 2: Initial Build with NWP Extension 5,566 14,914$ 10,280 41,133$
Scenario 3: Ultimate Build w/o NWP Extension 5,363 13,092$ 9,890 35,476$
Scenario 4: Ultimate Build with NWP Extension 6,444 15,975$ 12,347 44,591$
Sensitivity Test 5: Combined "Low" Scenario (25 Percent Lower Growth and 25 Percent Lower Value of Time)
Scenario 1: Initial Build w/o NWP Extension 4,098 10,580$ 6,788 26,187$
Scenario 2: Initial Build with NWP Extension 4,549 12,045$ 7,610 29,770$
Scenario 3: Ultimate Build w/o NWP Extension 4,457 10,853$ 7,801 27,876$
Scenario 4: Ultimate Build with NWP Extension 5,165 12,786$ 8,891 31,942$
Percent Difference
Scenario 1: Initial Build w/o NWP Extension (15.2) (15.9) (20.5) (21.5)
Scenario 2: Initial Build with NWP Extension (18.3) (19.2) (26.0) (27.6)
Scenario 3: Ultimate Build w/o NWP Extension (16.9) (17.1) (21.1) (21.4)
Scenario 4: Ultimate Build with NWP Extension (19.8) (20.0) (28.0) (28.4)
(1) Ramp-up has been assumed during the first three years of operation. Transactions and revenues are estimated to be 85% of full operation in 2022.
(2) Net Toll Revenue represents toll revenues adjusted for uncollectible and unpaid revenues.
Chapter 5 • Sensitivity Tests
5-7 April 16, 2018
assumed value of time would make all toll facilities less attractive, reducing the number of trips
entering the Jefferson Parkway from the Northwest Parkway.
Under Sensitivity Test 5, Impacts to collected toll revenues are generally greater than those estimated
for transactions. As noted previously, this is due to the fact that changes in the assumed value of time
will affect LPT customers to a greater degree than ExpressToll customers. Total collected toll
revenues under Sensitivity Test 5 range from $10.6 million to $12.8 million in 2022 and from $26.2
million to $31.9 million in 2040.
Sensitivity Test 6: Accelerated Toll Rate Increases The preferred toll rates utilized in the Base Case forecasts were developed in cooperation with JPPHA
staff as part of the toll sensitivity analysis described in Chapter 4. As previously noted, the preferred
toll rate was selected at a point below the maximum on the curve. This will allow for some latitude in
the rate structure adjustments in the future. Also, the forecasting process itself is based on a range of
assumptions, such as estimates of values of time and perceived operating costs, etc. While the
technical approach and assumptions are reasonable, selecting a toll rate below the maximum point on
the curve helps to mitigate the potential uncertainty inherent in any forecast.
Under the Base Case assumptions, a preferred toll rate of $4.00 for ExpressToll customers and $6.00
for LPT was selected for 2040. This assumes a 2.3 percent annual increase over the 2022 toll rate
duringthe course of the forecast period based on the historical rate of inflation, keeping the toll rate at
the same general location on the toll sensitivity curve.
This sensitivity test assessed the traffic and revenue impact of increasing toll rates at an increased
rate, above the assumed 2.3 percent inflation rate. This would have the effect of moving further up the
toll sensitivity curve. An alternative toll rate of $4.60 for ExpressToll customers and $6.90 for LPT
was selected for 2040. The toll ramps were assumed to be $2.05 for ExpressToll customers and $3.05
for LPT. These rates assume a 3.1 percent annual increase over the 2022 toll rate through the course
of the forecast period. Trucks were still assumed to pay by axle based on an “n-1” rate structure.
Traffic assignments were run at 2040 levels with the alternative toll rates. A set of alternative annual
transaction and revenue estimates were developed through 2061 by interpolating between the Base
Case 2022 forecast and the Sensitivity Test 6 2040 transaction and revenue estimates, as presented in
Table 5-6. The Sensitivity Test 6 transaction and revenue estimates are compared against the four
Base Case forecasts at 2040 levels in Table 5-7.
