Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutagenda.council.worksession.20110118 MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: John Krueger, Lynn Rumbaugh — Transportation RE: Bus Rapid Transit — Inbound Routing DATE: January 11, 2011 MEETING DATE: January 18, 2011 SUMMARY AND REQUEST OF CITY COUNCIL As a follow up to previous work sessions, staff and RFTA will provide Council with further information regarding Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) inbound vehicle routing. Staff is requesting Council approval of an inbound routing option for BRT service at this meeting in order to finalize the project's operating plan. Council has received memos on this topic for previous meetings held in May, June, July and September of 2010. Please contact Transportation staff to request copies of previous memos. PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION • Council has kept abreast of the BRT project through a variety of work sessions, public meetings, EOTC meetings, RFTA Board meetings, a series of open houses held in February 2010 and small group meetings held in April and May 2010. • Council has discussed BRT routing at a number of work sessions in 2010 (May 25, June 21, July 6, and September 28). BACKGROUND At the September 28, 2010 work session, Council eliminated Spring Street as an option for inbound BRT routing, leaving Monarch Street, Aspen Street and Garmisch Street as possible alternatives. Also at that meeting, Council requested the following items from RFTA which are addressed in Attachment A: 1. Information on methods of reducing bus noise and pollution 2. Information on the capital and operating costs associated with each routing option 1 3. Information on the percent increase in total traffic volume for each routing option 4. Information on the cost and feasibility of a one -way option on Monarch Street 5. Commitment to eliminate bus staging at Koch Lumber Park 6. Commitment to rerouting deadheading buses off of Garmisch Street Since the September 28, 2010 meeting, staff has worked with RFTA to eliminate bus staging at Koch Lumber Park. Buses were staging at this location due to the lack of parking space at Rubey Park combined with the number_and frequency of routes operating out of the transit center, especially during ski hours in the winter season. To resolve this problem, the reserved taxi /shuttle parking on the south side of Durant Street at Rubey Park has been converted to RFTA bus parking only. This was accomplished in December 2010. RFTA is also in the process of re- routing deadheading buses to Spring Street. DISCUSSION In high seasons, approximately 500 buses arrive at and depart Rubey Park per day (1000 inbound/outbound trips total), the majority of which use Spring Street to reach Rubey Park and Aspen Street to exit town. Inbound Aspen /Snowmass services, Burlingame /Hwy 82 buses and deadheading RFTA vehicles travel to Rubey Park via Garmisch Street. The vast majority of outbound buses travel on Aspen Street, which is also proposed as the outbound route for BRT buses. Garmisch Street, Aspen Street, Monarch Street and Spring Street have been discussed as possible inbound options for BRT, with Council agreeing to eliminate Spring Street as an option as of September 2010. RFTA has expressed a strong preference for Garmisch Street due to balancing neighborhood impacts, the speed of service, operating ease and reduced costs associated with this route. Transportation staff was initially concerned about the lack of a formal passenger drop off area on Garmisch, which was addressed by RFTA's BRT consultant with the development of a plan for a passenger drop off area at 125 South Garmisch. RFTA has also agreed to make safety improvements at the intersection of Garmisch and Durant as per the drawing on page 15 of this packet, should inbound BRT buses be routed in this direction. 2 A number of criteria come into play when determining the best possible inbound routing option for BRT buses including travel times, accessibility, cost, existing bus volumes, parking and operating constraints. See the chart below for an evaluation routing option using these criteria. BRT Inbound Routing Evaluation Evaluation Criteria Inbound Spring Inbound Garmisch Inbound Aspen Inbound Monarch Bus Volumes ® T) Transit Travel Times O • ? . l Accessibility to Destinations ® • i Cost O • 0 Operating Issues 0 • { i� , Parking i Legend t s�a Best fulfillment of criteria C I Somewhat fulfills criteria 0 Worst fulfillment of criteria Based on the criteria above, Garmisch Street is considered by staff and RFTA to be the best overall option for inbound BRT routing. The following considerations are recommended by both staff and RFTA in order to minimize impacts on the neighborhood and maximize safety: • Installation of a passenger drop