Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout042822.EOTCRetreat1 AGENDA EOTC April 28, 2022 1:00 PM, City Hall - Pearl Pass Conference Room 427 Rio Grande Place, Aspen ZOOM MEETING INSTRUCTIONS The April 28, 2022 EOTC Retreat is open to the public. Public participation will be limited to observation. There will not be an opportunity for public comment at this meeting. The public is able to view the EOTC retreat either virtually or in person. Please note that seating is limited for in person attendance. Join Zoom Meeting https://zoom.us/j/95449086025?pwd=M0tTMGpuTm9XakVDbGFiYVdTYkNUdz09 Meeting ID: 954 4908 6025 Passcode: 81611 One tap mobile +16699006833,,95449086025#,,,,*81611# US (San Jose) +12532158782,,95449086025#,,,,*81611# US (Tacoma) Dial by your location +1 669 900 6833 US (San Jose) +1 253 215 8782 US (Tacoma) +1 346 248 7799 US (Houston) +1 929 205 6099 US (New York) +1 301 715 8592 US (Washington DC) +1 312 626 6799 US (Chicago) Meeting ID: 954 4908 6025 Passcode: 81611 Find your local number: https://zoom.us/u/a2DRZlY3p I.RETREAT INFORMATION I.A.Elected Officials Transportation Committee (EOTC) Retreat 1 1 Elected Officials Transportation Committee (EOTC) April 28, 2022 Aspen City Hall Pre-Retreat Packet Table of Contents Part A: Executive Summary and Retreat Information Page 2 Part B: Background Sections 1. Retreat Agenda Page 7 2. EOTC Formation and Structure Page 9 3. Comprehensive Valley Transportation Plan Page 11 4. EOTC Funding and Budget Page 12 Part C: Background Data and Document Summaries 1. Regional Demographics Page 15 2. Traffic and Bus Ridership Trends Page 23 3. Projects in Progress within Comprehensive Valley Transportation Plan Area Page 39 4. Accomplishments and Milestones Page 44 Part D: 1. 2020 EOTC Strategic Plan Attachment 1 2. 2021 Intergovernmental Agreement Attachment 2 3. 2021 EOTC Near Term Transit Imp. Program Attachment 3 4. 2017 Upper Valley Mobility Report Attachment 4 5. 2021 Integrated Mobility System (IMS) Study – Final Report Attachment 5 2 2 Part A: Executive Summary and Retreat Information Summary (See Part B Section1, below, for retreat agenda) The EOTC allocated funds in 2022 for a planning retreat to bring all members of the EOTC together for a deeper dive into long-term conceptual transit planning among our collective communities. The purpose of the retreat is to review what has been accomplished since the last EOTC retreat in 2019, identify where we are today, and clarify direction on long-term conceptual transit planning efforts. The goals of the retreat are: 1) To reestablish a baseline understanding of the EOTC purpose, requirements, structure, funding, operations, and current project programming; 2) Take a deep dive into the outcomes from the Integrated Mobility System (IMS) study; and, 3) Identify and refine a long-term (11+ years) transit oriented conceptual direction based on the IMS study recommendations. Background (See Section 2, 3, and 4, below, for more detail) The EOTC was established after the voters approved a 0.5% County Transit Sales and Use Tax in November 1993 for the purpose of Financing, Constructing, Operating and Managing Mass Transportation System within the Roaring Fork Valley. The uses for these funds are governed by both State Statute and the ballot language. In addition to the ballot measure, Pitkin County, the Town of Snowmass Village and the City of Aspen adopted a 1993 Intergovernmental Agreement (IGA) that established the original structure of the EOTC and further defined the allocations of funds. This original IGA further expanded upon the enabling legislation and ballot language by adopting a Comprehensive Valley Transportation Plan (CVTP) as a means to guide future allocations. As a result of direction provided by the EOTC at the 2019 retreat, the EOTC adopted its first Strategic Plan and updated it’s CVTP in 2020 which created a baseline for review and adoption of an updated governance IGA in 2021 (updated and replaced the original 1993 IGA). 2021 EOTC Intergovernmental Agreement (IGA) Overview:  Establishes the Elected Officials Transportation Committee, or EOTC, comprised of all elected officials who are party to the IGA, including Pitkin County, Town of Snowmass Village, and the City of Aspen.  Identifies the EOTC’s decision-making processes.  That, for any EOTC action, each member jurisdiction must have a majority vote to progress an action. Certain actions such as adopting or updating the CVTP, budgets/expenditures, or supporting documents and work plans further require adoption of a formal resolution of approval, which is authorized by a majority vote. 2020 EOTC Comprehensive Valley Transportation Plan (CVTP) overview: As was required by the 1993 and updated 2021 EOTC IGA, all EOTC actions and expenditures are to advance or be complementary to the approved CVTP. The CVTP was originally adopted 3 3 by the EOTC in 1993 and was updated in 2020. The adopted 2020 CVTP states: “The CVTP is intended to guide expenditures of the Pitkin County-wide ½ cent transit sales and use tax. While revenues from this ½ cent transit sales and use tax are collected within Pitkin County only, expenditures are restricted to the Roaring Fork Valley as further geographically defined in this CVTP.” Please see Part B, Section 3 to view the CVTP. In addition to identifying the conceptual EOTC service area along the Highway 82 corridor from Glenwood Springs to Aspen and Snowmass Village, the Plan also identifies several Regional and Upper Valley Priorities, which include:   Regional Priorities - Park and Ride Lot Improvements - First and Last Mile Solutions - Transit Speed, Accessibility, Reliability and Efficiency Enhancements - Congestion Reduction Measures - Technologies and Innovation to Encourage Mode Shift Upper Valley Priorities - Bike and Pedestrian Connections to Transit Stops and Brush Creek Park and Ride - Airport / AABC Multi-Modal Transit Hub and Transit Circulation Enhancements - Multi-Modal Solution to the Entrance to Aspen - Snowmass Village to Brush Creek Park and Ride Service Commensurate with Highway 82 Corridor Transit Service - Electrification of Transit System 2020 EOTC Strategic Plan Overview: As a part of the EOTC’s 2020 Strategic Plan the following Vision, Mission Statement, Guiding Principles, and Key Strategies were adopted. EOTC Vision: We envision the Roaring Fork Valley as the embodiment of a sustainable transportation system emphasizing mass transit and mobility that contributes to the happiness and wellbeing of residents and visitors. Mission Statement: Work collectively to reduce and manage the volume of vehicles on the road and parking system and continue to develop and support a comprehensive multi-modal, long-range strategy that will insure a convenient, equitable and efficient transportation system for the Roaring Fork Valley. 4 4 Guiding Principles Environmental Sustainability All projects will promote a balanced natural and built environment while reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Economic Sustainability Efforts will strive to increase emergency and economic resiliency while considering the financial, legal and physical practicality of each project. Social Sustainability Encourage a top-line transportation experience for all residents and visitors while striving to increase equity, proximity, reliability, and efficiency of the network to meet the transportation needs of all people. Key Strategies Multi-Modal Network that Encourages Mode Shift All decisions will support public mass transit and mobility. In addition, new technologies that support mode shift away from private vehicles will be embraced. Regionalism and Cross-Sector Approach All decisions will consider the needs of the whole Roaring Fork Valley as well as the context of the greater regulatory and community environment, such as housing and land use controls. Communication and Inter-Governmental Engagement The EOTC will strive to communicate and engage with local stakeholders, citizens, partner organizations, and other local, State and Federal government agencies to support its Mission, Vision, and Guiding Principles and implement its Key Strategies. Where We Are Today The EOTC has made significant progress in implementation of the CVTP in the 28+ years of the Use and Sales tax. For example, the EOTC has participated in the creation of the Entrance to Aspen ROD, continued to support the Roaring Fork Transportation Authority (RFTA), provided financial support for the Brush Creek Park and Ride, supported acquisition of the Denver Rio Grande right-of-way, financed development of the Highway 82 bus lanes, and financed development of the AABC pedestrian underpass and the Basalt underpass (see full timeline at end of packet). With successful progress made toward implementing the CVTP, the EOTC is uniquely situated to look to the next 10 to 15 years to address mobility in the Roaring Fork Valley. 5 5 At the EOTC retreat in 2019, the Committee reevaluated how it was functioning, where it would like to go within the bounds of the enabling legislation and ballot language, and how it would like to get there. Based on the outcomes from the 2019 retreat, it was clear that the Committee wanted to focus on getting the EOTC’s internal ‘house in order’ in the immediate future. This guidance from the Committee set the direction for the upcoming annual Budget and Work Plans starting in 2020. As a result, over the course of 2020 and 2021, the EOTC accomplished the following to further the goal of getting the EOTC’s internal ‘house in order’: - 2020 – Adopted first EOTC Strategic Plan, which identified the EOTC’s Vision, Mission Statement, Guiding Principles, and Key Strategies. (See Attachment 5) - 2020 – Updated Comprehensive Valley Transportation Plan (CVTP), which had not been updated since original adoption in 1993. (See Part B, Section 3) - 2020 – Reworked the EOTC annual budget to remove and replace the previous “lock box” structure. (See Part B, Section 4 for further description) - 2020/2021 – Staff began prioritizing annual EOTC Budget and Work Plan projects by ranking based on the new Vision, Mission Statement, Guiding Principles, and Key Strategies within the Strategic Plan and updated Regional and Upper Valley Priorities within the CVTP. - 2021 – Updated EOTC Intergovernmental Agreement (IGA), which had not been updated since original adoption in 1993. (See Attachment 2) - 2021 – Adopted a Near Term Transit Improvement Program, which identified specific near term projects to be advanced by the EOTC based on the direction from the updated Strategic Plan and CVTP along with the outcomes of the 2021 Upper Valley Transit Enhancement study and 2020/2021 Integrated Mobility System study. (See Attachment 3) As a result of the internal organization work that the EOTC has accomplished over the past couple years, the EOTC is now in a position to start looking ahead at possible conceptual long- term efforts that could continue to advance the Strategic Plan and CVTP. As the Committee may recall, in 2020 and 2021 the EOTC hired Fehr and Peers to conduct the Integrated Mobility System (IMS) study (See Attachment 5). This study evaluated the anticipated greenhouse gas and congestion impacts of the five tenants of the IMS as identified by the Community Forum Task Force on Transportation and Mobility, which in 2017 released its findings in the Upper Valley Mobility Report (See Attachment 4). Along with a number of near- term implementation efforts, the Fehr and Peers IMS study also identified a couple long-term (11+ year) projects. Utilizing the results of this Fehr and Peers IMS study in combination with the Upper Valley Transit Enhancement Study conducted by Mead and Hunt (also in 2021), the EOTC adopted the Near Term Transit Improvement Program in July 2021. This Near Term Transit 6 6 Improvement Program set out a strategic tiered approach to vetting and progressing individual projects and efforts that were identified to best advance the EOTC’s Strategic Plan and CVTP. However, some of the identified projects require significant time, energy, funding and commitment to implement and were identified within this IMS study as being outside the ‘near term’ timeframe of the Transit Improvement Program. With the Near-Term Transit Improvement Program now beginning its implementation phase, the EOTC has an opportunity to take a deeper dive into the long-term trends and projects that were discussed by Fehr and Peers within the IMS study. As these long-term efforts would require significant resources due to legal, financial and social hurdles, before moving forward it is important that the EOTC members have a thorough understanding of each of these options. Based on the feedback received from the Committee members at the April 28 retreat, Staff will work to develop logical next steps. The two long-term conceptual efforts identified by Fehr and Peers in the IMS study include: - Cordon Toll - Converting all lanes to tolled lanes (creating a toll to enter both Aspen and Snowmass Village). - Managed Lanes - Converting the existing High-Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) and bus-only lane to an express lane or High-Occupancy Toll (HOT) lane; per state law, all HOT lanes require at least three persons per vehicle to qualify as a toll-free vehicle. For a full description of these two potential long-term efforts, please see the attached IMS report from Fehr and Peers (Attachment 5). Fehr and Peers will be providing an in-depth presentation on the results of the IMS study including these two options at the retreat on April 28. 7 7 Part B: Background Sections 1. Retreat Agenda 2. EOTC Formation and Structure 3. Comprehensive Valley Transportation Plan 4. EOTC Budgeting and Funding Part B, Section 1 EOTC RETREAT AGENDA Hybrid In-Person and Virtual Time Topic Lead Outcome  12:15‐1:00 Lunch, mingling  1:00‐1:15 Introductions, Overview of Retreat Agenda,  Ground Rules  David Pesnichak  and Mark Collins  Participants agree to process and  expected outputs of the retreat  1:15‐1:40  Presentation:   EOTC History, Governance and  Decision Making   Accomplishments   Environmental scan  David Pesnichak  1. Participants are familiar with  the purpose, requirements,  structure, funding and  operations of the EOTC  2. Participants are familiar with  EOTC accomplishments and  environmental scan to use  during retreat discussions  1:40‐1:55 Break  1:55‐2:30  Presentation:   Community Forum Task Force   on Transportation and Mobility   Upper Valley Mobility Report    Dialogue and Discussion  John Bennett,  Maria Morrow,  Cristal Logan  1. Participants are familiar with  the motivation and process  that led to the formation of  the Community Forum Task  Force on Transportation and  Mobility  2. Participants understand the  components of the Integrated  Mobility System (IMS)  2:30‐2:45  Presentation:   Near Term Transit Improvement  Program  David Pesnichak  Participants understand how the  IMS was the foundation for the  Near Term Transit Improvement  Program adopted by the EOTC in  July 2021  2:45‐3:00 Break  8 8 3:00‐3:30  Presentation:   Integrated Mobility Study (IMS) and  Future Transportation Patterns    Dialogue and Discussion  Fehr and Peers  Team: Chris  Breiland, Ann  Bowers, and  Marissa Milam  1. Participants understand the  GHG and VMT impacts from  each of the IMS strategies and  the recommended plan for  implementation both in the  near term and long term  2. Participants understand the  structure and long‐term  identified options to  Congestion Reduction  Measures: 1) Cordon Tolling,  and 2) Managed Lanes  3:30‐4:40  Cordon Tolling and Managed Lanes     Small group work (25 minutes):  pros and cons list   Small group report out and  individual ranking on Effectiveness  and Implementability (20 minutes)   Dotocracy Discussion (25 minutes)     Mark Collins  Participants produce a pros and  cons list for each alternative, rank  each option based on  effectiveness and  implementability, and conclude  with visual dotocracy  4:40‐5:00 Wrap‐Up and Next Steps Mark Collins and  David Pesnichak  Facilitator will provide a summary  of the day’s work and outline of  next steps to be executed by staff  and EOTC members  9 9 Part B, Section 2 EOTC FORMATION AND STRUCTURE Enabling Legislation Detail C.R.S. 29-2-103.5 (Colorado Revised Statute) provides that the county is authorized to levy a sales and use tax "for the purpose of financing, constructing, operating, or maintaining a mass transportation system within the county." Local jurisdictions "may enter into intergovernmental agreements with any municipality or other county ... for the purpose of providing mass transportation services either within the county or in a county in which the county mass transportation system is permitted to operate." “Mass Transportation” is defined as “any system which transports the general public by bus, rail, or any other means of conveyance moving along prescribed routes, except any railroad subject to the federal "Railway Labor Act", 45 U.S.C. sec. 151 et seq” Ballot Detail 1993 - The sales and use tax ballot measure further defined the purpose of the tax. Most significantly it limits the purpose to “increasing and improving the public mass transportation system within the Roaring Fork Valley” and requires that such mass transportation system improvements “be approved by the City of Aspen, Pitkin County and the Town of Snowmass Village”. 2004 - Per the 2004 ballot measure, 81.04% of the 0.5% Sales Tax, is allocated to RFTA. As a result, the remaining 18.96% of the Sales Tax collections and 100% of the Use Tax collections are available to the EOTC to fulfill the purpose as outlined in the enabling legislation, ballot measure, as well as the IGA and Comprehensive Valley Transportation Plan. 2021 EOTC IGA Detail The County, City and Town entered into an IGA on September 14, 1993. The EOTC updated and replaced this original IGA in 2021. An outline of the 2021 IGA is below.  EOTC Created: The IGA states that “The EOTC shall consist of the elected officials representing the parties to this Agreement (the Pitkin County Board of County Commissioners, the Town of Snowmass Village Town Council, and the City of Aspen City Council).”  Purpose of the IGA: “This Agreement is designed and intended to define and clarify the method and process by which the parties have agreed to fund and implement the Plan (Comprehensive Valley Transportation Plan, or CVTP).” 10 10  Definition of a Quorum: “A quorum, defined as a majority of the membership from each of the parties, must be in attendance to officially act at an EOTC meeting. In the event that quorum cannot be established at a regularly scheduled EOTC meeting then the meeting may be continued or rescheduled to a date where a quorum can be achieved. In the event a business decision needs to be acted upon sooner than a quorum can be achieved, then the subject matter(s) may be rescheduled by the individual parties for consideration at their respective regular meetings.”  Regular Meetings: “The parties hereby agree to conduct regular meetings including other invited members of the public to continue to refine and agree upon proposed projects and transportation elements consistent with or complementary to the Plan, as may be amended from time to time.  Requirement to Adopt a Comprehensive Valley Transportation Plan (CVTP, or Plan): “The parties shall adopt a Plan as is further outlined in Section 3 of this Agreement… (from Section 3) The parties hereby agree to adopt a Plan that is to be updated from time to time for addressing mass transportation problems and issues in the Roaring Fork River Valley.”  Expenditures Consistent with or Complimentary to the CVTP and State Statute: “The parties further agree that the amount of all expenditures and all projects to be funded with revenues derived from the one-half cent sales and use tax shall be consistent with and/or complementary to the Plan and applicable Colorado Revised Statutes.”  Decision Making Processes including Comprehensive Valley Transportation Plan, Expenditures/Budget, Supporting Document or Plan (e.g. strategic plan, and work plan), and Administrative Direction. EOTC Decision Making Process Overview Comprehensive Valley Transportation Plan Expenditure / Budget Supporting Document or plan Administrative Direction - Agreed upon by all three parties - Resolution signed by authorized representative from each party - Agreed upon by all three parties - Resolution signed by authorized representative from each party - Agreed upon by all three parties - Resolution signed by authorized representative from each party - Agreed upon by all three parties 11 11 Part B, Section 3 COMPREHENSIVE VALLEY TRANSPORTATION PLAN 12 12 Part B, Section 4 EOTC FUNDING AND BUDGET Funding: The EOTC is tasked with allocating the funding collected by the countywide sales tax and a use tax (collectively known as the Transit Sales and Use Tax, or TSUT). The expenditure of these funds is restricted to the purpose as outlined by Colorado Revised Statutes, the 1993 ballot language and the IGA. As can be seen in the below graphic and as identified in the EOTC annual budget, EOTC revenue is derived from a countywide 0.5% Transit Sales Tax and 0.5% Transit Use Tax. The EOTC retains 100% of the Transit Use Tax and 18.95% of the Transit Sales Tax. The remaining 81.04% of the Transit Sales Tax is contributed to RFTA. The EOTC funding sources are as follows: * CRS – Colorado Revised Statutes Budget: The EOTC budget is administered by Pitkin County and all fund balances are invested. For example, investment revenue for the fund balance in 2022 is expected to be approximately $40,000. The estimated invested annual revenue is projected by the Pitkin County Finance Department. 13 13 The currently approved EOTC budget identifies the following revenues through 2022: As can be seen in the revenue figures excerpted from the 2022 EOTC budget, above, EOTC revenue has declined notably from 2019 (~$3.2M) to 2022 (~$1.9M). This decrease in revenue has been caused by changes in State law impacting sales and use tax collections (HB 19- 1240). As a result of these changes, the EOTC has seen increases in sales tax collections and decreases in use tax collections. Due to the revenue split of sales tax revenues, however (81.04% to RFTA and 18.96% to the EOTC), the increase in sales tax revenue has been more than offset by the decrease in use tax revenue (EOTC retains 100% of use tax revenue). In order to mitigate these impacts, RFTA and EOTC staff worked together in 2020 and 2021 to transfer the cost of the No-Fare Aspen-Snowmass-Woody Creek service from the EOTC (where revenues were decreasing) to RFTA (where revenues were increasing). As a result of this transfer of costs, the decrease in EOTC revenue is expected to be made up with decreased annual EOTC operating expenses. As a result, moving forward the EOTC is expected to have similar available revenues for projects as pre-HB 19-1240, which went into effect in June 2019. The transfer of the cost of the No-Fare Aspen-Snowmass-Woody Creek service was finalized at the end of 2021 and was assumed by RFTA starting in 2022. On the Expenditure side of the EOTC budget, the budget is broken into two sections: 1) Ongoing/Operational, and 2) Projects. See the 2022 approved budget excerpt below. 14 14 The bottom of the budget identifies: 1) the annual surplus or deficit (all current year revenue minus current year operating and project expenses), 2) the cumulative surplus fund balance for a given year, and 3) the unobligated fund balance (cumulative annual fund balance minus current year operations plus all current year and future year obligated projects). The “Unobligated EOTC Fund Balance” is the amount that is most relevant when creating annual budgets as it shows the amount of funds that are not otherwise dedicated to a current or future year project or used in that years operations. This calculation was added to the budget when the ‘lock boxes’ were removed in 2020. 15 15 Part C: Background Data and Document Summaries 1. Regional Demographics 2. Traffic and Bus Ridership Trends 3. Projects in Progress within Comprehensive Valley Transportation Plan area 4. Accomplishments and Milestones Part C, Section 1 REGIONAL DEMOGRAPHICS Population Trends Based on population trends between 2004 and 2013 and then from 2013 to 2020, population growth has been slowing throughout the entire Roaring Fork Valley (chart below). While relatively faster growth has been seen in Garfield County in recent years, population growth overall has been slowing throughout Pitkin, southwest Eagle, and Garfield counties. 16 16 When looking at how population was expected to grow based on estimates identified within the 1998 Entrance to Aspen Record of Decision (ROD), we are able to compare how quickly growth was expected to occur based on these 1993 estimates versus how growth has actually occurred. As can be seen in the graph below, Pitkin County grew at a remarkably predictable rate to that anticipated by the State Demographer in 1993 with growth continuing to slow between 2015 and 2020. Garfield and Eagle counties, however, have grown at a much faster rate than expected. Note: the Entrance to Aspen ROD only projected years 2000-2015 Population Age Variation The composition of the population varies between the upper and lower Roaring Fork Valley. As can be seen from the population distribution by age for Pitkin County and Garfield County, below, Pitkin County’s population is notably older than Garfield County’s, which is where a good portion of Pitkin County’s employee base lives (age distribution information for southwest Eagle County was not readily available). While the causes for this distribution can be traced to a number of items, including housing costs, this results in different mobility needs between the upper valley and lower valley. Specifically, while the upper valley has higher needs to move tourists, incoming employees, and an aging population, the lower valley has higher needs for families, children, and a resident commuting workforce. 17 17 Pitkin County: Garfield County: 18 18 Jobs Trends Similar to population growth, job growth within Pitkin County has also been modest. As can be seen in the chart below, jobs in Pitkin County peaked in 2008 and dipped in 2010. As of 2019, total jobs in Pitkin County were about 500 below the 2008 peak, at approximately 21,500. A significant drop occurred in 2020 due to the COVID-19 pandemic. The long-term effects of the pandemic on total jobs is unknown at this time. Housing and Job Distribution The below graphics depict the number of people who live in a community (tan), work in a community (blue) and where they overlap – people who live and work in a community (green). Based on the varying size of the circles and their overlap, general commute patterns can be identified between locations. Specifically, this graphic shows the locations that have more jobs than residents (employee draw) and those that have more residents than jobs (employee base). One very notable item is that the bed base is not evenly distributed or proportionately co-located with job base. Of all of the communities, Rifle is the most balanced community when it comes to the number of jobs and residents within the RFTA service area. On the County level, a more generalized trend can be identified between Garfield and Pitkin County’s (southwest Eagle County data was not readily available). As can be seen, the workforce / housing balance is complimentary between Pitkin and Garfield County’s. 19 19 Employment and Household Location – Roaring Fork Valley – 2019 (U.S. Census Bureau) 20 20 Travel Patterns In 2021, Fehr and Peers wrapped up the Integrated Mobility System (IMS) study, phase 2 (see full report as Attachment 5). As the Committee may recall, this study focused on evaluating the greenhouse gas and congestion impacts of the five tenants identified within the 2017 Upper Valley Mobility Report developed by the Community Forum Task Force on Transportation and Mobility. As a part of this report, the Fehr and Peers team utilized the 2017 AirSage data (aggregate and anonymized cell phone data) to review the travel patterns within the Upper Valley. Within the IMS study, the Fehr and Peers team identified four different types of “travel markets”: commuters, local visitors, non-local visitors, and residents. While the utilized AirSage data can help provide a conceptual look at these travel markets as well as general origins and destinations, it is not without its limits. Most notably, as explained in the IMS study, “one important note is that AirSage does not track ‘trip tours’, so we do not see where non-local visitors are originally traveling from, but instead see the origin for the trip that ends in Aspen or Snowmass Village. An example is that we can identify non-local visitor trips to Aspen that start at the Brush Creek Park and Ride, but we cannot specifically track a “tour” of two trips that starts in Glenwood Springs, stops at the Brush Creek Park and Ride and then continues to Aspen. AirSage anonymizes the trip record when the traveler stops and parks at the Brush Creek Park and Ride and then transfers to a bus—these are counted as two separate trips.” Given the limitations of the AirSage data, Fehr and Peers reviewed and verified these patterns against City of Aspen’s 2017 VMT Model, US Census Bureau data, parking surveys and occupancy counts for the City of Aspen and Snowmass Village, hotel occupancy rates, and vehicle volumes across the Castle Creek Bridge and Brush Creek Road. The graph below shows the share of daily Vehicle Miles Travelled (VMT) by identified travel market. 