Total estimated transactions in 2040 range from 8.1 million to 11.6 million assuming the higher
alternative toll rate, representing decreases of between 4.8 percent and 5.8 percent over the Base Case
scenarios. These decreases are due to some customers choosing to take alternative paths rather than
pay the higher toll rates analyzed under Sensitivity Test 6. The impacts are greater under the Ultimate
Build Scenarios due to the additional tolling points assumed under that configuration.
Under Sensitivity Test 6, impacts to collected toll revenues in 2040 are estimated to be 12.7 percent to
13.5 percent greater than under the Base Case scenarios due to the increased toll. In general, the
impact of the Base Case is greater in scenarios with the Northwest Parkway Extension. Total collected
toll revenues under the accelerated toll rate increases assumptions of Sensitivity Test 6 range from
$37.8 million to $50.4 million in 2040.
Chapter 5 • Sensitivity Tests
5-8 April 16, 2018
Table 5-6 Estimated Annual Transactions and Revenue Stream (In Thousands)
Sensitivity Test 6: Accelerated Toll Rate Increases
Scenario 1 Scenario 2 Scenario 3 Scenario 4Partial Build w/o NWP Ext. Partial Build with NWP Ext. Ultimate Build w/o NWP Ext. Ultimate Build with NWP Ext.
Total Annual Total Annual Total Annual Total Annual Total Annual Total Annual Total Annual Total Annual
Transactions (000s) Net Toll Revenue Transactions (000s) Net Toll Revenue Transactions (000s) Net Toll Revenue Transactions (000s) Net Toll Revenue(000s) ($000s) (2) (000s) ($000s) (2) (000s) ($000s) (2) (000s) ($000s) (2)
2022 (3) 4,832 12,585$ 5,566 14,914$ 5,363 13,092$ 6,444 15,975$
2023 (3) 5,218 14,138 6,020 16,766 5,809 14,739 6,984 17,979
2024(3)(4)
5,633 15,864 6,509 18,829 6,290 16,576 7,567 20,213
2025 6,032 17,645 6,979 20,958 6,755 18,478 8,131 22,524
2026 6,152 18,600 7,130 22,111 6,911 19,523 8,323 23,790
2027 6,275 19,608 7,283 23,327 7,071 20,628 8,520 25,129
2028 (4) 6,418 20,726 7,461 24,679 7,254 21,855 8,746 26,616
2029 6,529 21,790 7,601 25,967 7,401 23,029 8,929 28,037
2030 6,659 22,971 7,765 27,397 7,572 24,333 9,141 29,616
2031 6,793 24,217 7,933 28,907 7,747 25,712 9,358 31,285
2032 (4) 6,948 25,600 8,127 30,584 7,948 27,243 9,607 33,139
2033 7,068 26,915 8,281 32,183 8,110 28,708 9,809 34,912
2034 7,210 28,376 8,460 33,959 8,298 30,335 10,043 36,881
2035 7,355 29,916 8,644 35,833 8,491 32,055 10,282 38,962
2036 (4) 7,521 31,425 8,873 37,810 8,672 33,626 10,563 41,118
2037 7,648 32,830 9,058 39,679 8,809 35,080 10,792 43,157
2038 7,798 34,391 9,272 41,753 8,972 36,698 11,056 45,421
2039 7,951 36,027 9,491 43,937 9,138 38,390 11,326 47,803
2040 (4) 8,130 37,844 9,742 46,361 9,333 40,271 11,635 50,448
2041 8,267 39,536 9,945 48,652 9,480 42,013 11,887 52,950
2042 8,430 41,417 10,181 51,196 9,656 43,950 12,178 55,727
2043 8,596 43,387 10,421 53,873 9,835 45,977 12,476 58,650
2044 (4) 8,765 45,451 10,668 56,690 10,018 48,098 12,782 61,727
2045 8,913 47,483 10,890 59,491 10,175 50,178 13,059 64,787
2046 9,088 49,741 11,148 62,602 10,364 52,492 13,378 68,186
2047 9,267 52,107 11,411 65,876 10,556 54,913 13,706 71,762
2048 (4) 9,449 54,586 11,681 69,321 10,752 57,446 14,041 75,527
2049 9,609 57,026 11,925 72,746 10,921 59,931 14,345 79,271
2050 9,703 58,367 12,065 74,624 11,022 61,297 14,520 81,324
2051 9,798 59,739 12,207 76,550 11,124 62,695 14,697 83,429
2052 (4) 9,894 61,143 12,350 78,526 11,227 64,124 14,875 85,589
2053 9,963 62,409 12,461 80,333 11,299 65,407 15,015 87,566
2054 10,061 63,876 12,608 82,406 11,404 66,898 15,198 89,833
2055 10,159 65,378 12,756 84,534 11,509 68,423 15,383 92,159
2056(4)
10,259 66,915 12,906 86,716 11,615 69,983 15,570 94,545
2057 10,331 68,301 13,022 88,711 11,690 71,383 15,716 96,728
2058 10,432 69,906 13,175 91,001 11,798 73,010 15,907 99,233
2059 10,534 71,550 13,330 93,350 11,907 74,675 16,101 101,802
2060 (4) 10,637 73,232 13,487 95,759 12,017 76,377 16,296 104,438
2061 10,712 74,748 13,608 97,963 12,095 77,905 16,450 106,849
(1) Gross Toll Revenue represents toll revenues not adjusted for uncollectible or unpaid toll revenue.
