Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutEOTC Agenda 4-6-23Elected Officials Transportation Committee (EOTC) Thursday, April 6, 2023 - 4:00pm Pitkin County Board of Commissioners Meeting Room 530 E. Main, 1st Floor, Aspen, CO 81611 Host and Chair – Pitkin County MEETING IS VIRTUAL AND IN PERSON You can view the livestream on Grassroots TV (Channel 11 CGTV) and on pitkincounty.com/374/County-Webcasts View meeting via Zoom: https://us02web.zoom.us/j/83545880013?pwd=WDFnQ3F4WHVPeHhlRlorb04zcFk0QT 09 Passcode: 876072 Or One tap mobile : US: +17193594580; telephone: +17193594580 Webinar ID: 835 4588 0013 Passcode: 876072 International numbers available: https://us02web.zoom.us/u/kN17gKCFn AGENDA I. 4:00 – 4:05 CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL II. 4:05 – 4:10 APPROVAL OF OCTOBER 27, 2022 ACTION MINUTES III. 4:10 - 4:20 PUBLIC COMMENT FOR ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA (Comments limited to three minutes per person) IV. 4:20 - 4:30 EOTC COMMITTEE MEMBER UPDATES V. 4:30 – 5:15 SNOWMASS REGIONAL TRANSIT SERVICE ANALYSIS Marc Warner, Warner Transportation Consulting Sam Guarino, Transportation Director, Town of Snowmass Village No decision needed at this time; information only VI. 5:15 – 6:00 INFORMATION ONLY: UPDATES (Q&A) A. Near Term Transit Improvement Program B. Brush Creek Park and Ride C. HOV Lane Enforcement D. Dynamic Road Pricing VII. ADJOURN MEETING (Motion, Second, and Roll Call Vote by Jurisdiction) * Next Regular EOTC meeting is June 29, 2023 – Town of Snowmass Village, Host & Chair EOTC Background, Documents, and Packet Materials may be found here: https://pitkincounty.com/1322/Elected-Officials-Transportation-Committ 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. EOTC Mission: Work collectively to reduce and manage the volume of vehicles on the road and parking system and continue to develop and support a comprehensive multimodal, long-range strategy that will insure a convenient, equitable and efficient transportation system for the Roaring Fork Valley. Summary of State Statue and Ballot Requirements: The 0.5% County Transit Sales and Use Tax shall be used for the purpose and financing, constructing, operating and managing a public, fixed route mass transportation system within the Roaring Fork Valley. ELECTED OFFICIALS TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE (EOTC) AGREEMENTS & DECISIONS REACHED REGULAR MEETING October 27, 2022 Location (In Person and Virtual) – Pitkin County Board Room Pitkin County - Host & Chair • For a video production of this meeting, go to: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=inty0tyyFvg&list=PLYAoFMw_qLSv- q6AcF02Zi07y-aPnU3Mp&index=2 • To access the Elected Officials Transportation Committee meeting packet material: https://www.pitkincounty.com/1322/Elected-Officials-Transportation-Committ, then ‘EOTC Archived Packets’) Elected Officials in Attendance: Aspen – 5 Pitkin County - 5 Snowmass - 3 Rachael Richards Steve Child Bill Madsen Skippy Mesirow Kelly McNicholas Kury Tom Fridstein John Doyle Greg Poschman Alyssa Shenk Ward Hauenstein Patti Clapper Mayor Torre Francie Jacober Absent: Tom Goode, Bob Sirkus ______________________________________________________________________________ CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL Commission Chair Patti Clapper called the meeting of the Elected Officials Transportation Committee (EOTC) to order at 4:21 p.m. followed by a roll-call for attendance. APPROVAL OF THE MAY 26, 2022 ACTION MINUTES Commissioner Steve Child made a motion to approve the Agreements and Decisions reached from May 26, 2022. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Clapper. Pitkin County: The votes were: Kelly McNicholas Kury, yes; Greg Poschman, yes; Patti Clapper, yes; Steve Child, yes; Francie Jacober, motion carried. Town of Snowmass Village: The votes were: Bill Madsen, yes; Tom Fridstein, yes; Alyssa Shenk, yes; motion carried. City of Aspen: The votes were: Torre, yes; Skippy Mesirow, yes; John Doyle, yes; Ward Hauenstein, yes; Rachael Richards, yes; motion carried. PUBLIC COMMENT FOR ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA Commissioner Clapper requested any public comment for items not on the agenda. No comments from the public for items not on the agenda were identified. EOTC COMMITTEE MEMBER UPDATES There were no updates from EOTC members. PUBLIC HEARINGS EOTC PROPOSED BUDGET FOR 2023 EOTC Staff Brian Pettet, Pitkin County Public Works Director; Sam Guarino, Transportation Director for Town of Snowmass Village, and Pete Rice, Assistant City Engineer for City of Aspen. As this was Linda DuPriest’s first meeting as the new Regional Transportation Director, current EOTC staff from each member jurisdictions presented the proposed budget. Commissioner Clapper made a motion to approve the 2023 Budget. Commissioner Child seconded the motion. No public comment was received and the public hearing was closed. The vote to approve the EOTC 2023 Budget was conducted by jurisdiction. The vote was as follows: Pitkin County: Kelly McNicholas Kury, yes; Greg Poschman, yes; Patti Clapper, yes; Steve Child, yes; motion carried. Town of Snowmass Village: Bill Madsen, yes; Tom Fridstein, yes; Alyssa Shenk, yes; motion carried. City of Aspen: Torre, yes; Skippy Mesirow, yes; John Doyle, yes; Ward Hauenstein, yes; Rachael Richards, yes; motion carried. EOTC PROPOSED WORK PLAN FOR 2023 EOTC Staff Brian Pettet, Pitkin County Public Works Director; Sam Guarino, Transportation Director for Town of Snowmass Village, and Pete Rice, Assistant City Engineer for City of Aspen Commissioner Clapper made a motion to approve the 2023 Work Plan. Commissioner Child seconded the motion. No public comment was received and the public hearing was closed. The vote to approve the EOTC 2023 Work Plan was conducted by jurisdiction. The vote was as follows: Pitkin County: Kelly McNicholas Kury, yes; Greg Poschman, yes; Patti Clapper, yes; Steve Child, yes; motion carried. Town of Snowmass Village: Bill Madsen, yes; Tom Fridstein, yes; Alyssa Shenk, yes; motion carried. City of Aspen: Torre, yes; Skippy Mesirow, yes; John Doyle, yes; Ward Hauenstein, yes; Rachael Richards, yes; motion carried. ADJOURN REGULAR MEETING Councilor Richards moved to adjourn the regular meeting of the Elected Officials Transportation Committee at 6:16 p.m. Councilor Fridstein seconded the motion. Motion passed with 11 yea votes. City of Aspen _________________ Torre, Mayor City Council _________________ Nicole Henning City Clerk Town of Snowmass Village _________________ Bill Madsen, Mayor Town Council _________________ Megan Boucher Town Clerk Pitkin County ___________________ Francie Jacober, Chair Board of County