HomeMy WebLinkAboutECO Transit Employment Linkage - 2009Final ReportECO Transit
Employment Linkage Study
Prepared for
TRANSPORTATIONCONSULTANTS, INC.
ECO Transit Employment Linkage Study
Final Report
Prepared for:
Eagle County Regional Transportation Authority
3289 Cooley Mesa Road
Gypsum, CO 81637
(970) 328-3524
Prepared by:
LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc.
516 North Tejon Street
Colorado Springs, CO 80903
(719) 633-2868
LSC #085100
May 11, 2009
-ii-
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Chapter Title Page
I INTRODUCTION .............................................I-1
Study Background ...........................................I-1
Organization of This Report ....................................I-1
II TRANSIT DEMAND ASSESSMENT ..............................II-1
Introduction ...............................................II-1
Residential Growth .......................................II-1
Employment Growth ......................................II-3
Demand Estimates ..........................................II-6
Ridership History .........................................II-6
Projected Demand ........................................II-8
Methodology ..........................................II-8
Results .............................................II-11
Conclusion ...............................................II-11
III SERVICE OPTIONS ..........................................III-1
Introduction ...............................................III-1
Service Adjustments .........................................III-1
Growth Analysis .........................................III-1
Route 6 (Winter) Service Improvement .........................III-5
Route 6 (Summer) Service Improvement .......................III-6
Route 1 (Winter) Service Improvement .........................III-6
Route 1 (Summer) Service Improvement .......................III-6
Route 2 (Winter) Service Improvement .........................III-6
Circulator Service ........................................III-7
New Services ..............................................III-10
Commuter Service from Glenwood Springs to Eagle .............III-10
Commuter Service from Frisco to Vail ........................III-12
Facility Impact ............................................III-14
Transit Stations .........................................III-14
Future Level of Service ......................................III-17
Summary ................................................III-17
IV FINANCIAL IMPACTS ........................................IV-1
Introduction ...............................................IV-1
Operational Budget Impact ....................................IV-1
Capital Budget Impact .......................................IV-3
Annual Financial Impact ......................................IV-3
V FUNDING ALTERNATIVES ....................................V-1
Introduction ...............................................V-1
Capital Funding ............................................V-1
Operations and Maintenance Funding ...........................V-2
Overall Service Considerations .................................V-3
Potential Local and Regional Funding Sources .....................V-3
General Fund Appropriations ...............................V-3
-iii-
SB1 Strategic Transit Program ...............................V-4
Voluntary Assessments ....................................V-4
Private Support ..........................................V-4
Transportation Impact Fees .................................V-4
Hotel Bed Tax ...........................................V-5
Dedicated Sales Tax .......................................V-6
Regional Transportation Authority ............................V-6
Federal Transit Funding Sources ...............................V-7
FTA Section 5309 - Capital Improvement Grants .................V-7
FTA Section 5310 - Capital for Elderly and Disabled Transportation ..V-7
FTA Section 5311 - Public Transportation for Rural Areas ..........V-8
FTA Section 5312 - Research, Development, Demonstration, and
Training Projects .......................................V-8
FTA Section 5317 - New Freedom Program .....................V-8
FTA Section 5319 - Bicycle Facilities ..........................V-8
Job Access and Reverse Commute Program .....................V-9
Transportation and Community System Preservation Program ......V-9
Other Federal Funds ......................................V-9
Funding Summary .........................................V-10
VI INSTITUTIONAL ALTERNATIVES ................................VI-1
Introduction ...............................................VI-1
Institutional Approaches ......................................VI-1
Criteria for Institutional Structures ...........................VI-1
Institutional Structures ......................................VI-2
County Transit Service ....................................VI-2
Intergovernmental Transit Agency ............................VI-3
Regional Transportation Authority ............................VI-5
Institutional Case Studies .....................................VI-7
Grand Valley Regional Transportation Committee ................VI-7
Roaring Fork Transportation Authority (RFTA)...................VI-7
Pikes Peak Rural Transportation Authority (PPRTA)...............VI-8
Summary of Institutional Alternatives ...........................VI-9
APPENDIX A: Pikes Peak Rural Transportation Authority
-iv-
LIST OF TABULATIONS
Table Title Page
II-1Historic Ridership Statistics ...................................II-6
II-2 Predicted Route Ridership Growth .............................II-11
III-1 Service Levels by Route .......................................III-3
III-2 Passenger Load LOS .........................................III-5
III-3 2014 Service Levels by Route After Service Improvements ...........III-18
IV-1 2014 Operational and Capital Impact ............................IV-2
IV-2 Estimated Financial Plan .....................................IV-4
VI-1 Summary of Institutional Alternatives ..........................VI-10
LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS
Figure Title Page
II-1 Eagle County Population ......................................II-2
II-2 Job Growth in Eagle County ...................................II-5
II-3 Ridership History ...........................................II-7
II-4 Residential and Employment Growth by 2013 ....................II-10
III-1 Proposed Circulator Service ...................................III-9
III-2 Proposed Glenwood Springs to Eagle Commuter Route ..............III-11
III-3 Proposed Frisco to Vail Commuter Route ........................III-13
Chapter I
LSC
ECO Transit Employment Linkage Study Page I-1
CHAPTER I
Introduction
STUDY BACKGROUND
Eagle County Regional Transportation Authority (ECO Transit) has retained the
services of LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. to ascertain what the transit
system will need to maintain effective and efficient service in the next five years.
Eagle County has experienced significant population growth over the past few
years. This increase in population will increase the demand on ECO Transit as
more and more individuals take advantage of ECO’s affordable transportation
option. This is based on the fact that, over the past ten years, ECO Transit
ridership has increased from 600,000 trips per year to over 1.2 million trips in
2008. This is a 100 percent increase in ridership. During this same time period,
the population of Eagle County increased 44.7 percent.
This Final Plan identifies the potential changes in transit demand within Eagle
County and the ECO Transit service area, and determines the impacts on the
transit system and ways to address these impacts. This plan does not include all
of the transit projects that ECO is developing. Instead, this planning process only
identifies the projects that result from the increase in ridership over the next five
years. There are other projects that ECO Transit will be including for the State
Transportation Improvement Programs (STIP). These include such things as GPS/
AVL video surveillance and automated passenger counting. While these projects
are not included in this planning process, they will assist ECO Transit in man-
aging the ridership growth over the next five to ten years. We have included the
cost of these transit technologies as a capital investment place holder.
ORGANIZATION OF THIS REPORT
Chapter II presents an evaluation of the projected development and the resultant
transit demand from this development. Information presented in this chapter
Introduction
LSC
Page I-2 ECO Transit Employment Linkage Study
includes trends for population growth, ridership growth, and overall economics
that are used to determine the projected ridership increase from 2009 to 2013.
Chapter III presents the impacts of the ECO Transit growth identified in Chapter
II. This chapter looks at the existing level of service and capacity of the existing
routes. Based on this information, an analysis was conducted to determine the
overall and peak-hour impacts of the community growth on the level of service
that ECO Transit can provide from 2010 to 2014. This chapter also estimates the
additional service hours, staff, and vehicles that will be needed for the existing
and future ridership demand, while still maintaining a high to average level of
service on all routes.
Chapter IV describes the potential financial impacts on ECO Transit due to growth
in the service area. This chapter presents the cost estimates for each service
increase (both operational and capital) and identifies the potential revenue
sources for implementation of enhanced service.
In Chapter V, LSC presents funding alternatives so that decision makers will have
various options with which to meet future service demands for ECO Transit.
Chapter VI provides a comparison of organizational options to provide transit ser-
vice. These options range from continuing operations by the County to formation
of a Regional Transportation Authority.
Chapter II
LSC
ECO Transit Employment Linkage Study Page II-1
CHAPTER II
Transit Demand Assessment
INTRODUCTION
The need to estimate service demand is important in terms of determining capac-
ity, service design, schedules, performance, and revenue. This section outlines the
future demand for transit services based on several factors, including residential
and employment locations.
The future growth trends help to show the patterns that are likely to arise regard-
ing transit within the area. Estimating demand for services is not an “exact
science” and therefore must be carefully judged for reasonableness. This chapter
projects ridership for five full years in the future. Statistics are generally reported
through 2013, thus allowing us to make recommendations for 2014.
Residential Growth
The population of Eagle County is growing at an extremely fast pace. Over the past
five years (since 2003) it is estimated by the Colorado Department of Local Affairs
that the county has grown by approximately 7,500 residents. This is a growth of
nearly 16 percent over the five-year period, or about 3.2 percent annually. Looking
to the future, the county is projected to grow at an even faster pace over the next
five years. Figure II-1 shows the growth over the past five years and for five years
into the future. The county is forecasted to have a population in 2013 that is
around 63,500 residents. This represents a net growth of over 9,000 people, or an
influx of 1,800 people annually. This rapid growth can create a strain on local
infrastructure systems, including transit.
50
0
0
0
60
0
0
0
70
0
0
0
n
Fi
g
u
r
e
II
‐1
Ea
g
l
e
Co
u
n
t
y
Po
p
u
l
a
t
i
o
n
0
10
0
0
0
20
0
0
0
30
0
0
0
40
0
0
0
50
0
0
0
60
0
0
0
70
0
0
0
20
0
3
2
0
0
4
2
0
0
5
2
0
0
6
2
0
0
7
2
0
0
8
2
0
0
9
2
0
1
0
2
0
1
1
2
0
1
2
2
0
1
3
Population
Fi
g
u
r
e
II
‐1
Ea
g
l
e
Co
u
n
t
y
Po
p
u
l
a
t
i
o
n
LSC
Page II-2 ECO Transit Employment Linkage Study
Transit Demand Assessment
LSC
ECO Transit Employment Linkage Study Page II-3
The geography of Eagle County creates unique development patterns. Develop-
ment space is generally limited and is thus clustered into small areas. Information
from the various towns within the county and also county personnel have revealed
specific patterns of residential development. Much of the residential development
planned for the county will be built in Eagle, Avon, and Vail. There are also a few
developments—such as Timber Ridge redevelopment in Vail—that will contain a
significant amount of low-income or employee housing. This is important to con-
sider because a large proportion of these population segments are often transit-
dependent. The presence of low-income housing is taken into consideration in the
model used to predict systemwide ridership growth, as the location of new low-
income housing is a factor in the route-specific growth.
The route specific growth factor looks at the proportion of new dwelling units, low-
income units, and job growth. An average baseline is established by looking at the
average growth in all three categories for each municipality. The average score is
given a ranking of zero for the category. For example, if the average new dwelling
units for a municipality in Eagle County was 400 over the next four years and if
Vail reported expecting 400 new units, they would receive a new dwelling unit
score of zero because they are on par with the county average. A community that
had double the average dwelling units, which would be 800 in the example, was
given a score of 2 (800 divided by 400). For areas with lower than the average,
these percentages were converted to negative proportions. This was done to reflect
areas that will have lower than the average growth for the system. This allows us
to calibrate the model for different growth rates throughout the region. This
method calibrated the ridership growth factor to each of the ECO Transit routes,
thereby allowing us to determine the individual ridership increase per route over
the next five years.
Employment Growth
In addition to examining the county’s population growth, employment growth was
also examined. Employment is expected to grow at approximately 3.8 percent
annually, yielding 49,262 jobs by 2013. Employment is expected to grow at a
similar rate as the overall population. Figure II-2 shows the employment growth
Transit Demand Assessment
LSC
Page II-4 ECO Transit Employment Linkage Study
of the last five years and five years into the future. Because jobs and population
are both growing at a similar rate, the number of jobs per capita remains constant.
Not surprisingly, the areas in the county that are expecting the greatest amount
of residential growth (market-rate units) are also forecasted to have a great deal
of job growth. Projections indicate employment growth in Vail and Avon. Local
planners have estimated the job growth in Avon at 1,703 jobs over the next five
years, with Vail adding an estimated 2,000 jobs over the same time frame. Many
jobs that occur in growing areas and resort communities are in either the service/
hospitality industry or in construction. Because many of these users cannot afford
to live in the communities where they work, bus service becomes critical. Another
large increase in employment in the immediate future is the development of the
Battle Mountain PUD in Minturn. The employment estimates during the con-
struction phase of the project are over 1,200 workers. While this project has yet
to begin, it could create an abrupt demand for transit to Minturn. These newly
created jobs are factored into the model in regard to route-specific demand
increases. The impact of employment over the next five years is factored into the
growth which is presented on page seven of this chapter.
40
0
0
0
50
0
0
0
60
0
0
0
Fi
g
u
r
e
II
‐2
Jo
b
Gr
o
w
t
h
in
Ea
g
l
e
Co
u
n
t
y
0
10
0
0
0
20
0
0
0
30
0
0
0
40
0
0
0
50
0
0
0
60
0
0
0
20
0
4
2
0
0
5
2
0
0
6
2
0
0
7
2
0
0
8
2
0
0
9
2
0
1
0
2
0
1
1
2
0
1
2
2
0
1
3
Jobs
Fi
g
u
r
e
II
‐2
Jo
b
Gr
o
w
t
h
in
Ea
g
l
e
Co
u
n
t
y
LSC
ECO Transit Employment Linkage Study Page II-5
Transit Demand Assessment
LSC
Page II-6 ECO Transit Employment Linkage Study
DEMAND ESTIMATES
Ridership History
Ridership data for ECO Transit was provided by the county for 1992 through
2008. These data are presented in Table II-1. ECO Transit began operating the
current five-route system in 2001. Nearly two-thirds of all trips on ECO Transit
occur on the Highway 6 route.
