HomeMy WebLinkAboutagenda.EOTC.20120607Elected Officials Transportation Committee (EOTC)
AGENDA
Thursday, June 7, 2012, "4pm
Location -Town of Snowmass Village- Council Chambers
Town of Snowmass Village to Host and Chair Meeting
I. 4:00 - 4:10 REVIEW OF DECISIONS REACHED AT THE
March 22, 2012 MEETING
John D. Krueger -City of Aspen
II. 4:10 -4:15 PUBLIC COMMENT -- Regarding Any Item Not On the Agenda
(Comments limited to three minutes per person)
1II. 4:15.5:45 NO FARE SERVICE & CAPITAL PLAN
Robert Schultz - Robert Schultz Consulting
Tom Oken- Pitkin County
Decision Needed. Seeking Agreement on a Funding Policy
For the No -Fare Service and Capital Funding Plan
IV. 5:45 - 6:00 FUTURE MEETINGS & AGENDA ITEMS
• October 18, 2012 4pm Pitkin County to Host & Chair
r
ELECTED OFFICIALS TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE (EOTC)
City of Aspen - Council Chambers
City of Aspen - Host & Chair
March 22, 2012
AGREEMENTS & DECISIONS REACHED
Elected Officials in Attendance:
Aspen -4
Torre
Adam Frisch
Steve Skadron
Derek Johnson (Chair)
Absent: Aspen:
• BOCC:
TOSV:
Pitkin Countv - 5
Rachel Richards
George Newman
Michael Owsley
Rob Ittner
Jack Hatfield
Mick Ireland
None
None
Agreements & Decisions Reached:
TOSV -5
Bill Boineau
John Wilkinson
Fred Kucker
Jason Haber
Markey Butler
I. REVIEW OF DECISIONS REACHED AT THE OCTOBER 20, 2011
MEETING
John D. Krueger -City of Aspen
No comments were received.
II. PUBLIC COMMENT
No Comments
III. AIRPORT /AABC PEDESTRIAN CROSSING
Gerald Fielding - Pitkin County
Decisions Reached.
No decision was reached by the EOTC at this meeting on the location and a
pedestrian crossing alternative to pursue. The first motion failed by vote and the
second motion did not receive a "second" to move it to a vote.
The EOTC did direct staff, to provide more information and to EOTC representatives
to help with their decision. Subsequent to the EOTC meeting, staff met with each
jurisdiction individually, provided the additional information requested, and received
approval of the recommended option of an underpass located up- valley and adjacent
to the existing AABC /Airport RFTA bus stops.
VOTE: 1sT MOTION: Failed
Yes No
COA 2 2 (Adam & Torre = No)
BOCC 4 1 (Jack = No)
TOSV 3 2 (Bill & Fred = No)
John McBride submitted a drawing showing a roundabout and an "X" design for a
pedestrian underpass at the AABC for consideration. The EOTC requested some
further analysis of this alternative.
A representative from CMC provided feedback on the staff recommended alternative.
IV. FUNDING REQUEST FOR WINTER X -GAMES
John Rigney -Aspen Skiing Company
Decisions Reached.
The EOTC approved a funding request of $100,000 a year for the next two years
(2013/14) toward X -Games transportation expenses.
VOTE:
Approved
Yes
No
COA ,
4
0
BOCC
5
0
TOSV
5
0
V. EOTC SUBCOMMITTEE REPORT
Robert Schultz -Robert Schultz Consulting
Decisions Reached.
No decision was reached by the EOTC at this meeting. The EOTC directed staff to
bring this agenda item back to the EOTC at the June 7, 2012 meeting with some
additional information. The EOTC also asked that staff provide some more analysis
on an alternative presented by the Town of Snowmass Village at the meeting.
VI. UPDATES
SH 82 Grand Avenue Bridge Environmental Assessment
Brian Pettet - Pitkin County
Decisions Reached.
No decision was requested. This was an informational.update to the EOTC.