Commissioners ___________________ Julia Ely Clerk to the Board of County Commissioners ___________________ Linda DuPriest Regional Transportation Director AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY EOTC MEETING DATE: April 6, 2023 AGENDA ITEM TITLE: Snowmass Regional Transit Service Analysis STAFF RESPONSIBLE: Linda DuPriest, Regional Transportation Director ISSUE STATEMENT: In 2022 as one element of the Near Term Transit Improvement Program, the EOTC initiated the Snowmass Regional Transit Service Analysis, engaging Warner Transportation Consultants for the project. A report was submitted in July 2022 with initial findings and conclusions after which EOTC staff initiated additional work to analyze enhanced transit service during the summer between Aspen and Snowmass. This item is to discuss these reports. Executive Summary: The Snowmass Regional Transit Service Analysis project sought to identify feasible and cost-effective improvements to transit services for passengers heading to or from Snowmass Village. The research examined the following: - assessment of the effects of alternative schedules and holding times for Snowmass shuttles at Brush Creek Park & Ride; - potential benefits and feasibility of alternative routing of RFTA buses in the core of Snowmass Village; - productivity and scheduling of buses operating directly between Snowmass Village and downvalley communities; - deficiencies of bus stops along Brush Creek Road and Carriage Way - feasibility of non-winter, direct service between Snowmass Village and Rubey Park. The first report deals with the first four of these; a second report focuses on the last. Marc Warner of Warner Transportation Consulting, Inc. will summarize the findings in his presentation to the EOTC on April 6, 2023. This will include RFTA's response and whether any recommendations are readily implementable or dependent on RFTA operational capabilities, available funding, and other factors. ATTACHMENTS: Snowmass Regional Transit Service Analysis – initial findings and conclusions Snowmass Regional Transit Service Analysis – options for enhanced summer service To: David Pesnichak, Pitkin County From: Marc Warner Date: July 2, 2022 Re: Snowmass Regional Transit Service Analysis—Initial findings and conclusions This memo lays out the following preliminary recommendations to improve transit service to and from Snowmass Village: • Route RFTA buses along Carriage Way in both directions (page 2) • In non-winter seasons from 6 AM to 8 PM, stop holding SM-I or Valley Local buses at Brush Creek P&R, and use the time saved to cut SM-I headway from 15 minutes to 12 minutes; add a fourth bus on SM-I service during periods of highest demand (page 4) • Run the small set of Snowmass-Valley direct buses during peak seasons as resources allow (page 14) • Fix some deficiencies at particular Snowmass Village bus stops (page 21) The memo also includes key results of a survey of commuters to Snowmass Village (page 22), and traveler characteristics: Snowmass Village vs. Aspen (page 39). 177 Riverside Drive, Northampton, MA 01062 413 585-5026 warnertransportation.com WARNER TRANSPORTATION CONSULTING Snowmass Regional Transit Service Analysis--Progress report Warner Transportation Consulting, Inc. page 2 Preliminary recommendation 1: Route RFTA buses along Carriage Way in both directions RFTA buses to Snowmass Village now operate from Wood Road to the Mall one way up Brush Creek Road, and then one-way down Carriage Way from the Mall back to Wood Road. It would make more sense from a ridership perspective to aligning these buses on Carriage Way in both directions. To see this, consider the RFTA boardings and alightings on the stops affected: March 17 boardings March 17 alightings Brush Creek Rd + Wood Rd Uphill and Downhill 162 1,196 Brush Creek Rd + Hawk Ridge Ln Uphill 34 38 Brush Creek Rd + Divide Rd Uphill 39 55 Snowmass Mall 2,929 3,640 Stonebridge Inn Downhill 996 79 Base Village 1,719 465 Sum of these stops 5,879 5,473 While the total boardings and alightings at these stops are about the same over the course of the day, there are huge imbalances by stop. This suggests that about 700 riders who get off at the layover stop at the Mall are walking down to destinations closer to the Stonebridge Inn. Likewise, about 1,000 riders are getting off at Wood Road uphill and then walking across the Wood Road bridge to destinations closer to Base Village. Aligning the buses on Carriage Way in both directions would eliminate these imbalances and allow 1700 or so current riders to have shorter walks between the bus stop and their Snowmass Village destination in both directions. It would also eliminate the accident risk for pedestrians and delays to motorists by significantly reducing the number of people crossing Brush Creek Road by the Wood Road rotary. The proposed change would lead to longer walks to the bus stop for travelers heading to Hawk Ridge or Snowmass Regional Transit Service Analysis--Progress report Warner Transportation Consulting, Inc. page 3 Divide Road, but these stops currently get bus service only in the uphill direction and account for only 1.4 percent of the total RFTA boardings and alightings in the core part of Snowmass Village. Is this change operationally feasible? Here’s what this change would require: • RFTA would have to relocate the Wood Road Uphill bus stop to a spot east of the Wood Road rotary. The proposed location shown at right would also allow easy access to the walkway at the edge of the parking lot to Clark’s Market. • New bus loading and unloading locations in the Base Village tunnel to allow for bi-directional bus movements. • New Stonebridge Uphill bus stop. The spot marked would allow about 100 feet of pullout space outside the uphill traffic lane. • Confirmation that full-size RFTA buses can make the tight turn into the bus bays at the Mall. The TOSV buses already make this turn, but they are smaller than the RFTA buses. Proposed Stonebridge Uphill pullout bus stop Proposed Wood Road Uphill pullout bus stop New path Snowmass Regional Transit Service Analysis--Progress report Warner Transportation Consulting, Inc. page 4 Preliminary recommendation 2: In non-winter seasons from 6 AM to 8 PM, stop holding SM-I or Valley Local buses at Brush Creek P&R, and use the time saved to cut SM -I headway from 15 minutes to 12 minutes; add a fourth bus on SM-I service during periods of highest demand The benefits of connecting at Brush Creek Park & Ride from an operational perspective Snowmass Village is at the top of Brush Creek Road, and anyone heading to it will never be on the way to anywhere else. The amount of regional transit service to Snowmass Village must therefore be what it can justify on