Table II-1
Historic Ridership Statistics
Year Leadville Vail I-70 Hwy 6 Minturn Dotsero Other Total
1992 18,063 158,428 78,973 - - - 255,464
1993 20,439 161,953 131,806 - - - 314,198
1994 20,199 148,905 159,957 - - - 329,061
1995 20,217 141,040 201,302 - - - 362,559
1996 18,381 125,411 248,706 981 - - 393,479
1997 32,686 136,535 311,431 5,843 - - 486,495
1998 36,580 143,742 416,462 7,159 - - 603,943
1999 41,395 133,002 476,750 14,461 11,605 - 677,213
2000 39,431 119,972 534,031 14,895 24,565 - 732,894
2001 36,928 112,724 569,996 30,885 45,918 - 796,451
2002 29,025 99,842 492,764 7,966 73,598 27,065 730,260
2003 36,318 84,784 496,063 5,659 94,917 20,375 738,116
2004 40,496 111,026 492,133 10,971 95,897 17,672 768,195
2005 46,340 88,029 467,394 14,836 101,587 24,837 743,023
2006 49,493 101,918 609,553 22,420 137,481 25,170 946,035
2007 49,302 54,880 617,704 30,992 177,163 26,662 956,703
2008 54,654 53,699 830,753 33,097 217,208 17,850 1,207,261
Source: Eagle County, 2008.
Looking broadly at the system’s ridership, there has been an annual eleven per-
cent increase in ridership since 1992. It is more significant, however, to look at the
average ridership increases since the system reached its current route structure
in 2001. The increase in annual ridership then becomes closer to eight percent
instead of eleven. Figure II-3 shows the historic ridership, along with eleven and
eight percent projections until 2014. The more realistic estimate of eight percent
shows ridership approaching 1,900,000 riders by 2013.
2,
0
0
0
,
0
0
0
2,
5
0
0
,
0
0
0
Fi
g
u
r
e
II
‐3
Ri
d
e
r
s
h
i
p
Hi
s
t
o
r
y
11
Pe
r
c
e
n
t
Growth Rate
0
50
0
,
0
0
0
1,
0
0
0
,
0
0
0
1,
5
0
0
,
0
0
0
2,
0
0
0
,
0
0
0
2,
5
0
0
,
0
0
0
1992
1994
1996
1998
2000
2002
2004
2006
2008
2010
2012
2014
Ridership
Fi
g
u
r
e
II
‐3
Ri
d
e
r
s
h
i
p
Hi
s
t
o
r
y
11
Pe
r
c
e
n
t
Growth Rate
8 Pe
r
c
e
n
t
Growth Rate
Ri
d
e
r
s
h
i
p
History
LSC
ECO Transit Employment Linkage Study Page II-7
Transit Demand Assessment
LSC
Page II-8 ECO Transit Employment Linkage Study
Projected Demand
Methodology
In order to estimate demand for future ridership, three key factors were taken into
account:
1) Riders per capita and riders per employee capita: These two factors
were examined using the given ridership data, along with population and
employment figures from the state demography office.
2) Historic ridership patterns: The growth patterns of each individual
route were examined using a five-year moving average to smooth out brief
data fluctuations. This technique allows the data to be viewed in a more
realistic manner.
3) Locational development projections and patterns: All of the munici-
palities and unincorporated areas were contacted regarding data on
housing, low-income housing, and jobs.
These three factors were combined into a model to predict the future growth and
ridership of the system. The ridership per capita and ridership per employee capita
were evaluated to determine the growth in that specific trend. The ridership per
capita for the general population and employees has gone up steadily since 1992,
and this number was used as a base for projecting future ridership. The ridership
growth patterns by route were taken into account so that the ridership could be
apportioned correctly. Finally, employment and housing data from the individual
municipalities were used to regulate the specific predicted route ridership. This
step allowed for data on specific development projects to adjust the amount of
ridership predicted by the model based on location-based developments. Figure
II-4 shows the location of the projected residential and job growth, as provided by
the towns that were contacted during the study process. The employment and
housing data on the map were assigned to the specific routes. These values where
then adjusted to determine whether a specific route would potentially experience
a change in ridership due to specific growth.
The resulting formula is shown below:
2013 Ridership = Average ((2013 Employees * Extrapolated Riders per
Employee Capita) + (2013 Population * Extrapolated Ridership per Capita)) *
Modified Historic Growth Rate * Route Growth Factor (Proportional Dwelling
Transit Demand Assessment
LSC
ECO Transit Employment Linkage Study Page II-9
Unit Growth + Proportional Low Income Dwelling Unit Growth + Proportional
Job Growth)
55
0
N
e
w
D
w
e
l
l
i
n
g
U
n
i
t
s
1,
7
0
3
N
e
w
J
o
b
s
35
0
N
e
w
D
w
e
l
l
i
n
g
U
n
i
t
s
50
0
N
e
w
J
o
b
s
1,
1
5
3
N
e
w
D
w
e
l
l
i
n
g
U
n
i
t
s
2,
0
0
0
N
e
w
J
o
b
s
86
5
N
e
w
D
w
e
l
l
i
n
g
U
n
i
t
s
2,
0
0
0
N
e
w
J
o
b
s
28
5
N
e
w
D
w
e
l
l
i
n
g
U
n
i
t
s
1,
2
6
5
N
e
w
J
o
b
s
Do
t
s
e
r
o
32
5
N
e
w
D
w
e
l
l
i
n
g
U
n
i
t
s
Wo
l
c
o
t
t
42
N
e
w
D
w
e
l
l
i
n
g
U
n
i
t
s
18
5
N
e
w
D
w
e
l
l
i
n
g
U
n
i
t
s
Ed
w
a
r
d
s
Av
o
n
Gy
p
s
u
m
Ea
g
l
e
Ea
g
l
e
-
V
a
i
l
MinturnVail Red Cliff
Fi
g
u
r
e
I
I
-
4
Re
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
a
n
d
E
m
p
l
o
y
m
e
n
t
G
r
o
w
t
h
b
y
2
0
1
3
LSC
Page II-10 ECO Transit Employment Linkage Study
Transit Demand Assessment
LSC
ECO Transit Employment Linkage Study Page II-11
Results
Table II-2 shows the ridership for each route in 2008, along with the predicted
ridership in 2013 and the annual percentage of growth. These data were generated
using the forecast for future population and employment, historic patterns along
specific routes, and most importantly the specific locational growth of various
municipalities in the region. Thus, the growth in ridership for an individual route
is a function of overall system ridership increase (trips per capita), historic route
growth using a five-year moving average, and the development along the route
(both in terms of jobs and population growth). As shown in Table II-2, the system
can expect to experience a large amount of growth over the next five years due to
an influx of population and employment opportunities.
The route that has the highest percentage of predicted growth is the Dotsero bus,
at 10.8 percent. Overall, it is predicted that the system will grow 8.9 percent
annually. The Dotsero and Leadville bus routes are predicted to grow ahead of the
average of the system, while the Vail I-70 and Minturn bus routes are expected to
grow at a slower rate than the system as a whole. The bus system is expected to
add approximately 535,000 new annual one-way trips by 2013. This equates to
approximately 107,000 new annual one-way trips each year from 2008 to 2013.
Table II-2
Predicted Route Ridership Growth
Leadville Vail I-70 Hwy 6 Minturn Dotsero Other Total
2008 54,654 53,699 830,753 33,097 217,208 17,850 1,207,261
2009 58,737 57,710 892,811 35,569 233,434 19,183 1,297,445
2010 63,124 62,021 959,505 38,226 250,871 20,616 1,394,365
2011 67,840 66,654 1,031,181 41,082 269,612 22,157 1,498,525
2012 72,908 71,634 1,108,211 44,151 289,752 23,812 1,610,467
2013 75,068 66,595 1,196,434 46,888 334,473 22,670 1,742,127
Annual Percentage Change 7.5% 4.8% 8.8% 8.3% 10.8% 5.4% 8.9%
Source: Eagle County 2008, LSC 2008.
CONCLUSION
Estimating the potential demand for transit is an important step in determining
the future needs of a transit system. Using ridership growth, route trends, and
future development projections allows for a demand estimation that accounts for
Transit Demand Assessment
LSC
Page II-12 ECO Transit Employment Linkage Study
a variety of critical regional factors. An estimated growth of 44 percent by 2014 is
a reasonable estimation given that the system has experienced a similar amount
of growth in the past.
Chapter III
LSC
ECO Transit Employment Linkage Study Page III-1
CHAPTER III
Service Options
INTRODUCTION
Chapter III examines the possible transit service improvements and expansions,
as well as their general impacts. These potential adjustments were based on infor-
mation developed in Chapter II of this report, input from communities in Eagle
County, and comments from ECO Transit staff.
SERVICE ADJUSTMENTS
Growth Analysis
The service adjustments that are needed are based on the demographic informa-
tion presented in Chapter II of this report. Based on the population and employ-
ment growth rates, the LSC team analyzed the impact of this growth on the exist-
ing services that ECO Transit provides.
This analysis involved applying the growth rates to the ridership of each route in
the system to determine the forecasted ridership in 2014 for the six ECO Transit
routes. Table III-1 presents the results in term of trips per day.
The present and future trips per day were then compared to the volume-to-
capacity (v/c) ratio of each route. The v/c ratio is the number of riders on a bus
compared to the number of seats. This analysis was based on the methodology
developed in the Transit Cooperative Research Program (TCRP) Report 100 Transit
Capacity and Quality of Service Manual.
Based on the fact that ECO Transit operates a transit service with more regional
service characteristics than a traditional urban transit system, the LSC team had
to modify the v/c analysis to reflect the special elements of the ECO Transit ser-
vice. The adjustment included analyzing the peak-hour service and capacity in one
direction, which allowed the calculation to better reflect the actual operations of
Service Options
LSC
Page III-2 ECO Transit Employment Linkage Study
the transit service. This was done by using the peak-hour ridership per route for
the volume and the number of seats on the buses operating in the peak-hour
direction for capacity. The LSC team reviewed the bus schedule for each route in
the peak direction and determined the number of buses operating in the inbound
direction. The opposite/outbound direction was not taken into consideration in
the capacity of the route/system for peak hours and was considered deadhead
time. For Route 6 during peak hours, based on existing travel patterns, 75 percent
of the peak-hour riders are estimated to be traveling in the inbound direction and
25 percent in the outbound direction.
For the daily capacity analysis, the LSC team used the v/c analysis of total rider-
ship divided by the total capacity of the system. This particular analysis did not
give any consideration to the direction of the traveling public.
Table III-1 presents the v/c ratio for levels of service (LOS) A through F based on
the TCRP methodology, and the peak-hour level of service modified for a regional/
commuter service type for the present and by the end of 2013.
This level of service chart was then used to determine if each route will be
impacted by the ridership growth over the next five years. This analysis was con-
ducted for summer and winter levels of service. The TCRP report also stated that
for larger transit systems such as ECO Transit, LOS C (which ranges from 75 to
100 percent of capacity) is the standard of the quality of service. The level of
service is for the average daily trips and not the peak-hour level of service.
For this analysis and based on the fact that ECO Transit operates more regional
service, the service standard of all the routes (except Route 6) is LOS C (which
ranges from 75 to 100 percent of capacity). Route 6, which has more stops along
the route, will have a service standard of LOS D (which ranges from 100 to 125
percent of capacity). This means that, for Routes 1 through 5, additional service
will be needed once the peak-hour volume exceeds 75 percent of capacity. For
Route 6, additional service will be needed once the peak-hour volume exceeds 100
percent of capacity.