2
2
VII. FUTURE MEETINGS & AGENDA ITEMS
Next Meeting: June 7, 2012 4pm
Town of Snowmass Village to Host & Chair
• No -Fare Service & Capital Funding Plan
3
3
2012 Budget and Multi -year Plan
EOTC Transit Project Funding
Budget
1,107,985
857,244
1,561,531
860,354
1,784,200
(899,467 )
1,916,444
(940,296
Pitkin County 1/21% sales tax
3,798,000
Plan
1
Plan
Plan
Plan
Pitkin County 1/2% use tax
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
FUNDING SOURCES:
(207,853)
(262,247)
(269,765)
(277,640)
(285,888)
a) Pitkin County 1/2% sales tax
3,798,000
3,893,000
4,010,000
4,150,000
4,295,000
b) Pitkin County 1/2% use tax
850,000
810,000
800,000
840,000
882,000
c Investment income & misc.
75,660
98,000
271,000
435,000
508,000
Total Funding Sources
4,723 660
4,801,000
5,081 000
5,425,000
5,685,000
FUNDING USES:
(24,095)
1) Use tax collection costs
97,463
99,412
104,383
109,602
115,082
2) Administrative cost allocation
19,390
20,360
21,377
22,446
23,569
3) Bus stop safety imprvs / cab ride in -Neu
11,000
11,275
11,557
11,846
12,142
4) X -Games transit subsidy
50,000
100,000
100,000
100,000
100,000
5) Brush Creek parking expansion - annual operating costs
30,000
31,200
32,448
33,746
35,096
6) RFTA contribution (81.04% of 1/20/6 sales tax)
3,077,899
3,154,887
3,249,704
3,363,160
3,480,668
7) Snowmass Village transit improvements ($6.5 million total)
8 No -fare As en- Snowmass -Wood Creek bus service 10/1/09- 4/7/13
553,838
275,881
Total Uses
3,839,590
3,693,015
3,519,469
3,640,800
3,766,556
EOTC ANNUAL SURPLUS/ (DEFICIT)
884,070
1,107 985
1,561,531
1,784,200
1,918,444
F_OTC CUMULATIVE SUR LUS/ F I FUND BALANCE
10,927,017
12,035,002
13,596,533
15,380,733
17,299,176
Revenue nroiections:
a) sales fax - estimate
2.0%
2.5%
3.0%
3.5%
3,51%
b) use tax - estimate
3.7%
-4.7%
-1.2%
5.0%
5.0k
c investment eamin s rate
0.75%
0.90%
2.25%
3.20%
3.30%
Fund balance designated for Snowmass Village transit improvements 6,430,165 6,430,165 6,430,165 6,430,165 6,430.165
Calculation of amount allocated to Entrance-to-Aspen
884,070
908,165
1,107,985
857,244
1,561,531
860,354
1,784,200
(899,467 )
1,916,444
(940,296
Pitkin County 1/21% sales tax
3,798,000
3,893,000
4,010,000
4,150,000
4,295,000
Pitkin County 1/2% use tax
850,000
610,000
800,000
840,000
882,000
less committed funding (Funding Uses 1-5 above)
(207,853)
(262,247)
(269,765)
(277,640)
(285,888)
less RFTA contribution 81.04% of 1120/6 sales tax
3,077,899
3,154,887
3,249,704
(3,363,160)
3,480,668
Net revenue to be allocated
1,362,248
1,285,866
1,290,531
1,349,200
1,410,444
Annual 2/3's allocation to Entrance -to -Aspen
908,165
857,244
B60,354
899,467
940,296
$50,000 per year reimbursement to ETA for 2011 $250,000 ped crossing funding
100,000
50,000
50,000
50,000
us/minus remaining annual discretion funding
(24,095)
Year -end fund balance designated for Entrance-to-Aspen
4,496,852
5,454,096
6,364,450
7,313,917
8,304 213
Calculation of amount allocated to discretionary funding
EOTC ANNUAL SURPLUS (after funding operations)
less Annual 2/3's allocation to Entrance-to-Aspen
884,070
908,165
1,107,985
857,244
1,561,531
860,354
1,784,200
(899,467 )
1,916,444
(940,296
Remaining annual discretionary funding
less reimbursement to ETA for 2011 $250,000 ped crossing funding
(24,095)
250,741
100,000
701,177
50,000
884,733
50,000
978,148
50,000
Net remaining annual discretionary funding after ETA reimbursement
150,741
651,177
834,733
928,148
Cumulative remaining iscrell ona funding after ETA reimbursement
150,741
801,918
1,636,651
2,564,798
remaining balance to reimburse ETA for 2011 $250,000 advance
250,000
150,000
100,000
50,000
5.' I'� 12 EOTC budgel.xlsx 4
MEMORANDUM
TO:
EOTC Members
FROM:
Bob Schultz, Robert Schultz Consulting
RE:
No Fare Service and Capital Plan
DATE:
May 31, 2012
The EOTC created a Subcommittee to make recommendations regarding no -fare service between
Aspen and Snowmass Village and a capital budget for the period through 2016.