off on Garmisch Street • Implementation of safety improvements at the intersection of Garmisch and Durant Streets Another option would be to route inbound BRT buses via Garmisch Street in the winter while using Aspen Street or Monarch Street in the spring, summer and fall seasons. The benefit of this type of routing would be a distribution of impacts between various neighborhoods. The drawbacks to this routing option include the dual costs of making improvements at more than one location as well as the rider confusion that would result from a season change of routing. In addition, the elimination of approximately seven parking spaces on Monarch Street would result in an approximate $28,000 reduction to the Transportation and Parking budget. Finally, the use of Monarch Street as a major bus route would be cumbersome during the 3 many times of year when Monarch Street is closed for large special events. More specific information about the costs of improvements associated with each routing option can be found in RFTA's attached memo (Attachment A). FINANCIAL IMPACT The estimated cost of providing an appropriate passenger drop off on Garmisch Street is $35,000. Minimal costs are estimated for the improvements to the Garmisch and Durant intersection. Staff recommends, and RFTA is amenable to, a sharing of these costs between RFTA and the City. The costs of alternative scenarios are further outlined in RFTA's attached memo. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT BRT implementation is expected to result in substantial positive environmental impacts including increased transit usage, decreased SOV reliance, reduced oil dependence and improved air quality. RECOMMENDED ACTION Staff recommends that Garmisch Street be used as the inbound route for BRT buses. A possible alternative would be to route via Garmisch during winter months and to use an alternative route such as Monarch Street or Aspen Street in the spring, summer and fall. ATTACHMENTS Attachment A: BRT memo from Dan Blankenship, RFTA CEO Attachment B: Routing map 4 • Roaring Fork Transportation Authority To: Mayor and City Council, City of Aspen From: Dan Blankenship, Chief Executive Officer Subject: Aspen BRT Bus Inbound Routing Alternatives Date: January 12, 2011 Background: As referenced in the City Transportation Staff memorandum (dated January 11, 2011) to which this communication is attached RFTA has met with the Aspen City Council on several previous occasions to discuss various inbound BRT routing options within the City. There are basically four routes that would be the most practical for inbound BRT buses to access Rubey Park: Garmisch Street, Aspen Street, Monarch Street and Spring Street. Each of these routing options has advantages and disadvantages; however, RFTA has eliminated Spring Street as an inbound BRT routing option because we know from experience that it would significantly add to BRT vehicle travel times and cause the service to be less reliable. In addition, RFTA believes that Aspen Street, due to the high volume of outbound RFTA buses, should also not be considered as an inbound routing alternative. Following is a discussion of the two in -bound routing alternatives that RFTA believes are the most viable, in order of preference: Alternative 1: Garmisch Street Inbound Year - Round: This is RFTA's preferred alternative because this route would enable BRT buses to travel most expeditiously to Rubey Park, saving time for passengers, conserving fuel, reducing emissions and avoiding the most conflicts with pedestrians and other traffic. Given the conditions associated with traffic congestion, which vary from hour -to -hour, day -to -day, and season -to- season, one quickly reaches the point of diminishing returns when attempting to develop precise estimates of operating cost savings that would result from using Garmisch Street for in -bound BRT buses as opposed to other alternatives. What RFTA does know is that Garmisch Street originally was selected as an inbound route for Skier Shuttles because it allowed buses to cycle more rapidly than they would if they followed the Main Street, Spring Street, and Durant Street route to access Rubey Park. Because there are significantly more opportunities for buses to be slowed by traffic signals, traffic queues, other vehicles, and pedestrians by using other routing alternatives, RFTA believes that Garmisch Street is the best inbound routing option for BRT. The hallmark of BRT service should be shorter, more predictable, travel times. No other inbound BRT routing option within the City of Aspen will reduce BRT travel times or contribute to service predictability to the extent that Garmisch Street will. It is difficult to estimate the additional costs and impacts connected with other routing options and how they might degrade BRT travel