Su
m
m
e
r
S
e
r
v
i
c
e
Ro
u
t
e
Mo
n
t
h
l
y
Ri
d
e
r
s
Tr
i
p
s
pe
r
Da
y
Tr
i
p
s
p
e
r
Re
v
e
n
u
e
Ho
u
r
Re
v
e
n
u
e
Hr
/
d
a
y
P
e
a
k
H
r
C
a
p
a
c
i
t
y
V
/
C
Pe
a
k
H
r
V/
C
L
O
S
A
-
F
P
e
a
k
L
O
S
20
1
3
T
r
i
p
s
pe
r
D
a
y
20
1
3
V/C Ratio2013 Peak Hr V/C2013 LOSPeak‐Hr LOS2014 Additional Revenue‐Hours2014 Additional Buses2014 Additional FT Drivers
Ro
u
t
e
1‐
Do
t
s
e
r
o
/
V
a
i
l
14
,
5
7
7
48
6
10
48
18
1,
9
1
3
25
%
5
9
%
A
B
7
4
8
39%91%AC7 11
Ro
u
t
e
2‐
Le
a
d
v
i
l
l
e
/
A
v
o
n
/
B
C
/
V
a
i
l
4,
0
3
8
13
5
11
12
5
48
8
28
%
2
8
%
A
B
1
8
5
38%38%AA‐ 00
Ro
u
t
e
3‐
I‐70
Ex
p
r
e
s
s
‐
‐
‐
‐
‐
‐
‐
‐ 00
Ro
u
t
e
5 ‐
Mi
n
t
u
r
n
95
7
32
2
18
7
71
0
4%
7
%
A
A
4
5
6%9%AA‐ 00
Ro
u
t
e
6‐
Hi
g
h
w
a
y
6
50
,
9
6
5
1,
6
9
9
19
89
34
3,
5
4
9
48
%
6
1
%
B
B
2
,
4
4
6
69%103%CF13 32
Wi
n
t
e
r
S
e
r
v
i
c
e
Ro
u
t
e
Mo
n
t
h
l
y
Ri
d
e
r
s
Tr
i
p
s
pe
r
Da
y
Tr
i
p
s
p
e
r
Re
v
e
n
u
e
Ho
u
r
Re
v
e
n
u
e
Hr
/
d
a
y
P
e
a
k
H
r
C
a
p
a
c
i
t
y
V
/
C
Pe
a
k
H
r
V/
C
L
O
S
A
-
F
P
e
a
k
L
O
S
2
0
1
3
Tr
i
p
s
p
e
r
Da
y
20
1
3
V/C Ratio2013 Peak Hr V/C2013 LOSPeak‐Hr LOS 2014 Additional Revenue‐Hours Additional BusesAdditional FT Drivers
Ro
u
t
e
1‐
Do
t
s
e
r
o
/
V
a
i
l
23
,
0
0
0
76
7
13
57
22
2,
2
8
0
34
%
7
8
%
A
C
1
,
1
8
1
52%120%BD35 76
Ro
u
t
e
2‐
Le
a
d
v
i
l
l
e
/
A
v
o
n
/
B
C
/
V
a
i
l
6,
1
0
0
20
3
17
12
5
24
0
85
%
8
5
%
A
B
2
8
0
116%116%DD8 21
Ro
u
t
e
3‐
I‐70
Ex
p
r
e
s
s
15
,
0
0
0
50
0
11
46
17
1,
8
4
0
27
%
4
6
%
A
B
6
2
0
34%57%AB‐ 00
Ro
u
t
e
5‐
Mi
n
t
u
r
n
6,
0
0
0
20
0
8
26
10
1,
0
4
0
19
%
2
8
%
A
A
2
8
3
27%40%AA‐ 00
Ro
u
t
e
6‐
Hi
g
h
w
a
y
6
10
8
,
0
0
0
3,
6
0
0
30
12
2
46
4,
8
8
0
74
%
9
4
%
B
C
5
,
1
8
4
106%135%DF44 97
So
u
r
c
e
:
EC
O
Tr
a
n
s
i
t
an
d
LS
C
,
20
0
9
.
Ta
b
l
e
II
I
‐1
Se
r
v
i
c
e
Le
v
e
l
s
by
Ro
u
t
e
Service Options
LSC
Page III-4 ECO Transit Employment Linkage Study
(This page intentionally left blank.)
Service Options
LSC
ECO Transit Employment Linkage Study Page III-5
As shown in Table III-1, both the summer and winter service will be impacted by
the population growth in the region over the next five years. During the summer,
Routes 1 and 6 will exceed the recommended standard. Routes 2 and 5 operate
at LOS A in the summer. During the winter, Routes 1, 2, and 6 will exceed the
standard for peak-hour service. For the winter months, only Routes 3 and 5 will
operate at acceptable levels of service by the end of 2013 for peak-hour service.
Based on the analysis, Route 6 from Edwards to Vail may be reaching the level of
capacity where ECO Transit may need to examine a high-capacity transit
feasibility study for this corridor. This study should examine BRT, light rail, DMU,
and commuter rail.
Table III-2 presents the LOS for the passenger loading based on the information
in the above section.
Table III-2
Passenger Load LOS
LOS Bus Commentspass/seat*
A 0.00-0.50 No passenger need sit next to another
B 0.51-0.75 Passengers can choose where to sit
C 0.76-1.00 All passengers can sit
D 1.01-1.25 Comfortable standee load for design
E 1.26-1.50 Maximum schedule load
F 1.26-1.50 Crush loads
* Approximate values for comparison. LOS is based on area per passenger.
Source: Transit Capacity and Quality of Service Manual.
Route 6 (Winter) Service Improvement
This option adds 44 daily service-hours in the winter for a total of 166 daily
revenue-hours to Route 6 to improve the level of service on the average day and
during peak times to LOS C (99 percent of capacity). The general operations
overview of this Route 6 service includes:
•44 additional daily service-hours in winter
•Nine additional buses (includes 20 percent spare ratio)
•Seven additional full-time drivers
Service Options
LSC
Page III-6 ECO Transit Employment Linkage Study
Route 6 (Summer) Service Improvement
This option adds 13 daily service-hours in the summer for a total of 102 daily
revenue-hours to Route 6 to improve the level of service on the average day and
during peak times to LOS C (90 percent of capacity). The general operations
overview of this Route 6 service includes:
•13 additional daily service-hours in summer
•Three additional buses (including spare vehicles)
•Two additional full-time drivers
Route 1 (Winter) Service Improvement
This option adds 35 daily service-hours in the winter for a total of 92 daily
revenue-hours to Route 1 to improve the level of service on the average day and
during peak times to LOS B (74 percent of capacity). The general operations
overview of this Route 1 service includes:
•35 additional daily service-hours in winter
•Seven additional buses (including spare vehicles)
•Six additional full-time drivers
Route 1 (Summer) Service Improvement
This option adds seven daily service-hours in the summer for a total of 55 daily
revenue-hours to Route 1 to improve the level of service on the average day and
during peak times to LOS C (78 percent of capacity). The general operations
overview of this Route 1 service includes:
•Seven additional daily service-hours in summer
•One additional bus
•One additional full-time driver
Route 2 (Winter) Service Improvement
This option adds eight daily service-hours in the winter for a total of 20 daily
revenue-hours to Route 2 to improve the level of service on the average day and
during peak times to LOS B (70 percent of capacity). The general operations
overview of the Route 2 service includes:
•Eight additional service-hours in winter
•Two additional buses (including spare vehicles)
Service Options
LSC
ECO Transit Employment Linkage Study Page III-7
•One additional full-time driver
Circulator Service
Based on the information from the 2035 long-range planning process, there is an
identified need to add circulator transit service in the communities of Gypsum,
Eagle, Edwards, and Minturn. The areas of service are presented in Figure III-1.
The circulator service can be implemented through a coordination/contract effort
between ECO Transit and the individual communities.
The circulator service can be operated with one bus per community (plus one
spare vehicle) and will link to the existing ECO Transit service. The range of ser-
vice can be from 15 to 20 hours a day, for a total of 5,500 to 7,300 annual oper-
ating hours per community. The annual amount of all the circulator service is
estimated at 22,000 to 29,200 hours. Based on this level of service and the esti-
mated operating cost of $95.33 per hour, the total estimated annual operating cost
to provide circulator service to the above communities ranges from $2.0 to $2.6
million.
Note that this service can be contracted out and thereby result in a lower oper-
ating cost. At this time, the LSC team used $371,000 per bus for capital, but if
cut-away vehicles are used, the capital cost can be reduced significantly.
Note that, while the 2035 Long-Range Plan identifies this type of additional service
as needed, the demographics in Chapter II and the LOS analysis from this chapter
have not identified the circulator service as a capacity need. In addition, the cir-
culator service will need to be developed by the individual communities and coor-
dinated with ECO Transit. The reason for adding these services into the plan was
to identify the local needs that can impact the future ECO Transit service. As
additional local transit service is developed to link with ECO Transit, additional
ridership will transfer onto the ECO Transit system, thereby increasing demand.
There is currently no model to determine the level of impact.
The general operations overview of this service includes:
•Operates during morning and afternoon peak times
Service Options
LSC
Page III-8 ECO Transit Employment Linkage Study
•Five additional buses (one bus per community)
•15 to 20 additional daily service-hours per community
•10 additional full-time drivers (total)
Ed
w
a
r
d
s
Av
o
n
El
J
e
b
e
l
Vail
Gy
p
s
u
m
Ea
g
l
e
Ba
s
a
l
t
Ea
g
l
e
-
V
a
i
l
Mi
n
t
u
r
n
LeadvilleRed Cliff
§¨¦70
Ex
i
s
t
i
n
g
R
o
u
t
e
s
Mi
n
t
u
r
n
Do
t
s
e
r
o
Hw
y
6
I-
7
0
E
x
p
r
e
s
s
Le
a
d
v
i
l
l
e
Pr
o
p
o
s
e
d
C
i
r
c
u
l
a
t
o
r
S
e
r
v
i
c
e
Co
u
n
t
i
e
s
Ea
g
l
e
Ga
r
f
i
e
l
d
La
k
e
Pi
t
k
i
n
Su
m
m
i
t
Fi
g
u
r
e
I
I
I
-
1
Pr
o
p
o
s
e
d
C
i
r
c
u
l
a
t
o
r
S
e
r
v
i
c
e
LSC
ECO Transit Employment Linkage Study Page III-9
Service Options
LSC
Page III-10 ECO Transit Employment Linkage Study
NEW SERVICES
The following options are additional services that may be implemented if funding
becomes available. These services were derived from community comments or
information gathered through the 2035 Regional Long-Range Transportation Plan.
In the 2035 Long-Range Plan, the traffic volume increases on I-70 between Eagle
County and both Summit and Garfield Counties. The v/c ratios for I-70 between
Eagle County and both Garfield and Summit Counties are below 60 percent,
which indicates sufficient capacity. By 2035, the v/c ratio is over 60 percent,
which indicates the highway is approaching capacity. This additional volume along
I-70 will increase the demand for other modes of transportation (such as inter-
county service) along the I-70 corridor. The intercounty services in the below
section will need to be coordinated between ECO Transit, Roaring Fork Trans-
portation Authority (RFTA), and Summit Stage. Note that there is a feasibility
study being conducted at this time to examine connection of ECO and RFTA
services.
Commuter Service from Glenwood Springs to Eagle
This option involves the development of commuter service from Glenwood Springs
(in Garfield County) to Eagle (in Eagle County). This new service will operate
during peak commuter times for employees and residents in Eagle and Garfield
Counties to access employment, shopping, and affordable housing in major activ-
ity centers such as Glenwood Springs, Vail, Eagle, and Avon. Figure III-2 presents
the route for this service.
The general operations overview of this service includes:
•Operates during morning and afternoon peak times
•Two buses will operate the service
•12 additional daily service-hours
•Three additional full-time drivers
Æa
Gy
p
s
u
m
Ea
g
l
e
Gl
e
n
w
o
o
d
S
p
r
i
n
g
s
§¨¦70
Æa
Tr
a
n
s
i
t
C
e
n
t
e
r
s
Ex
i
s
t
i
n
g
R
o
u
t
e
s
Pr
o
p
o
s
e
d
C
o
m
m
u
t
e
r
R
o
u
t
e
Co
u
n
t
i
e
s
Ea
g
l
e
Ga
r
f
i
e
l
d
La
k
e
Pi
t
k
i
n
Su
m
m
i
t
Fi
g
u
r
e
I
I
I
-
2
Pr
o
p
o
s
e
d
G
l
e
n
w
o
o
d
S
p
r
i
n
g
s
t
o
E
a
g
l
e
C
o
m
m
u
t
e
r
R
o
u
t
e
LSC
ECO Transit Employment Linkage Study Page III-11
Service Options
LSC
Page III-12 ECO Transit Employment Linkage Study
Commuter Service from Frisco to Vail
This option is the development of commuter service from Frisco (in Summit
County) to Vail (in Eagle County). This new service will operate during peak com-
muter times for employees to travel between Summit and Eagle Counties, and will
improve residents’ access to employment, shopping, and affordable housing.
Figure III-3 presents the route for this service.
The general operations overview of this service includes:
•Operates during morning and afternoon peak times
•Two buses will operate the service
•12 additional daily service-hours
•Three additional full-time drivers
Æa
Æa
Av
o
n
Va
i
l
FriscoSilverthorne
Ea
g
l
e
-
V
a
i
l
Mi
n
t
u
r
n
Re
d
C
l
i
f
f
Æa
Tr
a
n
s
i
t
C
e
n
t
e
r
s
Ex
i
s
t
i
n
g
R
o
u
t
e
s
Pr
o
p
o
s
e
d
C
o
m
m
u
t
e
r
R
o
u
t
e
Co
u
n
t
i
e
s
Ea
g
l
e
Ga
r
f
i
e
l
d
La
k
e
Pi
t
k
i
n
Su
m
m
i
t
Fi
g
u
r
e
I
I
I
-
3
Pr
o
p
o
s
e
d
F
r
i
s
c
o
t
o
V
a
i
l
C
o
m
m
u
t
e
r
R
o
u
t
e
LSC
ECO Transit Employment Linkage Study Page III-13
Service Options
LSC
Page III-14 ECO Transit Employment Linkage Study
FACILITY IMPACT
Based on information from the growth analysis in this report and from the 2035
Intermountain Long-Range Plan, ECO Transit will need additional transit facilities,
including transit storage and maintenance facilities in Mid Valley and Leadville.
ECO Transit will also need six new transit stations along Routes 1, 2, and 6. This
is based on input from the planning department of ECO Transit. The estimated
cost of these facilities is presented in Chapter IV.