21 21 The visualizations below are for Summer Weekday trips and Summer Commuters. These graphics show trips that are destined to Aspen and Snowmass Village. As noted in the IMS study, “While there appear to be larger trip flows from Old Snowmass and Woody Creek, these trips … are likely due to people stopping for food, gas, and coffee on their way to Aspen and Snowmass Village. Some of the trips originating in Old Snowmass may be trips between Snowmass Village and Aspen or within Snowmass Village due to the large boundary areas of the zones.” In addition, the IMS study notes: “Commuter trips show a high concentration of flows from the Brush Creek Park and Ride to Aspen and Snowmass Village. This is consistent with the high share of transit and carpool trips that begin at this park and ride.” 22 22 23 23 Part C, Section 2 TRAFFIC AND BUS RIDERSHIP TRENDS Traffic and Bus Ridership Trend Comparison As can be visualized in the below chart, RFTA’s system-wide bus ridership has seen a steady increase from 3.7 million trips annually in 2005 to 5.4 million trips in 2019, which is approximately a 31% increase in 14 years. Because of the COVID-19 pandemic that began in March 2020, RFTA system-wide and valley-wide ridership fell by over 50% in 2020 over 2019. This decrease was due to a combination of reduced tourism, temporary pandemic related business closures, and reductions in bus capacities in order to maintain social distancing. Aside from the pandemic related impacts in 2020 and early 2021, some other notable points in this timeline include the recession in 2008 to 2010 that resulted in a ridership dip, an increase in 2014 with the introduction of BRT service, and a peak to 5.5 million trips in 2017 when RFTA provided mitigation services for the Grand Avenue Bridge replacement project. When RFTA system-wide and valley-wide ridership are displayed with the Average Annual Daily Traffic (AADT) counts (chart below) at the Castle Creek Bridge, the general trend of increasing ridership compared with decreasing traffic can be visualized. Please note that while this chart can be helpful to visualize these two trends, the AADT counts are only for the entrance to aspen location while the RFTA ridership trips are system-wide (inclusive of valley and BRT service). Valley Service, which includes BRT, is also displayed on this chart for comparison purposes. 24 24 * 2017 included Grand Avenue Bridge mitigation services – it is estimated that RFTA provided 350,000 additional trips ** 2018 includes the Castle Creek Bridge Construction that affected traffic counts *** 2020 COVID-19 Pandemic affected traffic counts beginning March 2020 ****2021 I-70 Closures caused by mudslides impacted 2021 AADT Vehicle Traffic at Entrance to Aspen Leading up to the Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) for the Entrance to Aspen Record of Decision (ROD) in 1998, the Aspen community established target traffic levels based on the Average Annual Daily Traffic (AADT) count in 1993. As a result, the AADT target of 23,675 vehicles was adopted and not to be exceeded. To date, while some months have been higher or lower than the 1993 levels, on average the community has not exceeded the 1993 AADT target. This is due to the many measures and programs undertaken over the years including: expanded transit, increased safe bicycle and pedestrian access to transit, paid parking, BRT, car share, bike share, car-pooling, employer outreach, the Downtowner, expansion of the Brush Creek and Buttermilk Park and Rides, and the SH 82 bus lanes. The annual traffic count chart (below) shows annual average counts from 1999 through 2021. The chart shows annual counts peaking in 2004 and 2005. Traffic volumes then declined for several years and dipped in 2008 – 2010 during the recession. Counts then began trending upward beginning in 2011, peaked in 2015 and then leveled off. The Castle Creek Bridge and bus stop construction project in 2018 greatly influenced the annual counts as the construction and detours routed traffic away from the counters. Counts increased in 2019 and then decreased significantly in 2020 during COVID. Counts are trending upward in 2021 and are approaching the 2019 pre-COVID levels but remain below levels seen in 1993 and the community goal. It is also worth noting that counts during the summer of 2021 were affected by 25 25 I-70 closures through Glenwood Canyon due to mudslides that increased traffic utilization of Highway 82 through Aspen and over Independence Pass. 26 26 As is noted in the monthly chart below, July and August are the heaviest months. The July 4th week is typically the heaviest week of the year. No month in 2021 exceed levels seen in 1993. The highest day ever was July 3, 2003 when the daily count was recorded at 33,600. 27 27 When comparing actual AADT at the Castle Creek Bridge between 1993 and 2021 with the Aspen community goal and traffic projections from the Entrance to Aspen FEIS released in 1997 and the Reevaluation conducted in 2007, actual AADT has remained below the community goal and significantly below the 1993 and 2007 projected traffic levels. The traffic projections from the 1997 FEIS only projected traffic out to 2015 with the 2007 reevaluation projecting traffic levels out further to 2030. Both of these projections are for the no-action alternative. Please note that the linear trend lines were added for visualization purposes only. Notes: (1) 2021 AADT was impacted by I-70 closures due to mudslides. (2) COVID-19 Pandemic began in March 2020. (3) Castle Creek Bridge was under construction in 2018. 28 28 When looking down valley on Highway 82, the average monthly ADT at Old Snowmass is up about 4% in 2021 over 2019 (See chart below). This stretch of Highway 82 only saw a significant dip in traffic in March, April and May of 2020 because of the COVID-19 pandemic before recovering to near 2019 levels in June 2020. Transit Ridership Trends RFTA Transit ridership remains below 2019 levels (through December 2021) by about 39% in the Roaring Fork Valley and 9% in the Colorado River Valley. It is speculated that possible drivers for this reduction is a continued fear of COVID-19 as well as a lingering habitual shift away from transit created by the pandemic. Other notable factors, which are admittedly difficult to quantify, are the lack of affordable housing leading to a reduced work force and worker shortages as well as virtual work taking commuters off transit that may have ridden nearly every day in 2019. It is important to note that starting in March 2020 ridership was significantly restricted due to COVID related health orders that reduced vehicle capacity down to 25%-50%. In June 2021, those restrictions were lessened to the seating capacity of buses and shuttles and RFTA increased to 100% of seated capacity, with no standees. As of April 18, 2022, RFTA is planning to begin allowing standees on its buses. Many disincentives remain in place for one attempting to drive their own vehicle to work in Aspen, however, including the cost of fuel, congestion delays, restricted parking, and parking fees. The City of Aspen also continues to run a comprehensive Transportation Demand Management (TDM) program that incentivizes employers and employees to ride transit and carpool. 29 29 30 30 Below are several charts showing ridership from 2019 through 2021 for the Town of Snowmass Village and City of Aspen. Ridership is still down from the pre-COVID levels in both systems. However, ridership on both systems continues to improve and is inching nearer to pre-pandemic levels. 31 31 The chart below compares Year-to-Date February 2022 ridership with Year-to-Date February 2019 pre-pandemic ridership. Overall, Year-to-Date system-wide ridership in February 2022 was down 28% compared to February 2019. However, Valley ridership was only down 24%. RFTA System-wide ridership March 2020 through March 2022 Service YTD Feb  2019 YTD Feb  2022 % Vari YTD  2022 to YTD  2019 Aspen 362,445       226,402        ‐38% Valley 544,827       416,392        ‐24% Hogback 16,449          19,987          22% Other 335,436       241,575        ‐28% Total 1,259,157    904,356       ‐28% Total  Ridership YTD Comparison:  2019 vs. 2022 32 32 Other Transportation and Activity Indicators Other indicators are the City of Aspen Carpool Pass issuance, We-Cycle ridership, commercial airline traffic, building permits, and hotel occupancy. The chart below shows the City of Aspen Carpool Pass issuance trends for 2017 through 2021. These carpool passes are issued by the City of Aspen at the Brush Creek Park and Ride. During the COVID-19 pandemic, carpool pass issuance was suspended between March 2020 and May 2021. As can be seen in the chart below, 2021 issuance started relatively slow in June but picked up notably in July. As of December, issuance was back on par with 2018. It is expected that pass issuance will continue to accelerate. Note: Issuance of City of Aspen Carpool Passes were suspended between March 2020 and May 2021 due to the COVID-19 Pandemic We-Cycle, a bike share service in Aspen, Snowmass and Basalt, is an important first / last mile connection to transit and local service in the Upper Valley. Similar to transit ridership, We-Cycle ridership took a significant hit due to COVID (see charts below). In addition, the service was closed in May and the first week of June in 2020 due to the pandemic. We-Cycle expanded in June of 2020 into Snowmass. Ridership is starting to return in 2021 following the COVID pandemic. 33 33 34 34 Commercial airline travel at the Aspen / Pitkin County Airport took a significant hit during the COVID-19 pandemic. As can be seen in the chart below, commercial airline passengers departing the Aspen / Pitkin County Airport declined notably between March 2020 and March 2021. While April through June of 2021 were still below 2019 levels, July to December 2021 exceeded 2019. In December 2021, commercial airline traffic was 1% above 2019 levels. 35 35 Building permits can be a good indicator of construction activity. In relation to mobility, construction can generate a notable level of traffic among contractors, workers, and supply deliveries. The below charts show building permit issuance for unincorporated Pitkin County for new residences, and additions, remodels and garages. As can be seen in the charts below, the number of new permits for new residences dropped off in July 2021 but picked up again from August through December. The total number of new permits aside from new residences has remained strong through 2021 with many months exceeding 2019 and 2020. 36 36 Similar to building permits, hotel occupancy can also be an indicator of activity. The below chart shows the hotel occupancy as reported by the Aspen Chamber Resort Association. Hotel occupancy is up 19% from December 2021 over December 2020, however it is down 2.1% in December over 2019. Per Capita Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) and Transit Ridership Forecast As the EOTC is aware, Fehr and Peers conducted a study of the Integrated Mobility Study (IMS) in 2020 and 2021. The full report can be found as Attachment 5. As a part of this study, Fehr and Peers modeled VMT and greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions in the short, mid, and long-term for the Upper Valley. For analysis purposes and as previously discussed, Fehr and Peers broke the travel patterns into four “travel markets”: Residents, Workers, Local Visitors, and Non-Local Visitors. Based on the VMT and GHG emissions research conducted by Fehr and Peers, the report made several conclusions: - Non-local visitors contribute the most to the VMT into Aspen and Snowmass Village – more than 50 percent in the summer and nearly as much in the peak winter season - Commuters are the next largest share of VMT and total trip making after non-local visitors - Residents and local visitors represent much smaller shares of total trips and VMT into Aspen and Snowmass Village From this analysis, the report notes that “Based on these results, it is clear that substantial reductions in VMT and GHG emissions into Aspen and Snowmass Village will require a focus on non-local visitors and commuters.” 37 37 When factoring in Autonomous Vehicles (AVs) and the long-term effects of the COVID-19 pandemic, Fehr and Peers forecasted the anticipated impacts to per capita VMT and per capita transit ridership. The impacts of COVID-19 are expected mostly in the nearer term out to 2030 while widespread AV utilization is not expected until 2030 to 2050. A couple of the more notable factors identified in the Fehr and Peers study impacting long term per capita VMT and GHG emissions include: - Autonomous Vehicles (AVs) are expected to have both a push and pull effect on VMT over the long term. More specifically, private and rental AVs are expected to notably increase VMT particularly from non-local visitors while transit AVs are expected to slightly decrease VMT among commuters and residents. Overall, AVs are expected to have a stronger push (increase) than a pull (decrease) on VMT within the Upper Valley. - Remote work is not available to a large portion of the Upper Valley work force. As a result, remote work is not expected to have as large of a pull (decrease) impact on VMT and GHG emissions in the long term in the Upper Valley as it could in other locations. In addition, should remote work encourage other workers to move into the Upper Valley to live and work full or part time for a remote employer, this will likely drive up VMT and transit trips within the resident travel market. Below is a graph created by Fehr and Peers showing the overall expected trends in VMT per capita and Transit Trips per capita out to 2050. This graph combines all of the travel markets evaluated by Fehr and Peers within the Upper Valley. For a breakdown of each travel market and an explanation of the inputs, please see the full report (attachment 5) for charts and descriptions of this forecast by travel market. Please note that the below information is a per capita forecast, not a system wide usage forecast. As a result, while per capita transit ridership may be steady or even decrease, overall transit ridership may increase over time due to population and employment growth. 38 38 39 39 Part C, Section 3 Projects in Progress within Comprehensive Valley Transportation Plan area While there are many transportation related conversations and efforts being pursued throughout the Roaring Fork Valley at any given time that are of high value, the below identified projects are those that specifically impact the EOTC. Entrance to Aspen – 2022 City of Aspen Efforts The modern debate around the Entrance to Aspen has been ongoing for over three decades. As the Castle Creek Bridge ages and mobility dynamics change, the entry and Record of Decision will come to the forefront. City of Aspen staff were directed by Aspen City Council to update project materials and begin to look at the process for community engagement. There are three main components to this Entrance to Aspen Education project that include the following; Technical Analysis – Obtain clarity around the current state of the Record of Decision and the Preferred Alternative. 1. Organize all existing information 2. Define the ROW and depict on a map 3. Have a clear understanding of the components of the transportation management program that have been implemented and what is required 4. Research technologies (i.e. trackless tram) 5. Develop cross sections of the Preferred Alternative 6. Assessment of current conditions of the Old Castle Creek Bridge 7. What has changed since the re-evaluation of the ROD? 8. What pieces of the ROD are complete, and what pieces still need to be completed? 9. Fully understand what can and cannot be done under the approved ROD Engagement with stakeholders including CDOT. This task will focus on the potential funding and understanding the risks associated with any modifications to the Record of Decision and determining the full process for including this project on the 10-year Statewide Transportation Improvement Plan (STIP). Preparation for Community Education. Update the materials and plans to prepare for full engagement with the community. Much of the materials and documents created for the Entrance to Aspen are outdated and no longer in a format that is compatible with today’s technology. The goal of the education process is to provide the community with information to 40 40 assist them in understanding the problem, alternatives and opportunities for the ETA. The following items will be developed: 1. Updated Website & Document Library including Grassroots Videos 2. Print Campaign 3. Public Open Houses, in person if possible 4. Polling at the end of the public education process It is important to note that this public education process is not a substitute for a full community engagement process that will be needed if City Council wants to move forward with either implementation of the last elements of the Preferred Alternative or if City Council would like to pursue reopening the Record of Decision. Snowmass Transit Center (Current Status: Design Complete) The adopted conceptual design of the Snowmass Transit Station (STS) was done by SEH and approved by Council in April of 2020. The requirements for the bus turning movements allow little change to the bus platform. The Federal Transit Administration (FTA) has completed their review of our project’s Environmental Assessment and has approved it and the Equity Analysis has been completed for the Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT). This is a requirement for any project that is looking to secure Federal funding for construction. Our project is listed as a Priority Project for the Intermountain Transportation Planning Region (IMTPR). The IMTPR is the CDOT planning region that covers Pitkin County and the Highway 82 corridor. Our formal projection of the construction costs for the facility based on 90% Design Drawings puts the project cost at roughly $26.5 million. We have kept the Roaring Fork Transportation Authority (RFTA) involved in the design work for the transit station and it has been incorporated in their Destination 2040 Plan. The project has been reviewed by the Transportation Commission and was awarded $4.5 million from the State in SB-267 funding. RFTA has appropriated $500,000 for the project in their budget. The Federal Transit Administration (FTA) has awarded the project $13.5 a Section 5339 Bus and Bus Facility program grant. The Town has appropriated $2 million for the project and with the $6 million from the EOTC we have reached the projected project cost of $26.5 million. The design drawings have reached 100%. We are under review by the civil and geotechnical engineers for the foundation and roadway. We will work to keep the project within the proposed budget. 41 41 Brush Creek Park and Ride Improvements (Current Status: Design Complete) Pitkin County and the U.S. Forest Service applied for a Federal Lands Access Program (FLAP) grant from the Federal Highways Administration (FHWA) to improve the Brush Creek Park and Ride in 2017. The grant was awarded in 2018 with design work beginning in 2019. While construction was planned for 2022, due to untenable construction bid responses, construction has been postponed until 2023 pending more favorable construction bid responses. The general project description includes: ○ Permanent restroom facilities with flush toilets ○ Water and wastewater facilities (well and septic) ○ Increase paved area for parking (pave recycled asphalt area) ○ Security lighting and landscaping The consultant, Jacobs Engineering Group, was retained by the FHWA to proceed with the Brush Creek Park and Ride design and engineering as a part of the FLAP grant award. The project design is now at 100%. The EOTC provided design input to this project at three meetings in 2019 and 2020. This FLAP match was initially $2 million from the EOTC and $2.2 million from the Federal Highways Administration (FHWA) for a total project cost of $4.2 million. As the EOTC may recall, through the design process the total cost estimate for the project increased to $6.5 million. Now at 100% plans the total cost estimate has increased to $6.9 million (design and construction) including cost escalation for construction in 2022 or 2023. The EOTC’s match for this project is now budgeted at $3,316,672 in 2022. As a result of increasing costs, the FHWA has also increased their funding obligation from $2.2 million to $2.4 million. In addition, a CMAQ grant in the amount of $1,545,000, and $500,000 from RFTA are to be utilized for this project. This project was advertised for construction by the FHWA in late 2021. The engineers estimate for construction (not design) of this project was estimated at $5.6 million. Two bids were received from this advertisement, one at about $12 million and one at about $15 million. As a result of these untenably high bids, FHWA has decided to cancel the two received bids and re- advertise the project in late summer or early fall of 2022 for summer 2023 construction. This will result in a one-year construction delay. These excessively high bids are believed to be caused by a combination of a shortage of labor, a shortage of materials and equipment, a high demand for construction contractors, and certain FHWA advertisement requirements that may be able to be removed when this project is re- advertised. 42 42 Near Term Transit Improvement Program In 2020 and 2021 the EOTC with financial support from RFTA and CDOT, commissioned two studies: the Integrated Mobility System (IMS) study and the Upper Valley Transit Enhancement (UVTE) study. While these two studies were conducted independently and with separate consulting teams, the IMS can be viewed as the umbrella study. The UVTE, which focused on infrastructure improvements to increase access to and efficiency of transit, was a first step in progressing BRT Enhancements, which is one of the five strategies of the IMS. Based on the results of these two studies, Staff developed the EOTC Near Term Transit Improvement Program that prioritizes the most productive and feasible efforts identified in these two studies into three priority tiers. The efforts identified in the first and second tiers are those projects that are most in need, feasible in the near term, and/or are necessary to progress later efforts. Staff utilizes the direction provided from the EOTC 2021 Near Term Transit Improvement Program as guidance to develop the EOTC Budgets and Work Plans starting with 2022. The EOTC adopted the Near Term Transit Improvement Program in July 2021. Below is an excerpt of Tier 1 and Tier 2 projects of the Near Term Transit Improvement Program along with current project tracking. Please see Attachment 3 to view the full Program, including Tier 3 and ‘Other Projects Considered’. 43 43 44 44 Part C, Section 4 ACCOMPLISHMENTS AND MILESTONES  1993 - Successful Vote for ½ Cent Countywide Transportation Sales and Use Tax “for the purpose of financing, constructing, operating, or maintaining a mass transportation system” within the Roaring Fork Valley. - IGA signed with Pitkin County, Town of Snowmass Village, and City of Aspen to support the ½ Cent Countywide Transportation Sales and Use Tax. IGA also: - Created EOTC - Adopted Comprehensive Valley Transportation Plan  1995 - Doubling of Bus Service between El Jebel and Snowmass Village - Entrance to Aspen EIS Agreement and endorsement of 10 project objectives - Community-based planning - Transportation Capacity Limit (limit number of vehicles to 1993 levels) - Safety - Environmentally-sound alternative - Community acceptability - Financial limitations - Clean Air Act requirements - Emergency Access - Livable Communities - Phasing - Draft Entrance to Aspen EIS Completed, additional options added leading to Supplemental EIS - Airport Park and Ride (completed in 1998)  1996 - Draft Entrance to Aspen Supplemental EIS Completed - Aspen Voter Approval for 2-lane general traffic and rail across Marolt/Thomas property for Modified Direct Alignment (Preferred Alternative) - Final Entrance to Aspen EIS Completed - D&RGW Right of Way Acquired - Snowmass to Aspen Linkages Task Force created, recommending: - Continued study of long-term alternatives - Discontinue discussion of Owl Creek Road as Transit Corridor as identified in Comprehensive Valley Transportation Plan  1997 - EOTC Commitment to funding Entrance to Aspen: commits unobligated funds for the valley-wide rail project and related improvements. - Roaring Fork Railroad Holding Authority formation and EOTC participation (through 2000)  1998 - Entrance to Aspen Record of Decision: Preferred Alternative - Modified Direct - Unsuccessful County vote on rail - Corridor Investment Study (through 2004) with following conclusions: - Rail alternatives had “marginal financial feasibility” with capitol cost of $306 million in 2004 - Recommended further study of Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) service 45 45  2000 - Creation of Regional Transportation Authority (RTA) - EOTC commits 48.04% of the ½ cent sales tax to RTA - Voter approval for: - $7 million for Snowmass Village Transportation Improvements - $1.5 million for safety improvements to bus stops in Pitkin County - $7.5 million for buses, maintenance facility improvements, and affordable housing for RFTA - Provide funds to participate with CDOT in the completion of the transit- related improvements to the Entrance to Aspen  2001 - Unsuccessful City of Aspen Vote on Bus Lanes through Marolt/Thomas property  2002 - Entrance to Aspen Alignment Vote – Both City and County voters said they preferred the S-Curve alignment  2004 - Successful Vote on Additional Funding for RFTA - 81.04% of the ½ cent sales tax committed - Contingent on an additional 0.25 RFTA sales and use tax being approved in Basalt, Eagle County, Carbondale, and Glenwood Springs  2006 - X-Games Transit Subsidy started  2007 - Brush Creek Park and Ride Expansion - Successful Vote on Bus Lanes from Buttermilk to Roundabout - Entrance to Aspen Reevaluation – Preferred Alternative upheld  2008 - Maroon Creek Bridge completed - Free bus service between Snowmass Village and Aspen begins - Bus Lanes from Buttermilk to Roundabout completed  2011 - AABC Underpass completed  2012 - Rubey Park Transit Facility Renovation Design (Completed in 2015)  2013 - Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) service and improvements implemented  2016 - Basalt Underpass completed  2017 - Grand Avenue Bridge Transit Mitigation - Upper Valley Mobility Report - We-Cycle funding began  2018 - RFTA Ballot Measure 7A passes - Regional Transportation Administrator Hired  2019 - Dynamic Message Sign Installed on Hwy 82 - Retreat – Outcome to get EOTC internal ‘house in order’ - Brush Creek P&R FLAP Improvement Design Review 46 46  2020 - EOTC adopts first Strategic Plan - EOTC updates Comprehensive Valley Transportation Plan - Integrated Mobility System (IMS) Study begins w/ end of year report out - EOTC budget reworked to remove and replace ‘lock boxes’ - Brush Creek P&R FLAP Improvement Design Review  2021 - EOTC updates Governance Intergovernmental Agreement (IGA) - EOTC adopts Upper Valley Transit Improvement Program - Budget Mitigation Completed for HB19-1240 (change in Sales and Use Tax collections) – RFTA Assumes Cost of Aspen, Snowmass, Woody Creek No-Fare Service - Integrated Mobility System (IMS) Study concludes w/ report out - Upper Valley Transit Enhancement Study concludes w/ report out Part D: Attachments 2020 EOTC Strategic Plan Attachment 1 2021 Intergovernmental Agreement Attachment 2 2021 EOTC Near Term Transit Imp. Program Attachment 3 2017 Upper Valley Mobility Report Attachment 4 2021 Integrated Mobility System (IMS) Study – Final Report Attachment 5 47 2020 STRATEGIC PLAN ELECTED OFFICIALS TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE (EOTC) Adopted July 2020 Attachment 1 48 2 Attachment 1 49 3 Contents 2020 Strategic Plan Introduction Page 4 Where we are today Page 7 EOTC Strengths, Opportunities and Challenges Page 10 How this plan will be used Page 11 Mission, Vision, Guiding Principles, and Key Strategies Page 12 Implementation Page 13 Attachment 1 50 4 Introduction 2020 Strategic Plan In 1990 the Colorado state legislature passed Colorado Revised Statute 29-2-103.5 that provides counties the authority to levy sales and use taxes for the "for the purpose of financing, constructing, operating, or maintaining a mass transportation system within the county." In November 1993, per the Colorado State Statute, Pitkin County voters approved a 0.5% County Transit Sales and Use Tax for the purpose of financing, constructing, operating and managing a mass transportation system within the Roaring Fork Valley. In conjunction with the countywide ballot measure, Pitkin County, the Town of Snowmass Village and the City of Aspen adopted a 1993 Intergovernmental Agreement (IGA) establishing the Elected Officials Transportation Committee (EOTC), its structure, and further defining how the collected funds may be allocated. The EOTC is therefore responsible for allocating the countywide 0.5% sales tax and a 0.5% use tax funds in a manner that is consistent with State Statute, the 1993 ballot language and the IGA. In addition, the IGA expanded upon the enabling legislation from State Statute and the ballot language by adopting a Comprehensive Valley Transportation Plan (CVTP) as a means to guide future allocations. The IGA includes:  Establishment of a Committee (i.e. Elected Officials Transportation Committee or EOTC) comprised of all jurisdictions within the Transit Sales and Use Tax administration area, including Pitkin County, Town of Snowmass Village, and the City of Aspen.  