Successfully reported this slideshow.
We use your LinkedIn profile and activity data to personalize ads and to show you more relevant ads. You can change your ad preferences anytime.

Roaring Forks Transportation Authority

123 views

Published on

During the 2017 National Regional Transportation Conference, Dan Blankenship shared information about the Roaring Forks Transportation Authority's work to serve the mobility needs of the region, including through bus rapid transit and other innovations.

Published in: Government & Nonprofit
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

Roaring Forks Transportation Authority

  1. 1. National Regional Transportation Conference June 29, 2017 1
  2. 2. Mount Sopris – Roaring Fork Valley 2
  3. 3. Haven’t Heard of the Roaring Fork Valley? How About Aspen? 3
  4. 4. In the Beginning
  5. 5. Genesis of RFTA  The City of Aspen began operating its own municipal transit services in the mid- seventies  Pitkin County began providing regional commuter services in the Highway 82 corridor in the mid-seventies  The Roaring Fork Transit Agency was formed by Intergovernmental Agreement between City of Aspen and Pitkin County in 1983 and City & Pitkin County Services were Merged to Achieve Economies of Scale  Region Transportation Authority (RTA) Enabling Legislation passed by the Colorado Legislature in 1997  7 local governments (Aspen, Pitkin County, Snowmass Village, Basalt, Eagle County, Carbondale & Glenwood Springs) executed Intergovernmental Agreement (IGA) and placed RTA issue before their respective voters ----- and it passed in all jurisdictions in November 2000!  Town of New Castle, in the Interstate 70 Corridor joined RFTA in 2004. RFTA now has 8 member jurisdictions on its Board
  6. 6. Genesis of Roaring Fork Transportation Authority (RFTA)
  7. 7. • Initial Goals of RFTA included: – Merging Transit Agency and Roaring Fork Railroad Holding Authority into RFTA over 18-month period – Maintaining existing transit services in Hwy 82 corridor – Implementing Transit service improvements in Hwy 82/I-70 corridors – Developing Short/Long-term transit planning capability – Completing the Rio Grande Trail – Maintaining/preserving Rio Grande rail corridor for future transit Genesis of RFTA
  8. 8. Regional Rural Resort Transit Benefits • Transit allows Seniors and Persons with Disabilities to remain independent to the maximum extent • Tourism is one of State’s largest economic drivers • Mountain resort communities draw many tourists from around the state, nation, and globe • Mountain resorts need employees • Employees can’t afford to live where the jobs are • Mountain communities are compact, lack parking, and can’t accommodate the cars of residents, tourists and employees • Affordable transit services are needed to transport employees to/from bedroom communities to/from job centers • Major events require transit. Major events are televised around the globe • Transit, combined with Travel Demand Management Measures reduces highway congestion and helps preserve highway capacity • Transit and carpooling about the only game in town during Carmegedon 8
  9. 9. Annual Average Daily Traffic in Aspen 20,000 20,500 21,000 21,500 22,000 22,500 23,000 23,500 24,000 1993 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 Average Annual Daily Traffic Crossing Castle Creek Bridge 30%+ of Average Peak Hour Person Trips on Transit 9
  10. 10. Roaring Fork Transportation Authority (RFTA) 10
  11. 11. RFTA Overview RFTA:  2nd Largest public transit system in Colorado after Denver RTD  Believed to be the largest rural public transit system in the U.S.  Opened nations’ first rural BRT system on 9/3/13  Received 2014 Federal Transit Administrator’s Award for Outstanding Public Service 2016 Information:  5.07 million passengers  5.5 million miles of service  350 employees during peak winter season  106 large transit vehicles (29-CNG), 22 vans  $60.7 million budget ($33.8m Operating/$21.6m Capital/5.34 Debt Service)  70-mile corridor  Aspen to Glenwood Springs (40 miles)  Glenwood Springs to Rifle (30 miles)  34-mile Rio Grande Rail Corridor and Trail 11
