Loading...
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