The EOTC is a recommending body only for expenditure of 0.5% Transit Sales and Use Tax.  That, for any EOTC action, all jurisdictions must have a majority vote to progress a recommendation.  That the only actions that must be approved (rather than recommended) are annual and project budgets. Approval of annual and project budgets must be formally approved within each of the member jurisdictions. Attachment 1 51 5 Introduction 2020 Strategic Plan Enabling Legislation Detail C.R.S. 29-2-103.5 (Colorado Revised Statute) provides that a county is authorized to levy a sales and use tax "for the purpose of financing, constructing, operating, or maintaining a mass transportation system within the county." Local jurisdictions "may enter into intergovernmental agreements with any municipality or other county ... for the purpose of providing mass transportation services either within the county or in a county in which the county mass transportation system is permitted to operate." Significant Ballot Initiatives Impacting the EOTC 1993 - The sales and use tax ballot measure further defined the purpose of the tax. Most significantly it limits the purpose to “increasing and improving the public mass transportation system within the Roaring Fork Valley” and requires that such mass transportation system improvements “be approved by the City of Aspen, Pitkin County and the Town of Snowmass Village”. 2000 – Aspen, Snowmass Village, and Pitkin County residents vote to join the Roaring Fork Transportation Authority and dedicate 48.131% of the 1986 Pitkin County-wide 1% mass transit tax and 48.04% of the 1993 Pitkin County-wide 0.5% mass transit tax to RFTA. The remainder of the 1% mass transit tax is allocated to Aspen and Snowmass Village based on their proportional share of annual sales tax revenues to help support their transit services. The remainder of the 0.5% mass transit tax was retained by the EOTC to fund transportation projects and programs within the Roaring Fork Valley. 2004 – In order to secure additional funding for RFTA to improve transit and trails, voters in all existing RFTA member jurisdictions including Pitkin County approved to increase their contribution to RFTA from countywide Transit Sales Tax revenues. Per the 2004 ballot measure, the countywide contribution to RFTA was increased from 48.04% to 81.04% of the 0.5% Transit Sales Tax. As a result, the remaining 18.96% of the Transit Sales Tax collections and 100% of the Use Tax collections are available to the EOTC to fulfill the purpose as outlined in the enabling legislation, ballot measure, as well as the IGA and Comprehensive Valley Transportation Plan. “Mass Transportation” is defined as “any system which transports the general public by bus, rail, or any other means of conveyance moving along prescribed routes, except any railroad subject to the federal "Railway Labor Act", 45 U.S.C. sec. 151 et seq”. Attachment 1 52 6 Introduction 2020 Strategic Plan 1993 EOTC IGA Detail The County, City and Town entered into an IGA on September 14, 1993. This IGA identifies that all three entities must agree to expenditures and representatives from each jurisdiction are to meet regularly. This requirement was incorporated into the IGA as a result of the ballot language. In addition, this IGA adopts a Comprehensive Valley Transportation Plan (CVTP) to establish a framework for a mass transportation strategy for “addressing mass transportation problems and issues in the Roaring Fork Valley”, sets forth procedural steps to implement the Plan, and establishes a mutual understanding of a process for funding the Plan and other mass transportation elements. Attachment 1 53 7 Where We Are Today 2020 Strategic Plan Historically, transit service has been a part of the Roaring Fork Valley since the mid-1970’s when the City of Aspen ran fixed route in-city transit service and Pitkin County ran regional transit service as far down valley as El Jebel. In 1983, the City of Aspen and Pitkin County merged their transit systems creating the Roaring Fork Transit Agency. In 2000 the Roaring Fork Transportation Authority (RFTA) was established in its current form when residents in Aspen, Snowmass Village, Pitkin County, Basalt, Eagle County, Carbondale and Glenwood Springs voted to create RFTA. By 2018, RFTA had become the second largest transit agency in Colorado and the largest rural transit agency in the nation with annual system ridership of 5.1 million passenger trips spanning a 70-linear mile service area from Aspen to Rifle. Since it’s inception in 1993, the EOTC has been a loyal supporter of RFTA. Supporting transit in the Roaring Fork Valley, and by extension RFTA, remains central to the EOTC’s statutory, ballot, CVTP and IGA requirements. Attachment 1 54 8 Where We Are Today 2020 Strategic Plan In addition to its ardent support of RFTA, the EOTC has also made significant progress carrying out the Comprehensive Valley Transportation Plan (CVTP) and supporting transit ridership in the 25+ years of the Transit Use and Sales tax. Examples of the progress made to date include:  Participation in Entrance to Aspen Record of Decision (ROD)  Acquisition of the Denver Rio Grande right-of-way  Support for the creation of the Roaring Fork Transportation Authority (RFTA)  Design and installation of the Highway 82 exclusive bus lanes  Design and construction support for the Maroon Creek Bridge and Roundabout  No-fare bus service between Aspen, Snowmass and Woody Creek  Ongoing support of RFTA  AABC pedestrian underpass  Basalt pedestrian underpass  Ongoing support for We-Cycle and X-Games bus service  Establishment of the 15-minute RFTA bus connections  Renovation of the Rubey Park bus station  Support for the purchase of RFTA Battery Electric Buses  Operation and improvement of the Brush Creek Park and Ride as well as the Dynamic Message Sign (DMS) on Highway 82 The EOTC has demonstrated ongoing commitment to upper valley mobility with the establishment of the Regional Transportation Administrator position in 2018. The Regional Transportation Administrator position consolidates the administrative functions of the EOTC and provides additional staff resources that were not previously available. Credit: Rising Sun Photography Attachment 1 55 9 The EOTC currently has two significant projects underway that have been considered for many years and are supported by the CVTP. The two projects are: enhancements to the Brush Creek Park and Ride facility and the Town of Snowmass Village Transit Center. While these two projects are still several years from completion, they both continue to move forward with EOTC funds allocated in 2020 and 2022, respectively. With progress made toward carrying out the Comprehensive Valley Transportation Plan, the EOTC is uniquely situated to look to the future to address mobility in the Roaring Fork Valley. To that end, on August 7, 2019 the EOTC held a retreat with the following goals: 1. Establish a baseline understanding of the EOTC purpose, requirements, structure, funding and operations; 2. Identify the strengths, opportunities and challenges facing the EOTC today, and 3. Create a priority list of themes, major topics, and projects to help guide the EOTC ’s next steps and vision. The collaborative discussions and direction amongst the EOTC members at the retreat have provided a framework for the EOTC and staff to guide future decision-making as it looks ahead. Based on the retreat, the top two priorities for the EOTC to focus initially on include: 1) EOTC governance and decision-making; and 2) updating EOTC plans and governance documents. To achieve these priorities, the EOTC agreed to develop a strategic plan as a part of their 2020 Work Plan. The development of an EOTC strategic plan is among the first steps to move the needle in these two outcome areas by identifying and documenting an agreed upon Mission Statement, Vision, Guiding Principles, and Key Strategies for the EOTC. Where We Are Today 2020 Strategic Plan Attachment 1 56 10 Strengths, Opportunities, and Challenges (As identified at August 2019 EOTC Retreat) 2020 Strategic Plan During the 2019 retreat, the 14 EOTC members (one member was absent) conducted a Strengths, Opportunities, and Challenges discussion about the EOTC and its future. Below is a summary of the results from these conversations. It was noted that each of the opportunities and strengths may also pose numerous challenges and opportunities for future action. Strengths:  History of recognizing and appreciating the regional nature of transportation  The multi-jurisdictional governance, leadership, and staffing of the EOTC  History and legacy of the EOTC with enduring governing documents, history of successful action, consensus and agreement  Existence of a stable funding source and structure for the EOTC Opportunities:  Utilize strengths of a regional approach, a strong staff and governance structure, and EOTC historic momentum to expand opportunities in regional thinking, projects, and strategic decision -making  Emerging technologies  Improved communication both within and outside of the EOTC  Use of multiple modalities to change behavior  Improve Airport connectivity  Take advantage of excellent Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT) resources Challenges:  Should the EOTC desire to expand to include broader regional input and/or representation, such broadening will require difficult changes to governance and relationship-building  While expanding first/last mile transportation connectivity is critical to change people’s behavior, it can be difficult to implement particularly outside the EOTC member jurisdictions  Behavior change is – in and of itself – difficult to accomplish  While the EOTC’s governance has been a strength and is recognized as an opportunity to accomplish even more, clarifying how decisions are made is an ongoing challenge  Changes to the EOTC funding starting in 2019  While the linear nature of the Roaring Fork Valley topography has enhanced the effectiveness of regional trunk-line transit service, overcoming topographic challenges in first and last mile connectivity can be difficult  Need for greater resiliency in emergency management  Need for greater and faster response to climate-change Attachment 1 57 11 How this Plan will be Used 2020 Strategic Plan The EOTC Strategic Plan provides a framework to guide the EOTC’s decision- making, work planning and budgeting. The Plan also includes the following: Statutory and ballot requirements for the Transit Sales and Use Tax as well as the Mission, Vision, Guiding Principles, and Key Strategies of the EOTC. The Guiding Principles in this Plan represent the high-level deliverables that the EOTC strives to achieve throughout the Roaring Fork Valley. The Plan also includes Key Strategies that define approaches the EOTC will utilize to help realize the Guiding Principles. The Guiding Principles and Key Strategies inform the annual EOTC Work Plan, which will act as the tactical actions of this Plan. Each of the tasks completed in the annual Work Plan and money allocated by the EOTC will be connected to the Strategic Plan. This Plan is intended to be reviewed at least every five years and updated as necessary. Attachment 1 58 12 Mission, Vision, Guiding Principles, and Key Strategies 2020 Strategic Plan Guiding Principles Key Strategies Environmental Sustainability All projects will promote a balanced natural and built environment while reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Economic Sustainability Efforts will strive to increase emergency and economic resiliency while considering the financial, legal and physical practicality of each project. Social Sustainability Encourage a top-line transportation experience for all residents and visitors while striving to increase equity ¹, proximity, reliability, and efficiency of the network to meet the transportation needs of all people. Work collectively to reduce and manage the volume of vehicles on the road and parking system and continue to develop and support a comprehensive multi- modal, long-range strategy that will insure a convenient, equitable and efficient transportation system for the Roaring Fork Valley. We envision the Roaring Fork Valley as the embodiment of a sustainable transportation system emphasizing mass transit and mobility that contributes to the happiness and wellbeing of residents and visitors. Mission Vision Multi-Modal Network that Encourages Mode Shift Regionalism and Cross-Sector Approach All decisions will support public mass transit and mobility. In addition, new technologies that support mode shift away from private vehicles will be embraced. All decisions will consider the needs of the whole Roaring Fork Valley as well as the context of the greater regulatory and community environment, such as housing and land use controls. Communication and Inter-Governmental Engagement The EOTC will strive to communicate and engage with local stakeholders, citizens, partner organizations, and other local, State and Federal government agencies to support its Mission, Vision, and Guiding Principles and implement its Key Strategies. ¹ Note: Equity refers to the fairness with which impacts (benefits and costs) are distributed Attachment 1 59 13 Implementation 2020 Strategic Plan Each year the EOTC shall adopt a work plan and budget for multiple upcoming years that will act as the tactical actions for the implementation of this Strategic Plan. Each action and expenditure made by the EOTC is to be connected to the promotion of the EOTC’s Mission, Vision, Guiding Principles, and Key Strategies. Attachment 1 60 DocuSign Envelope ID: 1 E61DDDC-CA 11-417D-AC51-45041 E712F01 INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT ELECTED OFFICIALS TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE THIS INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT (this "Agreement"), is made and entered into as of this 3rd day of May, 2021, by and among the CITY OF ASPEN, Colorado, a home-rule municipal corporation (the "City"), THE TOWN OF SNOWMASS VILLAGE, Colorado, a home-rule municipal corporation (the "Town"), and the BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF THE COUNTY OF PITKIN, Colorado, a body corporate and politic (the "County"). WITNESSETH: WHEREAS, the parties to this Agreement have the authority pursuant to Article XIV, Section 18 of the Colorado Constitution and Section 29-1-201, et seq., of the Colorado Revised Statutes, to enter into intergovernmental agreements for the purpose of providing any service or performing any function which they can perform individually; and WHEREAS, on September 14 1h, 1993 the parties entered into an Intergovernmental Agreement (the "1993 IGA") establishing a committee made up of the elected officials from the City, the Town, and the County that has become known as the Elected Officials Transportation Committee (the "EOTC"), and WHEREAS, in 1993 the parties adopted Joint Resolution No. 61 adopting a Comprehensive Valley Transportation Plan (the "Plan") establishing an initial framework for a comprehensive mass transportation strategy for the Roaring Fork Valley; and WHEREAS, on July 16, 2020 the EOTC approved by separate resolutions an updated Plan that is to be updated from time to time; and WHEREAS, in 1993 the parties adopted Joint Resolution No. 62 which adopted specific elements to be funded from the proceeds of transportation revenue bonds; and WHEREAS, on November 2, 1993 the County electorate approved a County-wide one­ half (1/2) cent sales tax and one-half (1/2) cent use tax (collectively, the "one-half cent sales and use tax") to fund the Plan, as amended, and other elements for the purpose of increasing and improving the public mass transportation system within the Roaring Fork Valley; and WHEREAS, on September 12, 2000, the City, the Town, the County and certain other municipalities and counties in the Roaring Fork Valley entered into the Roaring Fork Transportation Authority Intergovernmental Agreement (the "Authority IGA"), forming the Roaring Fork Transportation Authority (the "Authority"); WHEREAS, the Authority IGA furthered the goals set forth in the 1993 IGA and Joint Resolutions 61 and 62, but also amended the uses and distribution of the revenues of 1 Attachment 2 61 DocuSign Envelope ID: 1 E61DDDC-CA 11-417D-AC51-45041 E712F01 the one-half cent sales and use tax and of the one cent mass transportation sales tax and one cent mass transportation use tax (collectively, the "one cent sales and use tax") approved by County voters at the County-wide election on May 3, 1983, (together with the one-half cent sales and use tax, the "sales and use taxes"); and WHEREAS, in connection with execution of the Authority IGA and the formation of the Authority, the City, the Town and the County adopted joint Resolution No. 1, Series of 2000, which established a funding commitment to the Authority from the one-half cent sales and use tax; and WHEREAS, to effectuate such funding commitment, the City, the Town and the County entered into the Intergovernmental Agreement -Transportation Sales Tax Distribution dated as of April 25, 2001 (the "Distribution IGA"), which specified the distribution of (a) the one-half cent sales and use tax between the County and the Authority, and (b) the one cent sales and use tax among the City, the Town and the Authority; and WHEREAS, as of the date of the Distribution IGA, there were outstanding certain County revenue bonds secured by the County's share of the revenues of the one-cent sales and use tax issued that were issued pursuant to the County's Resolution No. 92- 392 and certain subsequent County resolutions supplemental thereto (collectively, the "Bond Resolution"), with voter-approved authority to issue additional such bonds (collectively with such then-outstanding bonds, and together with any bonds or other debt issued thereafter or hereafter that are payable from or secured in whole or in part by the one cent sales and use tax, the one-half cent sales and use tax, or any portion of either such tax, the "Sales and Use Tax Bonds"); and WHEREAS, accordingly, Section 4 of the Distribution IGA contains certain protections with respect to the sales and uses taxes for the holders of any such Sales and Use Tax Bonds, and additionally contains certain protections for the City, the Town and the Authority with respect thereto; and WHEREAS, at a County-wide election held on November 2, 2004, the voters of the County approved a multiple fiscal year financial obligation of the County to contribute a portion of the one-half cent sales and use tax to the Authority (the "2004 Ballot Issue") in connection with the approval by the members of the Authority other than the County, the City and the Town of separate sales and uses taxes in their respective jurisdictions to provide funding to the Authority; and WHEREAS, the purpose of this Intergovernmental Agreement is to update, amend and restate the provisions of the 1993 IGA, Joint Resolution No. 61 and Joint Resolution No. 62 with respect to the EOTC and the Plan; and WHEREAS, the parties hereto wish to further define and clarify the method and process by which the implementation of the Plan will be funded; and 2 Attachment 2 62 DocuSign Envelope ID: 1 E61DDDC-CA11-417D-AC51-45041 E712F01 WHEREAS, it is not the desire or intention of the parties to modify or amend the distribution described above of the sales and uses taxes or any portion thereof, or to modify, amend or impair any of the protections with respect to the sales and use taxes currently in place in the documents described above for the benefit of the holders of the Sales and Use Tax Bonds, the City, the Town or the Authority; NOW, THEREFORE, for and in consideration of the mutual covenants and agreements of the parties, and other good and valuable consideration, the adequacy and sufficiency of which is hereby acknowledged, the parties agree as follows: Purpose. 1.This Agreement is designed and intended to define and clarify the method and process by which the parties have agreed to fund and implement the Plan. 2. Elected Officials Transportation Committee Organization and Decision Making a.The EOTC shall consist of the elected officials representing the parties to this Agreement (the Pitkin County Board of County Commissioners, the Town of Snowmass Village Town Council, and the City of Aspen City· Council). EOTC meetings shall be noticed special meetings for each party. Votes tallied at an EOTC meeting shall be final. A quorum, defined as a majority of the membership from each of the parties, must be in attendance to officially act at an EOTC meeting. In the event that quorum cannot be established at a regularly scheduled EOTC meeting then the meeting may be continued or rescheduled to a date where a quorum can be achieved. In the event a business decision needs to be acted upon sooner than a quorum can be achieved, then the subject matter(s) may be rescheduled by the individual parties for consideration at their respective regular meetings. b.The parties hereby agree to conduct regular meetings including other invited members of the public to continue to refine and agree upon proposed projects and transportation elements consistent with or complementary to the Plan, as may be amended from time to time. c.The parties shall adopt a Plan as is further outlined in Section 3 of this Agreement. The Plan or amendments thereto should be agreed upon by all three parties at a regular scheduled meeting of the EOTC, but may be acted on by the individual parties at their respective regular meetings. This agreement shall be evidenced by individual resolutions signed by the authorized representative for each party. 3 Attachment 2 63 DocuSign Envelope ID: 1 E61DDDC-CA 11-417D-AC51-45041 E712F01 3. d.The parties further agree that the amount of all expenditures and all projects to be funded with revenues derived from the one-half cent sales and use tax shall be consistent with and/or complementary to the Plan and applicable Colorado Revised Statutes. All expenditures, budgets and amendments thereto should be agreed upon by all three parties at a regular scheduled meeting of the EOTC in advance of any such expenditure and/or project, but may be acted on by the individual parties at their respective regular meetings. This agreement shall be evidenced by individual resolutions signed by the authorized representative for each party. e.The EOTC may adopt supporting documents including but not limited to a strategic plan, work plan and capital plan in order to help guide implementation and I or development of the Plan. All supporting documents or amendments thereto should be agreed upon by all three parties at a regular scheduled meeting of the EOTC, but may be acted onby the individual parties at their respective regular meetings. This agreement shall be evidenced by individual resolutions signed by the authorized representative for each party. f.The parties may provide administrative direction to staff that advance the implementation of the Plan. Any administrative direction thereto should be agreed upon by all three parties at a regular scheduled meeting of the EOTC, but may be acted on by the individual parties at their respective regular meetings. EOTC Decision Makini:1 Process Overview Comprehensive Expenditure / Supporting Administrative Valley Budget Document or plan Direction Transportation Plan -Agreed upon by -Agreed upon by -Agreed upon by -Agreed upon by all three parties all three parties all three parties all three parties -Resolution -Resolution -Resolution signed by signed by signed by authorized authorized authorized representative representative representative from each party from each party from each party Comprehensive Valley Transportation Plan The parties hereby agree to adopt a Plan that is to be updated from time to time for addressing mass transportation problems and issues in the Roaring Fork River Valley. 4 Attachment 2 64 DocuSign Envelope ID: 1 E61DDDC-CA 11-417D-AC51-45041 E712F01 a.Adoption or amendment to the Plan shall be approved in accordance with Section 2.c. of this Agreement. b.The parties hereto agree to utilize their best efforts to seek and obtain funding from local, state, federal, and private sources to finance the various elements of the Plan. These efforts shall include, when deemed necessary, seeking voter approval for increased sales and use taxes as well as bonding authority for specific projects as they are developed and agreed upon by unanimous consent of the parties hereto. Annual Renewal and Termination. 4.This Intergovernmental Agreement may not be terminated unless and until such time as the one-half cent sales and use tax referenced above have been rescinded, whereupon any party may terminate the agreement upon ninety (90) days written notice to the other parties. Miscellaneous. 5.This Agreement shall amend and supersede the 1993 IGA, Joint Resolution No. 61 and Joint Resolution No. 62, but solely to the extent necessary to effectuate the provisions hereof. Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in this Agreement or in the Plan, any supporting documents with respect thereto and hereto, or any amendments thereof or hereof: (a) nothing contained in this Agreement, the Plan, or any such supporting documents or amendments is intended to modify or amend, and the same shall not modify or amend, the distribution of the sales and uses taxes set forth in the Distribution IGA and the 2004 Ballot Issue; and (b) nothing contained in this Agreement, the Plan, or any such supporting documents or amendments is intended to modify, amend or impair, and the same shall not modify, amend or impair, any of the protections granted by the 1993 IGA, Joint Resolutions 61 and 62, the Bond Resolution, the Distribution IGA, the 2004 Ballot Issue or any of the other agreements or other documents described in the recitals hereto to or for the benefit of (i) the holders of any Sales and Use Tax Bonds, so long as any Sales and Use Tax Bonds remain outstanding, or (ii) the City, the Town and the Authority. 6.Nothing contained in this Agreement shall mean or be construed to mean that an individual party to this Agreement may not independently fund or implement a specific element of the Plan or some other transportation related project without the consent of the other parties. 5 Attachment 2 65 DocuSign Envelope ID: 1 E61DDDC-CA 11-417D-AC51-45041 E712F01 7.If any provision of this Agreement or the application thereof to any person, entity, or circumstances is held invalid, such invalidity shall not affect other provisions or applications of the Agreement which can be given effect without the invalid provisions or application, and to this end the provisions of this Agreement are declared to be severable. 8.This Intergovernmental Agreement is not intended to create any right in or for the public, or any member of the public, including any contractor, supplier or any other third party, or to authorize anyone not a party to this Intergovernmental Agreement to maintain a suit to enforce or take advantage of its terms. The duties, obligations and responsibilities of the parties with respect to third parties shall remain as imposed by law. 9.This Agreement is not assignable by any party. 10.This Agreement constitutes the entire agreement between the parties and all other promises and agreements relating to the subject of this Agreement, whether oral or written, are merged herein. 