  12. 12. 12 50% 25% 12% 4% 4% 3% 2% 0% 2017 Estimated Revenue Composition Sales and use tax Service contracts Operating revenue Local gov't contributions - operating Other income Grant revenue - operating Grant revenue - capital Local gov't contributions - capital
  13. 13. 13 42% 18% 16% 11% 7% 5% 1% 2017 Budgeted Expenditures by Function Transit Capital Administration Debt Service Facilities Fuel Trails & Corridor Mgmt.
  14. 14. RFTA Overview RFTA provides the following types of transit services:  VelociRFTA BRT service in the Hwy 82 corridor  Regional commuter services in the Hwy 82 & I-70 corridors  Municipal transit services under contracts with the City of Aspen and the City of Glenwood Springs  Skier shuttle services under contract with Aspen Skiing Co.  Senior/Paratransit transportation services through Senior Van/Traveler  Maroon Bells bus tours in partnership with USFS  Event Transportation: World Cup, Winter X-games (59,000 passengers in one day)  Grand Avenue Bridge Transit Mitigation
  15. 15. Maroon Bells Bus Tour 15
  16. 16. Maroon Bells Bus Tour 16
  17. 17. Maroon Bells Bus Tour 17
  18. 18. Maroon Bells Bus Tour 18
  19. 19. Maroon Bells Wilderness Area 19
  20. 20. Winter X-Games Transportation
  21. 21. All These People Arrive by Bus 21
  22. 22. Then They Want to Go Home! 22
  23. 23. Grand Avenue Bridge Closure 95 Days of Carmegedon 25% - 35% Reduction in Vehicle Trips 23
  24. 24. The Rio Grande Corridor/Trail
  25. 25. Rio Grande Trail 25
  26. 26. Rio Grande Trail 26
  27. 27. Rio Grande Trail 27
  28. 28. Rio Grande Trail 28
  29. 29. Rio Grande Trail 29
  30. 30. 7. Construction 2011-2013 • Complete Final Design • FY2011 Appropriation • $2 M FTA Construction Grant • ROW Acquisition • ITS Acquisition • Construction • Order BRT Vehicles • Testing of System VelociRFTA BRT Overview: Implementation Process 8. Began Revenue Service September 3, 2013 On Time / On Budget! 6. Project Construction Preparation 4th Quarter 2010 • Final Design Stage • Vehicle Procurement Awaiting NTP • ITS Procurement Begun • Service Plan Refinement • Planning Approvals • NEPA Process Complete – FONSI Received 1. Corridor Investment Study 2003 • Compared Rail vs. BRT • Rail $300 + Million • BRT $100 Million 2. Alternatives Analysis 2007-2008 • SAFETEA-LU Auth. • Design goals • Service goals • Preferred Alternative (BRT) • Approximately $46 Million 4. Very Small Starts Application 2008 • Received FTA Approval in December 2008 • Began Project Development 3. Voter Support November 2008 • Sales Tax for BRT • Bonding Approval 5. Project Development 2009-2010 • Program Management Consultant Retained • Advanced Planning • Program Definition Refined • Branding Plan • Community Outreach • Jurisdiction Coordination • Planning Approvals • NEPA Process • Issued Bonds
  31. 31. VelociRFTA BRT Overview: Cost / Funding • VelociRFTA is in the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) Very Small Starts Program for projects up to $50 million. Maximum $25m FTA share Project Financing: – Project Cost = $46.2m – FTA share = $24.97m (54%) – RFTA share = $21.23m (46%) • 2008: Regional voters approved a 0.4% sales tax increase and $44.5 million in bonding authority for VelociRFTA BRT • 2009: RFTA issued bonds in order to have local matching funds available
  32. 32. What RFTA Riders Wanted……..Fast! • BRT Route Design – Rail-like Features – Only 8 BRT Stops from Aspen to Glenwood Springs – Direct Routing – Shorter Travel Times
  33. 33. What RFTA Riders Wanted……..Fast!