its own. At its busiest--in ski season—it can justify a fair amount. During these months, and with significant funding from the Aspen Ski Co, RFTA operates frequent direct buses between Aspen and Snowmass Village. It also runs a few direct buses between Downvalley communities and Snowmass Village during peak hours in the peak direction. In other seasons, with less activity and travel demand, RFTA does not run direct buses from Aspen to Snowmass Village. The agency would have run peak period, peak direction buses to Snowmass Village from Downvalley Communities this summer, but cancelled them due to lack of bus operators. Thus, outside of the winter season, the only option for regional transit access to Snowmass Village is the “SM- I” bus running between the Mall and the bottom of Brush Creek Road, where riders can connect to the BRT and Valley Local routes at the Brush Creek Park & Ride. From an operational perspective, this approach of running a connecting service at Brush Creek P&R is an efficient way to provide Snowmass service. For any given operating budget, or more directly, number of buses, vehicle miles, operating hours, or this year’s particular constraint--bus operators, it offers the highest trip frequency and/or the longest service span of buses to and from Snowmass Village. Diverting some Valley Locals or BRTs to Snowmass Village instead of to Aspen would also be an option, but Aspen has much heavier travel and transit demand, and this would thus be a net loss systemwide productivity. The disadvantages of connecting at Brush Creek Park & Ride from a passenger perspective From a passenger perspective, however, the benefits of the connection—more frequency, longer service span, more trip choices—are not always evident, and are in any case offset in part by the need for a two- seat ride and the time spent waiting for the next bus at Brush Creek P&R. The goal of RFTA, then, is to make the connection as painless as possible. In key ways, it already has: the detour to the park-and-ride is less than 1,000 feet; the passengers have an attractive semi-enclosed shelter with benches and heat lamps, and the walk from one bus to another is a few steps without any need to cross a road. RFTA also coordinates the schedules for the Snowmass and Valley Local buses (in both directions). The chart below shows the current scheduled arrival times at Brush Creek P&R between 7 and 9 AM for the SM-I, Valley Local, and BRT buses. You can see the match up of the Valley Local and SM-I buses on the hour and the half hour, and that travelers on the BRT would have a scheduled wait time of 9 to 12 minutes for the next bus to Snowmass Village. Snowmass Regional Transit Service Analysis--Progress report Warner Transportation Consulting, Inc. page 5 This 9-minute (upvalley BRT) and 12-minute (downvalley BRT) connection time from the BRT to the Snowmass bus would eliminate much of the time advantage of the BRT’s shorter travel time compared with the Valley Local. A more important issue is that these scheduled connection times are unreliable. Buses do not arrive at Brush Creek P&R with anywhere near perfect schedule adherence, and a bus rider waiting for the Snowmass bus—after getting off either the BRT or the Valley Local--may get very unlucky. The charts below, based on AVL/APC data, show the number of minutes at Brush Creek P&R between the actual arrival of the upvalley BRT or Valley Local, and the actual next departure of an SM-I bus to Snowmass over 13 days in June 2021. The period shown from 6 AM to 8 PM is when RFTA operates the most service in the SH 82 corridor. Snowmass Regional Transit Service Analysis--Progress report Warner Transportation Consulting, Inc. page 6 You can see that a BRT rider heading upvalley to Snowmass cannot count on the nine-minute connection specified in the timetable. In fact, the average connection time over these hours is 8.13 minutes, and the common statistical measure of dispersion, the standard deviation, is 7.33 minutes. Given this, the BRT upvalley traveler couldn’t be 95 percent confident of leaving on the Snowmass bus in less than 22.50 minutes after arriving at Brush Creek P&R. Snowmass-bound travelers on the upvalley Valley Local buses have a shorter and somewhat more predictable connection time at Brush Creek P&R. This is in part a reflection of the scheduled common time for both the Valley Local and Snowmass bus on the hour and half hour. It also reflects RFTA’s practice of monitoring the arrival times at Brush Creek P&R and holding the Snowmass or (less frequently) the Valley Local bus for up to eight minutes to ensure that travelers from the upvalley and downvalley Valley Local can make the connection. This leads to a connection time for riders on the upvalley Valley Local that averages 5.01 minutes, with a standard deviation of 5.49. Given the occasional cancelled bus trip, though, the upvalley traveler on the Valley Local could still not be 95 percent confident of departing on the Snowmass bus until 15.76 minutes after arriving at Brush Creek P&R. Note that the RFTA does not hold the Snowmass bus or the BRT to facilitate a connection between these two routes. The decision to hold the Snowmass bus at Brush Creek P&R With a 15-minute headway on the Snowmass bus, RFTA’s policy of holding the bus to wait for the Valley Locals makes sense. The charts below show the wait time for passengers on the BRT and the Valley Locals given their actual arrival times, but with the assumption that the Snowmass buses left Brush Creek P&R as scheduled, on the 15, 30, 45, and top of the hour. The assessment still includes the same cancelled trips, but assumes that the subsequent bus does operate on schedule. Snowmass Regional Transit Service Analysis--Progress report Warner Transportation Consulting, Inc. page 7 If you compare these charts to the ones on page 5, you can see that the wait time for the Brush Creek P&R connection to the Snowmass bus is worse for the upvalley rider on the Valley Local—the cluster of points around the five-minute mark under RFTA’s current policy of holding the buses jumps to around ten minutes under the scenario of the Snowmass bus departing as scheduled. The leave-on-schedule scenario also offers no improvement in the connection time for upvalley travelers off the BRT. Here’s the statistical comparison based on the data in these charts (again, June 13 to 26 from 6 AM to 8 PM): Connecting from SH82 buses headed upvalley SM-I bus as currently held at BC P&R if SM-I bus left as scheduled BRT Local all UV BRT Local all UV Average wait time 8.13 5.01 7.05 10.91 10.75 10.85 Standard deviation 7.33 5.49 6.91 5.70 7.24 6.28 95% CI upper bound 22.50 15.76 20.60 22.08 24.94 23.15 99% CI upper bound 26.98 19.11 24.82 