At your March 22 EOTC meeting, staff presented a portion of the background material prepared
for the EOTC Subcommittee and that group's recommendation.
At your June 7 EOTC meeting in Snowmass Village at 4 pm staff will present additional
information and I will facilitate a discussion of the alternatives in search of an agreement that all
three jurisdictions can support.
One might ask, why are we dealing with this now, given that the service is funded through April
2013? The primary reasons are to determine whether a pool of capital funds will be created that
allow staff to compete for non -local matching funds and to provide predictability as 2013 budget
preparation begins in Iate summer for the EOTC and RFTA. The 2013 budget for both
organizations will need to anticipate what happens from May to December 2013.
The no -fare service costs about $554,000 for the year, with about 65% of that cost ($361,000)
going to winter service. Summer service is about $76,000 and spring/fall service costs about
$117,000. Those costs replace lost fare revenue to RFTA.
While a list of possible capital projects was compiled and scheduled, this was to establish an
order of magnitude for creating a capital pool rather than proposing that the EOTC endorse this
list as a part of this decision. Future meetings will include review and endorsement of specific
projects to be eligible for capital funding.
At the March meeting, representatives of the Town of Snowmass Village also introduced an
additional proposal for consideration. The EOTC asked staff to 1.) prepare equivalent financial
information necessary for consideration of the "Snowmass Proposal" and 2.) prepare an analysis
that extended the financial projections beyond 2016 in order to assess longer term implications of
the choices.
The Town of Snowmass Village has offered a second proposal that is intended to address long
term funding for year -round no -fare service between Aspen and Snowmass Village. A letter from
TOSV that explains the proposal is attached and that proposal is included in the financial
analysis.
EOTC Memo June 7, 2012
While a table displaying executive -level information is presented below, Tom Oken and I will
present information and you can ask clarifying or more detailed questions of Tom.
2/3 Capital 2/3 Capital 2/3 Capital 60% Capital
1/3 1/3 Discretionary 1/3 40%
Discretionary Discretionary Discretionary
Yes Yes Yes Yes
Ends April
Yes, paid by
Yes, paid by
Yes, paid by
2013
EOTC
EOTC
EOTC
Ends April
Yes, paid by
Yes, paid 50/50
Yes, paid by
2013
TOSV
by CoA and
EOTC
TOSV
Ends April
Ends April 2013
Yes, paid 50150
Yes, paid by
2013
by CoA and
EOTC
TOSV
$8.3M
$8.3M
$7.9M
$7.4M
($1.OM)
($1.OM)
($1.2M)
$17.5M
$133M
$123M
$12.2M
($0.4M)
$6.4M
$6.1 M
$6.0M
$6.4M
($1 -OM)
($1.0M)
($1.2M)
$6.4M
$5.7M
$5.5M
$6.4M
($0.4M)
Possible Yes, $3,000,000 Possible, focus Possible, focus
without on individual on individual
affecting lock projects rather projects rather
boxes than pool than pool
$2,564,798
Finally, questions have arisen regarding the likely impact on ridership if fares are reinstated on
Aspen - Snowmass bus service. Dan Blankenship has provided the attached memo that describes
the recent experience in Glenwood Springs.