11.Any notice required or permitted under this Agreement shall be in writing and shall be provided by electronic delivery to the e-mail addresses set forth below and by one of the following methods 1) hand-delivery or 2) registered or certified mail, postage pre-paid to the mailing addresses set forth below. Each party by notice sent under this paragraph may change the address to which future notices should be sent. Electronicdelivery of notices shall be considered delivered upon receipt of confirmation of delivery on the part of the sender. Nothing contained herein shall be construed to preclude personal service of any notice in the manner prescribed for personal service of a summons or other legal process. To: Pitkin County: Board of County Commissioners 530 E. Main Street, Suite 302 Aspen, CO 81611 c/o: bocc@pitkincounty.com To: City of Aspen: 130 S. Galena St. Aspen, CO 81611 c/o City Manager sara. ott@cityofaspe n.com 6 With copies to: Pitkin County Attorney's Office 530 E. Main Street, Suite 301 Aspen, CO 81611 attorney@pitkincounty.com With copies to: City Attorney's Office 130 S. Galena St. Aspen, CO 81611 jim.true@cityofaspen.com 7 I I ; Attachment 2 66 DocuSign Envelope ID: 1 E61DDDC-CA 1 1-417D-ACS 1-45041 E712F0 1 To: Town of Snowmass Village: P.O. Box 5010 130 Kearns Road Snowmass Village, CO 81615 Attn: Rhonda B. Coxon, Town Clerk Council@tosv.com With copies to: Town of Snowmass Village 130 Kearns Road P.O. Box 5010 Snowmass Village, CO 81516 Attn: John Dresser, Town Attorney jdresser@tosv.com ckinney@tosv.com 12.The parties agree and understand that the parties are relying on and do not waive, by any provisions of this Agreement, the monetary limitations or terms or any other rights, immunities, and protections provided by the Colorado Governmental Immunity Act, C.R.S. 24-10-101, et seq., as from time to time amended or otherwise available to the parties or any of their officers, agents, or employees. 13.The rights and obligations of the parties under this Agreement shall be binding upon and shall inure to the benefit of the parties and their respective successors and assigns. 14.This Agreement shall be construed according to the laws of the State of Colorado, and venue for any action shall be in the District Court in and for Pitkin County, Colorado. 15.In the event that legal action is necessary to enforce any of the provisions of this Agreement, the substantially prevailing party, whether by final judgment or out of court settlement, shall recover from the other party all costs and expenses of such action or suit including reasonable attorney fees. 16.The waiver by any party to this Agreement of any term or condition of this Agreement shall not operate or be construed as a waiver of any subsequent breach by any party. 17.Each party represents that it has the specific power and authority to enter into and consummate this Agreement according to law and that it has followed the proper legal procedures to authorize those persons whose names are subscribed below to execute this Agreement and obligates that party to perform this Agreement. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Intergovernmental Agreement on the day and year first above written. 7 Attachment 2 67 Attachment 2 68 Project Name IMS Tenant Project Attribute(s) Relative  Implementation  Cost ($‐$$$)Notes Tier 1 Aspen Country Inn Trail  Improvements to Bike /  Ped Underpass and  Transit Stops at Truscott  and Buttermilk ** BRT  Enhancements Higher value to dollar ratio $ Important bike / ped connection to  transit for senior housing and service  destinations. Basic infrastructure  connection. Move to concept plan in  2021. Design and Feasibility  Review of Maroon Creek  Roundabout Down Valley  Channelization and Down  Valley Queue Jump at  Cemetery Lane  ** BRT  Enhancements Higher value to dollar ratio $$ (design only) Move to design and permitting to  further evaluate feasibility. Initial  rollout anticipated as an experiment.  Requires CDOT approved design and  permitting. Potential benefit to all  motorized roadway users including  transit. Channelization likely to be  seasonal due to snow removal issues.  Move to concept plan in 2021. Design and Feasibility  Review of Harmony / Owl  Creek Transit Signal  Bypass Lane and  Buttermilk Bike / Ped  Underpass ** BRT  Enhancements Higher value to dollar ratio $$ (design only) First move to design to make eligible  for funding. Superior bike / ped  protection crossing Hwy 82 and  increased transit speed and reliability.  High construction cost. Move to  concept plan in 2021. HOV Lane Enforcement  Analysis HOV Lane  Enforcement Important Preliminary Effort $ (analysis only) Necessary to determine best  alternatives for HOV enforcement  options (automated vs. personnel).  Could require a phased  implementation. Analysis of Up Valley and  Down Valley BRT Direct  Service to Snowmass  BRT  Enhancements Higher value to dollar ratio $ (analysis only) Aspen to Snowmass, and Snowmass to  down valley transit connection analysis  to evaluate transit effectiveness and  efficiency, and determine cost,  frequency, and expected utilization of  increased/enhanced service levels.   Current BRT connecting service to  remain in place. Additional Permanent  Automated Vehicle  Counters on Brush Creek  Road, Owl Creek Road,  Airport/AABC and  Highway 82 in Pitkin  County Congestion  Reduction  Measures Important Preliminary Effort $$ Additional vehicle counters are  necessary to monitor program success,  VMT and greenhouse gas emissions  over the long term. Tier 2 Pilot Ridesharing app for  Commuters Ride Sharing Dependent on Tier 1 Effort $‐$$ Effort dependent on HOV lane  enforcement implementation for  highest level of effectiveness. May be  able to use results of RFTA's 2021 First  Last Mile Mobility (FLMM) Study to  guide this effort. Ongoing cost and  staff time unknown. Analysis of Regional Ride  Hailing and Car Sharing  Service Ride Sharing  and Ride Hailing Lower value to dollar ratio $ (analysis only) Potentially lower relative benefits to  transit ridership, GHG emissions, and  VMT reductions. Analysis necessary to  determine service scope, type and  ensure service supports transit. May  be able to use results of RFTA's 2021  First Last Mile Mobility (FLMM) Study  to guide this effort. Analysis of Valley Wide  Commuter Parking, EV  Charging, and Ride Hailing  / Sharing Pick Up / Drop  Off Locations Congestion  Reduction  Measures, Ride  Sharing, and  Ride Hailing Important Preliminary Effort $  (analysis only) Necessary to determine amount and  location of needed parking,  appropriate parking pricing, and  incentives via EV charging placement  to encourage transit ridership. 2021 EOTC Near‐Term Transit Improvement Program ‐ Approved July 29, 2021 ‐ Administrative Direction First Priority ‐ Higher value* to dollar ratio and / or Important preliminary effort Second Priority ‐ Lower value* to dollar ratio and / or Dependent on Tier 1 effort Attachment 3 69 Tier 3 Service Center Road  Signalization and Hwy 82  Brush Creek P&R to  Airport Speed Limit  Reduction BRT  Enhancements Hold status due to dependence  on efforts outside EOTC purview  and Significant legal hurdles $$ Relatively expensive improvement.  Gains in vehicular and bike / ped safety  accessing transit. Hold due to ongoing  design of new airport terminal and  layout. Speed limit reduction to be  reviewed by CDOT and possibly  incorporated with signalization of  intersection. Would require amending  Access Control Plan with CDOT. Extension of HOV Lanes  Up Valley from Airport  and / or Down Valley of  Maroon Creek  Roundabout BRT  Enhancements Significant legal hurdles and  Significant cost $$ Initial construction cost of exclusive  bus lanes must be reimbursed to EOTC  if any loss of exclusive bus lanes  occurs. Source of reimbursement funds  is unknown and amount of initial  construction cost reimbursement  could be high. Potential conflicts with  ROD. Only to be pursued if 1) no loss to  bus only lane can be achieved and 2)  effective HOV lane enforcement is in  place. Dynamic Road Pricing  (Cordon Pricing or  Managed / HOT Lane) Congestion  Reduction  Measures Significant legal hurdles and  Significant cost $$$ Significant legal hurdles as State law  would need to be amended to allow  for cordon pricing. Cordon pricing or  managed lane would require  significant permitting, operational  infrastructure, and partnerships.  Implementation, public relations and  maintenance costs expected to be high  for either cordon or managed lanes.  Potential legal hurdles if bus only lanes  are converted to HOT lanes.  Amendment or new Hwy 82 EIS / ROD  is necessary. Additional analysis is  necessary. Could have significant  positive impacts on GHG emissions and  VMT if implementable. Sage Way Sidewalk  Extension BRT  Enhancements Hold status due to dependence  on efforts outside EOTC purview $ Hold pending implementation of  Access Control Plan to be triggered by  Airport redevelopment and/or large  developments within the AABC. Signal Timing for Transit  Speed and Reliability  Improvement BRT  Enhancements Not to be pursued at this time $$ Limited deployment in Pitkin County  modeling showed very little  effectiveness. Additional modeling for  entire Hwy 82 corridor may  demonstrate ability to substantively  improve transit speed and reliability. Airport Terminal BRT  Routing BRT  Enhancements Not to be pursued at this time $$$ Dependent on Airport terminal  redevelopment. Very expensive  improvement as down valley BRT line  would need to be grade separated to  and from the Airport in order to  maintain current transit times. Gains in  access at airport terminal only with  possible detriment to greater BRT  system. Significant transit operational  issues to be overcome. Other options  should be analyzed first. HAWK Beacon at Aspen  Country Inn BRT  Enhancements Significant cost $$ Relatively significant implementation  cost relative to number of users.  * "Value" is determination based on efforts' ability to support transit through increased access, speed and reliability; reduce greenhouse  gas emissions (GHG); and reduce vehicle miles traveled (VMT) ** Efforts are proposed to be carried forward in the second half of 2021 for development of conceptual design by Mead and Hunt  utilizing remaining UVTE study funds Third Priority ‐ Hold status due to dependence on efforts outside EOTC purview, Significant cost, and / or Significant legal hurdles Other Efforts Considered ‐ Not to be Pursued at this Time Attachment 3 70 Community Forum Task Force on Transportation and Mobility September 2017 Upper Valley Mobility Report Attachment 4 71 TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. Summary and Conclusions 3 2. Introduction 6 3. Core Values 8 4. Summary of Transportation & Mobility Options 9 5. Other options not studied for this report 22 6. Addendum 23 Community Forum Task Force on Transportation and Mobility Attachment 4 72 3 Summary and Conclusions Working under the auspices of the Aspen Institute, the 31 members of the Community Forum Task Force on Transportation and Mobility met from June 2016 through August 2017. Its goal was to create a values-based vision for transportation and mobility in the upper Roaring Fork Valley for the year 2035 that would address traffic congestion as well as the mobility needs of our residents, commuters and visitors. (See “What is the Problem?” on p. 6 and “Core Values” on p. 8.) Task force members sought solutions that would meet the established goal and be both politically achievable and financially viable. When the Community Forum Task Force began its work in June 2016, many members expected that it would focus on one or more large-scale, capital-intensive transportation solutions. Instead, what emerged was a balanced “integrated mobility system” of programmatic solutions that could be experimented with and phased in over time. To address the challenge of induced traffic (see p. 7), this integrated system employs a balance of both carrots and sticks. Its complementary measures could be implemented as budgets permit over short, mid, and long- term time frames. Recommendation: In its final meeting, the task force recommended unanimously that work begin immediately to plan an integrated mobility system that includes the following five elements (see below). The individual components of this system are interdependent. Some measures specifically reduce traffic congestion; others increase mobility for the public. Some are capital and cost intensive, while others would contribute revenue, making the system more affordable. (To promote social equity, the task force recommends that 100% of any revenues raised be reinvested to reduce the cost of transit and alternative mobility measures – or even make them free – for those who use them.) These five elements lend themselves to experimentation, they are flexible, and they are reversible. Attachment 4 73 4 The Integrated Mobility System (from short to long-term): 1.Ride Sharing (short-term) 2.Ride Hailing (short-term) 3.Congestion Reduction Measures (short and mid-term), which include dynamic road pricing and dynamic parking pricing 4.HOV-Lane Enforcement (short and mid-term) 5.Phased BRT Enhancement (short, mid and long-term), which may not necessarily cross the Marolt Open Space. Could include enhanced service to Snowmass Village. Additional measures supported by the task force’s matrix analysis: •Transit-Oriented Affordable Housing (mid and long-term) •Airport/Transit Connectivity, especially low-cost options (short and mid-term) •Snowmass Connection Enhancements (short and mid-term) (Please see the Summary of Mobility & Transportation Options that begins on p. 9 for a discussion of all the above measures.) Attachment 4 74 5 A Single Planning Entity: The task force recommends strongly that the three upper valley governments identify a single entity to coordinate and facilitate regional mobility planning among governments, the private sector and the community. Over time, this coordination should expand in scope to include the full region. Observations: •Free-flowing traffic is not a reasonable expectation unless congestion reduction measures are sufficient to reduce current traffic and mitigate future induced traffic. •The U.S. is undergoing a transition away from a car-centric culture. Millennials are buying fewer cars than previous generations, and parking demand is expected to drop. •Regional and local land use decisions profoundly affect mobility challenges and traffic congestion. •A grassroots advocacy organization for an integrated mobility system is essential. •The community should seek public/private partnerships to help implement it. •The integrated mobility system adopted should leverage existing approvals and plans (e.g., the Entrance to Aspen Record of Decision, Aspen Area Community Plan, etc.). •We should improve mobility incrementally and continuously. •Specific elements of the integrated mobility system will affect different people and different geographies in varying ways. We should consider carefully which user group is affected by each element of the system and plan accordingly. •We should engage innovators and entrepreneurs from all sectors to help create the mobility system we envision. The Community Forum Task Force recommends that the package of mobility experiments now being planned by the City of Aspen should be used by Aspen, Pitkin County and Snowmass Village to help demonstrate and explore elements of this integrated mobility system. What Success Will Look Like: If we fully implement the integrated mobility system, we will make upper valley travel substantially easier while remaining true to our most important community values. Commuters would spend more time with their families or on the job; visitors would gain a greatly improved vacation experience; and residents would enjoy an enhanced quality of life. Attachment 4 75 6 Introduction What is the Problem? Traffic congestion is a defining problem for residents, commuters and visitors in the upper Roaring Fork Valley. Traffic jams detract from our community’s livability and waste valuable time that could otherwise be used for productive work, recreation, or visiting with friends and families. Commuters lose countless hours per year in stalled traffic, and Aspen residents cite downtown auto congestion as one of their biggest concerns. Businesses find it increasingly difficult to hire the employees needed to maintain our status as a world-class resort. Auto congestion clogs our streets and highway, creates noise and aggravation, and adds carbon and other pollution to our air. Traffic congestion hurts our community in three broad ways: reducing economic productivity for local workers and businesses; damaging the visitor experience; and lowering the quality of life for everyone. Snarled traffic does not reflect well on our community, which prides itself on responsible urban planning and sincere concern for the environment. RFTA, while doing an excellent job at carrying over five million passengers per year, is operating at capacity for much of the year, and its future growth faces possible limits from both budgetary challenges as well as the reality that about 1,000 daily bus trips already enter and leave Aspen in peak season. Our current challenges will only grow. The state demographer’s office projects that, by 2035, Pitkin County’s resident population will grow by 25% and the Roaring Fork Valley’s population will grow by roughly 50% to a total of 70,000 people. Visitor growth could be comparable – and all these increases will further stress an already challenging traffic problem. The Community Forum Task Force recognizes that we cannot build our way out of traffic congestion by simply adding more highway or transit capacity. A more sustainable and effective long-term solution must be found. The Work of the Transportation & Mobility Task Force In 2016, the Aspen Institute convened a group of 31 community leaders to develop a values-based vision for where we, as a community, want to be in 20 years (by 2035) with respect to transportation and mobility in our upper valley (Basalt to Aspen/Snowmass). The group met for 15 months: from June 2016 through August 2017. Through its research and meetings with local and national transportation experts, the Community Forum Task Force reviewed the rapid changes taking place in demographics, technology, culture, mobility preferences, autonomous and electric vehicles, ride hailing and sharing, carpooling, transportation demand management, and the wide array of available mobility options, both new and old. Early on, task force members identified nine core values by which to evaluate transportation and mobility options. These ranged from community values like environmental quality and community character to operating system values, such as financial feasibility and effectiveness at reducing traffic congestion. The task force then identified a dozen transportation and mobility options representing diverse approaches to solving the traffic and congestion issues facing our community, and it then developed a matrix by which to review each option in terms of its compatibility with the core values. Attachment 4 76 7 The Principle of Induced Traffic Early on, task force members identified induced traffic as a critical principle that must be addressed by any transportation/mobility system adopted in our valley. In growing areas, when automobile congestion is reduced by increasing mobility alternatives and/or highway capacity, new traffic is generated and highways normally return to their previous level of automobile congestion. This reality has been demonstrated repeatedly in growing towns and cities around the U.S. and the world, as well as here in our valley. The phenomenon has two primary causes, both rooted in human behavior: (A) Latent Demand. When perceived auto congestion is reduced during peak hours, many people will use a highway more often, shift their travel back to peak hours, or switch from transit to driving, thus increasing congestion again. This is a specific application of the economic concept of “induced demand.” That is, when the supply of a good increases, more of the good is consumed. (B) Land Use Effects. A perceived shorter commute to a desired work or recreation destination spurs residential and commercial real estate development in more distant areas. In short, a new or expanded highway can turn land previously perceived to be distant in terms of commuting time into prime real estate development property. Since traffic engineers estimate that each new unit of housing can typically generate 10 new one-way auto trips per day, 100 units of new housing can result in 1,000 additional daily car trips on local roads and highways. The effects of new residential and commercial development on traffic congestion are often dramatic. For more information on induced traffic: Building Bigger Roads Makes Traffic Worse Wired 2014 https://www.wired.com/2014/06/wuwt-traffic-induced-demand/ Increasing Highway Capacity Unlikely to Relieve Traffic Congestion University of California-Davis 2015 http://www.dot.ca.gov/research/researchreports/reports/2015/10-12-2015- NCST_Brief_InducedTravel_CS6_v3.pdf Generated Traffic and Induced Travel Victoria Transport Policy Institute 2017 http://www.vtpi.org/gentraf.pdf Regional Challenges, Regional Solutions From the start, the task force recognized that regional problems demand regional solutions and that the upper valley neither can, nor should, solve the valley’s transportation challenges on its own. Task force members, who themselves live in different regions of the Roaring Fork Valley, discussed this reality at length. At the same time, the members believed that the upper valley mobility problem was a good place to start, and it hoped that its work would spark a broader and much needed regional conversation about mobility throughout the Roaring Fork Valley and beyond. In addition, since a significant percentage of mid-valley traffic moves to or from Aspen/Snowmass, upper valley solutions can help with some of the issues elsewhere. Attachment 4 77 8 Core Values Underlying Our Upper Valley Transportation System Essential Community Values ➤ Community Character •Preserves livability •Fewer cars/less traffic • Decreases urbanization •Reflects limits to growth •Compatible with affordable housing and transit oriented development •Tranquility … community peace and harmony •Promotes thriving community •Fun and cool •Aesthetically pleasing ➤ Environmental Quality •Reduces carbon emissions and other pollution Operating System Values ➤ Traffic & Congestion Reduction •Reduces long term traffic and congestion •Fewer single occupant vehicles ➤ Social Equity •Affordable to users •Valley-wide benefits •Works for both residents and visitors •Positive shared experience •Builds community ➤ Convenience and Comfort •Frequent •Fast •Reliable travel times •Easier commute •Seamless and integrated •Multiple modes and cross-modal ease •Connects mountains and tourist centers ➤ Adaptable to the Future Minimum System Requirements ➤ Safety •Human safety •Cyber security ➤ Financial Viability •Cost effective •Data informed •Cost and funding mechanisms acceptable to community ➤ Capacity to Move People and/or Reduce Travel Demand •Adaptable to different travel demands •Sufficient capacity and scale to make a difference Our 2035 vision for upper valley transportation is an integrated system that incorporates all of the above values and creates a spectrum of innovative mobility options for our residents, commuters and visitors. Attachment 4 78 9 Summary of Transportation & Mobility Options As presented by invited experts and discussed by the task force Ride Sharing Systems Ride Hailing Systems Enhanced Bus Rapid Transit HOV Lane Enforcement Dynamic Road Pricing Parking Strategies Snowmass Village Connection Enhancements Airport/Transit Connectivity Transit-Oriented Affordable Housing Light Rail Transit Mountain-to-Mountain Connection Increased Highway Capacity for Vehicles Attachment 4 79 10 Ride Sharing Systems An app-based ride sharing system could allow travelers to share automobile rides in two ways: A. First and Last Mile Service: Moving riders between homes and transit stations, as well as between final transit stations and workplaces, recreation areas or other destinations. B. Valley Trunk Line Service: Moving riders along RFTA’s valley trunk line route between origin communities and destinations in the Aspen/Snowmass area. This could be (1) a peer-to-peer app-based system matching private vehicle drivers with passengers, (2) a for-hire app-based “microtransit” service such as Chariot, Lyft Line, UberPool, etc., or (3) a “casual carpool” system requiring minimal third-party management. In the first two cases, the cost of a ride could be paid through the app –no cash need be exchanged. For security, drivers might be prescreened during registration (See “issues”). Both drivers and riders could be user-rated through the app. The system could be optimized with a wide array of mobility resources, such as bike sharing, “kiss and ride” stations, employer incentives and pedestrian improvements. To alleviate first-mile challenges, WE-cycle, our local bike share provider, could be expanded to reach more riders throughout the valley. Features & Advantages: •Could increase valley mobility without adding new cars to the highway or requiring RFTA to buy more buses. •Simplicity of “one click” mobility. A ride sharing app could identify and reserve seats on private vehicles already en route up or down the valley. •Ridesharing along the valley’s trunk line corridor could increase. •More efficient use of thousands of existing private vehicles in our valley. •Could build sense of community in valley. •Could attract riders currently unwilling to ride public buses. •Cheaper and easier than capital intensive alternatives such as LRT or enhanced BRT. •Ride sharing concepts are now being tried in different parts of country. •Target audiences can be reached through social media campaigns. Issues & Challenges: •Because of the principle of induced traffic, ride sharing is unlikely, by itself, to reduce traffic congestion on Highway 82. •Would enough riders use the system to significantly increase mobility? •Is driver screening actually needed? If so, what level of screening would drivers undergo and how would it be managed? •An app-based system would need to use either an existing app (e.g., Transit App) or a new one created for our valley. Building on an existing app would be preferable. •Could riders be picked up at RFTA stations without impacting bus operations? Cost Implications: •Relatively low up-front capital cost compared to some other options. Would not require substantial construction and equipment. •A for-hire provider (Lyft Line, UberPool, etc.) might require a public subsidy for riders. Attachment 4 80 11 Ride Hailing Systems Ride hailing systems include app-based services like Uber, Lyft, the Aspen Downtowner, and taxis that offer on- demand rides. They tend to be organized public or private services, rather than peer-to-peer citizen-based systems. Like ride sharing, ride hailing could function in either of two ways: A. First and Last Mile Service: Moving riders between homes and transit stations, as well as between final transit stations and workplaces, recreation areas or other destinations. B. Valley Trunk Line Service: Moving riders along RFTA’s valley trunk line route between origin communities and destinations in the Aspen/Snowmass area. A ride could be summoned through an app, and its cost could be bundled with that of a RFTA bus ticket so that only a single transit purchase (or click) would be needed. Features & Advantages: •Simplicity of “one-click” mobility. •Relatively low cost as an option to develop. •First and last mile service could make it easier to use RFTA’s trunk line buses moving up and down valley. •Concept now being tried by for-hire services in different parts of country. •Target audiences could be reached through social media campaigns. •Some existing transportation funding by governments, nonprofits and schools might be redirected to more efficient uses. Issues & Challenges: •Because of the principle of induced traffic, ride sharing is unlikely, by itself, to reduce traffic congestion on Highway 82. •A for-hire system (UberPool, etc.) might require a public subsidy for riders. •Some locations have limited cell service and GPS mapping for apps is not always reliable. •Ride hailing companies (Uber, Lyft, etc.) would need to increase service levels in the valley. Cost Implications: •Relatively low up-front capital cost compared to some other options. Would not require substantial construction and equipment. •By potentially boosting ridership on RFTA’s trunk line buses, first and last mile service might increase RFTA’s need to buy more buses and incur additional operating expenses. Attachment 4 81 12 Enhanced Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) Enhanced BRT could consolidate existing BRT, express, local, and skier-shuttle riders at 10, 20, and 30-minute frequencies, depending on time of day. Electric or Compressed Natural Gas (CNG) buses could be part of enhanced BRT service operating