Loading...
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