I look forward to being with you on June 7 in Snowmass Village at 4 pm.
EOTC Memo June 7, 2012
0*
'_�',I_4_1i_C��
Toe Elected Officials Transportation Committee
From: David Peckler, Transportation Director & Russ Forrest, Town Manager
Date: June 7, 2012
IRee No Fare Service Funding Options
The Town of Snowmass Village (TOSV) would like to propose a long term.solutiori to the the "No Fare"
service between Aspen, TOSV and Woody Creek. Our preferred long -tam funding solution for the No
Fare service is to adjust the 113 and 2/3 split for Discretionary and Entrance to Aspen (ETA) allocation.
Council's recommendation is to adjust the allocation to 40% for Discretionary funding and 60% for the
ETA. After funding the No Fare service the annual fund balance for discretionary capital projects would
be $92,000 in 2014 and build to a cumulative reserve of $282,000 by 2016. The annual reserves for the '
ETA would continue to average over $800,000 annually (compared to an average of $860,000 at
2/3's). Borrowing from the existing reserves for the ETA and Snowmass Village Transit Center (SVTC)
to jumpstart projects is a possibility.
If a long term solution is not possible at this time, TOSV would propose as an alternative proposal
TOSV made at the last EOTC meeting which was a variation of the subcommittee's 4A
recommendation. This is a short term solution in which the EOTC would appropriate $361,000 from
the discretionary allocation to cover winter No Fare Service. TOSV and the City of Aspen will contribute
$97,000 each from their reservations for the ETA and the SVTC to subsidize the No Fare service
through the rest of the year. The No Fare service is of significant benefit to both upper valley
communities so both should contribute to the funding. This proposal would free up $200,000
immediately for capital projects and the surplus is projected to grow to $500,000 annually by 2016 in
the last budget forecast.
It should be noted that under current budgeting authority all appropriations of funding are made
annually. No sitting governing body can obligate a future elected body to annual funding decisions. In
as much as a long term solution is desired, annual appropriations are subject to review by the EOTC
regardless. So the No Fare service will be reviewed and discussed annually as long as it is proposed
as a project in the EOTC's budget. This is also true for the split between the Discretionary fund and the
reserves for the ETA and the SVTC improvements.
A couple of points relative to any decision should be noted:
Tourism is the key component of the local economy. The No Fare service is one of a number
of tourist oriented efforts that has helped to maintain the region's market share during the
recent recession. If you believe that No Fare service has proven beneficial to our tourist
economy, then continuing to fund the service_ would make economic sense for the upper
valley.
• The air quality and traffic congestion in Aspen remain significant environmental issues for the
upper valley. Combining the No Fare service with the Free Skier shuttles has created a viable
alternative to using a private automobile. This is obvious in the significant number of guests
and residents of both Aspen and Snowmass that use the service and have chosen not to own
e Page 1
7
or rent a car. From an environmental perspective, increasing the use of transit as a primary
mode of transportation in the upper valley improves our "quality of life" by reducing congestion,
improving local air quality and reducing Green House gas emissions.
o The sustainability of the No Fare service is relative to one's perspective. The service can be
funded from the 1/2 Cent Sales and Use tax unless you want to reserve over $500,000 annually
for the ETA.
There were a number of goals that were agreed to as part of the original proposal 4A from the
subcommittee that should be reconfirmed. They were:
1. Focus on the current planning horizon through 2016. (The long term funding solution was a
subsequent request.) Looking farther than five years into the future required a number of
economic assumptions that would be speculation at best.
2. ETA and SVTC reserves remained as savings for larger projects in the future.
3. 1/3 and 213 allocation for Discretionary projects and the ETA are currently calculated after X-
Games, collection costs, etc. are taken off the top. TOSV Council's long term recommendation
of changing the allocations to 40% and 60% would only have a minor impact on total capital
funding available for a major project.