(2) Net Toll Revenue represents toll revenues adjusted for uncollectible and unpaid revenues.
(3) Ramp-up has been assumed during the first three years of operation. Transactions and toll revenues are estimated to be 85%, 90% and 95%
of full operations in 2022, 2023, and 2024 respectively.
(4) Leap Year.
Chapter 5 • Sensitivity Tests
5-9 April 16, 2018
Table 5-7 Estimated Annual Transactions and Revenue (In Thousands)
Sensitivity Test 6: Accelerated Toll Rate Increases
Sensitivity Test 7: Combined “High” Scenario This sensitivity test assessed the traffic and revenue impact of increasing toll rates at an increased
rate, above the assumed 2.3 percent inflation rate, in combination with a hypothetical increase in long-
term economic growth. As with Scenario 6, an alternative toll rate of $4.60 for ExpressToll customers
and $6.90 for LPT was selected for 2040. The toll ramps were assumed to be $2.05 for ExpressToll
customers and $3.05 for LPT. These rates assume a 3.1 percent annual increase over the 2022 toll
rate through the course of the forecast period. Trucks were still assumed to pay by axle based on an
“n-1” rate structure. The net growth in trips in the trip tables was then increased by 25 percent over
the rate of growth assumed in the Base Case forecasts, resulting in overall trip table increases of 2.3
percent in 2022 and 9.4 percent in 2040.
Traffic assignments were run at 2023 and 2040 levels with the increase trip table growth and the
2040 alternative toll rates. A set of alternative annual transaction and revenue estimates were
developed through 2061 by interpolating between the Sensitivity Test 7 transaction and revenue
estimates for 2023 and 2040, as presented in Table 5-8. The Sensitivity Test 6 transaction and
revenue estimates are compared against the four Base Case forecasts in Table 5-9.
Under Sensitivity Test 7, are the same those estimated under Sensitivity Test 2, since the increased
growth has been assumed but the accelerated toll rate increases (compared to the Base Case) have not
begun. Total transactions in 2022 range from 5.3 million to 7.1 million, or an increase over the Base
Case of between 9.3 percent and 10.9 percent. With the accelerated toll rate increases assumed, a
larger positive transaction impact is forecasted for 2040. Estimated transactions are 31.4 percent to
40.0 percent greater than the Base Case, or an increase of 11.4 million to 12.7 million. As with
Sensitivity Test 2, the transaction impacts for Sensitivity Test 7 for both 2022 and 2040 tend to be
greatest under the scenarios that assume the Northwest Parkway Extension.