ECO Transit currently has enough storage for 53 buses plus the six spaces in
Leadville. This includes the future storage of 15 buses in Avon. During the peak
winter season, ECO Transit currently has 33 buses. In order to meet the future
level of service, ECO Transit will need 18 additional buses. Based on the level of
service analysis and the existing/planned vehicle storage, ECO Transit will have
enough storage for all of the vehicles required to meet the future level of service
demands. In terms of expansion, ECO Transit will only need additional storage for
five vehicles. At an estimated cost of $250,000 per space, the expansion cost is
about $1.25 million. This will be in addition to the present $7.3 million for the Mid
Valley facility.
If ECO Transit alters their method of operations in terms of vehicle usage and
driver shifts, the number of vehicles and the new storage facilities needed may be
reduced. This will decrease the short-term capital requirements. Currently, ECO
Transit drivers bring their buses into the garage at the end of their shifts and the
next shift driver takes a different bus out to continue the route. If the first driver
is relieved on route and the next shift driver uses the same bus that is on route,
the need for additional buses is reduced.
Transit Stations
The following section reviews the community needs for the estimated six transit
stations. This following information is based on both local input from each com-
munity and the planning staff at ECO Transit.
The stations are envisioned to be located in Edwards, Eagle, Minturn, Gypsum,
Wolcott, and Dotsero by 2014, though the specific year may vary. The purpose of
Service Options
LSC
ECO Transit Employment Linkage Study Page III-15
the transit station or transit center is to provide a central location for regional
transit buses to stop in each town, with provisions for park-and-ride, passenger
waiting areas, passenger drop-off, and other functions and amenities as appro-
priate. If the town has a local transit system, this will be the transfer area between
the local system and the regional system. Each community has a need for a transit
center, but each community varies in terms of time frame for that need, scope,
and amenities.
The location of each transit center should be in the center of each town, with
efficient access and egress to I-70, and each center should be located near the
Union Pacific (UP) rail line in the event that passenger rail becomes a possibility.
Proposed rail station locations are illustrated in the 2003 Intermountain Con-
nection Study. An estimated cost of $500,000 for each station is appropriate as
a “placeholder” in the Statewide Plan, though project costs will vary based on land
costs and scope, and may well exceed $500,000.
Edwards demonstrates the most need. It is the largest community in Eagle
County, yet it lacks a central location for regional buses to stop. Edwards’ core
contains the Riverwalk development and other mixed-use areas with current and
proposed residential densities well above the threshold for supporting transit.
Residential density for the recently approved West End project is about 35
dwelling units per acre, or five times the transit-supportive threshold. The most
appropriate location for a transit center in Edwards appears to be the rest area.
This site is largely undeveloped, is close to the core of Edwards, has efficient
access to I-70, and is located along the UP rail line. The recommended scope for
this transit center is four bus bays, a park-and-ride, passenger drop-off, bicycle
racks, and a well-lighted enclosed passenger waiting area. Provisions should be
considered for direct pedestrian connections to Riverwalk, structured parking, and
transit-oriented development.
The Town of Eagle currently has a transit center consisting of a 34-space park-
and-ride lot and a bus shelter. The park-and-ride is often filled to capacity. As
shown in Table II-2, ridership on the Dotsero route is forecast to grow at an
average rate of 10.8 percent per year. Doubling the capacity of the park-and-ride
Service Options
LSC
Page III-16 ECO Transit Employment Linkage Study
to 64 spaces would accommodate this growth in ridership for the next 5-10 years.
As the ECO Transit fleet expands to accommodate this ridership growth, and if the
Town of Eagle develops a local transit system, this transit center will need space
for three bus bays. Other amenities to consider include a larger, climate-controlled
passenger waiting area. If passenger rail is implemented, an alternate site closer
to the rail line should be selected for the transit center, such as the vicinity of
Broadway and Highway 6.
Gypsum has completed site planning and design of a transit center at the I-70
interchange consisting of approximately 60 parking spaces, two bus shelters,
space for two buses to queue, bicycle racks, passenger information kiosks, and
pedestrian connections. Similar to other transit centers, an alternate site closer
to the rail line should be considered with the possible advent of passenger rail.
The current transit center in Minturn is located at the Forest Service station and
consists of a bus shelter and a parking area that is shared by ECO Transit and the
Forest Service. On February 19, 2009, the Town of Minturn held a Goals and
Objectives Open House for the Minturn Community Plan, where participants
reported that “Dowd Junction forest service needs to expand as a park-and-ride
transportation center for the county,” and that the site was a “perfect location” for
such. This lot is filled to capacity in the winter, and parking pressures will
increase as Vail expands its employees with little commensurate parking. The
scope should include at least three bus bays to serve both ECO Transit buses and
Town of Minturn buses. ECO Transit currently operates a Minturn bus, and it is
ECO Transit’s desire for Minturn to develop its own locally funded service with
improved routes and headways when appropriate. This location is relatively
secluded, so it would also be appropriate to have a larger, more secure, climate-
controlled waiting area.
The nascent 2009 Wolcott Plan calls for a mixed-use walkable village with full
access to regional transportation. Wolcott should integrate a transit center within
its community core by creating a turnaround area with two bus bays and space
for passenger pickup and drop-off. Wolcott could share the parking for transit
patrons and parking for local businesses, and achieve economic benefit from
Service Options
LSC
ECO Transit Employment Linkage Study Page III-17
park-and-ride patrons shopping, dining, and entertaining in Wolcott. If the desire
is to have a multimodal center near I-70, as opposed to integrated into the town
center, this area should be safe and functional for boarding, alighting, accessing,
and waiting for regional transit. Whatever the case for bus infrastructure, the town
should also set aside space along the rail line for a future rail station.
Dotsero recently increased its development potential with the Two Rivers project
which includes several hundred residential units, commercial space, and a transit
stop. Opportunities exist for more residential and commercial development, and
Dotsero may become a self-sustaining community. ECO Transit and Roaring Fork
Transportation Authority are working on a potential transit connection that will
bridge the gap between Dotsero and Glenwood Springs, thereby connecting Eagle,
Lake, Garfield, and Pitkin Counties. This creates the need for an expanded transit
center in the Dotsero area.
FUTURE LEVEL OF SERVICE
Using the information presented earlier, Table III-3 presents the future level of
service incorporating the service-hours added to the routes. As shown in the table,
the Route 6 level of service improves from LOS F to LOS C during peak hours. The
table also shows that, by adding additional service-hours during peak service
times, the levels of service improve for Routes 1 and 2. Table III-3 also shows that
all of the routes in the ECO Transit system will operate at LOS C or better for the
daily average and peak times if additional revenue-hours and buses are added to
the service.
SUMMARY
Several service options were presented in this chapter. These options include new
services and enhancements to the existing service. The service options will be
used to assess the financial impacts on ECO Transit’s operational and capital
budgets.
Su
m
m
e
r
S
e
r
v
i
c
e
Ro
u
t
e
Mo
n
t
h
l
y
Ri
d
e
r
s
Tr
i
p
s
pe
r
Da
y
Tr
i
p
s
p
e
r
Re
v
e
n
u
e
Ho
u
r
Re
v
e
n
u
e
Hr
/
d
a
y
C
a
p
a
c
i
t
y
V
/
C
Pe
a
k
H
r
V/
C
L
O
S
A
-
F
P
e
a
k
L
O
S
Ro
u
t
e
1 ‐
Do
t
s
e
r
o
/
V
a
i
l
22
,
4
4
9
74
8
14
55
2,
2
1
1
39
%
7
8
%
A
C
Ro
u
t
e
2 ‐
Le
a
d
v
i
l
l
e
/
A
v
o
n
/
B
C
/
V
a
i
l
5,
5
5
2
18
5
15
12
48
8
38
%
3
8
%
A
A
Ro
u
t
e
3 ‐
I‐70
Ex
p
r
e
s
s
‐
‐
‐
‐
‐
Ro
u
t
e
5 ‐
Mi
n
t
u
r
n
1,
3
5
4
45
3
18
71
0
6%
9
%
A
A
Ro
u
t
e
6 ‐
Hi
g
h
w
a
y
6
73
,
3
9
0
2,
4
4
6
24
10
2
4,
0
6
9
60
%
9
0
%
B
C
Wi
n
t
e
r
S
e
r
v
i
c
e
Ro
u
t
e
Mo
n
t
h
l
y
Ri
d
e
r
s
Tr
i
p
s
pe
r
Da
y
Tr
i
p
s
p
e
r
Re
v
e
n
u
e
Ho
u
r
Re
v
e
n
u
e
Hr
/
d
a
y
C
a
p
a
c
i
t
y
V
/
C
Pe
a
k
H
r
V/
C
L
O
S
A
-
F
P
e
a
k
L
O
S
Ro
u
t
e
1 ‐
Do
t
s
e
r
o
/
V
a
i
l
35
,
4
2
0
1,
1
8
1
13
92
3,
6
8
0
32
%
7
4
%
A
B
Ro
u
t
e
2 ‐
Le
a
d
v
i
l
l
e
/
A
v
o
n
/
B
C
/
V
a
i
l
‐
23
7
12
20
80
0
30
%
7
0
%
A
B
Ro
u
t
e
3 ‐
I‐70
Ex
p
r
e
s
s
18
,
6
0
0
62
0
13
46
1,
8
4
0
34
%
5
7
%
A
A
Ro
u
t
e
5 ‐
Mi
n
t
u
r
n
8,
4
9
0
28
3
11
26
1,
0
4
0
27
%
4
0
%
A
A
Ro
u
t
e
6 ‐
Hi
g
h
w
a
y
6
15
5
,
5
2
0
5,
1
8
4
31
16
6
6,
6
6
0
78
%
9
9
%
A
C
So
u
r
c
e
:
EC
O
Tr
a
n
s
i
t
an
d
LS
C
,
20
0
9
.
Ta
b
l
e
II
I
‐3
20
1
4
Se
r
v
i
c
e
Le
v
e
l
s
by
Ro
u
t
e
Af
t
e
r
Se
r
v
i
c
e
Im
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
s
LSC
Page III-18 ECO Transit Employment Linkage Study
Chapter IV
LSC
ECO Transit Employment Linkage Study Page IV-1
CHAPTER IV
Financial Impacts
INTRODUCTION
Chapter IV presents the financial impact to ECO Transit’s operational and capital
budgets based on the implementation of the service options presented in Chapter
III, and provides the possible operational and capital costs related to the potential
new and adjusted transit services.
OPERATIONAL BUDGET IMPACT
This section estimates the financial impact of the operational costs for the new
and adjusted transit services by ECO Transit. The costs presented below were
based on an operational budget of $7.5 million. The hourly rate of $95.33 was
used to determine the cost of the service options and was determined by dividing
the operational budget by 78,943 annual service-hours. The cost of operations and
capital are presented in Table IV-1. Following is a review of the estimated oper-
ational costs:
•Each of the two new commuter routes will increase the annual operational
budget by about $417,550 without inflation, for a total operational cost of
about $835,100 annually for the two routes. If a five percent annual inflation
rate is included, the annual operational cost will be about $1.06 million for
the two routes in 2014.
•The additional 44 daily winter service-hours for Route 6 will result in an annual
operational cost of about $568,400 without inflation, or about $725,400 with
inflation (in 2014).
•The additional 13 daily summer service-hours for Route 6 will result in an
annual operational cost of about $286,430 without inflation, or about
$365,566 with inflation (in 2014). The result is a total operating cost of
$854,785.
•The additional operational cost of Route 1 is about $164,000 for the summer
and about $447,160 for the winter, for an annual total of about $611,160
without inflation. With inflation, the annual operational cost in 2014 will be
about $780,100.
•The additional winter service for Route 2 will result in an annual cost of about
$102,060 without inflation, or about $130,300 with inflation in 2014.
Ro
u
t
e
Ad
d
i
t
i
o
n
a
l
Da
i
l
y
Se
r
v
i
c
e
‐
Ho
u
r
s
F
T
Dr
i
v
e
r
s
C
o
s
t
/ Hr
D
a
y
s
Ad
d
i
t
i
o
n
a
l
An
n
u
a
l
Op
e
r
a
t
i
n
g
Co
s
t
(C
u
r
r
e
n
t
Co
s
t
s
)
An
n
u
a
l
w/
In
f
l
a
t
i
o
n
(5 %)
(2
0
1
4
Costs)
Ro
u
t
e
1‐
Do
t
s
e
r
o
/
V
a
i
l
(S
u
m
m
e
r
)
7
1
95
.
3
3
$
23
1
1
6
4
,
0
4
4
$
209,367
$
Ro
u
t
e
1‐
Do
t
s
e
r
o
/
V
a
i
l
(W
i
n
t
e
r
)
35
6
95
.
3
3
$
13
4
4
4
7
,
1
5
7
$
570,698
$
Ro
u
t
e
2‐
Le
a
d
v
i
l
l
e
/
A
v
o
n
/
B
C
/
V
a
i
l
(W
i
n
t
e
r
)
8
1
95
.
3
3
$
13
4
1
0
2
,
0
6
1
$
130,258
$
Ro
u
t
e
6‐
Hi
g
h
w
a
y
6 (S
u
m
m
e
r
)
13
2
95
.
3
3
$
23
1
2
8
6
,
4
3
0
$
365,566
$
Ro
u
t
e
6‐
Hi
g
h
w
a
y
6 (W
i
n
t
e
r
)
44
7
95
.