4. The $250,000 loan for AABC pedestrian crossing design work would be paid back by 2016.
5. The ability to dedicate funding to other capital projects was desired. Having a Local Match
identified for grant applications is beneficial to help secure additional funding from other
sources. In the subcommittee's preferred altemative a new reservation of $3 million was
created by borrowing from the ETA and SVTC reserves. Being able to propose a Local Match
for projects to promote securing funding from other sources is in the best interests of the
EOTC.
• Page 2
Roaring Fork Transportation Authority
MEMORANDUM
TO: Elected Officials Transportation Committee
FROM: Dan Blankenship, Chief Executive Officer
DATE: May 30, 2012
SUBJECT: Potential Impact on Ridership from Reinstitution of a Fare on the
Aspen /Snowmass Service
In 2008, when the fare for the Aspen /Snowmass bus service began to be subsidized by the
EOTC (making the service free to the users) the cash fare between Aspen and Snowmass Village
was $3.00. In 2009, RFTA increased the cash fares in each zone by $1 dollar. When the EOTC
subsidy for the Aspen /Snowmass free bus service is eliminated for portions of the year, the
cash fare for users will be $4.00. However, a variety of multi -ride passes will be available
which, depending upon how frequently someone uses the bus service, can provide a discount
of approximately 25% to. 40% off of the cash fare.
The American Public Transportation Association (APTA) has developed a fare elasticity formula
which predicts that for every 10% increase in the bus fare, ridership will decline by an
estimated 4 %. RFTA has used APTA's formula with mixed results in previous years to predict
the impact of fare increases on ridership. One of the weaknesses of the formula, when
ridership is increasing, is that a fare increase will not necessary result in a ridership decrease
but, instead, may result in a reduction in the growth in ridership that might otherwise have
been achieved. Conversely, if ridership is declining already, a fare increase could result in a
greater decrease in ridership than the APTA formula predicts.
Another weakness of the APTA formula is that it is, not of much help when predicting what the
impact on ridership will be when a fare is instituted for a previously free service. The reason is
that it isn't mathematically possible to calculate what the percentage increase in fare is when
you are starting with a fare that is zero. And, since there isn't a tremendous amount of data
available about what the impact to ridership is when you institute a fare on a free service,
essentially,, you are left with making your best guess.
R1
Fortunately, RFTA does have recent experience with the institution of a $1 fare for the
previously free Ride Glenwood Springs bus service. During the first, partial, month (21 days of
fare service in April 2012), the Ride Glenwood bus service has seen about a 49% reduction in
ridership compared with the same 21 days in April 2011. However, ridership on the Ride
Glenwood bus service was down by 10% already for the first 3 months of 2012; therefore, it is
likely that the decrease in ridership attributable to the fare increase was more like 39 %. If we
round the decrease in ridership up to 40 %, and use it to back into the APTA elasticity formula, it
would appear that the $1 fare has had roughly the impact on ridership associated with a 100%
increase in the fare (100 % /10 =10°x6 x 4% = 40% reduction).
For the Aspen /Snowmass free fare service, it is likely that other factors (such as trip distance,
the cost /availability of other alternatives, and the option of multi -ride discount passes) would
mitigate the severity of the decrease in ridership. Also, it is unlikely that the $4 fare would be
perceived as a 400% increase from zero which, according to APTA's formula, would result in a
160% decrease in ridership (400° %o /10 = 40% x 4% = 160% reduction). It is more likely that the
$4 fare would be treated as something closer to a 100% increase in the fare, which on the high
end of the forecast would result in a 40% reduction in ridership, similar to the current
J
experience in Glenwood Spring.
Another way of looking at things; however, is to assume that reinstituting the fare would have
roughly the same impact on ridership as never having made the service free would have.