between the Brush Creek BRT Station and Rubey Park. In the future, autonomous electric buses might provide benefits similar to LRT at lower cost. Features & Advantages: •Could feel more like LRT: quiet and comfortable. •Could reduce overall bus congestion in Aspen by as many as 100 bus trips per day. •Electric buses are much quieter than CNG or diesel buses, although if the system started off with CNG buses, this noise reduction benefit would be lost. •Could be phased more easily than LRT: electric buses and other enhancements could be introduced as funding becomes available. Initially, up-valley passengers might not have to transfer to electric buses at the Brush Creek Intercept Lot. •If the Modified Direct Alignment across the Marolt Open Space were used, this would save an average of two minutes per trip and improve emergency access in and out of Aspen. •City buses would remain as in-town shuttles, but in the future they might become small autonomous transit vehicles. •New transit stop at 7th Street. New end-of-line station might be created at Main and Galena. •Could include Snowmass Village Connection Enhancements •Future autonomous electric buses might safely travel within a few inches of one another, although digital security would become extremely important. •Over time, BRT could build ridership and eventually lead to light rail. Issues & Challenges: •Because of the principle of induced traffic, enhanced BRT is unlikely, by itself, to reduce traffic congestion on Highway 82. •While Aspen residents voted to allow light rail across the Marolt Open Space, a new vote would be required for bus lanes there. A new highway across Marolt would be politically difficult. •By requiring passengers to transfer to/from buses at the Brush Creek BRT Station, the BRT option may not be as convenient as existing one-seat ride services for commuters and skiers, and it might incur a “transfer penalty” in ridership. (A future all-electric valley bus system would resolve this issue.) •If the Modified Direct Alignment across Marolt was not constructed with its two-minute time savings, nothing might offset an electric bus “transfer penalty” at Brush Creek, which could result in a loss of ridership. •Electric buses likely require in-route charging stations and auxiliary heat in the winter. •Electric buses have higher capital costs, and RFTA is currently challenged just to replace its diesel and CNG buses. Initially, some buses might have to remain diesel or CNG. Cost Implications: •Significant capital cost ($159 million – $200 million, 2016 dollars), but lower than LRT. •Possibly reduced operating costs compared with today’s BRT, Local, Express, and Skier Shuttle bus services. •Deployment of charging infrastructure could be expensive. Attachment 4 82 13 High Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) Lane Enforcement The Highway 82 Basalt to Buttermilk Record of Decision (ROD) included HOV lanes as a Transportation Demand Management (TDM) measure introduced with the Basalt/Buttermilk four-lane highway project (1996-2004). HOV restrictions were designed to increase carpooling and allow more efficient transit operations. Also, the right lane’s reduced congestion should decrease travel time for car pools and transit users. Vehicles carrying two or more passengers may use the HOV lanes during rush hours. The Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT) initially conducted a robust public relations campaign to inform the traveling public about the SH 82 HOV program. Early on, the Colorado State Patrol (CSP) enforced the HOV lanes, and motorist compliance was high. Pitkin County courts, however, were reluctant to fine motorists who challenged tickets in court. Subsequently, enforcement dropped off, and tickets are no longer issued. The lack of enforcement of existing HOV restrictions is negating the benefits of the HOV lanes. Efforts are needed to secure judicial support, provide outreach, and fully enforce HOV laws. Features & Advantages: •Previous analyses estimate that full HOV compliance could reduce weekday traffic by over 2,500 vehicles per day. •Provides for safer, more efficient transit operations. •Reduces parking demand due to decreased vehicle trips. •Could reduce auto emissions and pollution. •Existing technology can count the number of riders in a car and reduce enforcement costs. •Enforcement might also be subcontracted out to reduce the load on local resources. •Enforcement would reward and encourage carpooling/ride sharing. •Visible enforcement of HOV restrictions would also reduce speeding on Highway 82. This could address the perceived “advantage” of single-passenger private vehicles speeding illegally. •Enforcement might “calm” Highway 82, shift attitudes and reduce stress and accidents. •Could create a “rules of the road” education and communication opportunity. Issues & Challenges: •Because of the principle of induced traffic, existing HOV restrictions might not, by themselves, reduce traffic congestion on Highway 82, but they might potentially, if tightened (e.g., three passengers). •May be difficult to secure judicial support for enforcement of HOV laws. •Additional enforcement efforts by the CSP and Pitkin County Sheriff would require additional law enforcement resources. These might be provided by new enforcement revenues. •Would require partnerships with CDOT, Colorado State Patrol and local governments. •Might require a change of local law enforcement philosophy. •Would work best if the HOV lanes came all the way into Aspen. Cost Implications: •Costs of additional law enforcement resources and whether new revenues would offset them. •Costs for a robust public outreach campaign to explain the HOV restriction, and why it is in place. Attachment 4 83 14 Dynamic Road Pricing For Aspen, dynamic pricing might include an electronic toll on traffic entering Aspen that could vary depending on levels of congestion and purpose of trip. To avoid the toll, motorists could park at the Brush Creek lot and take a free bus into Aspen or qualify for an exemption to the toll (car pool, etc.). Road pricing is one of the few options that has demonstrated its ability to actually reduce traffic congestion. Trip pricing could depend on different factors, such as time of day, number of passengers, level of congestion, and environmental impact. For example, travel might be free for car pools, working parents with children in Aspen preschools, or those working in essential services. While pricing sounds like a “stick,” it could seed many “carrots” by funding transportation options that reduce the need for a private vehicle. Dynamic pricing could make travel to Aspen significantly quicker and easier than today, and by reducing travel time would allow for higher productivity for those who are paid by the hour. For Aspen, dynamic pricing might include an electronic toll on traffic entering Aspen that could vary depending on levels of congestion and purpose of trip. To avoid the toll, motorists could park at the Brush Creek lot and take a free bus into Aspen or qualify for an exemption to the toll (car pool, etc.). Features & Advantages: •May be the most reliable tool available to reduce or eliminate traffic jams both on Highway 82 and in downtown Aspen. Roadway capacity freed up by road pricing is less likely to be filled by induced-traffic than other mobility options. •Aspen and Snowmass bound commuters and visitors could reduce or eliminate time lost sitting in traffic jams. •Professionals who charge by the hour, such as electricians and plumbers, could benefit from a significant increase in billable hours that would greatly exceed the cost of any toll. •Could significantly improve the visitor experience and stimulate the local economy. •If properly designed, could enhance social equity. (Versus the current traffic jams, in which everyone loses.) •Toll revenues could be used to fund RFTA buses and other mobility options. Ideally, RFTA buses would become less expensive (possibly even free), along with future driverless shuttle services, etc. •Would reduce carbon emissions and other forms of air pollution. Would support the City of Aspen’s Canary Initiative. •Both automobile drivers and transit users could benefit in a potential “win/win.” Issues & Challenges: •Federal and state rules would control the development of this program. •A substantial public outreach effort would be necessary to build community support. •Without social equity measures (e.g., enhanced and/or free alternative mobility options), this might be considered a regressive tax. •Safeguards would be needed to mitigate traffic diversion to McLain Flats Road. •Tolling facility should be close to Aspen to avoid charging for airport travel. •This plan must offer travelers an excellent value proposition in exchange for road pricing. •Implementation would require strong political will at all levels of government. Cost Implications: •Would generate substantial new revenue to reinvest in existing and new mobility alternatives. •An initial investment would be required to fund the capital cost of tolling facilities (overhead detection) and the program startup costs. Attachment 4 84 15 Parking Strategies Integrate parking into a larger, innovative mobility system through a combination of measures that might include the following: •Dynamic pricing, which varies parking prices to respond to traffic congestion, parking availability and location, and special events. •Centralized valet services, which could increase utilization of public and private parking spaces and garages. (For some, this might reduce the need for circling around the block.) •Zoning code changes to discourage car use in residential/commercial developments. •Employer Carrot-Sticks: Employers would limit parking and offer alternative transit options to employees instead of parking spaces. If parking were made more of a responsibility, neighborhoods might stop being “storage lots.” •Other City of Aspen ideas for parking innovations are currently under study. Because individual actions taken by Aspen, Snowmass and Pitkin County often affect the other jurisdictions, parking strategies should be considered and coordinated on a regional basis. Features & Advantages: •Each strategy or combination of strategies could be tested, modified, and refined over time. •Parking strategies could be designed to park more cars outside town to reduce the number of cars downtown. •Roadway capacity freed up by dynamic parking pricing is less likely to be filled by induced-traffic than other mobility options. This could complement dynamic road pricing. •New revenues could be directed toward subsidizing transit passes and other alternative mobility modes. Issues & Challenges: •Unless parking strategies include significant new dynamic pricing, the principle of induced traffic would likely prevent this option from reducing traffic congestion on Highway 82. •User acceptability. •To be fair, a dynamic pricing plan would need to include social equity measures for commuting workers (e.g., enhanced and/or free alternative mobility options). •Would not affect those with free parking spaces in downtown Aspen. •Simply reducing parking places could adversely affect stores and restaurants. •May prompt arguments about whether parking is a right or a privilege. Cost Implications: •Little capital cost. •Modest operating costs. •Dynamic pricing might generate new revenue to reinvest in other mobility alternatives. Attachment 4 85 16 Snowmass Village Connection Enhancements More direct transit links to Snowmass Village on Brush Creek of Owl Creek roads (e.g., LRT or BRT) could be part of the larger mobility enhancement program. The successes of the free skier shuttle and the evening direct service between Snowmass Village and Aspen demonstrate the potential to move travelers from private automobiles to transit “trunk line” service, which could be aligned with the existing BRT service as a first step. Future steps could include dedicated direct bus service in the peak periods. These services, combined with the possibilities of direct, aerial Mountain-to-Mountain connections, could integrate the ski areas of Snowmass, Buttermilk, Highlands, and Aspen within one operating system. Features & Advantages: • Connects the two upper valley communities and tourist bed bases. • Expands on highly successful winter operations. • Uses existing infrastructure. • Focuses on tourism and employee mobility. • Has significant carrying capacity. • A scenic Owl Creek transit route might enhance the visitor experience. Issues & Challenges: • Because of the principle of induced traffic, this option is unlikely, by itself, to reduce traffic congestion on Highway 82. • Labor intensive. • Owl Creek would require costly improvements to accommodate transit. • If transit ran on Owl Creek, the existing system using Brush Creek as a transfer station would lose some efficiencies. • Owl Creek is challenging, particularly in winter. Cost Implications: • Relatively low capital costs, depending on system chosen. • High operating cost, which could strain existing resources. Attachment 4 86 17 Airport/Transit Connectivity Although the current airport bus station and Highway 82 pedestrian underpass serve the airport terminal, transit ride-share to/from the airport is only about 3%, although a good portion of the remaining 97% doesn’t necessarily drive a car the rest of the way. Based on current airport planning, this is not expected to change, even though enplanements are projected to increase significantly over the next 20 years. Options for stronger transit access to the airport: •Using the existing BRT station on Highway 82, stopping buses at the terminal doors, or creating a designated airport transit shuttle. Options that use the BRT station would require some type of weather- protected connection to the terminal doors (e.g., covered and/or moving walkway). •For a fee, hotel shuttles might be given the right to use bus lanes to and from the airport. •More passengers might be intercepted outside the airport and transported via special transit. •Empty hotel shuttles might “scoop up” passengers at bus stops. •Visitors’ luggage might be transported directly to and from hotels for them (as in Switzerland). Features & Advantages: •Studies show that visitors would rather use transit than rent a vehicle. •Additional transit ride-share from the airport would: o Reduce traffic growth facilitated by an expansion of rental cars. o Provide an opportunity for visitors to begin their Aspen experience on transit. o Decrease rental vehicles in Aspen and Snowmass Village. o Potentially increase visitors’ use of transit in town. o Provide savings on lodge and hotel shuttle costs. Issues & Challenges: •Because of the principle of induced traffic, this option is unlikely, by itself, to reduce traffic congestion on Highway 82. •It’s unclear who is responsible for costs and planning for airport transit amenities. •Bringing BRT to the terminal door would add significant travel time to the BRT system. This problem would be eliminated if airline passengers boarded a bus at the existing BRT station. •Some lodges and hotels prefer to capture their guests at the terminal and provide transportation to control and enhance their Aspen experience. •Some transit vehicles are not set up to take luggage. •Loading luggage adds time to transit trips. •Data on the mix of transportation modes is unavailable. Cost Implications: •Costs associated with developing transit access to terminal door. •Loss of airport revenues from fewer vehicle rentals. Attachment 4 87 18 Transit-Oriented Affordable Housing (TOAH) The concept of transit-oriented affordable housing (TOAH) has been pursued for many years in the upper Roaring Fork Valley. Over the decades, over 2,800 affordable housing units have been created in the upper valley to retain our sense of community, house our local workforce, and reduce the need for commuting on Highway 82. Fortunately, over half of Aspen’s population lives today in deed restricted affordable housing. Unfortunately, over 60% of the town’s workforce must still commute to town each day, significantly exacerbating traffic congestion. Job generation inside Aspen’s roundabout has outpaced the creation of affordable housing, locking in the need for many to commute. One option for reducing travel demand is to redouble local efforts to locate affordable housing close to work or transit — and to do so in all local jurisdictions. For example, RFTA has located park and ride lots and transit stops close to Basalt, El Jebel and Carbondale neighborhoods. Each might offer affordable housing opportunities to help reduce travel demand on our highway. Features & Advantages: •TOAH works best when people can walk directly to work, eliminating the need to drive. •TOAH can build community while reducing peak-hour travel needs. •City and county governments are continually evaluating potential sites. Park and ride lots themselves could be used for affordable housing built over the parking lot, thus becoming a “live and ride.” Likewise, organizations located on campuses could be encouraged to build housing over parking lots and other land near their facilities. •Many Aspen and Snowmass businesses are unable to hire sufficient employees during winter and summer seasons. •Non-commuting employees enjoy more family time and arrive at jobs less stressed out. •Affordable housing near work or transit increases social equity. Issues & Challenges: •Because of the proven principle of induced traffic, this option is unlikely, by itself, to reduce traffic congestion on Highway 82. Local experience bears this out. •Even when it’s located near workplaces, new housing can still increase the number of cars on local roads, although at a lower rate than non-transit-oriented housing. •Finding new upper valley housing sites has been a notorious problem for many years. •New housing projects often provoke resistance from neighbors. •New housing inevitably increases other community costs for things like schools, early education and daycare, hospitals, social services, police and other emergency responders, etc. •While affordable housing and growth control have historically enjoyed support from many of the same upper valley voters, the goals of creating new housing and retaining our small-town quality of life are now beginning to conflict. Housing often generates significant opposition. •Transit Oriented Affordable Housing is most effective in destination communities, but the easy sites for housing are often outside urban growth boundaries. Cost Implications: •Affordable housing is expensive. Projects require significant local-government subsidy, private sector investment, and/or compromising of local zoning requirements. •Funding strategies include affordable housing taxes, tax incentives, land use requirements and fees, private initiatives, public/private partnerships, and federal/state programs. Attachment 4 88 19 Light Rail Transit (LRT) Light Rail Transit (LRT) is contemplated as the final phase for transit in the Entrance to Aspen Record of Decision (ROD). The Elected Officials Transportation Committee (EOTC) of Pitkin County, Aspen and Snowmass recently commissioned a study to update the LRT alternative from Aspen to the Brush Creek parking lot/transit station. As currently designed, LRT would run from the Brush Creek lot to either Rubey Park or a new proposed station at Galena Street and Main Street. In the Galena and Main option, local buses would run from Rubey Park, and small autonomous transit vehicles would connect Rubey Park to the Galena & Main station. Features & Advantages: •Studies show LRT to be a more enjoyable transit experience than buses. LRT might enhance the visitor/commuter experience. •Voters have approved LRT across the Marolt Open Space, and LRT is the preferred alternative in the Record of Decision for the Entrance to Aspen Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). •Provides an opportunity for a future down-valley commuter rail connection. •Has substantial passenger carrying capacity. •Reduces more buses in downtown Aspen and across Castle Creek Bridge than BRT. •By requiring fewer drivers than BRT, LRT would reduce RFTA’s hiring challenge. •Onboard Charging Systems (OBS) represent a major breakthrough in LRT power technology, allowing a rail vehicle to operate without overhead wires. Instead, rail vehicles would run off of batteries and charge at stations using inductive charging. Issues & Challenges: •Because of the principle of induced traffic, LRT is unlikely, by itself, to reduce traffic congestion on Highway 82. •Requires construction of the Modified Direct alignment across Marolt Open Space via the existing transportation easement with a direct connection to 7th and Main Street. •By requiring passengers to transfer to/from buses at Brush Creek BRT Station, the BRT option may not be as convenient as existing one-seat ride services for commuters and skiers, and it might incur a “transfer penalty” in ridership. •Very high capital and operating cost for which federal funding is unlikely. •Although quiet, some might consider LRT out of scale with Aspen. •Projected to have about the same ridership as the BRT option. •Potential impacts to vehicle movements at at-grade intersections. •LRT is an inflexible investment – but one with great longevity. Cost Implications: •Based on the recent EOTC study, LRT costs would range from $428 million to $528 million. •High capital cost exceeds currently available budgets and revenue streams. •LRT construction is more disruptive than BRT and complicated to phase. This could negatively impact financing options. •Operating and maintenance costs are double those of the BRT option. Attachment 4 89 20 Mountain-to-Mountain Connection Aerial intermountain gondola connections between Aspen and Snowmass have been discussed for half a century. They offer the potential both to significantly improve the skier experience and to alleviate some winter peak-hour roadway travel demand. Potential connections include: A. A Highlands-Buttermilk gondola connecting the bases of Buttermilk and Highlands with a stop at the top of Buttermilk. B. A gondola connection from Highlands to Aspen Mountain. C. A gondola from Buttermilk to the summit of Elk Camp at Snowmass, designed to address stringent environmental criteria. A system of intermountain gondolas connecting Aspen, Snowmass, Buttermilk and Highlands as a single skiable mountain complex could improve the Aspen-Snowmass winter experience and represent a major resort enhancement. Snowmass/Aspen visitors and valley skiers could all benefit. Features & Advantages: •During winter months, a mountain-to-mountain system could reduce peak-hour travel by taking skiers off the road and potentially reducing pressure on Highway 82, Brush Creek Road, Maroon Creek Road, Owl Creek Road and the entrance to Aspen roundabout. •A mountain to mountain connection would likely reduce demand for upper-valley RFTA buses, possibly freeing up resources. •It could help parents avoid many Ski Club and other mountain drop-off trips for children. •Enhancing the winter resort experience would help protect Aspen’s appeal and competitive position as a world class winter resort destination. A gondola connection might also be a major attraction for non- skiers (like Chamonix’s Aiguille du Midi cable car ride). Issues & Challenges: •Because of the principle of induced traffic, this option by itself is unlikely to reduce traffic congestion on Highway 82, unless it were combined with a substantial auto-disincentive. •Would require U.S. Forest Service approval and likely require support from all upper valley governments. •Some neighbors might object to gondolas in their view plane. •Environmental objections might be raised to a Buttermilk-Snowmass gondola, even if no access road were constructed. •A gondola interconnection is not in the County’s master plan. •It would not directly connect areas with large bed bases. Cost Implications: •A mountain to mountain interconnect system might be paid for with private investment. •Opposition could exist to a public investment that might serve only skiers, although connections and integration with public transit might merit a public/private partnership or coordinated investment in some form. Attachment 4 90 21 Increased Highway Capacity for Vehicles (unrestricted four-lane into Aspen) [Note: Unlike the previous options, this one was not suggested by any outside experts consulted by the Community Forum Task Force or by any task force member. It is included here simply because it has been debated for so many decades in the upper valley.] Traffic congestion exists on the two-lane portion on Highway 82 between Aspen’s four-lane Main Street and the four-lane highway from down valley to Buttermilk. To increase highway capacity, this option would add lanes without enforced restrictions (e.g., HOV or Bus). The option was rejected in the past, in part because it would increase traffic congestion, noise, and air pollution in downtown Aspen. (Note that Aspen’s PM-10 pollution has subsided since the 1990’s, and Aspen now meets federal air quality standards.) Features & Advantages: •Would reduce highway congestion in the short term. •Would allow safer operations and reduce accidents by eliminating the S-curves. •Could utilize the “preferred alignment” transportation easement across the Marolt Open Space. •Would be adaptable to tolling to generate revenues and manage travel demand. •Might improve emergency access in and out of Aspen in the short term. •May accommodate rubber–tired transit solutions. Issues & Challenges: •Because of the principle of induced traffic, increased highway capacity (without dynamic road pricing) would not reduce long term traffic congestion on Highway 82. This has been demonstrated in other cities. •Would immediately increase traffic congestion and noise in downtown Aspen. •Would increase carbon emissions and other forms of air pollution in Aspen. •Would place rubber-tired transit in mixed traffic, which would slow transit. •Would require a City of Aspen public vote to cross the Marolt Open Space. •Would violate the Aspen Area Community Plan and the Canary Initiative. •Would require the Environmental Impact Statement process to be reopened because it is not currently approved in the Aspen Record of Decision*. Cost Implications: •Estimated cost is over $100 million. •In the short term, reduced travel times might provide savings to motorists and to businesses dependent on the movement of goods and services. In the long term, traffic congestion would resume. •Increased traffic congestion, noise and air pollution in downtown Aspen might reduce Aspen’s quality of life and resort appeal, harming the economy. •Environmental Impact Statement required by the National Environmental Policy Act. Attachment 4 91 22 Other Options Not Studied for This Report Over past decades, many mobility options have been considered for the Entrance to Aspen. Examples include a large intercept parking facility located close to Aspen (under the Marolt open space) and the so-called “split shot” in which traffic entering Aspen would cross the Marolt open space, while departing traffic would follow the existing S-curves. While the Marolt intercept lot idea was advocated by one of its members, the task force did not study either of these options, noting that both had been rejected in the environment impact review that was part of the Aspen Record of Decision. Attachment 4 92 ADDENDUM 1 Community Forum Task Force members 2 Expert speakers and links to their presentations 3 Options matrix and scoring system 4 Options scoring results Community Forum Task Force on Transportation and Mobility Attachment 4 93 Community Task Force Members 1 Community Forum Task Force on Transportation and Mobility Attachment 4 94 Rose Abello Director, Snowmass Tourism Rose Abello was named Tourism Director for Snowmass Tourism in September 2014. She first moved to the Roaring Fork Valley in 1997 and served as director of communications for Aspen Skiing Company. She has spent more than 25 years marketing travel and tourism. Pam Alexander Aspen citizen Formerly based in San Francisco, Alexander founded a technology- focused public relations firm which was acquired by WPP. Clients included Hewlett Packard, WebMD, EarthLink and the TED con- ference. She serves on the board of the Aspen Valley Ski Club, the Aspen Valley Hospital Foundation and the Aspen Art Museum, and is a former board member of the Aspen Community Foundation. Markey Butler Mayor, Town of Snowmass Village Markey Butler is the first woman to be elected Mayor of Snowmass Village in its 37-year history. Butler is also the exec- utive director of Hospice of the Valley. Ward Hauenstein Aspen citizen, City Councilman Ward moved to Aspen in the fall of 1976. He is an enthusias- tic bicyclist both mountain and road. In the winter he enjoys XC skate and classic, AT, and Alpine skiing. He is active in the Aspen Chapel and has been politically involved in local Aspen