3
3
$
13
4
5
6
8
,
3
5
5
$
725,380
$
Le
v
e
l
of
Se
r
v
i
c
e
To
t
a
l
s
10
8
18
1,
5
6
8
,
0
4
7
$
2,
0
0
1
,
2
6
9
$
Ea
g
l
e
‐
RF
T
A
Co
m
m
u
t
e
r
12
2
95
.
3
3
$
36
5
4
1
7
,
5
4
9
$
532,910
$
Ea
g
l
e
‐
Su
m
m
i
t
Co
m
m
u
t
e
r
12
2
95
.
3
3
$
36
5
4
1
7
,
5
4
9
$
532,910
$
Ci
r
c
u
l
a
t
o
r
Se
r
v
i
c
e
60
8
95
.
3
3
$
36
5
2
,
0
8
7
,
7
4
3
$
2,
6
6
4
,
5
4
8
$
Ex
p
a
n
d
e
d
Se
r
v
i
c
e
To
t
a
l
s
84
11
2,
9
2
2
,
8
4
0
$
3,
7
3
0
,
3
6
7
$
Gr
a
n
d
To
t
a
l
of
Op
e
r
a
t
i
o
n
a
l
Co
s
t
4,
4
9
0
,
8
8
7
$
5,
7
3
1
,
6
3
6
$
20
1
4
Ca
p
i
t
a
l
Im
p
a
c
t
Ad
d
i
t
i
o
n
a
l
Ro
l
l
i
n
g
St
o
c
k
Ad
d
i
t
i
o
n
a
l
Ve
h
i
c
l
e
s
Ca
p
i
t
a
l
Co
s
t
Co
r
e
Ro
u
t
e
s
Ro
u
t
e
1‐
Do
t
s
e
r
o
/
V
a
i
l
(S
u
m
m
e
r
)
‐
$
Ro
u
t
e
1‐
Do
t
s
e
r
o
/
V
a
i
l
(W
i
n
t
e
r
)
7
2,
5
9
7
,
3
2
5
$
Ro
u
t
e
2‐
Le
a
d
v
i
l
l
e
/
A
v
o
n
/
B
C
/
V
a
i
l
(W
i
n
t
e
r
)
2
59
2
,
8
2
7
$
Ro
u
t
e
6‐
Hi
g
h
w
a
y
6 (S
u
m
m
e
r
)
‐
$
Ro
u
t
e
6‐
Hi
g
h
w
a
y
6 (W
i
n
t
e
r
)
9
3,
3
0
1
,
3
2
9
$
Su
b
t
o
t
a
l
18
6,
4
9
1
,
4
8
2
$
Ex
p
a
n
d
e
d
Se
r
v
i
c
e
Ea
g
l
e
‐
RF
T
A
Co
m
m
u
t
e
r
2
74
2
,
0
0
0
$
Ea
g
l
e
‐
Su
m
m
i
t
Co
m
m
u
t
e
r
2
74
2
,
0
0
0
$
Ci
r
c
u
l
a
t
o
r
Se
r
v
i
c
e
5
1,
8
5
5
,
0
0
0
$
Su
b
t
o
t
a
l
9
3,
3
3
9
,
0
0
0
$
Ro
l
l
i
n
g
St
o
c
k
To
t
a
l
s
27
9,
8
3
0
,
4
8
2
$
Fa
c
i
l
i
t
i
e
s
Mi
d
Va
l
l
e
y
Fa
c
i
l
i
t
y
7,
3
0
0
,
0
0
0
$
Ne
w
St
o
r
a
g
e
Fa
c
i
l
i
t
i
e
s
1,
2
5
0
,
0
0
0
$
Tr
a
n
s
i
t
St
a
t
i
o
n
s
(6
)
3,
0
0
0
,
0
0
0
$
Tr
a
n
s
i
t
Te
c
h
n
o
l
o
g
i
e
s
Sy
s
t
e
m
1,
0
5
0
,
0
0
0
$
To
t
a
l
12
,
6
0
0
,
0
0
0
$
So
u
r
c
e
:
EC
O
Tr
a
n
s
i
t
an
d
LS
C
,
20
0
9
.
Ta
b
l
e
IV
‐1
20
1
4
Op
e
r
a
t
i
o
n
a
l
Im
p
a
c
t
LSC
Page IV-2 ECO Transit Employment Linkage Study
Financial Impacts
LSC
ECO Transit Employment Linkage Study Page IV-3
•The cost for the community circulator service is about $2.08 million without
inflation, or about $2.6 million with inflation, over the next five years.
•The estimated total annual operational cost of the service options is about
$4.5 million without inflation, or about $5.7 million with inflation.
•A total of 28 to 30 full-time drivers will be needed to operate all the service
options.
CAPITAL BUDGET IMPACT
This section estimates the financial impact of the capital costs for the new and
adjusted transit services by ECO Transit. The following is a review of the estimated
capital costs:
•Each of the two new commuter routes will need two buses, for a total of four
buses. Based on the average cost of $371,000 per 40-foot bus, the capital cost
of the four buses for the two new commuter routes is about $1.48 million
without inflation. If a five percent annual inflation rate is included, the esti-
mated cost of the four buses will be about $1.9 million by 2014.
•The improvement of route service includes 18 new 40-foot buses, with 14
regular buses plus four spare buses. Based on the average cost of $371,000
per bus, the total capital cost will be about $6.49 million without inflation, or
about $8.28 million with inflation by 2014.
•In addition, five vehicles will be needed for the circulator service for a total
cost of about $1.8 million without inflation, or about $2.36 million with
inflation in 2014.
•The total combined capital cost for vehicles will be about $9.8 million without
inflation, or about $11.5 million with inflation in 2014.
•The total estimated facility cost is about $12.6 million for the Mid Valley
transit facilities, new facility vehicle storage, technology investments, and the
six transit stations.
ANNUAL FINANCIAL IMPACT
Based on the information from Chapter III and the above sections, the LSC team
has developed an estimated financial plan for 2010 to 2014. This financial plan
is presented in Table IV-2. The costs in each year were based on the growth rates
developed in Chapter II. All of the costs shown in the table include a five percent
annual inflation rate.
Ta
b
l
e
IV
‐2
Es
t
i
m
a
t
e
d
Fi
n
a
n
c
i
a
l
Pl
a
n
20
1
0
2
0
1
1
2
0
1
2
2
0
1
3
2
0
1
4
T
o
t
a
l
Op
e
r
a
t
i
o
n
Co
s
t
Le
v
e
l
of
Se
r
v
i
c
e
Im
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
s
Ro
u
t
e
1‐
Do
t
s
e
r
o
/
V
a
i
l
(S
u
m
m
e
r
)
‐
$
‐
$
‐
$
‐
$
209,367
$
209,367$
Ro
u
t
e
1‐
Do
t
s
e
r
o
/
V
a
i
l
(W
i
n
t
e
r
)
93
,
9
0
3
$
12
3
,
2
4
8
$
17
2
,
5
4
7
$
27
1
,
7
6
1
$
570,698
$
1,232,157$
Ro
u
t
e
2‐
Le
a
d
v
i
l
l
e
/
A
v
o
n
/
B
C
/
V
a
i
l
(W
i
n
t
e
r
)
53
,
5
8
2
$
11
2
,
5
2
2
$
13
0
,
2
5
8
$
15
8
,
3
3
0
$
202,073
$
656,765$
Ro
u
t
e
6‐
Hi
g
h
w
a
y
6 (S
u
m
m
e
r
)
60
,
1
5
0
$
78
,
9
4
7
$
11
0
,
5
2
6
$
17
4
,
0
7
9
$
365,566
$
789,268$
Ro
u
t
e
6‐
Hi
g
h
w
a
y
6 (W
i
n
t
e
r
)
11
9
,
3
5
4
$
15
6
,
6
5
3
$
21
9
,
3
1
4
$
34
5
,
4
1
9
$
725,380
$
1,566,121$
Su
b
t
o
t
a
l
32
6
,
9
9
0
$
47
1
,
3
7
0
$
63
2
,
6
4
5
$
94
9
,
5
8
9
$
2,
0
7
3
,
0
8
4
$
4,453,677$
Ne
w
/ Ex
p
a
n
d
e
d
Se
r
v
i
c
e
Ea
g
l
e
‐
RF
T
A
Co
m
m
u
t
e
r
46
0
,
3
4
7
$
48
3
,
3
6
5
$
50
7
,
5
3
3
$
532,910
$
1,984,154$
Ea
g
l
e
‐
Su
m
m
i
t
Co
m
m
u
t
e
r
43
8
,
4
2
6
$
46
0
,
3
4
7
$
48
3
,
3
6
5
$
50
7
,
5
3
3
$
532,910
$
2,422,580$
Ci
r
c
u
l
a
t
o
r
Se
r
v
i
c
e
43
8
,
4
2
6
$
57
5
,
4
3
4
$
80
5
,
6
0
8
$
1,
2
6
8
,
8
3
2
$
2,
6
6
4
,
5
4
8
$
5,752,848$
Su
b
t
o
t
a
l
87
6
,
8
5
2
$
1,
4
9
6
,
1
2
9
$
1,
7
7
2
,
3
3
7
$
2,
2
8
3
,
8
9
8
$
3,
7
3
0
,
3
6
7
$
10,159,582$
Ad
d
i
t
i
o
n
a
l
Op
e
r
a
t
i
o
n
a
l
Co
s
t
1,
2
0
3
,
8
4
2
$
1,
9
6
7
,
4
9
8
$
2,
4
0
4
,
9
8
2
$
3,
2
3
3
,
4
8
7
$
5,
8
0
3
,
4
5
1
$
14,613,260$
Ca
p
i
t
a
l
Co
s
t
s
Tr
a
n
s
i
t
Fa
c
i
l
i
t
i
e
s
7,
6
6
5
,
0
0
0
$
1,
5
1
9
,
3
8
3
$
9,184,383$
Bu
s
e
s
2,
3
3
7
,
3
0
0
$
2,
8
6
3
,
1
9
3
$
1,
7
1
7
,
9
1
6
$
2,
2
5
4
,
7
6
4
$
2,
3
6
7
,
5
0
2
$
11,540,674$
Tr
a
n
s
i
t
St
a
t
i
o
n
s
(6
)
50
0
,
0
0
0
$
55
1
,
2
5
0
$
63
8
,
1
4
1
$
77
5
,
6
6
4
$
1,
9
7
9
,
9
3
2
$
4,444,986$
Tr
a
n
s
i
t
Te
c
h
n
o
l
o
g
i
e
s
Sy
s
t
e
m
21
0
,
0
0
0
$
22
0
,
5
0
0
$
23
1
,
5
2
5
$
24
3
,
1
0
1
$
255,256
$
1,160,383$
To
t
a
l
Ca
p
i
t
a
l
Co
s
t
10
,
7
1
2
,
3
0
0
$
3,
6
3
4
,
9
4
3
$
2,
5
8
7
,
5
8
1
$
4,
7
9
2
,
9
1
2
$
4,
6
0
2
,
6
9
0
$
26,330,426$
Ve
h
i
c
l
e
Pu
r
c
h
a
s
e
s
Ne
w
Ve
h
i
c
l
e
s
6
7
4
5
5
So
u
r
c
e
:
EC
O
Tr
a
n
s
i
t
an
d
LS
C
,
20
0
9
.
LSC
Page IV-4 ECO Transit Employment Linkage Study
Financial Impacts
LSC
ECO Transit Employment Linkage Study Page IV-5
For the summer portion of Route 1, the estimated increase in service is shown as
being implemented in 2014 since the level of service is projected to be impacted
enough in 2014 to justify additional service. The other routes presented in Table
IV-2 have enough additional service-hours in each year to justify the implementa-
tion of portions of the additional service from 2010 to 2014.
Table IV-2 also presents the annual financial impact of the expanded services of
the commuter routes and circulators, if ECO Transit assumes full operational
responsibility for these services. If ECO Transit is able to develop agreements with
RFTA and Summit Stage, the costs shown in the table will be reduced. The cost
for the circulator can also be reduced if ECO Transit coordinates with the local
communities to operate the service. If the local communities contract the circu-
lator service with ECO Transit, this will generate a source of revenue that could
be used to off-set the cost of the circulator service.
The capital costs for vehicles and facilities are also presented in Table IV-2. The
vehicle costs correspond to the implementation year of the expanded services and
the increased level of service for the existing routes. The facility costs include the
Mid Valley maintenance and storage facility, which is estimated at $7.6 million.
An additional storage facility is estimated to be needed by 2013 at a cost of about
$1.5 million. The table includes the six transit stations at a total cost of about
$4.4 million. The need for these stations was based on information from the
planning department of ECO Transit. Included in the capital, but only as a place
holder, we have added in $1 million for technology systems that will aid in the
improvement of transit operations. With inflation, it is estimated the capital cost
for the technology investment is $1.16 million.
Chapter V
LSC
ECO Transit Employment Linkage Study Page V-1
CHAPTER V
Funding Alternatives
INTRODUCTION
Successful transit systems are strategic about funding and attempt to develop
funding bases that enable them to operate reliably and efficiently within a set of
clear goals and objectives according to both long-range and short-range plans.
Potential strategies for funding transit services in Eagle County are described
below.
CAPITAL FUNDING
The expanded service recommended in this report will require capital funding for
bus fleet procurement, facility construction, and for bus stops and shelters. The
following strategies for funding capital development should be considered.