times and service reliability. That there would be impacts to BRT travel times that would erode the recovery time of BRT vehicles before they cycle back down valley is certain. The slimmer the margin for error with respect to recovery time, the greater the potential that the service BRT would be unreliable or that higher costs would be necessary to offset uncertainty created by unpredictable travel times. RFTA and the communities that it serves are planning to invest approximately $40 million in order to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of public transit services in the Roaring Fork Valley. This investment is being made to make transit services more convenient, reliable, and attractive for users. In this regard, considerable emphasis has been placed on identifying ways to shave seconds and minutes off of BRT travel times so that BRT services will be more competitive with RFTA's formidable competition, the private automobile. 5 The VelociRFTA BRT system has regional support and is being created for the benefit of everyone in the Roaring Fork Valley. Consequently, some compromises and sacrifices must be made by some for the good of all. RFTA understands, respects, and sympathizes with residents who live along Garmisch Street that have expressed valid concerns about bus noise, but we strongly believe that the Garmisch Street route for inbound BRT buses would be the best alternative. If authorized by the City to use Garmisch Street for inbound BRT buses, RFTA will do its best to minimize bus noise to the greatest possible extent and will partner with the City of Aspen to install a passenger drop off and make intersection safety improvements at Durant and Garmisch Streets as noted on the graphic below. The estimated cost of these improvements is approximately $35,000. Alternative 2: Garmisch Street Inbound (Winter) and Monarch Street (Spring /Summer /Fall): For all of the reasons stated in Alternative 1 above, RFTA believes that Garmisch Street is the best inbound routing option for BRT and, at a minimum, should be used for inbound BRT buses during the winter. It comes as no secret that slick streets in the City of Aspen can greatly affect the reliability of RFTA services. Although an infinite combination of winter storm and traffic events can lead to shutting down or impeding bus operations, RFTA's experience over the last 30 years has been that the Garmisch Street route is by far the most expeditious, reliable and safe route for buses to travel in order to access Rubey Park. As the chart on the next page indicates, compared with existing conditions, the number of buses trips on Garmisch Street during the winter would increase by 38 total bus trips per day, with the addition of BRT service, by moving 35 deadheading buses to Spring Street. Total bus trips on Spring Street would increase by about 10 trips compared with existing conditions, because BRT will eliminate 26 inbound Express bus trips when implemented. While any use of Garmisch Street by RFTA buses during the year may not be ideal from the perspective of nearby residents, the impacts from bus noise should be mitigated during the winter because most people keep their doors and windows closed. In addition, fewer people will be outside or utilizing Koch Park who will be affected by bus noise and traffic. ESTIMATE OF THE INCREASE IN BUS TRIPS RESULTING FROM BRT IMPLEMENTATION ',Preferred" Option 2 Option 3 - Option t Inbound Inbound Option 4 6IU Inbound Spring Existing n Monarch Aspen lath Outbound Outbound Outbound x tnOund Aspen Aspen Aspen Garmisch _ 233 271 198 198 198 Aspen 386 434 434 507 434 Monarch 110 110 183 110 110 Spring 304 314 314 314 387 Total Inbound & Outbound Bus Trips 1,033 1,129 1,129 1,129 1,129 Total In /Out Increase w /BRT N/A 96 96 96 96 Increase In N/A 48 48 48 48 Increase Out N/A 48 48 48 48 Note: Although there will be 74 inbound and 74 outbound BRT Trips for a total of 148 Total BRT Trips per day, 26 Inbound and 26 outbound Express trips will be eliminated on Spring and Aspen Streets. Therefore, the net increase in total inbound and outbound bus trips due to BRT will only be approx. 96 trips (!.e. 48 inbound and 48 outbound). Bus trips will go down by 35 on Garmisch and up on Spring compared with existing by moving deadheading buses from one route to another While not preferred because of the additional number of traffic signals and conflicts with pedestrians and traffic that must be negotiated to reach Rubey Park, RFTA does believe Monarch Street would be a workable option during the spring, summer and fall months. However, due to the tight turning radius from Main Street to Monarch Street, some modifications of Monarch Street would be necessary in order to make it useable as a BRT route (a brief video of RFTA buses attempting to make the right turn from Main Street onto Monarch Street will be presented at the meeting). 