issues. He was elected to the Aspen City Council in May 2017. Nina Eisenstat Aspen Marketing and Communications Nina Eisenstat provides marketing and strategic communica- tions consulting services to businesses, professional services firms, public institutions, and non-profit organizations. She is serving her third term as an elected member of the Aspen Chamber Resort Association’s board of directors and sits on its marketing advisory and public affairs committees. She was a six-year member of the board of directors of the Buddy Program, president of its first national council, and a member of its community relations and development committees. Brent Gardner Smith Executive Director, Aspen Journalism Brent Gardner-Smith is founder, editor and executive director of Aspen Journalism, a local nonprofit investigative journalism organization. Brent has over 30 years of experience in jour- nalism, broadcasting and public affairs and has worked at the Aspen Daily News, The Aspen Times, Aspen Public Radio and Aspen Skiing Company. He has a master’s degree in journal- ism from the University Of Missouri School Of Journalism. Tom Heald Asst. Superintendent, Aspen School District With long family ties to western Colorado (family homesteads on American Flats near Silverton and Dallas Divide near Telluride), Tom and his family have lived in the Roaring Fork Valley for 25 years, with equal stays in Carbondale, Silt, Glenwood and now Aspen. As assistant superintendent for the Aspen School District, Tom has a sphere of influence in constructing meaningful activi- ties for students and staff to thrive as learners, while his greatest joy is being outside with his wife, sons, and dogs to climb, raft, ski, ride and wrestle with gravity. Task Force Members John Bennett, Co-Chair Former Mayor of Aspen As former Cradle to Career Director for the Aspen Comm- unity Foundation, John Bennett oversaw the Aspen to Parachute Cradle to Career Initiative, which is aimed at increasing youth success across western Colorado. After more than two decades as a business CEO, Bennett moved to the public sector, serving four terms as Aspen’s mayor and overseeing a $40 million budget that produced a sur- plus each year he was in office. He later served as VP of the Aspen Institute, co-founder of the Cordoba Initiative, and president of For The Forest, an environmental stewardship organization. He’s a graduate of Yale University. Bill Kane, Co-Chair Advisory Principal, Design Workshop Bill is a 42 year resident of the Valley. He served as Plan- ning Director for Aspen and Pitkin County from 1974-78. He authored the Aspen/Pitkin County growth management plan and oversaw the rezoning of Aspen and much of Pitkin County. He also was a Principal at Design Workshop. Aspen and served as VP in charge of Planning and Development for Aspen Skiing Co. from 1995-2005. He currently resides in Ba- salt and is a commissioner on the Colorado Parks and wildlife Commission. He is also on the Board of Great Outdoors Colo- rado and Aspen Valley Land Trust. Bill is an advisory principal at Design Workshop. Attachment 4 95 David Houggy President, Aspen Science Center Board of Directors David joined the Buddy Program team as new Executive Director in 2012, bringing a wealth of experience in business development and strategic planning. He is a founding member of the Advisory Board of Mentor Colorado, an organization founded to promote and advocate for mentoring throughout Colorado. He is also President and a member of the Board of Directors of the Aspen Science Center, dedicated to bringing STEM programming to the youth of the Roaring Fork Valley. David Hyman Former Owner, High Mountain Taxi David worked for many years in the transportation industry as the owner of High Mountain Transportation, a taxi, shuttle and delivery company. He has served on several transportation committees and study groups over the years, and has a keen interest in transportation issues. Michael Kinsley Facilitator and Strategic Planner Michael was a county commissioner from 1975-85, the period in which Pitkin County transitioned to progressive policies. So he can talk about Aspen’s good ol’ days ad nauseum. Since ‘83, he has worked for Rocky Mountain Institute on sustainable communities and campuses, plus designing and facilitating many RMI corporate workshops and charrettes. Now that he’s part-time with RMI, he provides mediation, facilitation and strategic planning services valley wide. And he’s a painter. John Krueger Director of Transportation, City of Aspen John has worked for the City of Aspen for over 20 years. He started in the Parks department as the Trails Supervisor man- aging and building trails in the Aspen area. He worked closely with CDOT to build the trail along Highway 82, the underpass- es at the golf course, Truscott and Buttermilk. As Director of Transportation, John coordinates with CDOT, RFTA, the EOTC, Pitkin County, Snowmass, and Glenwood Springs on planning and valley wide transportation projects and issues. He is also responsible for the management of the local transit system, car share program, the Downtowner, employer outreach and various Transportation Demand Management programs. Melony Lewis Aspen citizen Melony has worked with various organizations nationally and locally, primarily focusing on the environment and education. She currently serves on the board of Vanguard Chapter of the Aspen Institute, Aspen Country Day School and Aspen Center for Environmental Studies. Her employment experience has included public relations and marketing, medical employment recruiting and placement, guiding cycling tours throughout Europe, and executive language coaching. Cristal Logan Vice President, Aspen Institute Cristal Logan is Vice President, Aspen and Director of Commu- nity Programs at the Aspen Institute. During her 18 year tenure at the Institute, Cristal has expanded the number of commu- nity events to over 70 days of programming per year including lectures, seminars for teens, and discussion series year round. A fourth generation resident of the Roaring Fork Valley, Cristal served as one of the inaugural members of the Aspen Com- munity Foundation Spring Board, and is Vice Chairman of the Board of the Aspen Chamber Resort Association. Mirte Mallory Founder & Executive Director, WE-Cycle An Aspen native, Mirte is the Co-Founder and Executive Direc- tor of WE-cycle, the Roaring Fork Valley’s bike transit service. WE-cycle features 190 bikes at 43 stations between Aspen, Basalt, Willits, and El Jebel and is designed to serve as the first/last mile connection to RFTA and for short, quick, point- to-point trips. Mirte is the former Chair of the Pitkin County Planning & Zoning Commission and the Curator of the BERKO Photo Collection. Tom Melberg Real Estate Broker, Sotheby’s Tom moved to Aspen, Colorado on June 1, 1975 and never looked back. He got his real estate license in 1978 and has found the work to be the best job one could have. Tom is envied by his fellow colleagues by how he is consistently one of the top producing real estate brokers in the Aspen area while balancing his joy and commitment to skiing, golf, yoga, fly fishing, hiking, hockey, bird hunting and meditation. Tom is forever grateful for making his move to Aspen and living the dream with his wife, Lindy, for the past 28 years and their now three grown children, Ella, Wylie and Maggie. Task Force Members Attachment 4 96 Michael Miracle Director, Community Engagement, Aspen Skiing Company Michael Miracle is the director of community engagement at Aspen Skiing Company. In that role, Michael is tasked with deepening ASC’s connection to communities throughout the Roaring Fork Valley. That work could involve digging in on spe- cific issues such as housing and transportation, or simply listen- ing to and responding to community members concerns. Prior to joining ASC, Michael edited Aspen Sojourner magazine for a decade. His previous job in publishing was at Skiing magazine, where he worked for seven years, first as an assistant editor, then associate editor, and finally senior editor. Maria Morrow Attorney and Principal, Oates, Knezevich, & Gardenschwartz, P.C. Maria Morrow is an 18-year Aspen resident, and has practiced law locally with OKGKM since her move from Chicago, where she began her legal career. After an impressive beginning as a federal court law clerk followed by practice as a litigator at the 100-year-old firm Kirkland & Ellis LLP, Maria moved to Aspen and joined Oates, Knezevich, & Gardenswartz, P.C. She became a shareholder of this 34 year-old firm in 2007. Maria specializ- es in real estate transactions, business transactions, contracts, litigation, homeowners’ associations, and employment mat- ters. George Newman Member, Board of County Commissioners, Pitkin County George is on the Board of County Commissioners for District 5, and has been a Pitkin County resident since 1974. He holds a BS in Economics and an MA in Public Administration. He has a desire to protect the natural environment while maintaining a commitment to citizen involvement. He was a founding mem- ber and director of both Leadership Aspen (now Roaring Fork Leadership) and the Emma Caucus. Steve Skadron Mayor of Aspen Steve Skadron is in his second term as Mayor of Aspen. Prior to becoming mayor, Skadron served as an Aspen City Council member for six years. Before that, he spent four years on the city Planning and Zoning Commission. Greg Rucks Transportation Principal, Rocky Mountain Institute Greg Rucks is a principal in RMI’s Transportation Practice and is currently managing a multi-year partnership with the Austin community to develop and implement technology and world-class solutions for transforming mobility. With an eye on replicability, Greg is also helping scale solutions from Austin to other global cities, starting with Denver. Since joining RMI in December 2010, Greg led a commercialization effort focused on lightweight-vehicle design and development that has since been funded by the Department of Energy. Sheri Sanzone Owner and Founder of Bluegreen Landscape Architect and Urban Planner Sheri is a landscape architect, planner and urban designer and founder of Bluegreen, a leading edge and environmentally responsible design studio based in Aspen. A former board chairperson of the Aspen-Pitkin County Housing Authority and Roaring Fork Leadership, Sheri also served on the US Green Building Council Colorado Chapter board. Before founding and nurturing Bluegreen, Sheri was Principal-in-Charge of Design Workshop’s Aspen office. Zoë Brown Senior Associate The Aspen Institute Zoë served as an excellent manager of logistics for the Commu- nity Forum. While she was not an official task force member, she served as a key member of the team who worked tirelessly on this project. John Sarpa President, Sarpa Development John has been a major real estate figure in Aspen and the Roar- ing Fork Valley since 1985. He co-chaired the citizens group that master planned and re-developed the Aspen Meadows, home of the Aspen Institute, Aspen Music Festival and School and the Aspen Center for Physics. He is currently the Vice Chairman of the Aspen Valley Hospital Foundation, a board member of the Valley Health Alliance and Chairman of the Aspen Institute Community Forum. Task Force Members Attachment 4 97 Ralph Trapani Program Director, Parsons Transportation Group Mr. Ralph J. Trapani, P.E. is an award-winning engineer with over 40 years of transportation engineering experience. He is a Program Director with Parsons Transportation Group. He serves on the board of directors for CLEER (Clean Energy Economy for The Region). He spent 28 years with the Colorado DOT, serving as the I-70 Glenwood Canyon project manager for 12 years, and the State Highway 82 corridor manager for 10 years. He lives in Glen- wood Springs, Colorado with his 16 year old son Lucca. He enjoys telemark skiing at Highlands, motorsports and cycling. Barry Crook Assistant City Manager City of Aspen Barry Crook, is one of two Assistant City Managers for Aspen. He oversees affordable housing planning/development, the Transportation Department, the Parking and Downtown Services Department, the City Council’s Top Ten Goals effort and the city’s customer service/continuous improvement efforts. Mr. Crook has over 30 years of experience working in state and local govern- ment in both the budget/finance and quality/customer service areas. Katie Viola Partner, Kissane Viola Design Katie Viola is partner at Kissane Viola Design in Aspen, Colorado. She and her husband Paul have been living in Aspen for 16 years. Katie and Paul relocated from NYC where they were design direc- tors for a wide variety of print publications and websites. Cur- rently Kissane Viola Design specializes in brand development, art direction and graphic design, with many national and local clients. Kissane Viola Design is located in downtown Aspen. Katie is on the board of the Aspen Education Foundation and her son John is a proud student of Aspen Middle School. Task Force Members Attachment 4 98 Expert Speakers with links to presentations 2 Community Forum Task Force on Transportation and Mobility Attachment 4 99 EXPERT SPEAKERS Session 1, December 13 and 14, 2016 Jim Charlier, President, Charlier Associates Wheeler Opera House and taskforce meeting Charlier is a well-known transportation and land-use planner based in Boulder. He’s worked extensively in Aspen, in the Western US and in resort communities. Charlier discussed the influence of economics, demographics, settlement patterns, and tech- nology on transportation systems and mobility, as well as the changing behavior and expectations in both public and private transportation. LINK: https://www.aspeninstitute.org/events/community-forum-reimagin- ing-mobility-roaring-fork-valley/ Session 2, March 9 and 10, 2017 Ann Bowers and Chris Breiland, Fehr & Peers Doerr-Hosier Center and taskforce meeting Bowers and Breiland, who have worked on transportation in the Roaring Fork Valley for years, discussed practical new ways to reduce demand for transportation systems, while increasing convenience; emerging technologies that affect design, safety, and efficiency of all travel modes; how lifestyle and behavioral trends influence transportation systems; and how big data helps us better understand travel patterns. Bowers’ expertise includes the most advanced, state-of-the-practice transportation analysis techniques, and Breiland is an expert in complex multimodal corridor analysis. LINK: https://www.aspeninstitute.org/events/community-forum-transpor- tation-mobility-reimagining-transportation-mobility-upper-roaring-fork-val- ley-session-2/ Attachment 4 100 EXPERT SPEAKERS Session 3, May 24 and 25, 2017 Tony Dutzik, senior policy analyst, Frontier Group Doerr-Hosier Center and taskforce meeting Frontier Group is a public policy think tank focusing on the intersection of transportation, energy, and the climate. Dutzik discussed innovative mobility technologies and services— what they are and what they do; case studies in US cities where these technologies and services have been applied; and the opportunities and challenges that innovative mobility solutions present. LINK: https://www.aspeninstitute.org/events/community-forum-transpor- tation-mobility-reimagining-transportation-mobility-upper-roaring-fork-val- ley-session-3/ Session 4, June 6, 2017 Greg Rucks, Rocky Mountain Institute’s transportation practice Wheeler Opera House and taskforce meeting Rucks addressed the technological innovations that are providing cost-effective, low- carbon solutions to traffic and congestion issues in other cities. He also discussed the pilot program he’s managing in Austin, Texas, and how the Roaring Fork Valley is well-suited to implementing such a program. LINK: https://www.aspeninstitute.org/events/community-forum-transporta- tion-mobility-positioning-roaring-fork-valley-mobility-future-session-4/ Attachment 4 101 Options Matrix & Scoring System 3 Community Forum Task Force on Transportation and Mobility Attachment 4 102 Options Matrix & Scoring System ESSENTIAL COMMUNITY VALUES OPERATING SYSTEM VALUES MINIMUM SYSTEM REQUIREMENTS OPTIONS Community Character Environmental Quality Traffic & Congestion Reduction Social Equity Convenience & Comfort Adaptable to the Future Safety Financial Viability Capacity to Move People and/or Reduce Travel Demand Ride Sharing Systems 67 51 43 45 39 62 29 61 47 Ride Hailing Systems 62 43 37 34 52 65 45 52 40 Light Rail Transit (LRT)37 51 58 50 50 13 63 -29 55 Enhanced Bus Rapid Transit (BRT)53 52 51 52 42 56 61 32 56 Snowmass Connection Enhancements 49 43 31 37 44 45 53 22 35 Mountain to Mountain Connection 54 38 14 18 33 13 46 4 16 Transit-Oriented Affordable Housing 55 50 44 45 51 34 49 21 37 HOV Lane Enforcement 48 42 42 38 29 48 52 59 38 Dynamic Road Pricing (VMT fees, etc.)17 50 57 -6 20 59 46 60 53 Parking Strategies 45 47 44 6 3 47 33 49 34 Airport/Transit Connectivity 65 53 38 39 56 50 53 38 42 Increased Highway Capacity -35 -37 -25 18 5 -13 -7 -23 -23 OPTION/VALUE RATING SYSTEM 3 = Fully consistent with this value. Substantial progress 2 = Adequately consistent with this value 1 = Minimally consistent with this value 0 = Neutral or Not Applicable -1 = Inconsistent with this value -2 = Extremely inconsistent with this value. Detrimental impacts Attachment 4 103 Options Scoring Results 4 Community Forum Task Force on Transportation and Mobility Attachment 4 104 Community Forum Task Force on Transportation and Mobility CONTENTS A Survey Results Option Scoring B Value Areas Scoring C Highest Selection Summary of Options D Additional Evaluation, Q&A Attachment 4 105 A. SURVEY RESULTS OPTIONS SCORING 1 - Ride Sharing Systems Value #Question -2 -1 0 1 2 3 Total Score 1 Community Character 0 0 1 0 8 17 67 2 Environmental Quality 0 0 1 7 10 8 51 3 Traffic & Congestion Reduction 0 0 3 8 10 5 43 4 Social Equity 0 2 3 5 6 10 45 5 Convenience & Comfort 0 3 2 6 9 6 39 6 Adaptable to the Future 0 0 1 3 7 15 62 7 Safety 0 3 6 5 9 3 29 8 Financial Viability 0 0 1 1 12 12 61 9 Capacity to Move People and/or Reduce Travel Demand 0 1 2 5 11 7 47 Total Responses 0 9 20 40 82 83 444 Community Forum Task Force on Transportation and Mobility Survey Results Attachment 4 106 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 2 - Ride Hailing Systems Value #Question -2 -1 0 1 2 3 Total Score 1 Community Character 0 0 0 2 12 12 62 2 Environmental Quality 0 2 1 8 8 7 43 3 Traffic & Congestion Reduction 0 2 2 9 9 4 37 4 Social Equity 0 2 6 7 4 7 34 5 Convenience & Comfort 0 1 1 4 11 9 52 6 Adaptable to the Future 0 0 0 2 9 15 65 7 Safety 0 1 4 2 13 6 45 8 Financial Viability 0 1 1 5 9 10 52 9 Capacity to Move People and/or Reduce Travel Demand 0 1 1 12 7 5 40 Total 0 10 16 51 82 75 430 Community Forum Task Force on Transportation and Mobility Survey Results Attachment 4 107 3 - Light Rail Transit (LRT)Value #Question -2 -1 0 1 2 3 Total Score 1 Community Character 0 6 2 3 5 10 37 2 Environmental Quality 1 1 1 4 7 12 51 3 Traffic & Congestion Reduction 0 0 1 4 9 12 58 4 Social Equity 0 0 4 3 10 9 50 5 Convenience & Comfort 0 2 2 3 8 11 50 6 Adaptable to the Future 3 4 5 7 5 2 13 7 Safety 0 0 1 3 6 16 63 8 Financial Viability 13 7 2 4 0 0 -29 9 Capacity to Move People and/or Reduce Travel Demand 0 2 1 3 6 14 55 Total Responses 17 22 19 34 56 86 348 4 - Enhanced Bus Rapid Transit (BRT)Value #Question -2 -1 0 1 2 3 Total Score 1 Community Character 0 0 0 7 11 8 53 2 Environmental Quality 0 0 0 6 14 6 52 3 Traffic & Congestion Reduction 0 0 1 7 10 8 51 4 Social Equity 0 2 1 2 11 10 52 Community Forum Task Force on Transportation and Mobility Survey Results Attachment 4 108 5 Convenience & Comfort 0 0 3 8 11 4 42 6 Adaptable to the Future 0 0 1 4 11 10 56 7 Safety 0 0 0 4 9 13 61 8 Financial Viability 1 2 4 5 11 3 32 9 Capacity to Move People and/or Reduce Travel Demand 0 0 0 4 14 8 56 Total Responses 1 4 10 47 102 70 455 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 5 - Snowmass Connection Enhancements Value #Question -2 -1 0 1 2 3 Total 1 Community Character 0 1 2 4 11 8 49 Community Forum Task Force on Transportation and Mobility Survey Results Attachment 4 109 2 Environmental Quality 0 2 3 4 10 7 43 3 Traffic & Congestion Reduction 0 2 4 9 9 2 31 4 Social Equity 0 1 5 7 8 5 37 5 Convenience & Comfort 0 0 1 10 11 4 44 6 Adaptable to the Future 0 0 4 7 7 8 45 7 Safety 0 0 1 6 10 9 53 8 Financial Viability 2 2 4 10 6 2 22 9 Capacity to Move People and/or Reduce Travel Demand 1 0 3 9 11 2 35 Total 3 8 27 66 83 47 359 6 - Mountain to Mountain Connection Value #Question -2 -1 0 1 2 3 Total 1 Community Character 1 0 2 5 3 15 54 2 Environmental Quality 2 3 3 2 5 11 38 3 Traffic & Congestion Reduction 1 4 6 10 5 0 14 4 Social Equity 2 3 6 8 4 3 18 5 Convenience & Comfort 0 3 3 6 12 2 33 6 Adaptable to the Future 5 2 4 7 6 2 13 7 Safety 0 2 3 3 9 9 46 8 Financial Viability 4 5 7 5 3 2 4 Community Forum Task Force on Transportation and Mobility Survey Results Attachment 4 110 9 Capacity to Move People and/or Reduce Travel Demand 1 4 3 15 2 1 16 Total 16 26 37 61 49 45 236 7 - Transit Oriented Affordable Housing (TOAH)Value #Question -2 -1 0 1 2 3 Total 1 Community Character 0 0 2 4 9 11 55 2 Environmental Quality 1 0 2 4 9 10 50 3 Traffic & Congestion Reduction 1 1 2 4 11 7 44 4 Social Equity 0 2 1 7 8 8 45 5 Convenience & Comfort 0 0 2 7 7 10 51 6 Adaptable to the Future 0 2 6 5 8 5 34 7 Safety 0 0 5 1 12 8 49 8 Financial Viability 2 2 5 10 4 3 21 9 Capacity to Move People and/or Reduce Travel Demand 1 1 3 7 9 5 37 Total 5 8 28 49 77 67 386 8 - High Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) Lane Enforcement Value #Question -2 -1 0 1 2 3 Total Community Forum Task Force on Transportation and Mobility Survey Results Attachment 4 111 1 Community Character 0 3 3 1 7 12 48 2 Environmental Quality 0 1 4 7 6 8 42 3 Traffic & Congestion Reduction 0 2 0 9 10 5 42 4 Social Equity 0 3 3 6 7 7 38 5 Convenience & Comfort 0 3 5 8 6 4 29 6 Adaptable to the Future 0 1 2 5 10 8 48 7 Safety 0 1 3 2 9 11 52 8 Financial Viability 0 1 0 2 11 12 59 9 Capacity to Move People and/or Reduce Travel Demand 0 2 3 7 9 5 38 Total 0 17 23 47 75 72 396 9 - Dynamic Road Pricing Value #Question -2 -1 0 1 2 3 Total 1 Community Character 3 6 1 8 3 5 17 2 Environmental Quality 0 1 3 3 9 10 50 3 Traffic & Congestion Reduction 0 1 1 3 8 13 57 4 Social Equity 5 8 6 3 3 1 -6 5 Convenience & Comfort 2 2 9 4 5 4 20 6 Adaptable to the Future 0 0 0 5 9 12 59 7 Safety 0 0 5 5 7 9 46 8 Financial Viability 1 0 0 4 5 16 60 Community Forum Task Force on Transportation and Mobility Survey Results Attachment 4 112 9 Capacity to Move People and/or Reduce Travel Demand 1 0 2 3 8 12 53 Total 12 18 27 38 57 82 356 10 - Parking Strategies Value #Question -2 -1 0 1 2 3 Total 1 Community Character 0 1 4 4 9 8 45 2 Environmental Quality 0 0 2 8 9 7 47 3 Traffic & Congestion Reduction 0 1 1 9 9 6 44 4 Social Equity 4 4 7 7 1 3 6 5 Convenience & Comfort 1 8 7 7 3 0 3 6 Adaptable to the Future 0 0 2 9 7 8 47 7 Safety 0 0 10 6 3 7 33 8 Financial Viability 0 0 3 5 10 8 49 9 Capacity to Move People and/or Reduce Travel Demand 1 0 4 10 7 4 34 Total 6 14 40 65 58 51 308 11 - Airport/Transit Connectivity 0 #Question -2 -1 0 1 2 3 Total 1 Community Character 0 0 0 1 11 14 65 Community Forum Task Force on Transportation and Mobility Survey Results Attachment 4 113 2 Environmental Quality 0 0 1 6 10 9 53 3 Traffic & Congestion Reduction 0 1 2 13 4 6 38 4 Social Equity 0 1 5 7 6 7 39 5 Convenience & Comfort 0 0 0 6 10 10 56 6 Adaptable to the Future 0 1 2 4 10 9 50 7 Safety 0 0 3 3 10 10 53 8 Financial Viability 0 2 4 6 8 6 38 9 Capacity to Move People and/or Reduce Travel Demand 0 0 2 11 8 5 42 Total 0 5 19 57 77 76 434 12 - Increased Highway Capacity #Question -2 -1 0 1 2 3 Total 1 Community Character 17 4 2 3 0 0 -35 2 Environmental Quality 18 5 0 2 1 0 -37 3 Traffic & Congestion Reduction 13 7 1 3 1 1 -25 4 Social Equity 3 4 5 4 6 4 18 5 Convenience & Comfort 6 5 1 7 6 1 5 6 Adaptable to the Future 8 7 4 4 3 0 -13 7 Safety 6 5 8 4 3 0 -7 8 Financial Viability 9 12 1 1 3 0 -23 Community Forum Task Force on Transportation and Mobility Survey Results Attachment 4 114 B. VALUE AREAS SCORING Essential Community Values (Community Character and Environmental Quality) #1 Ride Sharing and Airport Connectivity (TIE) #3 Ride Hailing, Enhanced BRT and Affordable Housing (TIE) Operating System Values (Congestion Reduction, Social Equity, Convenience/Comfort, Adaptable to Future) #1 Enhanced BRT #2 Ride Sharing #3 Ride Hailing Minimum System Requirements (Safety, Financial Viability, Capacity to Move People and/or Reduce Travel Demand) 9 Capacity to Move People and/or Reduce Travel Demand 13 6 2 1 4 0 -23 Total 93 55 24 29 27 6 -140 Community Forum Task Force on Transportation and Mobility Survey Results Attachment 4 115 #1 Dynamic Road Pricing #2 Enhanced BRT and HOV Lane Enforcement (TIE) C. HIGHEST SELECTION SUMMARY OF OPTIONS Overall “Favorite” Options of Forum Members #1 Enhanced BRT #2 Ride Sharing System Overall, what are your three favorite options? Enhanced Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) Ride Sharing System Transit Oriented Affordable Housing (TOAH) High Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) Lane Enhancement Dynamic Road Pricing Ride Hailing Systems Parking Strategies Snowmass Connection Enhancement Airport/Transit Connectivity Light Rail Transit (LRT) Mountain to Mountain Connection Increased Highway Capacity 0 2 2 4 4 5 6 7 9 9 12 18 Community Forum Task Force on Transportation and Mobility Survey Results Attachment 4 116 Overall Top Scoring Options by Values Assessment #1 Enhanced Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) #2 Ride Sharing System #3 Airport/Transit Connectivity #4 Ride Hailing Systems Community Forum Task Force on Transportation and Mobility Survey Results Attachment 4 117 D. ADDITIONAL EVALUATION Enhanced Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) Ride Sharing System Airport/Transit Connectivity Ride Hailing Systems High Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) Lane Enhancement Transit Oriented Affordable Housing (TOAH) Snowmass Connection Enhancement Dynamic Road Pricing Light Rail Transit (LRT) Parking Strategies Mountain to Mountain Connection Increased Highway Capacity -140 236 308 348 356 359 386 396 430 434 444 455 Community Forum Task Force on Transportation and Mobility Survey Results Attachment 4 118 Participant Point Selections Ride Sharing System Ride Hailing Systems Light Rail Transit (LRT) Enhanced Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) Snowmass Connection Enhancement Mountain to Mountain Connection Transit Oriented Affordable Housing (TOAH) High Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) Lane Enhancement Dynamic Road Pricing Parking Strategies Airport/Transit Connectivity Increased Highway Capacity -2 -1 0 1 2 3 14 - Please weigh the relative importance of each value. (1= least valuable, 3 = most valuable) Question 1 2 3 Mean Capacity to Move People and/or Reduce Travel Demand 0 4 22 2.85 Traffic & Congestion Reduction 0 5 21 2.81 Environmental Quality 0 8 18 2.69 Safety 4 5 17 2.5 Community Character 2 10 14 2.46 Adaptable to the Future 2 13 11 2.35 Convenience & Comfort 1 17 8 2.27 Financial Viability 5 12 9 2.15 Social Equity 6 10 10 2.15 Community Forum Task Force on Transportation and Mobility Survey Results Attachment 4 119 Total 20 84 130 Community Forum Task Force on Transportation and Mobility Survey Results Attachment 4 120 Aspen Institute Integrated Mobility Study Phase 2 MAY 2021 PREPARED FOR Attachment 5 121 Integrated Mobility System (IMS) Study Phase 2 Prepared for: Elected Officials Transportation Committee (EOTC) Supporters: Roaring Fork Transportation Authority (RFTA), and Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT) May 26, 2021 DN20-0650.01 Attachment 5 122 Table of Contents Introduction .................................................................................................................................................................................... 3 Phase 2 VMT and GHG Analysis ............................................................................................................................................. 6 Upper Valley Travel Markets: VMT, GHG Emissions, and Travel Patterns ..................................................... 