•Federal funding (along with any state matching funds) should be maximized,
both within the existing Federal Transit Administration (FTA) Sections 5310
and 5311 programs and through pursuit of discretionary grants from the FTA
channels and direct Congressional earmarked funding. Small transit systems
often underachieve their potential for federal grant assistance because they
assume they cannot compete in that arena. Close coordination with the Colo-
rado Department of Transportation and the Colorado Transit Coalition will
help ECO Transit be aware of funding opportunities and compete for funding.
•In general, the best use of federal discretionary grant funding is for capital
needs since this is a highly speculative source of money that requires exten-
sive political effort at a level that is feasible only as a one-time or occasional
undertaking. ECO Transit has a distinct advantage in that they already have
a dedicated source of funding through the Eagle County sales tax.
•Planning for capital facilities should take into account long-range system
development needs. Many transit systems outgrow their facilities quickly and
face costly relocation and expansion needs because of inadequate space or
other constraints. This is particularly important for areas with rapid growth
such as Eagle County.
•The transit financial management system should include specific provisions
for fleet replacement and other capital investments. A sinking fund for capital
replacement should be established, and some amount of money from local
Funding Alternatives
LSC
Page V-2 ECO Transit Employment Linkage Study
funding sources should be set aside annually based upon a recapitalization
plan. Note that buses and certain other capital facilities purchased with
federal participation (80 percent under SAFETEA-LU) are also eligible for
federal participation for replacement costs once the buses and facilities reach
maturity (as defined in the FTA rules).
OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE FUNDING
Over time, the primary financial requirement of a local or regional transit
system will be funding the routine operations and maintenance—
including daily transit service, vehicle maintenance, and system admin-
istration. Labor normally represents about 75 percent of the costs for
running a transit system, with the majority of that amount going to drivers’
salaries. The following strategies for funding operations and maintenance should
be considered.
•ECO Transit realized early on that reliance on general fund appropriations
from local governments should be avoided. It is common for local and regional
transit agencies in many states, including Colorado, to be dependent upon the
annual appropriations from their constituent towns, cities, and counties. As
a practical matter, such appropriations mean that it will not be possible to
forecast future funding levels given the exigencies of local government fund-
ing. A transit agency that relies upon such appropriations will be unable to
undertake capital planning and will continually face potential service cut-
backs. This, in turn, makes it difficult or impossible for the transit agency to
enter into partnership arrangements with other agencies or private entities.
Transit agencies, like highway agencies, require that most or all of their oper-
ations and maintenance funding come from dedicated sources so that they
can undertake responsible planning and offer reliable, consistent service.
ECO Transit should investigate the possibility of expanding their dedicated
tax base by either having Eagle County increase its sales tax or obtaining
commitments from the various communities to increase their sales tax rate
and dedicate that increase to ECO Transit.
•ECO Transit should continue to collect fares as part of the transit system
funding, even though this is not an ideal source of revenue. Due to the reali-
ties of a transportation system’s cost and financing structure, it is generally
not possible to recoup more than 10 to 20 percent of operations and main-
tenance costs from the farebox revenues within rural areas. Fare collection
itself incurs costs for farebox maintenance, cash management, and auditing.
Fare collection slows down vehicle boarding and increases the operating costs
by increasing the time required to run each route. Finally, fare collection can
deter ridership. Having said this, last year ECO Transit collected an estimated
$1,869,430 in fares which represented approximately 26 percent of total
revenue collected, which would be a substantial amount of revenue to replace.
Funding Alternatives
LSC
ECO Transit Employment Linkage Study Page V-3
•Operations and maintenance funding mechanisms should be designed to
anticipate transit system growth. Successful rural and small urban transit
systems around the United States are experiencing annual growth in rider-
ship. It is important to be able to respond to such growth by increasing the
service levels to meet the demand. This means that the ideal funding sources
for operations and maintenance are those that have the flexibility to be
increased or expanded as demand grows. Such flexibility will, in most cases,
require voter approval. The important consideration is that the need for
growth has been anticipated and the potential for larger budgets is not pre-
cluded by the choice of a source of funding.
OVERALL SERVICE CONSIDERATIONS
There are also a few overarching considerations in developing a coherent transit
system funding strategy, including:
•Issues of funding and service equity are of paramount importance in design-
ing a strategy for future funding. Informal systems based upon annual appro-
priations, as well as systems without specific accounting for the distribution
of costs and benefits, struggle with the local elected bodies to find acceptable
allocations of cost responsibility. This can become a significant barrier to
transit system growth.
•The strongest regional transit systems are those that make extensive use of
partnerships. Examples include partnerships with private companies,
national parks, other major public facilities, and adjacent jurisdictions.
Partnership arrangements enable a transit system to broaden its base of
beneficiaries, expand its funding source alternatives, achieve better gov-
ernance, and improve public support.
POTENTIAL LOCAL AND REGIONAL FUNDING SOURCES
In Colorado, home-rule cities and towns have the power to fund transit according
to a state statute. The principal funding sources for local and regional transit
systems in Colorado are described below.
General Fund Appropriations
Counties and municipalities may appropriate funds for transit operations, main-
tenance, and capital needs. Money to be appropriated generally comes from local
property taxes and sales taxes. Competition for such funding is high and local
governments generally do not have the capacity to undertake major new annual
funding responsibilities for transit.
Funding Alternatives
LSC
Page V-4 ECO Transit Employment Linkage Study
SB1 Strategic Transit Program
SB1 funding is administered by the Colorado Department of Transportation. The
State’s Senate Bill 1 program provides funding for strategic transportation proj-
ects. There is a legislative requirement that “at least 10 percent of such strategic
transportation project revenues shall be expended for transit purposes or for
transit-related capital improvements.” The Senate Bill 1 program originally pro-
jected to have $71,000,000 available for strategic transit projects for the years
2009-2012. Unfortunately, that amount is now projected to be only $17,000,000.
However, since ski resorts play such an important role in the economic health of
Colorado, developing facilities and purchasing transit equipment to enhance the
ski resort industry should hold strategic value and enhance ECO Transit’s
chances of receiving these funds.
Voluntary Assessments
The voluntary assessments alternative requires each participating governmental
entity and private business to contribute to the funding of the transit system on
a year-to-year basis. This alternative is common with transit agencies that provide
regional service rather than service limited to a single jurisdiction. The main
advantage of voluntary assessment funding is that it does not require voter
approval. However, the funding is not steady and may be discontinued at any
time.
Private Support
Financial support from private industries could assist in providing transportation
improvements in the ECO Transit service area. ECO Transit staff should make a
priority of finding private firms who may be willing to help support the cost of
alternative fuel vehicles or the operating costs for employee transportation.
Transportation Impact Fees
Traditional methods of funding the transportation improvements required by new
development raises questions of equity. Sales taxes and property taxes are applied
to both existing residents and new residents attracted by the development. How-
ever, existing residents then inadvertently pay for the public services required by
the new residents. As a means of correcting this inequity, many communities
Funding Alternatives
LSC
ECO Transit Employment Linkage Study Page V-5
nationwide (faced with strong growth pressures) have implemented development
impact fee programs that place a fee upon new developments equal to the costs
imposed on the community.
Previous work by LSC indicates that the levy of impact fees on real estate devel-
opment has become a commonplace tool in many regions to ensure that the costs
associated with a development do not fall entirely upon the existing residents.
Impact fees have been used primarily for highways and roadways, followed by
water and sewer projects. A program specifically for mass transit has been estab-
lished in San Francisco.
A number of administrative and long-term considerations must be addressed:
•It is necessary to legally ensure that the use on which the fees are computed
would not change in the future to a new use with a high impact by placing a
note restricting the use on the face of the plat recorded in public records.
•The fee program should be reviewed annually.
•The validity of the program and its acceptability to the community are
increased if a time limit is placed on the spending of collected funds.
•TIF funds need to be strictly segregated from other funds.
•The imposition of a TIF program could constrain capital funding sources
developed in the future, as a new source may result in a double payment.
•TIF fees should be collected at the time that a building permit is issued.
Hotel Bed Tax
The appropriate use of lodging taxes (occupancy taxes) has long been the subject
of debate. Historically, the bulk of lodging taxes are used for marketing and
promotion efforts for conferences and general tourism. In other areas, such as
resorts, the lodging tax is an important element of the local transit funding
formula. A lodging tax can be considered a specialized sales tax placed only upon
lodging bills. As such, it shares many of the advantages and disadvantages of a
sales tax. Taxation of this type has been used successfully in Park City, Utah; Sun
Valley, Idaho; Telluride, Colorado; and Durango, Colorado. A lodging tax creates
inequities between different classes of visitors as it is only paid by overnight
visitors. The day visitors (particularly prevalent in the summer) and condo-
Funding Alternatives
LSC
Page V-6 ECO Transit Employment Linkage Study
minium/second home owners, who may use the transit system as much as the
lodging guests, do not contribute to this transit funding source.
Dedicated Sales Tax
This funding comes from a general vote which allows the local
government to increase either real estate or sales taxes, and the
revenue collected from this tax increase is dedicated solely to public
transportation. At this time, ECO Transit receives dedicated funding
from sales taxes collected in Eagle County. One alternative to generating
additional revenue to meet the needs of expanding service would be to ask
communities within Eagle County to dedicate a sales tax increase to help support
the regional system.
Sales tax is the financial base for many transit services in the western United
States. One advantage is that sales tax revenues are relatively stable and can be
forecast with a high degree of confidence. In addition, sales tax can be collected
efficiently and allows the community to generate revenue from visitors in the area.
Regional Transportation Authority
Colorado House Bill 97-1273 created the “Rural Transportation Authority Law” in
1997. This law enables any combination of local governments to create, by con-
tract, an Authority that is authorized to exercise the functions conferred by the
provisions of the law. In essence, a Rural Transportation Authority (RTA) can
develop and operate a transit system, construct and maintain roadways within its
service area, and petition the citizens within the RTA boundary to tax themselves
for the purpose of funding the RTA and the services the RTA provides.
An RTA is an excellent institutional and funding mechanism for developing a
regional transit system. However, it takes time to organize and must have support
from all the towns and cities that are within the RTA’s service area.
ECO Transit has established itself as an efficient and effective provider of regional
transit service. It may be time for ECO Transit to become an RTA. With becoming
an RTA, ECO Transit could potentially receive dedicated funding not only from
Funding Alternatives
LSC
ECO Transit Employment Linkage Study Page V-7
Eagle County, but from communities which it currently serves. This transition was
accomplished by the Roaring Fork Transportation Authority in neighboring Pitkin
County.
FEDERAL TRANSIT FUNDING SOURCES
Through the SAFETEA-LU, the federal government has sub-
stantially increased the transit funding levels for small urban and
rural areas. In addition, changes in program requirements have
provided increased flexibility regarding the use of federal funds.
Following are discussions of the federal transit funding programs
available for which ECO Transit is eligible.
FTA Section 5309 - Capital Improvement Grants
The FTA Section 5309 program (capital improvement grants) is split into three
categories—new starts, fixed guideway modernization, and transit vehicles and
facilities. These funds were formerly apportioned directly by the FTA. For several
years, however, Congress has earmarked these funds directly. There is no indica-
tion that this trend toward earmarking the funds will change. Realizing that most
systems in Colorado are small systems that do not have the political clout to
obtain these revenues, a coalition of Colorado transit systems was organized that
prepares the 5309 grant, then solicits the support for this grant from the Colorado
legislators in the US Senate and House of Representatives.
The Colorado Transit Coalition consists of over 25 organizations that seek an ear-
mark of Section 5309 funds. To become a part of this coalition, a transit system
must pay annual dues and is not eligible for 5309 funds until it has been a
member of the coalition for one year.
FTA Section 5310 - Capital for Elderly and Disabled Transportation
FTA funds are also potentially available through the Section 5310 program, which
provides capital for elderly and disabled transportation. These funds are primarily
for vehicles.
Funding Alternatives
LSC
Page V-8 ECO Transit Employment Linkage Study
FTA Section 5311 - Public Transportation for Rural Areas
FTA funding for rural areas is currently provided through the Section 5311 pro-
gram. A 20 percent local match is required for capital expenditures, and a 50
percent local match is required for operating expenditures. These funds are seg-
mented into “apportioned” and “discretionary” programs. Most of the funds are
apportioned directly to rural counties based upon population levels. This program
has historically been the source of FTA funds for many rural areas within
Colorado. This program is administered by the Colorado Department of Transpor-
tation which receives grant requests from the rural transit systems in the state.
FTA Section 5312 - Research, Development, Demonstration, and Training Projects
The FTA Section 5312 program provides funding for research, development, dem-
onstration, and training projects. The Secretary of Transportation may provide
grants or contracts that will help reduce urban transportation needs, improve
mass transportation service, or help mass transportation service meet the total
urban transportation needs at a minimum cost. The Secretary of Transportation
may also provide grants to nonprofit institutions of higher learning to conduct
research and investigation into the theoretical or practical problems of urban
transportation and to train individuals to conduct further research or obtain
employment in an organization that plans, builds, operates, or manages an urban
transportation system. The grants may be provided to state and local govern-
mental authorities for projects that will use innovative techniques and methods
in managing and providing mass transportation.