2 (� The two most feasible alternatives for reconfiguring Monarch Street so that it will accommodate BRT vehicle turning • movements are to make Monarch a one -way street southbound from Main Street to Hopkins or to remove parking on the east side of Monarch so that northbound traffic can be channeled as far to the east side of the street as possible. Both options envision the removal of seven parking spaces on Monarch between Hopkins and Hyman Streets for a bus stop. The first option (making Monarch one -way between Main and Hopkins) would result in the loss of five additional parking spaces (12 total) and the second option (removal of parking on the east side of Monarch) would result in the loss of three additional parking spaces (10 total). If this Alternative #2 is approved, it would require a 510,500 investment for the bus stop and signage on Monarch Street in addition to the $35,000 investment for a passenger drop off and intersection improvements at Garmisch and Durant. Conceptual drawings and cost estimates for the required improvements are attached. The elimination of parking is obviously the biggest disadvantage of this proposed routing option and making the street one -way for a block could also be a cause of concern for businesses or persons who frequently use Monarch Street. The major advantage of this option is that it would virtually eliminate all bus traffic on Garmisch during the spring, summer and fall; when nearby residents have windows and doors open, and when they are spending more time outside. Conclusion: RFTA's preferred alternative would be to use Garmisch Street year- round. RFTA believes that use of Garmisch Street on a year -round basis would greatly reduce BRT travel times and contribute to the reliability, and efficiency of the overall BRT system. RFTA's #2 alternative would be to use Garmisch Street during the winter and Monarch Street during the spring, summer and fall. From RFTA's perspective, this option would increase BRT travel times and reduce its reliability and efficiency, but it would be more desirable for residents who live on Garmisch Street. Given the inability to keep the Monarch and Durant intersection free of ice and snow, RFTA does not believe that Monarch Street would be a safe or workable option for BRT vehicles during the winter. As with any new initiative, RFTA also recommends that, regardless of which option is approved by the City Council, the routing should be reevaluated after a season or two of BRT operation. At the City Council work session on September 28, 2010 RFTA was asked to provide the City Council with responses to the following information requests: 1. Information on methods of reducing bus noise and pollution: The most expeditious routing into and out of Aspen will result in the least overall energy consumption, pollution and noise. When starting and stopping can be minimized, noise from engine acceleration and braking can be reduced. Intensified driver training and supervision with respect to gradual acceleration and braking could also help to reduce noise impacts from buses. Hybrid bus technologies are believed to be cleaner and quieter, but hybrids also cost approximately $200,000 more per vehicle and are significantly more costly to maintain because of the need to replace battery packs, priced at approximately $50,000, every 3 — 6 years. All new BRT buses will have state- of -the- art emissions technology, which will substantially reduce tailpipe emissions. 2. Information on the capital and operating costs associated with each routing option: Given the number of assumptions involving factors that are challenging to quantify, RFTA has not attempted to estimate the operating and capital cost differences between the potential routing options. Intuitively, RFTA believes that the Garmisch Street alternative would be the least costly, Aspen Street would be the second least costly, Monarch Street would be the third least costly, and Spring Street would be the most costly alternative. How much more costly each of the alternatives might be would depend upon a host of factors which are difficult to predict and which can vary widely over the course of a day or year. 3. Information on the percent increase in total traffic volume for each routing option: Attached you will find a Downtown Aspen Routing Traffic Study (dated October 30, 2010) that evaluated traffic volumes on Garmisch, Aspen and Monarch Streets. Although existing and future bus trips represent a higher percentage of the 3 -1 total vehicle trips on Garmisch Street compared with Aspen and Monarch Streets, overall traffic volumes on Garmisch Street are currently and would still be lower than traffic volumes on either Aspen or Monarch - Streets. 