6 Autonomous Vehicles and COVID-19 Assessment ......................................................................................................14 Residents ...............................................................................................................................................................................15 Commuters ...........................................................................................................................................................................16 Local Visitors ........................................................................................................................................................................17 Non-Local Visitors .............................................................................................................................................................18 Combined Results ..............................................................................................................................................................19 Evaluation Results ......................................................................................................................................................................20 Final Recommendation ....................................................................................................................................................22 Equity Impact & Mitigation Analysis ..................................................................................................................................26 Performance Measures & Evaluation Framework .........................................................................................................29 Attachment 5 123 Introduction In partnership with the Elected Officials Transportation Committee (EOTC) and supported by the Roaring Fork Transit Authority (RFTA) and the Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT), Fehr & Peers evaluated the Integrated Mobility System (IMS) proposal outlined in the Community Forum Task Force on Transportation and Mobility's 2017 Upper Valley Mobility Report to identify both near- and long-term solutions that would improve mobility and reduce air pollution emissions in the upper Roaring Fork Valley. Phase 1 of this study was completed in 2020, and included the following analysis components: • Review and Refinement of Existing Strategies: Fehr & Peers refined the five principal strategies outlined in the IMS and added more specific definition about the strategies (e.g., defined the type of ride-sharing service that is most likely to be developed in the Valley, identified the nominal fees/tolls for congestion management strategies, etc.) so that they could be modeled for how effective the IMS could be at improving mobility and improving traffic congestion. • Perform a High-Level Effectiveness Analysis: This task modeled the effectiveness of the IMS to provide a general picture of the potential reduction in vehicle-miles traveled (VMT), greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, and reduced single-occupant vehicle (SOV) travel. The results of the modeling are shown in Table 1. • Identify an Implementation Framework: Fehr & Peers created a phased implementation framework for improving mobility and reducing the environmental impacts of transportation in the Aspen/Snowmass area, shown in Figure 1. This approach recognizes that some strategies will take more time to implement than others due to political, technical, and financial constraints. Based on our experience in a variety of communities, the short-term strategies identified in this framework can be implemented within a few years given community willingness to advance transportation mobility and sustainability. Over the long run, as the region continues to grow and mobility technologies change, more aggressive mobility management strategies may become necessary. Further mobility management will help ensure a sustainable transportation system from the perspective of economic vitality, quality of life, and environmental outcomes. As noted, these more aggressive strategies will require greater levels of funding, agency/jurisdictional cooperation, and public willingness for additional costs/restrictions on mobility. In exchange, there will be even greater levels of GHG emissions and VMT reductions, particularly for resort/visitor trips. Phase 2 of this study carried the results of Phase 1 forward to create a more detailed VMT and GHG analysis. More specifically, Phase 2: (1) completed a more detailed GHG and travel analysis identifying which trips are most likely to be affected, (2) developed performance measures and evaluation framework for ongoing tracking and progress reporting, (3) looked at potential travel impacts from autonomous vehicles and COVID-19, and (4) evaluated the equity implications of the travel pricing options from the IMS. Attachment 5 124 Table 1: High Level Effectiveness Summary from Phase 1 Attachment 5 125 Figure 1: Implementation Framework Attachment 5 126 Phase 2 VMT and GHG Analysis A key part of the Phase 2 work is a more detailed analysis of the different types of travelers in the Upper Valley (e.g., commuters, local visitors, non-local visitors, residents). As will be described in this report, these four traveler groups, or “travel markets,” have very different trip characteristics, and they are likely to respond to and be impacted by the IMS strategies in different ways. For example, parking pricing will have a stronger impact on commuters and day-trip local visitors than residents or multi-day visitors from outside the Roaring Fork Valley. Similarly, ridesharing will be more effective for commuters than visitors. By better understanding these unique travel markets, we can refine the GHG and VMT analysis results, identify the strategies that result in the “biggest bang for the buck,” and better understand the negative impacts and how to mitigate those impacts of some of the IMS strategies. Upper Valley Travel Markets: VMT, GHG Emissions, and Travel Patterns To understand and isolate the unique travel characteristics of the four different travel markets in the Upper Valley, we reviewed the following data sources: • City of Aspen’s 2017 VMT Model • 2017 AirSage travel pattern data • US Census Bureau American Community Survey (ACS) data • US Census Bureau Longitudinal Employer Household Dynamics (LEHD) data • Historical parking survey and occupancy counts provided by the City of Aspen and Snowmass Village • Hotel occupancy rates • Total vehicle volumes on Castle Creek Bridge & Brush Creek Road How Travel Markets are Defined As noted earlier, understanding the characteristics of the people traveling into Aspen and Snowmass Village is important to assessing the benefits and impacts of the different IMS strategies. To separate the traveler markets, this analysis uses data from location-based cell phone application data provided by the AirSage company. The Roaring Fork Transportation Authority (RFTA) purchased AirSage data in 2017 to inform earlier transportation planning work. The AirSage data covered the area between the communities of Parachute and Aspen and included both summer and winter peak season data. AirSage uses anonymous mobile device data (e.g., location data transmitted by cell phones, tablets, smartwatches, cars, etc.) to estimate movement patterns of the traveling public. AirSage uses a sample of mobile devices, aggregates to a geography that cannot identify any specific individuals, and then scales the data to represent the entire population of the County. AirSage separates visitors from residents based on the habitual nighttime location of the mobile device (e.g., AirSage would identify that a mobile device that was in Aspen but spends most nights in Denver as a visitor). AirSage can also identify habitual commuting trips based on the typical day and night locations of a mobile device. Attachment 5 127 Using the, AirSage data, we were able to differentiate between resident trips (trips made by people who live in Aspen or Snowmass Village), commuters (people who work but do not live in Aspen or Snowmass Village), local visitors (people who are not regular commuters but travel to Aspen and Snowmass Village but live in down valley communities) and non-local visitors (people visiting Aspen and Snowmass village, but who do not live anywhere in the analysis area between Parachute and Aspen. One important note is that AirSage does not track ‘trip tours’, so we do not see where non-local visitors are originally traveling from, but instead see the origin for the trip that ends in Aspen or Snowmass Village. An example is that we can identify non-local visitor trips to Aspen that start at the Brush Creek Park and Ride, but we cannot specifically track a “tour” of two trips that starts in Glenwood Springs, stops at the Brush Creek Park and Ride and then continues to Aspen. AirSage anonymizes the trip record when the traveler stops and parks at the Brush Creek Park and Ride and then transfers to a bus—these are counted as two separate trips. Vehicle Trips and VMT by Travel Market The first step in understanding the travel markets and total VMT in the Upper Valley was to review vehicle trip counts at Castle Creek Bridge and Brush Creek Road to quantify the total entering vehicle volumes for Aspen and Snowmass Village. These traffic counts were based on 1993-2020 data from the City of Aspen, and 2016 data from Pitkin County. Next, the vehicle volumes were split out by residents, employees, and visitors. To calculate this split in travel markets, we first used American Community Survey (ACS) census data for the number of residents in both cities, and pulled Longitudinal Employer-Household Dynamics (LEHD) data for the total number of employees, and number of employees who commute from down valley. While the City of Aspen’s VMT model breaks out external VMT (VMT for trips traveling to or leaving Aspen, measured at the Emissions Inventory Boundary), and internal VMT (all trips that are within the Emissions Inventory Boundary), for this analysis, we are not considering VMT of trips that stay within Aspen or Snowmass Village, but are focused on VMT for all trips that cross the Castle Creek Bridge or Brush Creek Road, including trips that travel between Aspen and Snowmass Village. The City of Aspen’s VMT model breaks out VMT by resident, employee, and visitor travel market. For each travel market, the model includes average trip rates, mode shares, average carpool occupancies, and trip lengths. Furthermore, the average number of daily visitors by season are separated by day-trippers, those staying in Aspen, staying in Snowmass Village, and staying down valley. We refined Aspen’s 2017 VMT estimates by updating the ACS and LEHD data to reflect 2019 conditions for residents and employees. To verify the results of the Aspen VMT model, we used a set of data purchased by RFTA from the AirSage company. Specifically, AirSage data was compared to the visitor patterns in the VMT model and were found to be consistent. The Aspen VMT model does not cover Snowmass Village. To estimate visitor, resident, and employee trips to Snowmass Village, a mix of data sources were used. First, Snowmass Village’s historical parking counts and volumes on Brush Creek Road were used to understand the total vehicle trips to Snowmass on an average winter day, and we used the average trip generation rates and carpool occupancies from Aspen’s VMT model to refine the estimates of resident, employee, and visitor trips to the city. The 2017 AirSage Attachment 5 128 data and 2019 RFTA transit ridership data were also used to understand trip flows to Snowmass from down valley, as well as travel between Aspen and Snowmass Village. Table 2 displays the results of the travel market analysis in terms of average daily vehicle trips. VMT can be calculated from the travel market trip data in Table 2 by multiplying the average daily trips by the average trip length for each market. Trip length data are provided by the City of Aspen’s VMT model and are assumed to be similar for Aspen and Snowmass Village. Figure 2 summarizes the VMT results (presented as a total share of travel into both Aspen and Snowmass Village) for each of the four travel markets. From VMT, vehicle-based GHG emissions were then calculated by multiplying the VMT estimates by the CO2 emissions factor provided in the City of Aspen’s GHG Inventory 1. Since vehicle-based GHG emissions are directly related to VMT, the share of GHG emissions from the different travel markets are also depicted in Figure 2. Table 2: Average Daily Vehicle Trips Daily Vehicle Trips - Average Peak Season Snowmass Village (Across Brush Creek Road) Aspen (Across Castle Creek Bridge) Residents - Commute Out 80 590 Residents - Personal 420 1,660 Workers - Commute In 2,380 6,160 Local Visitors 1,480 2,460 Non-Local Visitors 3,870 10,070 Total 8,230 20,940 1 https://www.cityofaspen.com/DocumentCenter/View/4716/2017-Community-wide-Greenhouse-Gas-Inventory Attachment 5 129 Figure 2: Share of Daily VMT by Travel Market In reviewing the data in Table 2 and Figure 2, some notable conclusions can be drawn. Specifically:  Non-local visitors contribute the most to the VMT into Aspen and Snowmass Village – more than 50 percent in the summer and nearly as much in the peak winter season  Commuters are the next largest share of VMT and total trip making after non-local visitors  Residents and local visitors represent much smaller shares of total trips and VMT into Aspen and Snowmass Village Based on these results, it is clear that substantial reductions in VMT and GHG emissions into Aspen and Snowmass Village will require a focus on non-local visitors and commuters. However, when evaluating how to manage travel from these two groups, the implications to equity and the overall economic engine of the region must be taken into consideration. Travel Patterns by Travel Market One of the unique benefits of the AirSage data analysis is a visual depiction of some of the major travel flows into and out of Aspen and Snowmass Village. The following figures visualize the origins of trips destinated for Aspen and Snowmass Village for each of the unique travel markets across an average summer weekday. 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% Residents Workers Local Visitors Non-Local Visitors Aspen & Snowmass Village Peak Season Daily VMT Summer - VMT Winter - VMT Attachment 5 130 Figure 3: Total Daily Person Trips to Aspen & Snowmass While there appear to be larger trip flows from Old Snowmass and Woody Creek, these trips, especially for non-local visitors, are likely due to people stopping for food, gas, and coffee on their way to Aspen and Snowmass Village. Some of the trips originating in Old Snowmass may be trips between Snowmass Village and Aspen or within Snowmass Village due to the large boundary areas of the zones. Attachment 5 131 Figure 4: Daily Commute Person Trips to Aspen & Snowmass Commuter trips show a high concentration of flows from the Brush Creek Park and Ride to Aspen and Snowmass Village. This is consistent with the high share of transit and carpool trips that begin at this park and ride. Attachment 5 132 Figure 5: Daily Local Visitor Person Trips to Aspen & Snowmass Local visitor trips are much more evenly distributed than commuter trips, or trips overall. They are also a smaller proportion, although taken cumulatively, there is a strong flow of up valley trips to Aspen and Snowmass Village. Attachment 5 133 Figure 6: Daily Non-Local Visitor Person Trips to Aspen & Snowmass Non-local visitors show strong flows from Independence Pass and the Brush Creek Park and Ride with more distribution from other down valley communities. Attachment 5 134 Autonomous Vehicles and COVID-19 Assessment Much has been written in the last few months about how travel patterns have changed due to the COVID- 19 pandemic. Research reviewed by Fehr & Peers have shown some startling trends, including dramatic decreases in transit usage, where some systems saw ridership decline by 95% or more as lockdowns and sharp decreases in transit frequencies impacted ridership. There were also large decreases in the overall amount of driving, with reductions in vehicle miles traveled (VMT) averaging about 50% or more nationwide, though those have since started to rebound. A key question being posed by transportation planners across the country relates to which COVID-19 related travel trends will return to pre-pandemic conditions over the next year or two and which trends will stay (e.g., increased telecommuting and greater e-commerce sales and home delivery of goods and services). In addition to COVID-19 induced changes in travel trends, many transportation experts consider emerging technologies, most notably the introduction of fully autonomous vehicles (AVs) to be a major factor in where people live and how they travel in the future. Notably, most research has shown that privately- owned AVs (the situation where people largely purchase their own private cars and do not share rides – much like today) will result in substantial increases in VMT. In a region like the Upper Roaring Fork Valley, where a large portion of VMT is attributed to visitor travel, AVs not only increase total vehicle trips and congestion across Castle Creek Bridge and Brush Creek Road, but they could also increase vehicle trips circulating within each city (if they are operating without any drivers to avoid parking fees), or even increase parking demand (if AVs induce more overall travel, particularly day trips). Fehr & Peers has developed a tool, TrendLab+, that addresses some of the questions on the impacts of the pandemic-related travel shifts and how new technologies will impact VMT and transit trips. TrendLab+ allows users to describe different scenarios in terms of a list of different factors, such as vehicle availability, fuel prices, land use patterns, and transit improvements, which research shows are closely related to VMT and have been disrupted by the COVID-19 pandemic. There are also several inputs related to changing transportation technologies and AVs specifically. TrendLab+ translates the user-defined assumptions into expected rates of return of transit ridership and VMT per capita compared pre-pandemic levels within the short-, medium- and long-term. To estimate the effect of COVID-19 and AVs on VMT per capita in Aspen and Snowmass Village, we ran TrendLab+ for each of the travel markets: residents, commuters, local visitors, and non-local visitors. Attachment 5 135 Residents Figure 7 and Table 3 show the results of TrendLab+ for residents of Aspen and Snowmass Village in the immediate post-COVID (2025), medium-term (2030), and long-term (2050). Figure 7: Resident Travel Trends Table 3: Travel Trends for Residents Travel Trends (compared to 2019 conditions) Metric 2025 2030 2050 VMT per capita 103% 98% 103% Transit Trips per capita 76% 95% 92% In 2025, there is a bump in VMT per capita for residents of Aspen and Snowmass Village because of lingering concerns about using shared modes, as well as inertia from a period of low transit usage, that more than offsets the VMT decreases from telecommuting and e-commerce. In 2030, transit and VMT per capita have both rebounded to slightly below pre-pandemic levels because transit ridership and funding have recovered, but there is less overall travel per capita due to teleworking and e-commerce. Based on current autonomous vehicle market data and trends, we do not expect fully autonomous vehicles to be widely available by 2030. However, over the next few decades, fully autonomous vehicles will be a much larger share of the privately-owned vehicle market. In a desirable area like Aspen and Snowmass Village, where residents tend to have higher incomes than the regional average and could purchase a private AV, we assumed the AV penetration at 50% by 2050. As AV adoption increases, research shows that VMT per capita will increase, at the expense of transit trips per capita since AVs reduce the stress of driving and Attachment 5 136 induce more overall travel. This is reflected in the 2050 travel trends, as VMT per capita increases and transit trips per capita decrease compared to 2030 conditions. Commuters Figure 8 and Table 4 show the results of TrendLab+ for commuters to Aspen and Snowmass Village in the immediate post-COVID, medium-term, and long-term. Figure 8: Commuter Travel Trends Table 4: Travel Trends for Commuters Travel Trends (compared to 2019 conditions) Metric 2025 2030 2050 VMT per capita 97% 99% 105% Transit Trips per capita 95% 108% 99% In the immediate post-pandemic future, both VMT and transit trips per capita are near pre-pandemic conditions for commuters, with minor decreases because of telecommuting and reduced staffing, as well as limited capacity on RFTA buses. By 2030, telecommuting will not be a major factor for commutes into Aspen and Snowmass Village, so VMT and transit trips per capita begin to increase. While other employment sectors may see a long-term shift to more telecommuting, our analysis at Aspen and Snowmass Village employment data from the US Census Bureau indicate that much of the employment in the communities is related to recreation, retail, and services that cannot be performed remotely. Attachment 5 137 In the 2030 time horizon, commuter VMT per capita stays a bit below pre-pandemic levels due to continued transit investments, limited parking supplies, and expanded transportation demand management (TDM) strategies in Aspen and Snowmass Village. However, by 2050, VMT per capita increases and transit trips decrease due to an increase in availability of autonomous vehicles. Transit trips per capita in 2050 do not decrease as much when compared to residents, since we expect a lower AV penetration rate in the commuter market. Local Visitors Figure 9 and Table 5 show the results of TrendLab+ for local visitors (defined as those living in or near the Roaring Fork Valley) to Aspen and Snowmass Village in the immediate post-COVID, medium-term, and long-term. Figure 9: Local Visitor Travel Trends Table 5: Travel Trends for Local Visitors Travel Trends (compared to 2019 conditions) Metric 2025 2030 2050 VMT per capita 104% 99% 113% Transit Trips per capita 94% 108% 101% In 2025, there is a bump in VMT per capita for local visitors to Aspen and Snowmass because of lingering concerns about using shared modes, as well as inertia from a period of low transit usage. By 2030, local visitor VMT per capita is near pre-pandemic levels and transit usage is higher due to improved transit operations as planned transit investments are completed by RFTA. By 2050, the effect of AVs again Attachment 5 138 increases VMT per capita while decreasing transit trips per capita. We expect the AV adoption rate of local visitors to be similar to that of commuters, potentially around 25% by 2050, which is lower than the adoption rate of residents of Aspen and Snowmass Village. Non-Local Visitors Figure 10 and Table 6 show the results of TrendLab+ for non-local visitors to Aspen and Snowmass in the immediate post-COVID, medium-term, and long-term. Non-local visitors are visitors who reside outside of the Roaring Fork Valley (i.e., beyond Glenwood Springs). Figure 10: Non-Local Visitor Travel Trends Table 6: Travel Trends for Non-Local Visitors Travel Trends (compared to 2019 conditions) Metric 2025 2030 2050 VMT per room/visit 104% 114% 118% Transit Trips per room/visit 94% 96% 90% In the case of non-local visitors, we found it helpful to slightly change the unit of analysis for the VMT and transit trip analysis. Since many non-local visitors stay in a hotel room/rental property within the Roaring Fork Valley, we evaluated the change in VMT and transit trips per room or visit rather than per capita, Attachment 5 139 because we anticipate that non-local visitation will increase at a rate beyond typical population growth. In 2025 and 2030 VMT increases, on a per room basis, as regional tourism is rediscovered and remains popular. By 2050, VMT increases additionally because our research indicates that AVs will induce more travel and make it easier to drive to Aspen and Snowmass Village. Specifically, our analysis indicates that non-local visitors could rent an AV, if they don’t already own a private AV, to travel to Aspen/Snowmass Village for the weekend or even a day trip, as people’s value of time is lower when traveling in a fully autonomous vehicle. Research suggests that long distance car trips could increase about 10% with access to fully autonomous vehicles2. Some research indicates that some of this AV visitor travel could occur overnight, similar to how a redeye flight functions. In general, our research indicates that transit trips for non-local visitors never recovers to pre-pandemic levels; however, transit does not play a large role in moving these visitors overall, with the exception of the connecting route between Aspen and Snowmass Village. This route is a good candidate for autonomous transit service, which could operate at higher frequencies across more service hours to provide a direct replacement for driving trips between the two resorts. Lower-cost long-distance autonomous transit services like an AV transit Bustang connection to Denver or Grand Junction could also change the number of visitors to Aspen and Snowmass Village by reducing overall travel costs and making long-distance transit more convenient, but there is little research on this topic and TrendLab+ does not consider this impact. Combined Results Figure 11 and Table 7 show the combined results of TrendLab+ in the immediate post-COVID, medium- term, and long-term across all travel markets, weighted by the total travel share. Figure 11: Combined Travel Trends for all Travel Markets 2 https://www.caee.utexas.edu/prof/kockelman/public_html/TRB18AVLong-DistanceTravel.pdf Attachment 5 140 Table 7: Combined Travel Trends for all Travel Markets Travel Trends (compared to 2019 conditions) Metric 2025 2030 2050 VMT per capita 102% 107% 113% Transit Trips per capita 93% 101% 98% This table represents the combined travel trends for all of the unique travel markets, calculated by weighting the trends for each travel market by their share of total VMT (see Figure 2Error! Reference source not found.). As shown, we expect VMT per capita will continue to increase in Aspen and Snowmass Village, reinforcing the need for the IMS strategies to mitigate against the quality of life, energy consumption, and GHG emissions related to vehicle travel in the Upper Valley. Evaluation Results In Phase 1, we developed an implementation framework for the identified IMS strategies, realizing that some strategies may take more time to implement than others due to political, technical, and financial challenges. With the more in-depth Phase 2 analysis, we considered the synergies of the different IMS strategies and identified five distinct packages that support the goal of VMT, congestion, and emissions reductions. These packages are, shown in Table 8. Table 8: Strategy Packages Package Strategies 1 Cordon Toll on SH 82 Phased BRT Enhancements 2 Managed Lanes on SH 82 Phased BRT Enhancements HOV Lane Enforcement 3 Parking Pricing Phased BRT Enhancements HOV Lane Enforcement 4 Ride Sharing HOV Lane Enforcement 5 Ride Hailing Each of the packages have independent utility, but some packages, notably packages 1, 2, and 3 would likely not be combined, whereas packages 4 and 5 could be implemented with any combination of other Attachment 5 141 packages. The packages were developed based, in part, on the Phase 1 finding that HOV lane enforcement did not have any direct VMT or GHG emissions benefits, but it strongly enhanced the other IMS strategies. Similarly, given that the Aspen/Snowmass Village area already has strong transit service, the BRT enhancements suggested in the IMS would have less of a stand-alone benefit than we would see in most other communities, but they provide fundamental support to increasing the cost of driving (through parking fees, tolls, or cordon charges) that are part of packages 1-3. For each package, we refined the previous modeling and elasticity research completed in Phase 1 to measure how the VMT for each travel market would be affected. Further refinements were made with the understanding that each travel market has different price sensitivities; for example, local visitors and residents may be able to shift departure times to avoid the highest tolls on SH 82 during peak hours, but non-local visitors will likely view the added cost as a small piece of their total vacation cost and therefore be less sensitive to pricing. After calculating the new VMT reduction caused by each strategy implementation, the long-term GHG emission reduction was calculated with Aspen’s standard emission factors, shown in Figure 12. Figure 12: GHG Emission Reduction by Strategy Package for Aspen & Snowmass Aspen’s 2017 VMT model estimates that on-road vehicles were responsible for about 69,000 metric tons of CO2; this estimate includes the VMT from all trips to/from Aspen and Snowmass Village, as well as within the city. The results in Figure 12 show that if Package 1 was implemented, Aspen could see an annual reduction in GHG emissions of about 16,500 metric tons from approximately 5,000 fewer daily vehicle trips across the Castle Creek Bridge. Attachment 5 142 Final Recommendation Package 1 and 2 are the only strategies that dramatically shift the needle in reducing VMT and GHG emissions in Aspen and Snowmass Village. These mobility management strategies will help ensure a sustainable transportation system from the perspective of economic vitality, quality of life, and environmental outcomes. As noted, these more aggressive strategies will require greater levels of funding, agency/jurisdictional cooperation, and public willingness for additional costs/restrictions on mobility. In exchange, there will be even greater levels of GHG emissions and VMT reductions, particularly for visitor trips. Therefore, one of these two packages is therefore recommended as the long-term strategy for managing vehicle travel in the Upper Roaring Fork Valley. This recommendation is in alignment with The Aspen Institute’s Upper Valley Mobility Report that strongly recommends dynamic roadway pricing on SH 82 and considers it the most reliable tool available to reduce traffic jams and carbon emissions in the region. However, the Upper Valley Mobility Report identified that strong social equity measures, such as enhanced and/or free alternative mobility options, are necessary to ensure the roadway toll is not a regressive tax. From the equity research presented in this report, implementing managed lanes on SH 82 would require less equity mitigation than a full cordon toll, as travelers could choose to drive for free in the general-purpose lanes. Given the long-time horizons required to implement either cordon or managed lane tolling into Aspen/Snowmass Village, package 3 could be used as an interim measure, basically extending the parking pricing strategy Aspen currently employs and working to bring more extensive parking pricing and management to Snowmass Village. Additionally, we do not see any downside for the jurisdictions in the area to encourage and perhaps provide technical or a modest financial investment in spurring dynamic ride sharing, as that model was beginning to take off in several communities prior to the COVID-19 pandemic. Also, we feel that there can be gains from expanded ride hailing, particularly the shared-ride model like is offered by Aspen’s Downtowner service. Building Greater Public Acceptance or Tolling In either tolled scenario, public knowledge and acceptance of the new fees, revenue allocation, and economic impact is key to successful congestion pricing, as public support is necessary to overcome the political difficulties of implementation. A key performance metric for gaining public support for tolls on SH 82 is travel time, which can be a more tangible benefit to tolling than reduced GHG emissions or lower energy consumption related to travel. Under normal AM peak hour conditions, travel time on SH 82 for the segment shown in Figure 13, from just north of Woody Creek to the Castle Creek Bridge, is about 27 minutes. Attachment 5 143 Figure 13: AM Peak Hour Speeds on SH 82 – July 2019 Data Under full cordon charge or for travelers in the managed lane, travel time during AM peak hour could decrease to 15 minutes, a 45% decrease that would benefit all people traveling into Aspen. Attachment 5 144 Figure 14: AM Peak Hour Speeds on SH 82 Assuming Cordon Tolling or Managed Lanes For managed lanes, the travel time benefits would only apply to the tolled lanes. Legislative Hurdles In addition to the challenge of convincing the public that there are enough benefits to pricing what is now free travel between down valley communities and Aspen/Snowmass Village, there are potential legal and political challenges to implementing congestion pricing on SH 82, whether as a managed lane or a cordon toll. This section broadly examines the feasibility of tolling existing lanes on SH 82 approaching Aspen and Snowmass Village. The two tolling scenarios outlined in this report are: 1) Converting the existing High-Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) and bus-only lane to an express lane or High- Occupancy Toll (HOT) lane; per state law, all HOT lanes require at least three persons per vehicle to qualify as a toll-free vehicle. 