FTA Section 5317 - New Freedom Program
The New Freedom program is designed to provide public transportation services
to disabled individuals beyond what is required by the Americans with Disabilities
Act of 1990. For example, Section 5317 will provide funding needed to change
curb-to-curb ADA service to door-through-door service, which is much more
expensive to operate.
FTA Section 5319 - Bicycle Facilities
The FTA Section 5319 program provides funds for improved bicycle access to mass
transportation facilities or for bicycle shelters and parking facilities in or around
Funding Alternatives
LSC
ECO Transit Employment Linkage Study Page V-9
mass transportation facilities. The FTA Section 5319 program provides funding for
90 percent of the project cost, with some exceptions. The installation of equipment
for transporting bicycles on mass transportation vehicles is a capital project that
is eligible for assistance under the FTA Sections 5309 and 5311 programs.
Job Access and Reverse Commute Program
The Job Access and Reverse Commute (JARC) program—funded through
SAFETEA-LU—has an emphasis on using funds to provide transportation within
rural areas that currently have little or no transit service. The list of eligible appli-
cants includes states, metropolitan planning organizations, counties, and public
transit agencies, among others. A 50 percent non-Department of Transportation
match is required, but other federal funds may be used as part of the match. FTA
gives a high priority to applications that address the transportation needs of areas
that are unserved or underserved by public transportation.
Transportation and Community System Preservation Program
The transportation and community system preservation program is funded by the
Federal Highway Administration to provide discretionary grants for developing
strategic transportation plans for local governments and communities. The goal
of the program is to promote livable neighborhoods. Grant funds may be used to
improve the safety and efficiency of the transportation system; reduce adverse
environmental impacts caused by transportation; and encourage economic devel-
opment through access to jobs, services, and centers of trade.
Other Federal Funds
A wide variety of other federal funding programs provide support for transpor-
tation programs. These potential funding sources include:
•Surface Transportation Program (STP)
•Older Americans Act
•Department of Commerce, Economic Development Administration
•Supportive Housing for Persons with Disabilities
•Supportive Housing Program
•Office of Public Housing, Public Housing Drug Elimination Program
•Resident Opportunities and Self-Sufficiency Program
Funding Alternatives
LSC
Page V-10 ECO Transit Employment Linkage Study
•Department of Justice Weed and Seed Program
•Senior Community Service Employment Program
•Workforce Investment Pilot and Demonstration Programs
•Workforce Investment Act Programs
•Veterans’ Employment and Training Service, Homeless Veterans’
Reintegration Project
•Department of Education, Federal TRIO Programs
•Vocational Rehabilitation Grants
•Centers for Independent Living
•Temporary Assistance for Needy Families
•Head Start
•Developmental Disabilities Basic Support and Advocacy Grants
•Social Services Block Grants
•Community Health Centers
•Rural Health Outreach and Research
•Medicaid
•Corporation For National Service, National Senior Service Corps
FUNDING SUMMARY
Experience with transit systems across the nation underscores the critical impor-
tance of dependable (preferably dedicated) sources of funding if the long-term
viability of transit service is to be assured. Transit agencies that are dependent
upon annual appropriations and informal agreements have suffered from reduced
ridership (because passengers are not sure if service will be provided from one
year to the next), high driver turnover (contributing to low morale and a resulting
high accident rate), and inhibited investment in both vehicles and facilities. Such
transit agencies include those in Teton County, Wyoming and Prowers County
(SEATS), Colorado.
The advantages of financial stability indicate that a mix of revenue sources is
prudent. The availability of multiple revenue sources helps to avoid large swings
in available funds which can lead to detrimental reductions in service. As the
benefits of transit service extend over more than one segment of the community,
Funding Alternatives
LSC
ECO Transit Employment Linkage Study Page V-11
dependence upon more than one revenue source helps to ensure that costs and
benefits are equitably allocated.
Federal funds are limited, although the current trend is a small annual increase.
A strong local transit funding source is needed to allow the many plans and
proposals for transportation improvements to reach implementation with an
assurance of ongoing operating funding. Though all of the options regarding local
funding have drawbacks and restrictions, it is clear that a hybrid of these alter-
natives will be necessary if the short-term and long-range goals of ECO Transit
and the community are to be met.
Chapter VI
LSC
ECO Transit Employment Linkage StudyPage VI-1
CHAPTER VI
Institutional Alternatives
INTRODUCTION
The purpose of this chapter is to discuss institutional structures that are available
to ECO Transit. This chapter also identifies those institutional alternatives that
have proven successful for transit services similar to ECO Transit in Colorado. An
institutional structure is charged with handling the administrative, financial,
operational, and governmental duties needed to operate a public transit system.
INSTITUTIONAL APPROACHES
This study approaches the institutional alternatives from a practical
standpoint rather than a theoretical one. As the population in Eagle
County and the region changes, so will the demands on the existing
agencies. The following section examines the alternatives the region
could use to provide public transit service.
Criteria for Institutional Structures
The history of transit organizations indicates that the following criteria should
guide the selection of the institution for managing and operating transportation
services in the area. The institutional structure should be an entity:
•Whose structure is legitimate and whose policy-making actions are
authorized and defensible;
•Which can limit the exposure of the participants to suits and claims of
liability;
•Which can be responsive to the complete policy-making and management
needs of the transit organization;
•Which has political and financial support and can endure more than one
year at a time; and
•Which can annually perform proactive planning to improve the system and
effectively identify and implement improvements regularly and easily.
Institutional Alternatives
LSC
Page VI-2ECO Transit Employment Linkage Study
INSTITUTIONAL STRUCTURES
County Transit Service
ECO Transit currently operates under a county transit institutional structure. This
is a structure where the transit service is operated by a county. Normally the
transit service is set up as a department of the county or is a division within a
department. In many counties across the country, the transit service is part of the
Public Works Department as is ECO Transit. Listed below are some advantages of
being within a county institutional structure.
•Existing Governing Body: As with other county departments, the transit
service will be governed by the County Board of Commissioners which
alleviates the need for the transit service to develop a Board of Directors or
other form of governing body. The County Commissioners will make
decisions on how the transit service is to be funded, approve the annual
budget for the transit service, and approve performance factors for the
service. The County could also enter into intergovernmental agreements
with local governments to increase revenue for the transit service or expand
service outside the county boundary.
•Existing Departmental Agencies: Placing the new transit service in an
existing county department will provide clerical and administrative assis-
tance. It may also alleviate the need to develop new facilities for the transit
service since administrative space may be available within the department’s
facilities.
•Possibility of General Fund Revenue: Taxes that the County collects can
be used to help fund the new public transit service. This is an important
source of operational funding and also allows for local revenue to match any
funding received from federal or state grants. It is important to note that the
majority of funding needed to operate the service and to pay the labor and
non-capital costs will be from local sources of revenue.
•Possibility of Generating Revenue from a County Sales Tax: In Colorado,
counties have the legal right to increase existing sales tax through the ballot
process and approval of the citizens of the county. A petition could be made
to have this increased sales tax revenue be used to operate service.
•Existing Facilities: Transit needs relatively large facilities to maintain the
bus fleet. Generally a county has a maintenance facility to take care of
sheriff vehicles, fire trucks, and large public works vehicles. This facility can
be used to maintain the transit buses as well, thus alleviating the need to
construct a new facility.
•Shared Resources: Having transit service within the county government
structure will allow for accounting, payroll, grant application development,
Institutional Alternatives
LSC
ECO Transit Employment Linkage StudyPage VI-3
and legal services that the county government generally has within its
institutional structure to be shared by the transit service. Again, this will
save the transit service considerable administrative costs.
The county government institutional structure has many advantages for imple-
menting a public transit service and is used in resort communities within Colo-
rado. Summit Stage in Summit County is an example. In Eagle County, a sales tax
increase was approved by the residents of the county dedicated to developing ECO
Transit. This dedicated tax generates approximately $6,000,000 per year.
There are some disadvantages to the county institutional structure as well which
are listed below.
•Possible Higher Labor and Benefit Costs: County governments generally
provide a higher wage for drivers and mechanics and almost always provide
better and more costly benefit packages than the private sector. This may
call for a greater demand on the general fund.
•Transit may not be a High Priority with County Decision Makers:
Unless the County increases sales taxes and dedicates this increase to the
public transit service, the transit service will be vying for scarce public
funds and will compete with existing county departments for these limited
funds. The County Commissioners may not see transit as an essential ser-
vice when it is competing with traditional governmental services such as
highway maintenance and construction, the sheriff’s department, or the fire
department.
Intergovernmental Transit Agency
An Intergovernmental Transit Agency is a quasi-governmental agency that is devel-
oped by local governments to operate regional transit service. It is possible to
create this institutional structure through intergovernmental agreements. Inter-
governmental Agreements (IGAs) are where the governmental institutions agree to
establish the transit agency and provide support (both financial and non-financial)
for public transit service. This type of institutional structure is relatively quick and
easy to organize as compared to the development of a Regional Transportation
Authority. Listed below are the advantages of this form of institutional structure.
•Can Provide Revenue and Assets from Local Governments: Local gov-
ernments that agree to enter into an IGA can bring to the table financial,
administrative expertise, and capital that can be of great benefit to public
Institutional Alternatives
LSC
Page VI-4ECO Transit Employment Linkage Study
transit service. Assets such as maintenance equipment, facilities, admin-
istrative services, personnel expertise, legal services, and funding allow the
new agency to be very efficient and not create redundancy. ECO Transit
already has many of these assets either in-house or provided by Eagle
County. Therefore, the emphasis of developing IGAs should be to gather
additional revenue.
•Provides a Level of Financial Stability: Generally IGAs have a contractual
period of at least three years which will lock in a specific amount of funding
from the local governments. Although local governments may agree to a
three-year commitment, they can only guarantee funding yearly since they
have an annual budget. County governments and Home Rule municipalities
can also ask their residents to approve a sales tax increase dedicated to the
regional transit service.
•Clearly Defines the Transit Service Area: The transit service will be
defined by the municipalities and county governments that join the transit
service via an IGA.
•Allows for Regional Growth: It is relatively easy to increase the service
area by obtaining additional intergovernmental agreements outside of Eagle
County.
•Enhances the Ability to Obtain Federal and State Funding: Having a
relatively stable source of local funding provided by the IGAs or a dedicated
tax, ECO Transit will be in a favorable position to have local matching funds
that are needed to apply for federal transit grants. The Federal Transit
Administration (FTA) looks favorably to applicants that have a stable source
of funding since this generally leads to completed projects, which is very
important to FTA and the federal government.
The intergovernmental agreement institutional structure has many advantages for
implementing a public transit service and was the institutional structure first used
by the Roaring Fork Transportation Authority (RFTA)—then known as the Roaring
Fork Transit Agency—to begin transit service in the Roaring Fork Valley. The
Northeast Colorado Association of Local Governments (NECALG) also uses
intergovernmental agreements to operate its transit service (known as County
Express).
There are some disadvantages to the IGA institutional structure as well which are
listed below.
Institutional Alternatives
LSC
ECO Transit Employment Linkage StudyPage VI-5
•Need to Develop an Operating Agency with a Governing Body: Unlike
county transit service, there is no ready-made operating agency such as a
Public Works Department. Neither is there a County Commission. There-
fore, a governing body needs to be developed as well as an operating entity.
Generally the governing body is made up of representatives of the local
governments which have signed IGAs to establish the public transit agency.
An agency also needs to be developed which will oversee the transit service
operation, develop and administer the grant applications, develop reports
for regularly held Board of Directors meetings, and promote the transit
service.
•No Regulatory or Legal Authority to Develop a Dedicated Tax for Public
Transit: Unlike a county-operated transit service and a Regional Transpor-
tation Authority (discussed later in this chapter), an IGA cannot petition for
a dedicated tax to operate and administer the transit service. The only
source of revenue available to this institutional structure is revenue agreed
upon by the local governments which establish the agency, federal and state
funding grants, possible advertising revenue, and fare revenue. Transit
funding may be subject to annual budget decisions made by each of the
participating governments. Local “Home Rule” governments may choose to
ask for voter approval to increase sales taxes and dedicate these funds for
local transit service in their jurisdictions.
Regional Transportation Authority
Colorado House Bill 97-1273 created the “Rural Transportation Authority Law” in
1997 which was amended in 2005 to be Regional Transportation Authorities. This
law enables any combination of local governments to create, by contract, an
Authority that is authorized to exercise the functions conferred by the provisions of the
law. In essence, a Regional Transportation Authority (RTA) can develop and operate
a transit system, construct and maintain roadways within its service area, and
petition the citizens within the RTA boundary to tax themselves for the purpose of
funding the RTA and the services the RTA provides. Listed below are some
advantages of creating an RTA.
•Removes Jurisdictional Boundary Restrictions: An RTA can be made up
of several counties with many municipalities. The Pikes Peak Rural Trans-
portation Authority (PPRTA) includes El Paso County, the City of Colorado
Springs, the City of Manitou Springs, and the Town of Green Mountain
Falls.
•Allows for the Establishment of Dedicated Funding for Transit: An RTA
can petition the citizens of the RTA to agree, by popular vote, to establish
a sales tax which will provide revenue to operate the RTA and its programs
and services. The sales tax can be as high as one percent. An RTA can also
Institutional Alternatives
LSC
Page VI-6ECO Transit Employment Linkage Study
increase vehicle registration fees up to $10 per vehicle and a visitor benefit
tax. Local improvement district assessments can be used as well, with
assessments being based on the provision of the County’s Improvement
District Law.