4. Information on the cost and feasibility of a one -way option on Monarch Street: Please see the attached diagram and cost estimate concerning the two options for reconfiguring Monarch Street in order to accommodate BRT vehicle turning movements. These potential modifications are feasible and believed to be reasonably affordable. However, these options involve the elimination of several parking spaces and they might be viewed less favorably by surrounding businesses and frequent Monarch Street travelers than the status quo configuration. 5. Commitment to eliminate bus staging at Koch Lumber Park: RFTA no longer stages at Koch Park. RFTA currently stages buses on Durant Street across from Rubey Park, which is a much more workable alternative. We would like to thank the City Council and City staff for assisting RFTA with this modification. 6. Commitment to rerouting deadheading buses off of Garmisch Street: RFTA is committed to implementing this change as soon as practicable regardless of the routing alternative approved by the Aspen City Council RFTA staff looks forward to meeting with the Aspen City Council at its work session on January 18` "to discuss this memorandum. 4 V 0 N N 0 O 0 O 0) N U 0 .t . a) e Y • 3 0. ci c o 0 ro m co CO Az 2 ce Ai' v o . L n vi _ h c m m m m • 2 8 rn rn N Z b a rn v 0 • Q m E z .• N O 0 N CO M 0 0 0 0 0 M to a m O . 0 0 In 0 - . N - ‘-• �''/ O N O O • N e- t- N N N Of In V 2 O �I M m r N N N N NM 49 49 49 494 M 0) 10 0 M O M d 1 .. m O 0 P ico O U r N m H 7 • N - H h k co N .9 ^ V r 4. CC C 7 _ __ _ _ Q E T o o P Q _ — 2 < 4 C d 0 p� Z C C O O 0 0 0 0/ co co .0 .0 3 co Z 3 co CO is 0 O m Y w G1 y 0 _W ` .c a m W • _ C N co . C E. to O t C 4. • 0. a m y A C 2 m W R C ` O c a ` O Of . m m 0 u u N .0 iA O at N M d) .- N .0 o cv Cu o cv \ . - .t — 4444 - 2 3 2 A k a \ 0. ° 0_ © i § § S § § / \ zis L0 .0 0 .K 7 ƒ k / / q , & k & # -le $ 8 } ■ • k 2 k ) / k : 0 2 % / \ k . cv ill 7 k k 7 0 L. 03 \ ) 0 § 2 \ u) ` 0 $ / § § ( . f \ ® 7 \ \ ° - ,-- 7 •-- 4444 4444 — = - 44_ ! g a = - -- - -- § 0 °2§ 2 0 ac CO c ) ® .- .- 01 f m 2 ¥� f _ �� 4 7 } 44 ® - -®® 44 - -- 4R 44 44 - 44 E 4444- .... 4444 4444 in L. $ _ R 0 - } ) E 2 44 ] _ ] 44 [ E _ 44 44 a 4444 — 4444 4444 .. . ; 9 % ■ a ' = _ _ k 0_ - 3 35 2 2 a# a 22 4 a @ a 2 2 2 2 1- a a ae .2 @ 1- 2 % ) ] ¢ % G ¢ ■ ¢ § e § & e& B; 3 2 a . _ ) 2 § 0 o , § 0 i \ \ to - % % \ • a @ 2 ■ m B k { § = k k ' f a c E / a ] 1 k § 2 9 © .0 o O . 4 0 a ■ x .0 k )& ` . e © a E . ( k 1 ( f 2 0 0 2 � re E E . _ - 1 0 CV 0 % ) $ z co co 5 5 @ 0 1 E / 7 k \ 8 ) \ co § . . c \ e § ) \ § \ z a ■ ® C Z f ® 9 ft 03 - -- ƒ ..— * — -- c 2 ® - - §� § § § f & N - 40 \ a 40 - ® -® ® --- 69. & .. -- - -� - -- - - - -- - - -- - - - - -- S r cc , _ _ k - CC a % , _ ■ , ■ r. -- ,�� Ls § /0 ( a k2§ § c . a�g ] a & 4- 40 §/ §\ 2 o . o EA c 0 / 4) ; ) . - « c E 7 & J c ` G- k i 2 k 2 O. en a \ -- - - ■ k ° - � � -- — - 1 1 0 -- k ) k •,Z I k k % A \ ® § § § a \ - 0 -4, . 0 Qs co \ \ ) \ § & , • # « ! # | § i i i \ \ ` 'a * \ z o § 8 o o ƒ • % ) ■ ® - ® "e' ) ( / f S / ° , n 15 = — - - - - -- ` § � [2 0 u 0 §k§ [ O 7 ® - © f .- f — } — ---- —- - -- - —- VP 49 49 IA 49 49 449 • la 49 VP 49 VP ,,,, © © F- _ o 0 0 CO E ( \ 49 § VP § ® z - - - -- ---- - - - -�- -- - - = - -- 2 - p a a 2 ) 2 :I Li 2 § @'- § ] zs ¢ I ) ` ¢ k # �� o §0 k 8 a& k 3 0 a 1 2 3 ? 8 � s_ § j a.' 4 a ¥ § M 0 § § § • a k k CO 4 - $ 5 . k k 2 k & k E o E / R - CO -- - - - — Z1 j a • . C > o CU -c N Q c G1 N U m 3 u c c C m L- L m 3 L o .� 4., N a c 4.4 a, at no u o c 0 0 t ` o c v • @ u m +' � . 7,3 m I . 3 U y U CL G N 03 C N 00 Y 00 00 100 O0 L.I LA • 0 y `1 Y . ` N N C Q N • C C 1C C Y C I \ 0. 14 `) V) 0) 7 La 7 ° O r- L t 0 0. 1C d CO 0. Ln a+ t d -p mb N n 1 p a) d C a) C v 10 L MF LL m 3 ✓. 0 v v a) V c C at 10 0 - C N N N a) N F+ 0. m u a a N u 0 C 4- 03 >( C O 0 O a Q_ Y ID CO •- N ' � °' o Q 0. i2 t` N 0) b0 00I a) Y Q Q 1.11 CU • CL a N 10 N a) 10 4 a+ a) 1 u C1 CU CU Oz < a. L L-C d N N (/1- 0 l_) 00 00 Z N c N N o Y 0 u > r0 'B > > �O 1a F a v Q c a1 0 0 U y 7 V_ V N 0 i0 w C o -o C 10 L L N 0 p n t C ' 4-. N N •- - u ro E . ' 7 ) - *, — = a u N T fC "C ra T T N Q 0 C C > C C Q �, C R. b0 cv C C C. C a) 4- Y y Q O ° LA V1 Q Y Y h in 1 c. N y 00 0) m y do a1 n 0 a m °° C 0 C f0 Y C Q c > c a) 0. N > - v Q . O O Q n 8° 03 as v v y o °° m ° a tn Q Q 4C 0. O. L L . U C N L 0. 10 c tn. 03 N CU CU a) ; ar ' - u u m c El E L ro v ul 7.3" 7.7) c N ` Q 0 0 m a O 1 I \I LA Q N 0 Q H _O a Q O a) , d' d a) E t6 �-■ 'O N - 0 7 C a) M CU Q > Y Q J O0 > co r a) " ..... E y s u - o E v L (00 i 0.. .0 up Y (00 d V• c N N O C Y a) N Y C w+ u u y Q Y O Y Q Y c Y 4! 1a o N o u E u u u 7 c m 4 CD v = 0 T o o 0 7 O v .0 a1 L O r a+ 0 03 2 co C.) m CO > u 3 0. Ln 41 C O N O N O N Q a) C .