The general assembly hereby finds and declares that local government involvement in transportation planning is critical to the overall statewide transportation planning process. The general assembly recognizes that regional planning commissions and transportation planning regions are the proper forum for transportation planning and that the county hearing process is the proper forum for local government input into the five-year program of projects. However, the general assembly also recognizes that state involvement in transportation planning, through the department of transportation, is equally critical to overall statewide planning, and the general assembly recognizes the department of transportation as the proper body, in cooperation with regional planning commissions and local government officials, for developing and maintaining the state transportation planning process and the state transportation plan.
Source: L. 91: Entire part added, p. 1042, § 2, effective July 1.
ANNOTATION
No manifest or irreconcilable conflict between statutory provisions governing areas and activities of state interest and statutory provisions contained in this title. Although this title vests the Colorado department of transportation (CDOT) with broad authority over the planning and construction of highways, the exercise of this authority does not require that CDOT be free of every conceivable regulation under this article. Indeed, this title and article 65.1 of title 24 are easily reconciled because the schemes advance compatible goals. Although CDOT has the final word over the state's transportation plan, under § 43-1-1103 (5)(b), it must consider local concerns "including examination of the impact of land use decisions on transportation needs and the exploration of opportunities for preservation of transportation corridors". Similarly, consistent with § 24-65.1-204 (5)(c), local governments must exercise their regulatory powers in a manner that does not conflict with state transportation plans. Dept. of Transp. v. City of Idaho Springs, 192 P.3d 490 (Colo. App. 2008).
No express or implied preemption by state of city's ability to regulate transportation planning or construction under statutory provisions governing areas and activities of state interest. With respect to express preemption argument, contrary to CDOT's argument, this section does not express an unequivocal intent to preempt all local regulation of transportation issues. The statute does not foreclose all regulation; it remains open to the possibility that the statewide planning process will leave some questions unresolved and that local governments may decide those matters by regulation. With respect to implied preemption, the court cannot conclude that CDOT was meant to occupy the entire field of transportation planning when the legislature has indicated that local governments may regulate the site selection of airports, transit terminals, and highways. CDOT's role in transportation planning does not necessarily conflict with, or dominate, the city's interest in preserving the use and value of land. Dept. of Transp. v. City of Idaho Springs, 192 P.3d 490 (Colo. App. 2008).