•Funds from the RTA can be Used for Other Transportation Modes: An
RTA can be established to fund transportation modes other than just
transit. RTA-dedicated tax revenue can be used to fund highway con-
struction and maintenance projects, bicycle and pedestrian projects such
as trails, air transportation, and rail projects.
•Enhances Federal and State Funding Possibilities: Having a relatively
stable source of local funding provided by the dedicated tax, an RTA will be
in a favorable position to have local matching funds. The FTA is favorable
to applicants that have a stable source of funding since this generally leads
to completed projects, which is very important to FTA.
The Regional Transportation Authority institutional structure has many advan-
tages for implementing a public transit service and is now the institutional struc-
ture being used by the Roaring Fork Transportation Authority
(RFTA) to operate transit service in the Roaring Fork Valley. The
Gunnison Valley RTA originally was developed to support com-
mercial aviation, but now also supports regional transit service in
the county. The PPRTA allocates 90 percent of the revenue gen-
erated by its dedicated tax to roadway, bicycle, and pedestrian projects. The
remaining 10 percent is used to help operate Mountain Metropolitan Transit
(METRO) which is a municipal transit system within the City of Colorado Springs’
Public Works Department. Mountain Metro now uses PPRTA funds to provide
transit service to the local governments that have joined the RTA.
There are a few disadvantages to the RTA institutional structure. These disad-
vantages are listed below.
•Development of an RTA: The development of a Regional Transportation
Authority is time-consuming and labor-intensive. Intergovernmental Agree-
ments must be made between the governmental agencies that wish to be a
part of the RTA, research needs to be done to confirm the need for the RTA,
public hearings need to be conducted, the RTA must be approved by the
voters in each jurisdiction wanting to join the RTA, and the State of
Colorado needs to certify the new RTA. Voters, by jurisdiction, must approve
any tax or fee revenue to provide the funding needed to operate the RTA and
its programs and services. The development of the PPRTA failed on the first
Institutional Alternatives
LSC
ECO Transit Employment Linkage StudyPage VI-7
try. It took over two years and the help of a large number of people to create
the institution. The Fort Collins area has made several attempts to establish
an RTA which have failed primarily due to the reluctance of the citizens in
the area to increase taxation.
INSTITUTIONAL CASE STUDIES
In this section several cases studies describe how the institutional structures
discussed in the previous section have been developed and used in Colorado.
Grand Valley Regional Transportation Committee
This committee was formed by Intergovernmental Agreement in
2000. The partners are the City of Grand Junction, Mesa
County, the Town of Palisade, and the City of Fruita. One
elected official from each partner serves on the committee, as
well as a representative from the Colorado Department of
Transportation who serves in an ex-officio position.
The primary responsibilities of the committee are:
•To oversee the relationship with Grand Valley Transit which operates the
service.
•To distribute federal enhancement funds—approximately $350,000 per
year—used primarily for bike trails and highway beautification.
•To oversee preparation of a transportation plan to meet requirements for
federal funding.
•To prepare a Regional Transportation Plan.
Originally, the Committee contracted with a local nonprofit agency to operate
Grand Valley Transit. This agency operated the day-to-day service, maintained the
transit vehicles, and gathered necessary performance data. Recently, the Com-
mittee put the operations contract out to bid and awarded the contract to a private
for-profit company. The Committee is housed in the Mesa County Regional Trans-
portation Planning Office which provides planning and administrative support.
Institutional Alternatives
LSC
Page VI-8ECO Transit Employment Linkage Study
Roaring Fork Transportation Authority (RFTA)
RFTA began service as a multi-jurisdictional transit agency known as the Roaring
Fork Transit Agency in 1983. In 2001 the agency became a Rural Transportation
Authority. RFTA provides commuter bus service in the Roaring Fork Valley (from
Aspen to Glenwood Springs). Additionally, RFTA owns a rail corridor in the Roaring
Fork Valley and designs, constructs, and maintains trails for pedestrian, bicycle,
and equestrian use.
In 2006, RFTA served approximately 4.1 million commuter passengers, traveled 3.3
million miles, and operated 80 large transit vehicles. The Trails Program main-
tained a 34-mile rail corridor and constructed 10 miles of trail.
Pikes Peak Rural Transportation Authority (PPRTA)
The PPRTA is a good example of a successful collaborative effort
between area businesses and public officials to address regional
transportation needs. PPRTA members are El Paso County, the
City of Colorado Springs, the City of Manitou Springs, and the Town of Green
Mountain Falls. The establishing IGA was approved by the four member govern-
ments in August 2004 before the ballot measure went before the public in Novem-
ber. It spells out the purpose, boundaries, and powers of the Authority, as well as
the allocation of revenues, composition, and powers of the Board of Directors and
its officers.
The primary purpose of the organization is to collect tax revenue and disperse
funds to participating governments to meet their transportation needs. The trans-
portation revenue PPRTA receives is from a one percent sales tax, which is dedi-
cated to PPRTA. PPRTA is mandated to use 90 percent of the revenue it receives for
highway and pedestrian projects, with the remaining 10 percent to be used for
public transportation.
The Authority does not use federal or state funds, but the money it provides
member governments can be leveraged by those entities to acquire additional
federal and state funds. For example, in 2007 Mountain Metropolitan Transit used
Institutional Alternatives
LSC
ECO Transit Employment Linkage StudyPage VI-9
$1.68 million in PPRTA funds for match money that resulted in a $6.32 million
state grant for the purchase of 19 Front Range Express (FREX) commuter buses.
FREX provides commuter service from Colorado Springs to Denver with stops in
Fountain, Monument, and Castle Rock.
The PPRTA Board of Directors has a comprehensive IGA with each of the four
member governments outlining several procedural categories, including the budget
process, how to handle claims and other liability issues, contracting elements/
roles/limitations, ownership of projects and other assets, and financial and con-
struction reporting requirements. Appendix A provides the outline of PPRTA’s
efforts in developing an RTA.
SUMMARY OF INSTITUTIONAL ALTERNATIVES
In order to assist ECO Transit in deciding which institutional structure is best for
the system, LSC developed criteria pertinent to ECO Transit and evaluated each
of the institutional structures. The results are shown in Table VI-1. As can be seen
from the evaluation, the RTA provides long-term advantages, but it more complex
and takes longer to establish.
Ta
b
l
e
V
I
-
1
Su
m
m
a
r
y
o
f
I
n
s
t
i
t
u
t
i
o
n
a
l
A
l
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
s
Co
u
n
t
y
In
t
e
r
g
o
v
e
r
n
m
e
n
t
a
l
Ag
e
n
c
y
RTA
Ca
n
b
e
i
m
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
e
d
q
u
i
c
k
l
y
a
n
d
a
t
l
o
w
c
o
s
t
Av
o
i
d
s
n
e
e
d
f
o
r
s
p
e
c
i
a
l
l
e
g
i
s
l
a
t
i
o
n
Pr
o
v
i
d
e
s
s
t
a
b
i
l
i
t
y
En
c
o
u
r
a
g
e
s
r
e
g
i
o
n
a
l
t
r
a
n
s
i
t
c
o
o
r
d
i
n
a
t
i
o
n
Pr
o
v
i
d
e
s
c
l
e
a
r
l
i
n
e
o
f
a
u
t
h
o
r
i
t
y
o
v
e
r
a
l
l
s
e
r
v
i
c
e
s
Pr
o
v
i
d
e
s
B
o
a
r
d
a
n
d
s
t
a
f
f
t
h
a
t
f
o
c
u
s
e
s
o
n
t
r
a
n
s
i
t
Pr
o
v
i
d
e
s
g
o
o
d
b
a
s
i
s
f
o
r
f
u
t
u
r
e
e
x
p
a
n
s
i
o
n
Ca
n
p
r
o
v
i
d
e
r
e
d
u
c
e
d
r
i
s
k
o
f
l
i
a
b
i
l
i
t
y
f
o
r
pa
r
t
i
c
i
p
a
t
i
n
g
p
a
r
t
i
e
s
St
r
o
n
g
/
A
c
c
e
p
t
a
b
l
e
Mo
d
e
r
a
t
e
/
S
a
t
i
s
f
a
c
t
o
r
y
We
a
k
LSC
Page VI-10 ECO Transit Employment Linkage Study
Appendix A: Pikes Peak Rural
Transportation Authority
History of the Pikes Peak Rural Transportation Authority
December 2002 through August 2003
Originally posed by County Administrator
City Considered Question for November 2003 Election
Business Community pushes for regional approach
February 2003 to February 2004
Began public dialogue – Urging a regional approach
Chair = Dan Stuart
Membership includes EDC and various business and community leaders
Research
City Budget analysis to confirm need
Comparative tax information
Ballot initiatives – nationwide
Past County/City efforts
Local Transportation stats (needs, costs, operations)
Coalition Building
Pikes Peak United Way Leadership Summit
Chamber Transportation Committee Meetings
Conducted Community Summit
Sought out Sponsors and Endorsements
Coordination with City and County
Elected officials
Staff
Citizen Advisory Committees
Factors Influencing Voting Results of Local Transportation Funding Initiatives
Traffic Congestion “crisis”
Sponsorship by business community
Sponsorship by key elected
Fundraising over $1 M
Recent initiative experience
Support from environmental groups
Multiple transit modes
Highway funding
Benefits distributed
Sunset provision of 10yrs –
Extensive stakeholder participation in development of solution
General Election
Consultant with initiative campaign experience
Use of direct mail and TV ads
Lack of effective opposition
Pikes Peak Transportation Coalition Participants
Pikes Peak United Way
Colorado Springs Chamber
Manitou Springs Chamber
Tri Lakes Chamber
Black Chamber
Hispanic Chamber
Korean Chamber
C.S. Downtown Partnership
The Voter’s Network
C.S Apartment Association
Council of Neighbors and Organizations
Interagency Transition Teams Committee
Economic Development Corporation
Pikes Peak Association of Realtors
Housing and Building Association
University of Colorado at Colorado Springs
Pikes Peak Community College
Falcon Professional Dev. League
Community Intersections
Forum for Civic Advancement
Pikes Peak Chapter of the Colorado Mobility Coalition
Surface Transportation Advisory Coalition
Pikes Peak Transportation Coalition
March to August 2004
Chair = Dan Stuart
Steering Committee established for functional roles
Community/Public Relations, Government Coordination, Fundraising, Coalition Building
Hired administrative assistant
Public Education
Conducted 2nd Community Summit
Develop Mission Statement and establish “branding”
Speakers Bureau presentations
Website, Handouts, flyers, posters, mailings
Coalition Building
Expanding Coalition beyond Government and Business
“Invite your friends and associates”
Engage Professional Societies and Organizations
Researched Campaign and Fundraising Approach
ID Benefits and Stakeholders - Began Education Fundraising
Interviewed Campaign Consultants
Establish work plan and budgets (fundraising targets)
Polling of registered voters
Crafted IGA and Ballot Language
Collaboration with City and County
Elected Officials
Staff and PR
Citizen Advisory Committees
Other Communities considering joining the Coalition
Monitored Opposition
Go with 1A Campaign
September to November 2004 Election
Hired Local Campaign Consultant
Established Issues Committee
Accounting and reporting
Bank Account
P.O. Box
BRE’s
Data and document management (thank you letters, contact lists, materials)
Fundraising
Weekly updating of work plan and balance sheet
One point of contact for budgets, accounting, check writing
Obtain other’s “ask lists”
Send “ask” letters from recognized industry leaders
Engage largest beneficiaries with appropriate “asker”
Held industry fundraising events: (Engineering/Construction, Real estate/Banks, Major Employers)
Campaign Methods
Print media and Letters to the Editor
Targeted mailings
Walking neighborhoods
Honk-n-waves
Yard signs
Bumper Magnets (NOT stickers)
Lapel Buttons
Billboards
Polling
Conducted brushfire pole 2-weeks prior to election to confirm/modify messaging
Community Outreach and Persuasion
Established logo
Amp-up the Speakers Bureau and continuously update/customize presentation
Engage key stakeholders with personalized message
Partner with Elected Officials
Mobilize QCG (Chamber, EDC, HBA, PPAR)
Coalition Building
Weekly Steering Committee Meetings / Twice a month Coalition Meetings
Clarify roles/responsibilities
Stay on message
Continue expanding the Coalition
Opposition Management
Counter negative ads, letters, Media with letters to the editor
Results and Conclusions
Good Issue
Personalized issue to citizens and stakeholders
Something for everyone
Good Strategy
Lead Time (2 years)
Built a broad coalition (unprecedented)
Fundraising
Crafting of IGA and Ballot (1% admin, Sunset, Citizens oversight, Audit)
One question!
Good Timing
Public surveys and polls (TTI)
Fundraising/Fundraising Challenges
Presidential and Senate Races
Competition with FasTracks (similar industries)
Tax-averse voting population = skeptical contributors
Linking Benefits to Stakeholders
Implementation
New “Government” in 5 months
$65 million first year budget
Four Governments/Three Programs/One Regional RTA
No Staff – PPACG Contracted for Administrative Services May 5, 2005
$8.3 million in the bank
$15 million of contracts approved
First Projects under construction
Everyone still breathing