� N aJ a) a+ a) 4 ,, a Y a) � N a1 p ° N N a) C C c c C y c ` M Q C V C c0 Q O a S a V a C R 0 fn 0 = Q 0. SNOIldO 311108 9N01V SN01.0351131N1 Pue 90018 MAN N STR E ET • gfillgilll • • Olt li • • ~ Ill NEW SIDEWALK W � TO CONNECT � 0 TO EXISTING • = SIDEWALK • U li Er C7 LII My /84 17 w II ullgfilllo Ns Ili ea as Its Ng INN L 1 . NEW CROSSWALK II BUS STOP ______aiiimAllik,-- NNTB GARMISCH STREET BUS STOP PRELIMINARY CONCEPT yeloa� /um 06.16.10 1 Li Lu Lt Z V c NEW LIMIT OF EXISTING PARKING Q LIMIT OF (REMOVE 0 PARKING ONE SPACE) / / i O \ 1,,p% 0 _ § -‘ � B UR O g NTS 7~ RE ST NEW STOP SIGN AND STOP BAR T NEW STOP SIGN NEW PAVEMENT Ali AND STOP BAR MARKING G ARMISCH STREET IMPROVEMENTS I NTB PRELIMINARY CONCEPT velocI R#rw 06.28.10 ` 13 /WA v �'� akkr s TR STRIPE MEDIAN TO ALLOW BUS TURN MOVEMENT RELOCATE ■_ TRAFFIC A LIGHT AND pf , CONTROL BOX A I _.. f :,,..,, - - REMOVE (2) REMOVE (1) PARALLEL PARALLEL PARKING Y PARKING SPACES SPACE LU LU tZ CO LU Q. CO I NTB ASPEN STREET BUS STOP PRELIMINARY CONCEPT veioci irrrA 06.28.10 Mq s T RE ==t ARC OUTH CONVERT ANGLED PARKING TO PARALLEL, LEAVE SPACE NEAR MAIN FOR BUS TURN, LOSS OF (5) PARKING SPACES 1 7 Lc/ EXISTING tt PARALLEL cry PARKING ct Z cc' O O c a Q O BUS STOP, LOSS OF (7) PARKING SPACES EXISTING PARALLEL PARKING NNTB MONARCH STREET BUS STOP PRELIMINARY CONCEPT veloci a#r,1 06.28.10 Technical Memorandum velociRFTA Bus Rapid Transit Project veloci _norms Subject: Downtown Aspen Routing Traffic Study FAST. FUN. FREQUENT. Date: 10/30/2010 The purpose of this memorandum is to document the analysis of the downtown Aspen routing options for the BRT service. Scope of Study Intersections 1. Garmisch & Main 2. Garmisch & Durant 3. Aspen & Main 4. Aspen & Durant 5. Monarch & Main 6. Monarch & Durant Methodology In attempting to locate the volumes desired by the City of Aspen, it was found that the Lift One Neighborhood Plan only has peak hour (no daily) volumes on Aspen and Garmisch. There are no counts on Monarch contained in that report. In the CIS there are no traffic volumes explicitly given, however they do report level of service. Since level of service is provided, most likely traffic volumes do exist. However considering the report is from 1998, those volumes would be of little use. In the Entrance to Aspen ROD (both the 1998 one and the current one) the only traffic volumes given in that report are for outside of Aspen (only west of 7 Street). Since no traffic volumes were available on Monarch, the study intersections on Monarch were counted. Traffic Volumes Aspen Street Volumes AM 2010 Traffic Volume NB: 168 AM 2010 Traffic Volume SB: 154 PM 2010 Traffic Volume NB: 216 PM 2010 Traffic Volume SB: 154 Daily NB Traffic (10% K Factor): 2,160 Daily SB Traffic (10% K Factor): 1,540 Total ADT: 3,700 Garmisch Street Volumes AM 2010 Traffic Volume NB: 30 AM 2010 Traffic Volume SB: 101 PM 2010 Traffic Volume NB: 38 PM 2010 Traffic Volume SB: 107 RFTA BRT Downtown Aspen Routing and Stop Options Revised Draft 1 of 3 Daily NB Traffic (10% K Factor): 380 Daily SB Traffic (10% K Factor): 1,070 Total ADT: 1,450 Monarch Street Volumes AM 2010 Traffic Volume NB: 29 AM 2010 Traffic Volume SB: 49 PM 2010 Traffic Volume NB: 95 PM 2010 Traffic Volume SB: 95 Daily NB Traffic: 930 (10.2% K Factor) Daily SB Traffic: 926 (10.3% K Factor) Total ADT: 1,856 Bus Volumes Aspen Street Volumes Existing Winter Buses: 387 (10.5 %) Future Winter Buses (inbound Aspen and outbound Aspen — Option 3): 507 (13.7 %) Garmisch Street Volumes Existing Winter Buses: 233 (16.1 %) Future Winter Buses (inbound Garmisch and outbound Aspen — Option 2): 306 (21.1 %) Monarch Street Volumes Existing Winter Buses: 110 (5.9 %) Future Winter Buses (inbound Monarch and outbound Aspen — Option 4): 183 (9.9 %) Re- Distribution of Traffic Due to One -Way Monarch Aspen Street Volumes AM 2010 Traffic Volume NB: 168 + 29 = 197 AM 2010 Traffic Volume SB: 154 PM 2010 Traffic Volume NB: 216 + 95 = 311 PM 2010 Traffic Volume SB: 154 Daily NB Traffic (10% K Factor): 3,110 Daily SB Traffic (10% K Factor): 1,540 Total ADT: 4,560 (25.7% increase from today) Monarch Street Volumes AM 2010 Traffic Volume NB: 0 AM 2010 Traffic Volume SB: 49 PM 2010 Traffic Volume NB: 0 PM 2010 Traffic Volume SB: 95 RFTA BRT Downtown Aspen Routing and Stop Options Revised Draft 2 of 3 iq Daily NB Traffic (10% K Factor): 0 Daily SB Traffic (10% K Factor): 950 Total ADT: 950 Generally, one lane of traffic on a low speed roadway can handle 500 to 800 vehicles per hour (per direction). The northbound PM traffic is only 311 on Aspen when traffic is diverted from the one -way portion of Monarch which should allow for adequate operations of surrounding streets even with the one -way conversion. Out of Direction Travel due to One -Way Monarch Although Monarch may potentially be converted to one -way operation, very little out of direction travel will be needed. Due to the fact that Aspen has a very consistent