25.56 29.35 26.98 The situation in the Downvalley direction (travelers coming from Aspen and heading to Snowmass Village) similarly shows the advantage of RFTA’s policy of holding the Snowmass bus. Connecting from SH82 buses headed downvalley SM-I bus as currently held at BC P&R if SM-I bus left as scheduled BRT Local all DV BRT Local all DV Average wait time 6.70 4.12 5.90 12.14 13.72 12.63 Standard deviation 6.58 4.19 6.06 5.27 7.24 5.09 95% CI upper bound 19.60 12.34 17.79 22.48 24.94 22.60 99% CI upper bound 23.61 14.89 21.49 25.69 29.35 25.70 The charts of these connections over 13 days in June 2021 appears below. Snowmass Regional Transit Service Analysis--Progress report Warner Transportation Consulting, Inc. page 8 What if RFTA used the time it reserves for holds at Brush Creek P&R to cut the cycle time instead? Running the Snowmass bus with the hold at Brush Creek P&R is better than running the Snowmass bus on a 15-minute headway without it. But what if RFTA ran the Snowmass bus without a hold at Brush Creek and used the time it currently reserves for the hold to cut the cycle time instead? Here’s what this would mean: Current conditions (hold at BCP&R) minutes Alternative: (no hold at BCP&R) minutes Mall to BC P&R time 10 to 14 10 to 14 BC P&R dwell time 3 to 10 1 to 2 BC P&R to Mall time 9 to 13 9 to 13 Round trip time with BC dwell 22 to 37 20 to 29 Recovery/layover time at Mall 8 to 13 7 to 16 Reasonable cycle time 45 36 Snowmass Regional Transit Service Analysis--Progress report Warner Transportation Consulting, Inc. page 9 Achievable headway with 3 buses on route 15 12 These travel and dwell times are realistic; they are the actual times for the SM-I service during the summer period analyzed, June 13 to 26, 2021, as shown on the charts on the next page. The key point is that it is operationally quite feasible to run 12-minute headways on the SM-I route with the same three buses and the same three operators. Moreover, the more frequent service without the hold at Brush Creek is better for connecting Valley Local and BRT passengers than is the 15-minute headway with time allotted for the hold. This is evident from the charts on page 11 and the table below: Connecting from SH82 buses headed upvalley SM-I bus as currently held at BC P&R if SM-I bus left on 12-minute headway BRT Local all UV BRT Local all UV Average wait time 8.13 5.01 7.05 6.52 6.66 6.57 Standard deviation 7.33 5.49 6.91 4.16 3.70 4.00 95% CI upper bound 22.50 15.76 20.60 14.66 13.90 14.41 99% CI upper bound 26.98 19.11 24.82 17.20 16.15 16.85 Connecting from SH82 buses headed downvalley SM-I bus as currently held at BC P&R if SM-I bus left on 12-minute headway BRT Local all DV BRT Local all DV Average wait time 6.70 4.12 5.90 6.42 7.15 6.65 Standard deviation 6.58 4.19 6.06 3.96 3.37 3.80 95% CI upper bound 19.60 12.34 17.79 14.18 13.75 14.10 99% CI upper bound 23.61 14.89 21.49 16.60 15.81 16.42 The table shows that dropping the hold and going to a fixed 12-minute headway for the SM-I bus leads to a small change in the average wait time for the BRT and Valley Local buses combined, but a much more significant drop in the standard deviation. This means that wait time is more predictable, and the unlucky travelers under the worst conditions, now have much shorter waits at Brush Creek P&R. Snowmass Regional Transit Service Analysis--Progress report Warner Transportation Consulting, Inc. page 10 Duration of SM-I travel times and dwell at Brush Creek P&R Average: 12.16 Standard deviation: 1.83 95% CI upper bound: 15.75 99% CI upper bound: 16.87 Average: 10.81 Standard deviation: 2.12 95% CI upper bound: 14.96 99% CI upper bound: 16.25 Average: 5.30 Standard deviation: 1.85 95% CI upper bound: 8.93 99% CI upper bound: 10.06 Snowmass Regional Transit Service Analysis--Progress report Warner Transportation Consulting, Inc. page 11 Again, these charts are based on a simulation of SM-I buses leaving at a fixed headway applied on top of the actual arrival times of the BRT and Valley Local buses at Brush Creek P&R. The added cost to run this scenario would only be for the added milage related to the extra round-trip up Brush Creek Road per hour. This would be an added 168 vehicle miles if RFTA ran this level of service over a 14-hour service span. The service would use the same number of operators it now uses for the 15-minute headway, thus there would be no added pay hours for operating staff. Snowmass Regional Transit Service Analysis--Progress report Warner Transportation Consulting, Inc. page 12 Impact of a fourth bus on the route With a 36-minute cycle time, the SM-I could operate on nine-minute headways with a fourth bus on the route. The table below summarizes the benefits for Snowmass-bound passengers relative to the current conditions and other scenarios examined. Connecting from SH82 buses headed upvalley SM-I bus as currently held at BC P&R if SM bus left as scheduled BRT Local all UV BRT Local all UV Average wait time 8.13 5.01 7.05 10.91 10.75 10.85 Standard deviation 7.33 5.49 6.91 5.70 7.24 6.28 95% CI upper bound 22.50 15.76 20.60 22.08 24.94 23.15 99% CI upper bound 26.98 19.11 24.82 25.56 29.35 26.98 if SM bus left on 12-minute headway if SM bus left on 9-minute headway BRT Local all UV BRT Local all UV Average wait time 6.52 6.66 6.57 5.00 4.76 4.91 Standard deviation 4.16 3.70 4.00 3.35 2.87 3.20 95% CI upper bound 14.66 13.90 14.41 11.57 10.38 11.18 99% CI upper bound 17.20 16.15 16.85 13.61 12.13 13.13 Connecting from SH82 buses headed downvalley SM-I bus as currently held at BC P&R if SM bus left as scheduled BRT Local all UV BRT Local all UV Average wait time 6.70 4.12 5.90 12.14 13.72 12.63 Standard deviation 6.58 4.19 6.06 5.27 7.24 5.09 95% CI upper bound 19.60 12.34 17.79 22.48 24.94 22.60 99% CI upper bound 23.61 14.89 21.49 25.69 29.35 25.70 if SM bus left on 12-minute headway if SM bus left on 9-minute headway BRT Local all UV BRT Local all UV Average wait time 6.42 7.15 6.65 4.83 4.63 4.74 Standard deviation 3.96 3.37 3.80 2.92 2.65 2.82 95% CI upper bound 14.18 13.75 14.10 10.55 9.82 10.26 99% CI upper bound 16.60 15.81 16.42 12.33 11.44 11.98 You can see that the nine-minute headway cuts the average wait time for the BRT or the Valley Local to five minutes or less, and—more importantly—it cuts the wait time under the worst-case conditions (the 95 and 99% upper bounds) in half. The addition of a fourth bus on the SM-I route for the full period between 6 AM and 8 PM would entail 448 more vehicle miles and 14 more operator pay hours (plus deadhead time and miles). Operating this route with a fourth bus for fewer hours each day would be less expensive. Snowmass Regional Transit Service Analysis--Progress report Warner Transportation