Est. 2040 Transactions and Revenue
Collected Toll
Transactions (000s) Revenue ($000s) (1)
Base Case
Scenario 1: Initial Build w/o NWP Extension 8,542 33,380$
Scenario 2: Initial Build with NWP Extension 10,280 41,133$
Scenario 3: Ultimate Build w/o NWP Extension 9,890 35,476$
Scenario 4: Ultimate Build with NWP Extension 12,347 44,591$
Sensitivity Test 6: Accelerated Toll Rate Growth (3.1% per Year)
Scenario 1: Initial Build w/o NWP Extension 8,130 37,844$
Scenario 2: Initial Build with NWP Extension 9,742 46,361$
Scenario 3: Ultimate Build w/o NWP Extension 9,333 40,271$
Scenario 4: Ultimate Build with NWP Extension 11,635 50,448$
Percent Difference
Scenario 1: Initial Build w/o NWP Extension (4.8) 13.4
Scenario 2: Initial Build with NWP Extension (5.2) 12.7
Scenario 3: Ultimate Build w/o NWP Extension (5.6) 13.5
Scenario 4: Ultimate Build with NWP Extension (5.8) 13.1
(1) Net Toll Revenue represents toll revenues adjusted for uncollectible and unpaid revenues.
Chapter 5 • Sensitivity Tests
5-10 April 16, 2018
Table 5-8 Estimated Annual Transactions and Revenue Stream (In Thousands)
Sensitivity Test 7: Combined “High” Scenario (Higher Growth and Accelerated Toll Rate Increases)
Scenario 1 Scenario 2 Scenario 3 Scenario 4Partial Build w/o NWP Ext. Partial Build with NWP Ext. Ultimate Build w/o NWP Ext. Ultimate Build with NWP Ext.
Total Annual Total Annual Total Annual Total Annual Total Annual Total Annual Total Annual Total Annual
Transactions (000s) Net Toll Revenue Transactions (000s) Net Toll Revenue Transactions (000s) Net Toll Revenue Transactions (000s) Net Toll Revenue(000s) ($000s) (2) (000s) ($000s) (2) (000s) ($000s) (2) (000s) ($000s) (2)
2022(3)
5,282 13,786$ 6,098 16,317$ 5,861 14,307$ 7,144 17,574$
2023(3)
5,756 15,603 6,675 18,553 6,392 16,201 7,827 19,980
2024(3)(4)
6,270 17,642 7,305 21,073 6,968 18,327 8,573 22,691
2025 6,773 19,771 7,929 23,725 7,534 20,550 9,312 25,544
2026 6,970 21,000 8,198 25,317 7,759 21,840 9,636 27,255
2027 7,173 22,305 8,476 27,015 7,992 23,210 9,971 29,081
2028(4)
7,403 23,757 8,788 28,906 8,254 24,735 10,346 31,115
2029 7,597 25,164 9,061 30,761 8,478 26,215 10,676 33,110
2030 7,819 26,728 9,369 32,825 8,732 27,861 11,047 35,328
2031 8,047 28,390 9,687 35,027 8,994 29,609 11,432 37,696
2032 (4) 8,304 30,237 10,043 37,479 9,289 31,554 11,862 40,332
2033 8,522 32,028 10,356 39,885 9,542 33,443 12,241 42,918
2034 8,771 34,019 10,708 42,561 9,828 35,541 12,667 45,794
2035 9,027 36,133 11,072 45,416 10,123 37,772 13,108 48,864
2036 (4) 9,407 38,879 11,604 49,125 10,562 40,687 13,755 52,880
2037 9,750 41,605 12,095 52,846 10,961 43,588 14,355 56,915
2038 10,133 44,644 12,642 57,006 11,406 46,825 15,022 61,426
2039 10,532 47,906 13,214 61,494 11,869 50,302 15,721 66,296
2040 (4) 10,976 51,548 13,849 66,518 12,385 54,186 16,497 71,748
2041 11,376 55,164 14,436 71,560 12,852 58,052 17,218 77,226
2042 11,824 59,197 15,089 77,197 13,374 62,364 18,019 83,351
2043 12,289 63,524 15,772 83,278 13,918 66,998 18,857 89,962
2044 (4) 12,773 68,169 16,486 89,839 14,483 71,976 19,735 97,099
2045 13,239 72,954 17,185 96,654 15,031 77,114 20,598 104,517
2046 13,761 78,289 17,963 104,272 15,642 82,845 21,557 112,811
2047 14,303 84,016 18,777 112,491 16,278 89,003 22,561 121,765
2048 (4) 14,866 90,162 19,628 121,359 16,940 95,620 23,612 131,431
2049 15,409 96,494 20,461 130,571 17,580 102,449 24,645 141,478