  34. 34. What RFTA Riders Wanted……..Fast! Transit Priority Measures • Transit Signal Priority (TSP) at congested intersections • Queue Bypass Lanes at congested intersections • Use of Existing Bus/HOV & Exclusive Bus lanes
  35. 35. What RFTA Riders Wanted………Information Technology! Information Program • ITS Technology • Real Time Sign Information • Automated Vehicle Location • Automated passenger counters • Automated Annunciators • Electronic Fare Collection • Mobile Wi-Fi service • System Map Integration • Schedule Integration • Community Information
  36. 36. What RFTA Riders Wanted………Information Technology! 36
  37. 37. What RFTA Riders Wanted…..…Frequent! BRT Service Plan – High-Frequency Service • Span of Service – at least 14 hours each weekday • Approximately 1-hour travel time between Glenwood Springs and Aspen (previously 90 minutes) • Local valley bus service to continue every 30 minutes • BRT service levels are adjusted during the off-season according to demand
  38. 38. What RFTA Riders Wanted……..Comfort and Convenience! BRT Station Program • Passenger Shelters – Ticket vending – Enclosed waiting and seating area – Lighting • Bicycle Storage – Covered and uncovered • Outside Seating • Landscaping • Trash and Recycling • Optional Elements – Parking – Restroom Facilities Carbondale BRT Station
  39. 39. What RFTA Riders Wanted….…Comfort and Convenience!
  40. 40. What our riders wanted……..Comfort and Convenience!
  41. 41. What our riders wanted……..Comfort and Convenience! 41
  42. 42. What RFTA Riders Wanted……….Multi-Modal Options 42
  43. 43. What RFTA Riders Wanted……….Multi-Modal Options 43
  44. 44. What RFTA Riders Wanted……….Multi-Modal Options 44
  45. 45. What RFTA Riders Wanted……….Seamless Integration 45
  46. 46. What RFTA Riders Wanted……….Seamless Integration 46
  47. 47. What RFTA Riders Wanted……..Fun! Ray LaHood – Former Secretary of USDOT
  48. 48. What RFTA Riders Wanted……..Fun! 48
  49. 49. Fun! 49
  50. 50. Fun! 50
  51. 51. RFTA Engine Technology and Fuel 51
  52. 52. RFTA Innovation 52
  53. 53. RFTA CNG Transition Project
  54. 54. RFTA CNG Transition Project - Impetus • CNG Project Benefits – Domestic fuel – Abundant Supply – Stable price trend – Less expensive overall than diesel currently (savings pay for natural gas commodity, electricity, compression O&M, infrastructure capital, and add to bottom line – Provides a hedge against higher diesel prices
  55. 55. RFTA CNG Transition Project - Innovation • One of a half-dozen indoor CNG fueling stations in the nation
  56. 56. Governor John Hickenlooper Fuels CNG Bus
  57. 57. 57-Passenger CNG Bus Bristling With Technology 57
  58. 58. 57-Passenger CNG Bus Bristling With Technology 58
  59. 59. CNG Demand Responsive Vans 59
  60. 60. What’s Next? Battery Electric Buses 60
  61. 61. Information Technology – AVL CAD 61
  62. 62. Information Technology – AVL CAD 62
  63. 63. Information Technology – Cameras 63
  64. 64. Information Technology - Cameras 64
  65. 65. Information Technology - Cameras 65
  66. 66. Information Technology – WebEx Meetings 66
  67. 67. Information Technology – IT Tickets 67
  68. 68. Information Technology – Fillable Forms/Echo Sign 68
  69. 69. Long-Range Forecast 69
  70. 70. 70 $- $5,000 $10,000 $15,000 $20,000 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 Estimated Bus Replacement 2017-2033 (1,000) Bus Replacement
  71. 71. RFTA’s Challenge: Many vehicles and assets acquired with some level of Federal and State funding. RFTA has $50 million in bus replacements over 15 years and Federal and State funding are currently inadequate. 71
  72. 72. Long-Range Forecast 72
  73. 73. Integrated Transportation System Plan 73
  74. 74. Questions? Dan Blankenship, CEO Roaring Fork Transportation Authority 2307 Wulfsohn Road, Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 970-384-4981 (Office) dblankenship@rfta.com / www.rfta.com 74

×