Consulting, Inc. page 13 Other passenger and operational benefits Snowmass Regional Transit Service Analysis--Progress report Warner Transportation Consulting, Inc. page 14 The analysis so far has examined only the connection time at Brush Creek P&R for travelers going to Snowmass Village. For riders looking to connect from Snowmass Village, the connection time does not depend on whether RFTA holds the SM-I bus; riders will get off the SM-I bus when it arrives at Brush Creek P&R, not when it leaves. The connection time from Snowmass Village, however, does depend on whether RFTA holds the SH82 buses. The agency’s policy is not to hold the BRT, but it will hold the Valley Local to facilitate the connection for travelers from the Snowmass bus. This approach is good for the Snowmass riders heading to the Valley Local, but does mean unnecessary dwell time at Brush Creek P&R for Valley Local riders who are traveling between Downvalley communities and Aspen. Moreover, RFTA may be able to achieve travel time savings on the Valley Local affecting all riders on this route (to Snowmass or Aspen) if it could relax the scheduling constraint of trying to meet the bus from Snowmass. This is not to suggest that RFTA relax its goal of schedule adherence, but rather that the attempt to meet the Snowmass bus may have led to some padding of the Valley Local schedule at the stops leading up to Brush Creek P&R. The charts comparing schedule adherence of the BRT and the Valley Local in both winter and summer (next page), suggest that this is the case. Many of the Valley Local trips are arriving early at Brush Creek P&R, and the average and standard deviation for the delay are significantly lower for the Valley Local than for the BRT. It is also possible that RFTA is not padding the Valley Local schedule as much as it is being optimistic about the schedule for the BRT—the data does not rule this out. In that case, it might make sense to add two or three minutes for the upvalley BRT travel time while cutting two minutes from the travel time for the upvalley Valley Local. This would still allow a fairly even interarrival time of upvalley SH82 buses at Brush Creek P&R. In any case, a quick connection with the upvalley Valley Local for riders coming off the Snowmass bus does not seem all that critical. Except for the very small share of these riders who might be going to Truscott or Aspen Country Inn, any of these riders do not have to wait for the half-hourly Valley Local; they could also take the much more frequent upvalley BRT. Preliminary recommendation 3: Run the small set of Snowmass-Valley direct buses during peak seasons as resources allow RFTA this past winter ran 15 trips with direct service between Snowmass Mall and downvalley communities (eight upvalley to Snowmass in the AM peak, and seven downvalley from Snowmass in the PM peak). The schedules for these trips are on the next two pages. Note that these RFTA had planned to run Snowmass-Valley direct buses this summer, but cancelled them because of a shortage of operators. Transit to and from Snowmass Village thus requires a connection at Brush Creek P&R since the winter schedule ended on April 17th. The Snowmass-Valley trips are productive; i.e., they carry a reasonably high number of riders per trip. This is evident by noting that the average passenger load at Brush Creek (the point where the Snowmass-Valley service diverts from the other SH82 services) compares favorably with that of the Valley Local and the Aspen Express. You can see this on the charts on the next page. Snowmass Regional Transit Service Analysis--Progress report Warner Transportation Consulting, Inc. page 15 The current importance of the Snowmass-Valley service is also evident by the fact that the 676 passengers carried up Brush Creek Road by the AM Snowmass-Valley services on March 17 through 19 is more than all the passengers who got off upvalley BRTs and Valley Locals over the same period at Brush Creek Park & Ride. The chart below shows that most of these buses dropped off four or fewer riders at Brush Creek P&R, for a total of only 629 Snowmass-bound riders—140 per day for the upvalley BRT, and 60 per day for the upvalley Valley Local—from March 17 to 19. Snowmass Regional Transit Service Analysis--Progress report Warner Transportation Consulting, Inc. page 16 The following charts show the alightings per hour from upvalley buses in Snowmass Village, Brush Creek P&R, and, for comparison, Aspen—March 17 to 19 Snowmass Regional Transit Service Analysis--Progress report Warner Transportation Consulting, Inc. page 17 This is the same information on a per trip basis. By all of these measures, the Snowmass-Valley buses are a success, and RFTA schedulers seem to have fit them into the timetable with a minimum of unproductive deadhead time. This adds to the route’s efficiency. Snowmass Regional Transit Service Analysis--Progress report Warner Transportation Consulting, Inc. page 18 Average passenger load per bus per hour of Upvalley buses approaching Brush Creek P&R hour BRT Valley Local Snowmass- Valley Aspen Express 5 15.7 16.7 6 27.5 21.4 24.1 7 32.3 20.3 21.6 19.3 8 24.8 21.7 23.1 13.0 9 22.0 18.8 10 13.8 12.3 11 9.5 9.7 12 8.0 8.4 13 11.8 9.2 14 12.3 13.0 15 10.6 10.4 16 6.2 8.2 17 8.0 7.0 18 4.0 5.8 19 4.5 7.2 20 5.0 10.7 21 7.5 10.3 22 6.5 12.0 23 2.0 5.0 0 3.0 1 2.0 Snowmass Regional Transit Service Analysis--Progress report Warner Transportation Consulting, Inc. page 19 Upvalley Snowmass-Valley schedules (winter 2021/22) Pattern GW-SM L CDP/BL- SM GW624- SMX EJ-SM L GEJ624- SMX AJ/BS- SML B/EJ/B- SML GW/CS- SM X West Glenwood Park & Ride 5:08 AM 6:06 AM 6:36 AM 7:08 AM West Glenwood Mall 6:08 AM 6:38 AM Hwy 6 + Soccer Field Rd 6:09 AM 6:39 AM Hwy 6 + 135 Rd 6:10 AM 6:40 AM Hwy 6 + Traver Trail 6:15 AM 6:45 AM Ramada 6:16 AM 6:46 AM Glenwood Meadows 5:10 AM 7:10 AM Glenwood Rec Center 5:11 AM 7:11 AM 8th St + Colorado Ave 5:15 AM 7:15 AM Grand Ave + 9th St 5:16 AM 6:18 AM 6:48 AM 7:16 AM Grand Ave + 14th St 5:17 AM 6:19 AM 6:49 AM 7:17 AM Grand Ave + 20th St 5:18 AM 6:20 AM 6:50 AM 7:18 AM 27th St Station 5:23 AM 6:23 AM 6:53 AM 7:23 AM Roaring Fork Marketplace 5:26 AM 6:26 AM 6:56 AM 7:26 AM Hwy 82 + Spring Valley Rd 5:31 AM 6:31 AM 7:01 AM 7:31 AM Aspen Glen 5:36 AM 6:36 AM 7:06 AM 7:36 AM Carbondale Park & Ride 5:40 AM 7:10 AM 7:40 AM Carbondale Pool 6:36 AM 6th St + Colorado Ave 6:36 AM Main St + Hwy 133 6:37 AM JW Dr + El Jebel Rd 6:40 AM Ranch at Roaring Fork 5:44 AM 6:44 AM 7:14 AM 7:46 AM Hwy 82 + Catherine Store Rd 5:45 AM 6:45 AM 7:15 AM 7:48 AM JW Dr + Buckskin Dr 5:49 AM 6:49 AM 7:19 AM 7:49 AM JW Dr + Deer Run 5:50 AM 6:50 AM 7:20 AM 7:50 AM JW Dr + El Jebel Rd 5:56 AM 6:51 AM 7:26 AM 7:56 AM El Jebel Park & Ride 6:00 AM 7:00 