two -way grid street pattern, most vehicles will not be affected. The only change in travel will be for the vehicles coming from the southeast side of Aspen that are attempting to access the businesses along Monarch's one -way portion. Since Aspen is very walkable and most patrons would have to park a few blocks away to access any given business, most likely the one -way street conversion will not affect travel times to any of the businesses significantly. Conclusions The purpose of this memorandum is not to recommend any single option, but instead to analyze the ability of each option to handle RFTA bus expansion. Due to the following factors, any of the options outlined in this memorandum are feasible and acceptable: • Small increase (roughly 4 percentage points) in the bus traffic daily percentages. • Acceptable level of service of roadways with added bus traffic. • Acceptable operation of surrounding streets even with conversion of a portion of Monarch to one -way operation. RFTA BRT Downtown Aspen Routinnd Stop Options Revised Draft 3 of 3 ..► F , r L (9i � �� �r� 1' r ), L � • ,l1 1 1 A t F r 1 : s � E if IS r M _ 1 r`2 , / 4 l • •i.. tat r-y6 f C k gt °f / ._ ----'7 it ti ` r T 1___ �b F L s 1 j -,,,, r--... a 1 � r ' 1 1 _ P ; l • T _ y � , a- t `"� t ---..._ ' - i I r - W 1 d -0 r � i � ~ter h - --- - J # N , r ' - a At ix . r il - t ) �' - t - 2 : : � 1 r1 - C - , • el. tl �I '� o 1 ' _ i I i_ 4. / /' 1 - tr,%., '� j /4/ d 1 1 i 4,- � I 1 2 t '• 4 LAI ° ? 9-7-411? it 37- r 1 1� - - r f ° " P I �� L_ ' ,• l tl it 31 11 i "i� — 1 h hi ' r r ? E 'a __Y ti 1 1 J fl 1 _ 0 I. 1 h I i y J 3 erg "i ° f + (1 it fi t° y j r-. r 1 ,1 r ,1::4"-- 1 - _ 1 i / •? 1 1 � . ` I 0 5 1' 1,.. ' i 4J k7 1 4 , 1 1 / N i IA f ¢ e f 4 Iv � rj>::I ti y 1 IV qC. ` ` Y i k I r —, In C9 �rlta lb Z 5 L 1 ti F_ tl 1' , ti • �` ` S4 E - 5 w �� + — 1 t 1 / CO 's s —{' 1 I t 1 II by ., • w. -.' -111 1 ° ` y I 1 ' cur ‚ I l 4 7 ,.- .....„4-1 a. MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: John Krueger, Lynn Rumbaugh — Transportation RE: We Cycle Bike Sharing Update DATE: January 13, 2011 MEETING DATE: January 18, 2011 SUMMARY AND REQUEST OF CITY COUNCIL At this meeting, WE -cycle will provide City Council with an update on the progress of their planned bike share program launch, scheduled for summer 2011 (see Attachment A). WE -cycle is also seeking ways in which to further partner with the City to develop the program and is requesting City funding in the amount of $35,000 for the purchase of a kiosk to be located near City Hall. PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION • Some Council members attended a demonstration of bike sharing technology hosted by WE -cycle on August 12, 2010. • Council met with WE -cycle to discuss kiosk locations, advertising and other specifics on August 16 and September 28, 2010. • At an October 25, 2010 meeting, City Council approved a vending agreement between the City of Aspen and WE- cycle, allowing for the use of public right of way as well as a parking space for the purpose of placing bike share kiosks. BACKGROUND Bike sharing typically involves a number of bicycles made available for shared use as a means of increasing mobility options and reducing traffic congestion and air pollution. Bike share programs are often considered a part of the "last mile" solution for transit, meaning that a bicycle can provide transit users with the link between their station/stop and their final destination. The same can hold true for the link between bike sharing and car sharing, trail use, carpooling and other alternative transportation modes. 1 fr WE- cycle, a not - for -profit 501(c) 3 organization, seeks to launch a bike share program in Aspen with an initial deployment of 75 -100 bicycles stationed at four kiosks on City property that would be removed in winter months. At the October 25, 2010 meeting, City Council approved a vending agreement allowing WE- cycle to place bike share kiosks near Galena Plaza, Galena Street/Dior, City Market and Rubey Park. Council also agreed to pay the $6,800 in 2011 rental fees associated with the vending agreement out of its contingency fund. Council also waived the cost of parking space rental for the use of the on -street space near Dior. DISCUSSION As a means of offsetting program costs, WE -cycle is seeking both public and private partnerships. Recently the organization received a challenge grant from an anonymous source, offering to match up to $50,000 of any funds granted by the City of Aspen, Pitkin County or RFTA. Additional funds for the organization's start up have been provided by the Aspen Skiing Company's Environment Foundation as well as the RFTA Board, which has approved a grant of $10,000 annually for four years towards the purchase of a Rubey Park kiosk. We -Cycle has also applied for