2050 15,710 99,962 20,920 135,621 17,934 106,189 25,213 146,987
2051 16,017 103,555 21,388 140,868 18,296 110,067 25,793 152,712
2052(4)
16,329 107,278 21,868 146,317 18,664 114,086 26,388 158,660
2053 16,602 110,830 22,297 151,563 18,988 117,929 26,922 164,389
2054 16,926 114,814 22,797 157,427 19,370 122,236 27,542 170,793
2055 17,257 118,942 23,308 163,519 19,760 126,701 28,177 177,446
2056(4)
17,594 123,219 23,831 169,847 20,159 131,328 28,827 184,359
2057 17,888 127,300 24,298 175,938 20,509 135,754 29,411 191,019
2058 18,237 131,878 24,843 182,747 20,922 140,713 30,089 198,462
2059 18,594 136,620 25,401 189,820 21,343 145,853 30,782 206,195
2060 (4) 18,957 141,533 25,970 197,168 21,773 151,182 31,492 214,231
2061 19,274 146,223 26,480 204,241 22,152 156,277 32,130 221,972
(1) Gross Toll Revenue represents toll revenues not adjusted for uncollectible or unpaid toll revenue.
(2) Net Toll Revenue represents toll revenues adjusted for uncollectible and unpaid revenues.
(3) Ramp-up has been assumed during the first three years of operation. Transactions and toll revenues are estimated to be 85%, 90% and 95%
of full operations in 2022, 2023, and 2024 respectively.
(4) Leap Year.
Chapter 5 • Sensitivity Tests
5-11 April 16, 2018
Table 5-9 Estimated Annual Transactions and Revenue (In Thousands)
Sensitivity Test 7: Combined “High” Scenario (Higher Growth and Accelerated Toll Rate Increases)
Impacts to collected toll revenues in 2022 and 2040 are generally comparable to the impacts
estimated for transactions. As noted in prior Sensitivity Tests, this suggests that the higher growth
assumptions are not expected to significantly impact the ExpressToll participation rates or the vehicle
class distribution estimated under the Base Case scenarios. Total collected toll revenues under the
increased growth and accelerated toll rate increase assumptions of Sensitivity Test 7 range from $13.8
million to $17.6 million in 2022 and from $51.5 million to $71.7 million in 2040.
Est. 2022 Transactions and Revenue (1) Est. 2040 Transactions and Revenue
Collected Toll Collected Toll
Transactions (000s) Revenue ($000s) (2) Transactions (000s) Revenue ($000s) (2)
Base Case
Scenario 1: Initial Build w/o NWP Extension 4,832 12,585$ 8,542 33,380$
Scenario 2: Initial Build with NWP Extension 5,566 14,914$ 10,280 41,133$
Scenario 3: Ultimate Build w/o NWP Extension 5,363 13,092$ 9,890 35,476$
Scenario 4: Ultimate Build with NWP Extension 6,444 15,975$ 12,347 44,591$
Sensitivity Test 5: Combined "Low" Scenario (25 Percent Lower Growth and 25 Percent Lower Value of Time)
Scenario 1: Initial Build w/o NWP Extension 5,282 13,786$ 10,976 51,548$
Scenario 2: Initial Build with NWP Extension 6,098 16,317$ 13,849 66,518$
Scenario 3: Ultimate Build w/o NWP Extension 5,861 14,307$ 12,385 54,186$
Scenario 4: Ultimate Build with NWP Extension 7,144 17,574$ 16,497 71,748$
Percent Difference
Scenario 1: Initial Build w/o NWP Extension 9.3 9.5 28.5 54.4
Scenario 2: Initial Build with NWP Extension 9.6 9.4 34.7 61.7
Scenario 3: Ultimate Build w/o NWP Extension 9.3 9.3 25.2 52.7
Scenario 4: Ultimate Build with NWP Extension 10.9 10.0 33.6 60.9
(1) Ramp-up has been assumed during the first three years of operation. Transactions and revenues are estimated to be 85% of full operation in 2022.
(2) Net Toll Revenue represents toll revenues adjusted for uncollectible and unpaid revenues.