AM 7:30 AM 8:00 AM Willits 6:01 AM 7:01 AM 7:31 AM 8:01 AM Hwy 82 + Original Rd 6:03 AM 7:03 AM 7:32 AM 8:03 AM Two Rivers Rd + Hillcrest Dr 6:04 AM 7:04 AM 7:34 AM 8:04 AM Downtown Basalt 6:09 AM 7:09 AM 7:39 AM 8:09 AM Basalt Park & Ride 6:09 AM 7:09 AM 7:39 AM 8:09 AM Holland Hills 6:12 AM 7:12 AM 7:42 AM 8:12 AM Wingo Junction 6:13 AM 7:13 AM 7:43 AM 8:13 AM Hwy 82 + Lazy Glen Way 6:14 AM 7:14 AM 7:44 AM 8:14 AM Old Snowmass 6:16 AM 7:16 AM 7:46 AM 8:16 AM Hwy 82 + Watson Divide Rd 6:21 AM 7:21 AM 7:51 AM 8:21 AM Hwy 82 + Aspen Village Rd 6:22 AM 7:22 AM 7:52 AM 8:22 AM Hwy 82 + Twining Flats Rd 6:27 AM 7:27 AM 7:57 AM 8:27 AM Hwy 82 + Juniper Hill Rd 6:29 AM 7:29 AM 7:59 AM 8:29 AM Brush Creek Rd + Med Bow 6:31 AM 7:20 AM 7:25 AM 7:31 AM 7:57 AM 8:01 AM 8:31 AM 8:25 AM Brush Creek Ranch 6:33 AM 7:22 AM 7:27 AM 7:33 AM 7:58 AM 8:03 AM 8:33 AM 8:27 AM Town Park Station 6:38 AM 7:25 AM 7:30 AM 7:38 AM 8:01 AM 8:08 AM 8:38 AM 8:30 AM Brush Creek Rd + Meadow Rd 6:39 AM 7:26 AM 7:31 AM 7:39 AM 8:02 AM 8:09 AM 8:39 AM 8:31 AM Brush Creek Rd + Sinclair Rd 6:40 AM 7:27 AM 7:32 AM 7:40 AM 8:03 AM 8:10 AM 8:40 AM 8:32 AM Brush Creek Rd + Owl Creek 6:41 AM 7:27 AM 7:33 AM 7:41 AM 8:03 AM 8:11 AM 8:41 AM 8:33 AM Brush Creek Rd + Faraway Rd 6:42 AM 7:28 AM 7:33 AM 7:42 AM 8:04 AM 8:12 AM 8:42 AM 8:33 AM Brush Creek Rd + Wood Rd 6:42 AM 7:28 AM 7:34 AM 7:42 AM 8:04 AM 8:12 AM 8:42 AM 8:34 AM Brush Creek Rd + Hawk Ridge 6:44 AM 7:29 AM 7:35 AM 7:44 AM 8:05 AM 8:14 AM 8:44 AM 8:35 AM Brush Creek Rd + Divide Rd 6:44 AM 7:29 AM 7:35 AM 7:44 AM 8:05 AM 8:14 AM 8:44 AM 8:35 AM Snowmass Mall 6:45 AM 7:30 AM 7:36 AM 7:45 AM 8:06 AM 8:15 AM 8:45 AM 8:36 AM Snowmass Regional Transit Service Analysis--Progress report Warner Transportation Consulting, Inc. page 20 Downvalley Snowmass-Valley schedules (winter 2021/22) SM- 27/GWX SM- 27/GWX SM- GW/NCL SM- 27/GWX SM- 27/GWX SM- GW/R L SM- 27/GWX Snowmass Mall 3:15 PM 3:45 PM 4:15 PM 4:15 PM 4:45 PM 4:45 PM 5:15 PM Stonebridge Inn 3:15 PM 3:45 PM 4:15 PM 4:15 PM 4:45 PM 4:45 PM 5:15 PM Base Village 3:16 PM 3:46 PM 4:15 PM 4:16 PM 4:46 PM 4:45 PM 5:16 PM Brush Creek Rd + Wood Rd 3:16 PM 3:46 PM 4:16 PM 4:16 PM 4:46 PM 4:46 PM 5:16 PM Brush Creek Rd + Faraway Rd 3:16 PM 3:46 PM 4:16 PM 4:16 PM 4:46 PM 4:46 PM 5:16 PM Brush Creek Rd + Owl Creek 3:17 PM 3:47 PM 4:17 PM 4:17 PM 4:47 PM 4:47 PM 5:17 PM Brush Creek Rd + Sinclair Rd 3:18 PM 3:48 PM 4:17 PM 4:18 PM 4:48 PM 4:47 PM 5:18 PM Brush Creek Rd + Meadow Rd 3:19 PM 3:49 PM 4:18 PM 4:19 PM 4:49 PM 4:48 PM 5:19 PM Town Park Station 3:20 PM 3:50 PM 4:19 PM 4:20 PM 4:50 PM 4:49 PM 5:20 PM Brush Creek Ranch 3:24 PM 3:54 PM 4:23 PM 4:24 PM 4:54 PM 4:53 PM 5:24 PM Brush Creek Park & Ride 3:27 PM 3:57 PM 4:27 PM 4:57 PM 5:27 PM Hwy 82 + Smith Way 4:26 PM 4:56 PM Hwy 82 + Twining Flats Rd 4:28 PM 4:58 PM Hwy 82 + Aspen Village Rd 4:33 PM 5:03 PM Hwy 82 + Watson Divide Rd 4:33 PM 5:03 PM Old Snowmass 4:38 PM 5:08 PM Hwy 82 + Lazy Glen Way 4:40 PM 5:10 PM Wingo Junction 4:41 PM 5:11 PM Holland Hills 4:41 PM 5:11 PM Basalt Park & Ride 3:39 PM 4:09 PM 4:44 PM 4:39 PM 5:09 PM 5:14 PM 5:39 PM Downtown Basalt 4:44 PM 5:14 PM Two Rivers Rd + Hillcrest Dr 4:48 PM 5:18 PM Hwy 82 + Original Rd 4:49 PM 5:19 PM Willits 3:44 PM 4:14 PM 4:51 PM 4:44 PM 5:14 PM 5:21 PM 5:44 PM El Jebel Park & Ride 3:45 PM 4:15 PM 4:52 PM 4:45 PM 5:15 PM 5:22 PM 5:45 PM JW Dr + El Jebel Rd 4:53 PM 5:23 PM JW Dr + Deer Run 4:56 PM 5:26 PM JW Dr + Buckskin Dr 4:56 PM 5:26 PM Hwy 82 + Catherine Store Rd 5:00 PM 5:30 PM Ranch at Roaring Fork 5:01 PM 5:31 PM Carbondale Park & Ride 3:55 PM 4:25 PM 5:07 PM 4:55 PM 5:25 PM 5:37 PM 5:55 PM Aspen Glen 5:10 PM 5:40 PM Hwy 82 + Spring Valley Rd 5:14 PM 5:44 PM Roaring Fork Marketplace 5:20 PM 5:50 PM 27th St Station 4:12 PM 4:42 PM 5:21 PM 5:12 PM 5:42 PM 5:51 PM 6:12 PM Grand Ave + 20th St 4:13 PM 4:43 PM 5:22 PM 5:13 PM 5:43 PM 5:52 PM 6:13 PM Grand Ave + 14th St 4:14 PM 4:44 PM 5:23 PM 5:14 PM 5:44 PM 5:53 PM 6:14 PM 9th St + Colorado Ave 4:16 PM 4:46 PM 5:24 PM 5:16 PM 5:46 PM 5:54 PM 6:16 PM 8th St + Pitkin Ave 4:16 PM 4:46 PM 5:25 PM 5:16 PM 5:46 PM 5:55 PM 6:16 PM Glenwood Rec Center 4:20 PM 4:50 PM 5:27 PM 5:20 PM 5:50 PM 5:57 PM 6:20 PM Glenwood Meadows 4:21 PM 4:51 PM 5:28 PM 5:21 PM 5:51 PM 5:58 PM 6:21 PM West Glenwood Park & Ride 4:24 PM 4:54 PM 5:30 PM 5:24 PM 5:54 PM 6:00 PM 6:24 PM Snowmass Regional Transit Service Analysis--Progress report Warner Transportation Consulting, Inc. page 21 Preliminary recommendation 4: Fix some deficiencies at particular Snowmass Village bus stops This study included an inventory of Brush Creek Road and Snowmass Village bus stops. Here are the most notable observations: • Snowmass Mall has no route info or even a schedule • Stonebridge and Wood Road downhill almost certainly have enough boarding passengers to merit benches. Woodbridge could probably also have a larger, lit shelter • Town Park Station downhill missing some stones and spalling concrete on front left footing; • Meadow Road has a foot-deep gully by sign and bus pull-out (and bus operator says buses occasionally sink into it). Operators otherwise report that stops have sufficient lighting and clearances for safe pullouts. Survey respondents also commented about dangerous pedestrian crossing on Wood Road bridge over Brush Creek. Snowmass Regional Transit Service Analysis--Progress report Warner Transportation Consulting, Inc. page 22 Commuters to Snowmass Village survey So far, 92 respondents have completed the survey. The pace of responses is dropping, but I expect to get more in the coming week. I can also see that all 92 filled out the survey in English. There is a Spanish version and it works, but I'm concerned that the Spanish speakers don't notice that there's an option in the top right of the survey introduction page to click on "español." Or maybe the Spanish speakers just haven't filled out the survey for other reasons. I do know that the human resources office at the Viewline--with many Spanish speaking staff--has notified all their employees of the survey. Of the 91 responses I received as of June 27 . . .. • 73 percent of respondents rarely or never commute to Snowmass Village by bus • 57 percent are from Downvalley communities; 21% are from Aspen, and 23% are from Snowmass. I've attached key cross-tabs based on the 91 responses. Many of these focus on the commuters from Downvalley communities and showing the differences between those who regularly commute by bus and those who do not. This attachment also shows the comments people wrote, and the results of the 18 scenarios tested-- both as the derived coefficients from the statistical (multi-nomial logit) analysis, and a simpler table of the responses to each of the scenarios. The table statistical