two Mining for Ideas grants. WE -cycle is requesting that the City assist with funding the kiosk approved for placement in a parking space on Galena Street in front of Dior. The cost for this kiosk is $35,000. Alternatively, WE -cycle is proposing the option of installment payments which increase the cost of the kiosk to $45,000 paid over three years. A t i B -cycle station located in Denver 2 Should Council wish to purchase this kiosk, possible sources include Council's contingency fund, departmental savings from appropriate departments, TDM/Air Quality impact fees and Congestion Mitigation Air Quality (CMAQ) grant funds? Initial conversations with CDOT indicate that the purchase of a bike share kiosks would be approved as a use of CMAQ dollars. CMAQ carry forward funds from fiscal year 2009 could cover the cost of a $35,000 kiosk. FINANCIAL IMPACT The financial impact of Council's decision will depend upon how much funding Council is willing to provide to WE- cycle. The funding options are to make a one -time payment of $35,000 or pay installments over four years in the amount of $45,000. Council could fund the Kiosk from City funds or from CMAQ funds. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT A bike sharing program could reduce traffic congestion and air pollution by providing a short term mobility option to those who might otherwise use a vehicle to travel in Aspen's core. The program could also provide connectivity between future bus rapid transit stations and employer sites. RECOMMENDED ACTION Should Council wish to provide funding for the purchase of the Galena Street bike share kiosk, staff recommends the use of the CMAQ funding carried forward from a 2009 project in the amount of $35,000 for this purpose. Upon receiving Council direction, staff could submit the project to CDOT for approval. ATTACHMENTS Attachment A: WE -cycle update memo 3 Hi W J 1 1 ,..." V -/ z w 0.4 rill ..i Le i U W H C WE- CYCLE SOLUTION to C U . c i fa - .0 In 0 GJ tcl a o 0 > > c E � _ � U) > t/) — fa E O 0 0 O = U U N C "0 E 0 ° N E c- _ 2 2 c N O E, .2 O a to O U c V u ) ( 4 3' c >, c p E �� O v c D "- c o 0 E In Y N E cz co E o - ° Q 0 < m - a) E c O C a te , 110 c� V, w 0. N a ) a� co C E = ) _m c� ° is D > _2 O U N � s fa s: 1 i 1 0 v CU O p H E = as w Q W O 'Q C t 0 = 0 s a 1.6 :G °J N .� _ co 13 ~' 0 1 W W J co 7. C V C� Q u fa J a .:.^ O 3 �� a sa6ue eqo O IA w IIMI . 0) PROVEN SMALL TOWN SOLUTION + . 3 I fn ` \ co VJ \-, O m g -1.r O I U) , s I` J g ° 0) E ' \Ug o m t _J U -r m _ 0) C) c c A.. U CD 'L I L-- a 1 G . W 1 a) c 4-1 V 1 r ® µ l!) (.0 ti (f) L C c J a) ) � U e ' g € c � V S, p ca ca A. U? 4.1 ' a Z CO L i C ■ R i S — co x N .4 43 1f t 7 Z c . E V V 2 U U i t I e - N " 1— H k 0 0 d w N m J1 Y S B > © ' © ©�� N M 1A L CD c CD N 4 ''' (n J CI CD CU ° O co V) `° tn ca c °' N C[ t C.3 y o0 m Z •r ca Q �' = c (n �= a o L O Z ti 3 c c (n mcsaS 20 CO N -0 ' d-0 D z E . c ( a r E c N W D CC LL J 7 CL _ ''' 1,\`\, m a� Z . E 3 y o Q a 0 I— d- N y Q L PARTNERSHIP •c E c au E �- o a u c cu •_ bp 40 -To C = ••� o ' — L. > co U N L_ co O 4-# o O _0 • C E rt3 CU C — N. co O0 2 L Q >, G) '1- '— 4- _c O N U n a) O O a, V a3 v O n G.) aJ ro i c i -I- L W C O s C 0 O D m O CU O. L 0 �--I N c-I N a.) Q z C w cv Q C O' W O •P O cn — �U F" a� V 0. w O !L 1II E.F. ▪ V u to ,Thilowpwainwimimp KIOSK SPONSORSHIP • m a ,, _ g 2 a >n T �t N g 1 - c g OQ � 3 d z M � 1.14 v + , V cos' D co CIJ CU 2 I N O v a , g o b a E Iflfm E T co V a> d> so � _ 1. 1- (9 1 .- - " , --3: ; 7 1— o � F'F 1- I vok CL 1 1 Iwo o • +� rL z U J Z SECOND _ • u LLI g 1 FIRST "' M cn U 1 z O m r o 0 3 _ Y Q V CU H�slwad' v v > 4—, .v U 1 v + w s— v I N3dS w . o ro 0 O Dl Sri bNOW 0 m 0 c CO = Silver Queen d g z �., Gondola o ¢ 7 C dam+ u ■ N •� J • C vs N Y H Q v > c ., to u CO c 3 = b3l NnH u Y �r s •F•+ cv co 0 / kds z a s ue= w m G �O C } CU Eby 9490 C 2 O —C CO J _ L = ca a .11 O O a1 Q1 E O o co Q Q ��� _ O E E Q •i O = . n N � 4 y � � b d a o U U U I U U 0 = O II I O LA :+= 1 ' a. V '2 2_ > V a to c0 n 0 1 r b KIOSK UNDERWRITING BENEFITS f a) cu 0 U a te + a) �� - + � t U U 0.1 > f 6 03 ›. O c o aJ aJ v v a 2 v a v - a O E ut C 0 E L 0 L ,, D c O O - +� C 4- vi Q 1 V2 cu O O a > a) ] Y N >, 0 -0 _ I-1-1 N 0 f0 co • E 4 C 3 u 1.- °' c o > Q N A' LJ U c -c o a- Q v �1 N 1 f0 Q f6 +' c <7 • • vi 4 W u o I- o 6 o 3 c o v - 0 CZ '^ 9 c _c C X c CO 4_ O v) C O •c > E ,- vi Q) v i N v <3.1 Y C p (1. t- c6 O L t + C •N Li) L v p L v by O a� a a O y o o v a C v, L 0 3 o - a °- ' c ca 0 c p O a j +.+ u-i >— (1.1 3 O L u L LL -n al E ± J c _ ^ a a; 3 3 3 4- • 0 > w � ' °' a' O v n3 *' — GJ CO fa c • Q t0 O . .0 03 N v O t _ _ .� CU CV CC a C F L> a, o a c O O a a� E v O E- cc n o a a u 3 �i a C RI co CU U ? c o 4, c CD 0 3 Q cn > M .Q : 7, C• — • U d O c co CO 11 C O v i 1— ca CO C -I W W a CL) S11J3N38