2) Converting all lanes to tolled lanes (creating a toll to enter both Aspen and Snowmass Village) In 2020, CDOT and Colorado’s High Performance Transportation Enterprise (HPTE) released the Colorado Express Lane Master Plan (CELMP), which identified and prioritized corridors for express lane development, including SH 82 between Glenwood Springs and Aspen. Based on a series of scoring factors, such as congestion reduction, transit support, public support/opinion, and planned highway expansion, SH 82 was not selected for prioritization due to its low overall score compared to other higher- volume facilities in the Front Range region. To date, no other regional or state plans have considered the feasibility of constructing toll lanes on SH 82 or converting the existing HOV to HOT lanes. Attachment 5 145 Express lanes on state highways in Colorado are currently operated by two organizations: CDOT and HPTE. HPTE is a government-owned business tasked with financing and delivering surface transportation infrastructure; and, as mentioned prior, did not select SH 82 for express lane development. Unlike CDOT, HPTE has the authority to collect revenues and often provides public-private partnership contracts. Per Colorado state law, jurisdictions wishing to convert existing High-Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) lanes to express lanes (HOT lanes) must enter into contracts with private entities for toll operations. To convert HOV lanes on SH 82, the leading jurisdiction (e.g. Pitkin County) would likely collaborate with CDOT and an entity like HPTE to establish a toll system and collect revenue. While there is no Colorado law prohibiting the conversion of HOV lanes to HOT lanes, all existing Express Lanes in the state have been a part of a highway expansion project, due to the challenges of obtaining approval. For any potential conversion, state law requires that CDOT get sign-off from every “affected jurisdiction.” While not clearly defined in a statute, the CELMP references affected jurisdictions as any jurisdiction that the corridor passes through. This would imply that jurisdictional approval required from Pitkin County, the town of Basalt, Snowmass Village, and the City of Aspen. Based upon publicly available documentation, administrative procedures required to introduce an express lane (HOT lane) a state highway are complex. Per Colorado state law, the planning process of establishing tolling facilities, via an entity like a public highway authority or enterprise, consists of several steps: 1. Review by every metropolitan planning organization or regional planning commission that is located in whole or in part of the proposed project, 2. Environmental analysis to ensure that anticipated local and regional emissions levels will conform to state implementation plan guidance (each involved organization or commission may condition its approval of the project based on environmental mitigation efforts), 3. Inclusion of the project in the regional transportation plan and the comprehensive statewide transportation plan, 4. Project information delivery to the relevant metropolitan planning organization or regional planning commission thirty days prior to regional plan amendment (including environmental documentation, operation plans, proposed technology, feasibility and long-term viability); and 5. Consultation with representatives from all local governments located in whole or in part of the project to consider mitigation of negative impacts as a result of construction, operation, or financing of the project. While jurisdictions may designate HOV lanes and convert them to HOT/express lanes, there is no legislation explicitly authorizing the conversion of general-purpose lanes to tolled lanes. To realize the full VMT and GHG benefits from Package 1, Aspen, Snowmass Village, and Pitkin County should prioritize lobbying for legislative change in Colorado. While not a focus of this study, a likely place to place a cordon toll would be on SH 82 just east of Brush Creek Road, and on Brush Creek Road just south/west of SH 82. Independence Pass should also have a cordon toll for travelers accessing the region from the east during summer. An additional toll cordon may be needed on McClain Flats Road/Cemetery Lane, but placement would need to be considered to avoid impacts to local residents along the street, who are not the target of the toll. Attachment 5 146 Implementing Package 1 or 2 will require significant institutional outreach (e.g. CDOT and HPTE), administrative research, future stakeholder engagement, and likely an environmental analysis of the impacts of the tolling. In conclusion, based upon this analysis, conversion of HOV lanes on SH 82 to an express lane is possible under the existing laws while a full cordon toll would need a change to State Law to expressly allow a jurisdiction to toll an existing facility. Equity Impact & Mitigation Analysis As part of the Phase 2 work, we prepared an equity analysis regarding the impact and potential mitigation options of IMS strategy implementation, with a particular emphasis on the tolling packages. Congestion-pricing in the United States generally includes tollways and priced lanes on major corridors that experience recurring traffic congestion. As described by the FHWA in Income-Based Equity Impacts of Congestion Pricing (2008), when planning for these facilities there are three types of equity considerations that relate to the distribution of benefits and impacts: income, geographic, modal. Income equity addresses whether low-income groups are affected by congestion pricing/tolls; geographic equity addresses the impacts of pricing such as traffic diversion; and modal equity addresses public perceptions regarding encouragement of a multimodal transportation. While all equity considerations are important to consider, income equity can have a direct effect on roadway users. On the SH 82 corridor, many workers commute into Aspen and Snowmass Village from areas where housing prices are lower, such as Carbondale and Glenwood Springs, since the housing prices in Aspen/Snowmass Village are some of the highest in the country. Other types of roadway users such as independent contractors (such as trucking and construction) may use the roadway differently and more frequently and these users may value time during the workday differently, therefore benefitting from time savings resulting from congestion pricing or managed lanes. Equity considerations concerning congestion pricing and priced lanes are documented in multiple research and evaluation sources with varying conclusions. Income-Based Equity Impacts of Congestion Pricing. US Department of Transportation, FHWA. 2008. http://media.metro.net/projects_studies/expresslanes/images/fhwahop08040.pdf This report finds that the use of congestion-priced lanes by both low and high-income users is selective, and regardless of income, people pay for access to the lanes when they see utility in the time savings. The report also notes that overall, about half of the users of congestion priced lanes only do so once a week or less. The report makes a distinction between Partial (one or more priced lanes) and Full (full roadway tolling) pricing scenarios to identify the perception of “unfairness” of priced lanes. While equity related data in the Full scenario is limited, the study finds that congestion pricing is not an inequitable way of responding to traffic congestion. Approval ratings are generally high for all income groups, in the 60-80% range because all roadway users value the “insurance” of a reliable trip when they need it. Attachment 5 147 I-405 Express Toll Lanes Analysis: Usage, Benefits, and Equity. TRAC Washington State Transportation Center. 2019. http://depts.washington.edu/trac/research-news/freeway-and-arterial-management/i- 405-express-toll-lanes-analysis-usage-benefits-and-equity/ This study examined the dynamic tolling facility on I-405 in the Seattle area and project benefits to users, as well as how these benefits are distributed across various groups of non-commercial roadway users. Higher income groups were found to use the facility more often compared to lower income groups. Similar to findings in the FHWA report, the study found that lower income users used the facility most strategically and selectively, so they were able to obtain a higher net benefit compared to higher income users. A large number of lower income users used the facility periodically throughout the year, showing that the lanes have value when a driver’s time is limited. Atlanta Regional Managed Lane System Plan – Social Equity and Environmental Effects and Evaluation . Georgia Department of Transportation. 2010. http://www.dot.ga.gov/BuildSmart/Studies/ManagedLanesDocuments/Social%20Equity%20and%20En vironmental%20Effect%20Evaluation.pdf This document provides an overview of potential equity and environmental issues related to implementing managed lanes in the Atlanta region for multiple corridors. The study notes that all users pay the same toll regardless of income status, which is regressive considering the toll represents a different proportion of income for various users. However, transit enhancements paid through toll revenue is a way to redistribute transportation benefits to the corridors. They also note that cash payments should be permitted (or a means to load cash onto a toll transponder) to avoid adverse social impacts, as some users may not have a bank account. Regarding health and environmental impacts, the study notes that a managed lane system offers reduced levels of congestion while also limiting the amount of induced travel (because the faster speeds are offset by a cash toll), which leads to lessened vehicle emissions and improved air quality. Managed Lanes in Texas: A Review of the Application of Congestion Pricing. Texas A&M Transportation Institute. 2016. https://static.tti.tamu.edu/tti.tamu.edu/documents/PRC-15-47-F.pdf This report examines congestion pricing on managed lane facilities in Texas, which has used congestion pricing systems since 1998. Texas facilities include fully dynamic pricing (price changes continuously based on traffic levels) and fixed time of day pricing, where the prices are fixed for a certain time period, but prices are higher during peak travel periods. One unique feature of the managed lanes in the Dallas area is that trucks are allowed to use these lanes but pay higher prices. In most states, trucks are not allowed in managed lanes (although they are allowed on I-25 in Colorado with a $25 surcharge on the regular toll). Many of Texas’ managed facilities were converted from HOV to priced lanes (where carpools are still free) as a way to increase capacity for SOV users where HOV lane demand was lower. Raising revenues for roadway projects, increasing-peak-period congestion, and air quality compliance were all issues intended to be addressed by managed lanes. This study did not explicitly investigate equity issues, but the usage patterns suggest similar benefits and issues as raised by the earlier studies. Attachment 5 148 Equity and Congestion Pricing- A Review of the Evidence. RAND Corporation. 2009. https://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/technical_reports/2009/RAND_TR680.pdf This study looks at congestion pricing projects and proposals in the United States that have been rejected based on worries that congestion pricing is inequitable, and the evidence that might support of negate these claims. Equity is defined in this report as the distribution of costs and benefits among members of society, whether monetary or non-monetary. The report includes an assessment of welfare-based evaluations of equity and congestion pricing, noting that the payment of congestion pricing fees is slightly less regressive than sales or gasoline tax, but that lower income users would not benefit as much from congestion pricing because they have less flexibility in travel behavior. The report also discusses ways the implementation of congestion pricing systems such as Cordon Pricing and HOT lanes affects equity. The authors note that the definition of the tolling area relative to the spatial distribution of low-income neighborhoods can affect equity. In Edinburgh, a proposed system would have exempted higher income users because of the city’s administrative boundaries. A British study found that cordon pricing can be progressive, neutral, or regressive depending on how incomes are distributed in the region. For example, if the cordon primarily effects higher income residents/employees but distributes revenues in a way that primarily benefits lower income residents/employees, the cordon fee could be progressive. Conclusions on Equity Impacts of Congestion Pricing and Tolling Based on the literature reviewed above, it appears that congestion pricing, in general, could have a greater impact on lower income residents and employees since the price charged does not vary based on income. The effects are less pronounced for priced lanes compared to an overall cordon toll since the priced lanes include a free (although congested) option for those who cannot or do not want to pay for that particular trip. These findings are entirely in-line with the Aspen Institute’s Upper Valley Mobility Report. Implementing congestion pricing on SH 82 could add an additional cost burden for these people, while residents who can afford to both live and work in Aspen would not need to regularly pay this cost, which could add to the disparate impact of tolling. Priced lanes can be seen as inequitable because rush hour travelers who commute in the same direction as congestion (where congestion pricing would be most effective) are largely affluent and are more capable of paying the cost (Rand Corporation and Volpe National Transportation Systems Center, 2007). However, there may be options to reinvest tolling revenue into transit facilities as to improve transit performance and mobility for riders. Equitable Revenue Redistribution Redistribution of revenue collected from managed lanes is a common equity related theme in the studies reviewed. A 2007 study in King County, WA found that lower income people are more likely to be transit riders and would benefit most from transit speed and reliability improvements. Cities such as Minneapolis and Los Angeles currently dedicate a portion of their highway toll revenue to transit operations (through greater frequency of service) and speed/reliability improvements. Attachment 5 149 Investing a portion of tolling revenue into transit can address all three areas of equity, as it provides an efficient mode of transportation between cities that fundamentally reduces VMT. Given the SH 82 corridor already contains a BUS ONLY lane west of Aspen, transit can currently operate efficiently during times of congestion. However, strategies such as using tolling revenue to subsidize transit fares, increasing frequencies, improving transit stops, and further improving transit speed and reliability through additional BUS ONLY lanes and transit signal priority can be additional options. These improvements would serve both current riders and may attract additional riders. In the context of the Upper Valley, redistributed toll revenues could be used to reduce the cost of the RFTA BRT trip into Aspen and Snowmass Village or as a “feebate” where people who ride transit are given funds for riding transit (subject to a monthly or annual cap) since transit is already free to ride within these communities. Under either tolling strategy, redistributed toll revenue should be directed towards transit improvements and reduced RFTA trip costs to minimize the equity impact of strategy implementation and enhance the alternative mobility options for traveling into Snowmass Village and Aspen. In Pricing Roads Advancing Equity (2019), TRANSFORM describes that congestion pricing generally reduces driving by 15-20% and congestion by 30% or more. While some people may see this decrease as an opportunity to drive alone in a car, the reduced congestion can also help transit operations since it reduces traffic making turns at intersections, allowing for better transit mobility in the curbside BUS ONLY lane. While the economic impact to lower income people resulting from congestion pricing has validity, there are strategies that can be explored to help efficiently and equitably move people through the multimodal corridor. Another consideration to mitigate equity for travelers paying the cordon toll or driving in the managed lane is to implement a two-tiered tolling system for verified low-income travelers who live in or work in Aspen or Snowmass Village. This system could provide transponders with lower tolls for those who are already verified as low-income through RFTA; however, this could result in people exploiting the ability to sell these devices. Another option would be implementing license plate tolling with the option for users to register and verify their income for a discounted toll. This option is analogous to how transit fares and utility payments are reduced to lessen the cost burden on low-income residents who rely on these services. Performance Measures & Evaluation Framework As strategies are implemented, it is important to monitor the success of the program. Performance monitoring will help quantify how well the IMS strategies are working to reduce SOV travel, increase transit ridership, and reduce VMT and GHG emissions in the Upper Valley. The proposed performance measures build off existing data collected and maintained by the City of Aspen, Snowmass Village, RFTA, and Pitkin County. The proposed evaluation framework incorporates all performance measures and provides guidance for when the county and cities should be collecting and evaluating the specified data sources to ensure success of the plan. Attachment 5 150 Traffic Counts The City of Aspen currently collects monthly Average Daily Traffic (ADT) volumes at the Castle Creek bridge on State Highway 82, which serves as the entry point to Aspen. The City’s goal is to maintain monthly ADT at 1993 levels. Table 9 summarizes the 1993 traffic monthly ADT. Table 9: Monthly ADT at Castle Creek Bridge Monthly AADT Year: 1993 January 23,800 February 24,300 March 24,800 April 18,800 May 19,300 June 26,200 July 28,600 August 28,600 September 24,000 October 20,500 November 20,000 December 25,200 In addition to the Castle Creek Bridge counts, we recommend additional count locations be added to monitor the change in vehicle volumes entering Snowmass Village. Snowmass Village has some historical counts on Brush Creek Road, which would be a good screenline location for the city. Based on data collection from Pitkin County, ADT on Brush Creek Road was 10,000 in winter 2003. However, based on discussions with Snowmass Village staff, Owl Creek Road carries an increasing amount of traffic, so both roadways should be considered for additional vehicle counts to understand total volumes. While monthly volumes provide solid data to track over time, they might be more than is necessary or sustainable from a data collection standpoint. Therefore, if twice yearly data can be collected during a peak December and July/August week, this would suffice to track VMT and traffic growth trends into and out of Snowmass over time. We recommend collecting data on both Brush Creek Road and Owl Creek Road immediately south/west of SH 82. VMT VMT data is necessary to quantify congestion reduction and measure GHG emissions from transportation. The City of Aspen currently maintains a VMT model, last updated in 2018, that accounts for all on-road activity occurring within Aspen and as a result of traveling to/from Aspen. This model is used to estimate GHG emissions to evaluate the city’s progress at meeting their Climate Action Plan (CAP) goals and is updated every few years. An update underway for 2021 will include VMT analysis for all of Pitkin County. Attachment 5 151 Because Snowmass Village will now be included in the model, this tool should be used to monitor VMT across the Upper Valley. VMT data for the Upper Valley should be calculated every 2-3 years, and occasionally calibrated using big data VMT sources. GHG Emissions GHG emissions can be calculated from VMT data by multiplying VMT by standard emission factors. The City of Aspen performs a GHG inventory using their VMT model every few years to quantify emissions and understand the progress to meeting the GHG reduction targets set in their Climate Action Plan (CAP). Similarly to the VMT estimation above, once Snowmass Village is included in Aspen’s VMT model, this approach should be used to calculate GHG emissions for the Upper Valley. GHG emissions factors should be updated every 2-3 years to reflect the changing vehicle fleet mix, fuel sources, and carbon content of vehicle fuels/energy sources. Transit Ridership The IMS strategies outlined in the implementation plan rely on the availability of transit to support travel into Aspen and Snowmass. Strategies that aim to reduce single occupancy vehicle trips only succeed when there is a reliable alternative to driving in a private vehicle. A public transit option is also a critical element to reduce the equity impacts of any strategy that increases the cost of driving/parking. While the IMS encourages the use of ridesharing and ridehailing, given the robust transit services provided by RFTA and the City of Aspen, transit will remain one the most viable alternative to driving if congestion and or costs cause drivers to seek other ways to get to and from their destinations. Historical ridership data from RFTA should be used to set a baseline for transit trips into Aspen and Snowmass Village during summer and winter seasons. Trips between Aspen and Snowmass Village should be documented on a regular basis as well to monitor the amount of travel between the two communities on transit. RFTA maintains route and stop-level ridership data for the transit routes serving Aspen and Snowmass Village, which should continue to be tracked every year to understand transit growth and mode shift to transit. Travel Time Being able to quantify travel time changes to Aspen and Snowmass Village through IMS strategy implementation is a key performance measure to build public support. To provide a baseline travel time along SH 82, transportation data vendors such as INRIX, HERE, or Streetlight Data could be used, which allows for purchase of historical speed/travel time data, which would allow Pitkin County to set a baseline of 2019 conditions. Future travel time calculations could continue to rely on big data vendors or traditional floating car surveys. Travel time data should be collected during both summer and winter peak seasons and during the AM and PM peak hours. Travel times for buses, carpools, and general purpose vehicles should collected. Travel time should be collected every 2-3 years. Attachment 5 152 Parking Utilization Parking utilization data for Aspen and Snowmass Village provides another perspective on vehicle trip demand entering both cities. Aspen maintains a comprehensive database of hourly parking occupancy in the parking garage and downtown spaces, as well as daily carpool counts in the residential parking areas. Aspen also collects parking occupancy counts at the Brush Creek Park and Ride, which is the major transit Park and Ride lot for employees and visitors to the Upper Valley. Snowmass Village has more limited parking data; they collect 12 PM counts at the day skier lots and garage during the winter ski season. In the core area of Snowmass Village, parking passes are required for the permitted lots. The parking passes have separate designations for residents, employees, and visitors and are not available to day trippers, so they track a separate pool of travelers. Therefore, the day skier lots and garage in Snowmass primarily serve visitors as well as some employees. Parking data should continue to be collected daily in both Aspen and Snowmass and analyzed every few years to track trends in people parking private vehicles. Parking utilization should be collected for both summer and winter seasons. Summary Table 10 summarizes the performance measures and evaluation framework described above. Table 10: Evaluation Framework Summary Performance Measure Evaluation Details Traffic Counts Collect data during a peak December and July/August week for:  Brush Creek Road  Owl Creek Road Continue to collect monthly ADT vehicle counts at:  Castle Creek Bridge VMT VMT should be calculated every 2-3 years using the City of Aspen VMT model, and occasionally calibrated using Big Data GHG Emissions GHG emissions factors and total GHG emissions should be updated every 2-3 years Transit Ridership Continue to monitor RFTA’s route and stop-level ridership data for the transit routes serving Aspen and Snowmass Village annually Attachment 5 153 Travel Time Travel times for buses, carpools, and general- purpose vehicles should collected every 2-3 years Parking Utilization Parking data should continue to be collected daily during peak seasons in both Aspen and Snowmass and analyzed every 2-3 years Attachment 5 154 Integrated Mobility Study Phase 2 ASPEN INSTITUTE MAY 2021 Attachment 5 155