analysis will likely be more conclusive as more responses show up. Snowmass Regional Transit Service Analysis--Progress report Warner Transportation Consulting, Inc. page 23 Snowmass Regional Transit Service Analysis--Progress report Warner Transportation Consulting, Inc. page 24 Snowmass Regional Transit Service Analysis--Progress report Warner Transportation Consulting, Inc. page 25 Snowmass Regional Transit Service Analysis--Progress report Warner Transportation Consulting, Inc. page 26 Snowmass Regional Transit Service Analysis--Progress report Warner Transportation Consulting, Inc. page 27 Commuters from Downvalley who rarely if ever take the bus have a much more positive view of RFTA service attributes than do those who regularly take the bus. (The one exception to this is for the overall measure, “RFTA provides quality transit service,” for which both groups have the same—and very positive—average rating.) Regularly commute by bus Rarely commute by bus Agree strongly Disagree strongly Snowmass Regional Transit Service Analysis--Progress report Warner Transportation Consulting, Inc. page 28 Values in the tables in this section are percentages and add across to 100% Snowmass Regional Transit Service Analysis--Progress report Warner Transportation Consulting, Inc. page 29 Snowmass Regional Transit Service Analysis--Progress report Warner Transportation Consulting, Inc. page 30 Snowmass Regional Transit Service Analysis--Progress report Warner Transportation Consulting, Inc. page 31 Snowmass Regional Transit Service Analysis--Progress report Warner Transportation Consulting, Inc. page 32 Hypothetical scenarios The survey presented each respondent with one of 18 combinations of three scenarios, and asked them to rate their preference and whether they would ride RFTA if the scenario existed. The scenarios included the following: • An assured parking space at the BRT spot nearest your home (Downvalley communities only) • A local bus that left from the center of the community and arrived in Snowmass Village 10, 20, or 30 minutes before the job start • An express bus that left from the center of the community and arrived in Snowmass Village 10, 20, or 30 minutes before the jo b start • A connection at Brush Creek Park & Ride that was a maximum of 1, 5, or 10 minutes. The chart on the next page shows the results (so far) of this analysis. The higher the points, the more the preference for the particular scenario. The experimental design also allowed for multinomial logit analysis for evaluating factors affecting discrete preferences. This is the ideal method for analyzing these choices, but the statistical results are neither particularly strong, nor particularly revealing. A bigger survey sample size may make this effort more robust. Snowmass Regional Transit Service Analysis--Progress report Warner Transportation Consulting, Inc. page 33 RFTA if pkg RFTA if lcl dir bus early 10 RFTA if lcl dir bus early 20 RFTA if lcl dir bus early 30 RFTA if exp dir bus early 10 RFTA if exp dir bus early 20 RFTA if exp dir bus early 30 RFTA if 1 max wt RFTA if 5 max wt RFTA if 10 max wt all respondents definitely 3 9 2 7 5 4 4 7 7 6 probably 6 3 10 4 3 1 2 10 10 10 not 10 4 5 2 2 2 4 7 6 5 points 0.63 1.31 0.82 1.38 1.30 1.29 1.00 1.00 1.04 1.05 Downvalley resident and rare bus users definitely 0 3 1 0 2 0 1 0 0 0 probably 0 2 5 1 2 0 0 6 5 4 not 3 1 1 1 0 1 2 2 3 1 points 0.00 1.33 1.00 0.50 1.50 0.00 0.67 0.75 0.63 0.80 Downvalley resident and regular bus users definitely 2 2 0 2 2 1 1 3 2 2 probably 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 2 not 2 1 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 points 1.00 1.33 0.00 1.33 2.00 2.00 2.00 1.50 1.67 1.50 Snowmass Regional Transit Service Analysis--Progress report Warner Transportation Consulting, Inc. page 34 Snowmass Regional Transit Service Analysis--Progress report WARNER TRANSPORTATION CONSULTING, INC. Page 35 Bus commuter? Where home? Where work in SMV? suggestions Never Aspen Clark's Market, Conoco area 15 minute DIRECT service to Snowmass in winter and SUMMER from Aspen! It takes FOREVER to get to Snowmass from Aspen in the summer (nearly 45 min-1 hour). I could drive in 25 minutes. The time it takes deters people from coming to concerts, to events, to ride the bike park, etc. It is confusing to transfer and takes forever! Direct 15-minute service please! Never Aspen Clark's Market, Conoco area Thank you for the awesome service! I am lucky enough to get free service from Aspen to Snowmass, but the length of the trip, the lack of availability of seats in the winter, and the fact that I have to pick up kids from after school activities mean I rarely use it for work. I often use it as a skier shuttle on the weekends. Never Aspen Base Village I solely don’t take the bus cause my Dog Never Aspen Other larger capacity bike racks on rfta busses, no charge to bring bike on rfta bus Never Snowmass Village The Mall Seats Never Basalt Other As many direct busses as possible during peak hours. No stops on Brush Creek Never El Jebel Base Village Bus service is pretty great here. My main problem with taking the bus is the total travel time it takes from El Jebel. If I drive from my house its 30-45 minutes. Bus will take me more than an hour. Another problem for me is the fact I have two kids in school in basalt. sometimes I need to pick up early or drop off kids at school. It's harder to take the bus on those days Never El Jebel Clark's Market, Conoco area There are some people that have to work year-round and do not get the off-season's off. When RFTA goes on off-season schedules it reduced its services to those that work year- round. We then then we get used to not taking the bus as a result. Never Carbondale Clark's Market, Conoco area gear on the bus is challenge. skis work ok, but bikes, change of clothes etc. for recreation pre or post work Never Carbondale Clark's Market, Conoco area If I did not have to transport my kids to/from day care, I would take the bus in the winter and only look to add other seasonal ridership if the connection from Brush Creek improved. Snowmass Regional Transit Service Analysis--Progress report WARNER TRANSPORTATION CONSULTING, INC. Page 36 Bus commuter? Where home? Where work in SMV? suggestions Never Glenwood Springs Other I need to arrive to Snowmass earlier that their current schedule therefore I can’t use Rfta. Rfta doesn’t run in the off seasons, I work during the off seasons therefore I can’t use Rfta. The bus ride from Glenwood to Snowmass is much longer than driving my own car. I’m not in the habit of using Rfta because of these three issues. Never Glenwood Springs The Mall Having the downvalley bus drivers be more aware to wait for the Snowmass