Ridership on the Aspen /Snowmass free fare service between 2008 and 2011 was essentially
flat. If the $3 cash fare for the Aspen /Snowmass bus service had still been in effect when the
$1 cash fare increase was instituted in 2009, RFTA would have predicted that ridership would
have declined by approximately 13 %. Ridership on other RFTA regional services that absorbed
the $1 increase in the cash fare declined by approximately 20% overall from 2008 through 2011
(see attached RFTA Four -Year Ridership Comparison Report). Part of the decrease; however,
was undoubtedly attributable to the recession and corresponding reductions in regional
employment levels. So far in 2012, ridership on the Aspen /Snowmass and other regional
services is about flat.
On the low end of the forecast; therefore, RFTA estimates that the potential reduction in
Aspen /Snowmass bus service ridership (when compared year over year), for whatever time
frame that the $4 cash fare is initially reinstituted, i.e. Spring /Summer /Fall or just the Spring
and Fall, is that ridership would decline approximately 20 %, consistent with the decline in other
regional services from 2008 through 2011.
For planning purposes, RFTA believes it would be safe to assume a ridership decline on the
Aspen Snowmass bus service, during the seasons in which the $4 fare is in effect, of between
approximately 20% and 40 %.
10
RFTA FOUR -YEAR RIDERSHIP COMPARISON
2008/2011
1. CITY OF ASPEN 2008 2009 2010 2011 Variance
A. VALLEY SERVICE ONLY
.MY 82 CORRIDOR
YEAR ROUND ASPEN
1,014,913
1 956,757
896,134
943,621
-7%
65 036
SEASONAL ASPEN
243,852
194,046
170,047
160,512
1
-34%
6,636
TOTAL CITY OF ASPEN
1258,765
1 150 803
1,066,181
1,104,133
-12%
A. VALLEY SERVICE ONLY
.MY 82 CORRIDOR
1,824,622
1,500,874
1,373,827
1,464 838
-20%
SM-DV
65 036
52,019
39,861
47,785
-27%
WOODY CREEK
8,199
6,636
5,050
6,671
-190/0
TOTAL VALLEY ONLY
1,897,857
1 559 529
1,418,738
1 519 294
-20 °/a
Ill. SNOWMASS VILLAGE - INTERCEPT -ASPEN
SWINTERCEPT 1
12,181 1
138 669 1
102,716 1
110,415 8
8%
TOSVBC &82 NO SUMMER IN'09 [
[E2017,544 5,363 5
51,208 5
55,600 5
55,735 -
-52%
SUBTOTAL
189,877 1
158,316 1
166,150 -
-24%
:3609
ASPEN - SNOWMASS SKIER 332,169 295,872 .259 609 319,229 -40/c
SUBTOTAL AS /SM INTEGRATED 458,451 487,244 446,813 509,165 .1.1%
TOTAL SNOWMASS VILLAGE 675,995 1 677,121 605,129 675,315 0%
IV. GRAND HOGBACK
TOTAL HOGBACK 1 105,401 89,3911 60,7451 62790 1 -405.
V. OTHER
SKI CO LESS SNOW VLG 229,809 202,567 197,160 174,836 -24 °/a
RIDE GLENWOOD 526,710 453,233 424,455 448,602 -15%
OTHER 222 184 154,134 148,889 152,935 -31%
TOTAL OTHER 978.703 809,934 770,504 776,373 -21%
GRAND TOTAL 1 4,916,779 4,286,778 3,921,297 1 4137 905
IV. GRAND HOGBACK
TOTAL HOGBACK 1 105,401 89,3911 60,7451 62790 1 -405.
V. OTHER
SKI CO LESS SNOW VLG 229,809 202,567 197,160 174,836 -24 °/a
RIDE GLENWOOD 526,710 453,233 424,455 448,602 -15%
OTHER 222 184 154,134 148,889 152,935 -31%
TOTAL OTHER 978.703 809,934 770,504 776,373 -21%
GRAND TOTAL 1 4,916,779 4,286,778 3,921,297 1 4137 905
GRAND TOTAL 1 4,916,779 4,286,778 3,921,297 1 4137 905