bus to get there if it is a few minutes away rather than just leaving and then you wait for 15-20 minutes Never New Castle Town Park Station & Rodeo When traffic occurs on 82, for any reason, I would rather be in my own vehicle than on a bus with others. If buses had the convenience of their own express lane to bypass difficult traffic times, or a consistently dedicated buses-only lane between the various Towns, I would be very interested in RFTA services. Never Other Base Village More direct buses into Snowmass instead of having to connect at Brush Creek Never Other Clark's Market, Conoco area A BRT to Snowmass Never Other The Mall Not have transfer 3 times to get to Snowmass from Highlands. Never Other Town Park Station & Rodeo After looking at the bus schedule, the access to Snowmass Village (no stops) getting to work by 530 am is not possible. Even with buses leaving down valley frequently at 430am and going directly to Aspen. I think moving forward there needs to be increased access with added stops first thing in the morning so that people who work early in the morning can utilize the bus system. Rarely Aspen Base Village I live at castle ridge on the castle maroon line and the biggest challenge for me is transferring from one bus to the other and the difficulty of timing it right to avoid missing the Snowmass bus. Rarely Aspen Base Village Please train or make sure some of the drivers are a little more friendly and understandingy/lenient. I've had too many rude drivers. And I've had a driver (with a half full bus) close the door as I was waking up to the bus, start to pull away, look out at me as I'm banging on the door to stop it and just keep going like I'm in the wrong for trying to stop him. This bus wasn't late, he could have easily stopped to let me on quickly, it was just the driver being lame in my opinion. This is their job, to give people rides, why this guy Snowmass Regional Transit Service Analysis--Progress report WARNER TRANSPORTATION CONSULTING, INC. Page 37 Bus commuter? Where home? Where work in SMV? suggestions couldn't stop for 5 seconds to give me a ride is beyond me. This doesn't put a good taste in my mouth for trying to take a bus and get somewhere on time. Rarely Aspen Other quit having some of the rfta drivers consistently breaking the speed limit on brush creek road!!! Rarely Aspen The Mall Stop at Base Village first, then go to Mall Rarely Snowmass Village Clark's Market, Conoco area Please add more "stop" buttons on the bus. When the bus is packed it is hard to reach the stop buttons. Please add more hand-hold on the aisles and find a way to add hand-hold for short people standing in the aisles of front of the bus where the disable seat are.... lot of short people like me stand in there when the bus is packed and it’s hard to balance when the bus is running. Please have your drivers announce that passengers' feet should not occupy a vacant seat so they can sleep comfortably while people stand. Rarely Basalt The Mall I don’t understand why sagewood stop is not a BRT with all the employee housing right there. Seem the buses are already full by the time it leaves the BRT in El Jebel. this seems to be more of a problem in the winter then summer time. I don’t take the bus as much in the summer. I also think on your survey you should leave a space for people to write in comments on questions as they are a bit vague. My other complaint and or question would be the bus stop in Snowmass that lets people off by the roundabout by the gas station is an accident waiting to happen. you have people crossing the road in a busy car area. holds up traffic and is in the worst spot!!!! Why would you not route buses up thru the mall area???? instead you make people walk to work as you only drop at the top of the mall and off brush creek road. So any one who works at Stonebridge and or any of the condos have to walk forever to get to work. I think this is the stupidest route you guys have in the RFV!!! What the point of a bus when you have to walk 20 min uphill or down to get to work. these buses should be routed thru the parking garage bus stop to keep the herd of people off the main streets. it is dangerous and causes traffic and road rage. Let think and plan out the bus route in Snowmass village a bit better! As a driver and a bus passenger it annoys me needs to be changed!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Snowmass Regional Transit Service Analysis--Progress report WARNER TRANSPORTATION CONSULTING, INC. Page 38 Bus commuter? Where home? Where work in SMV? suggestions Rarely Basalt The Mall N/A Rarely Willits Base Village Primarily that there is no bus lane from down valley to Snowmass, like there is at buttermilk, meaning transit is too long, much easier to just drive as of now Rarely Carbondale Base Village Brush Creek Park & Ride to Snowmass should be frequent, reliable and space available. Usually Aspen Clark's Market, Conoco area Direct Aspen to Snowmass busses!!!!!!!!!!! Usually Snowmass Village Clark's Market, Conoco area I know it's tough to track but potentially have an extra bus "on call" for times when the bus is fully crowded Usually Snowmass Village Clark's Market, Conoco area I usually take the bus more during winter because there is every 15mins from Snowmass Center to Villas North. During summer its less because when I get home, I have to wait for 25 mins. Usually Snowmass Village Other My biggest issue last winter was having skico employee housing at highlands and working at Snowmass. There was not a direct bus between the two and a chance the bus I needed in the mornings would.be full. Usually Willits Base Village Just adding more buses as buses are still filling up completely even past standing room. Usually Willits Other Also include buses out of Snowmass so getting home in a timely manner is possible. Usually El Jebel Clark's Market, Conoco area Have a bus arrive in Snowmass by 6 am so it is possible to workout before work Usually Carbondale The Mall The direct that comes through Carbondale during the winter should continue throughout the summer. Direct from Main St. in Carbondale to the Village Mall is very useful Always Other Clark's Market, Conoco area thank you for all the hard work and dedication Snowmass Regional Transit Service Analysis--Progress report WARNER TRANSPORTATION CONSULTING, INC. Page 39 Traveler characteristics: Snowmass Village vs. Aspen 2019 all jobs in Snowmass Village and Aspen Snowmass Village central Aspen all Aspen c000 Total All Jobs 3480 9668 12929 ca01 Age 29 or younger 972 2622 3167 ca02 Age 30 to 54 1773 4930 6818 ca03 Age 55 or older 735 2116 2944 ce01 $1,250 per month or less 1361 3268 4107 ce02 $1,251 to $3,333 per month 1011 3035 3785 ce03 More than $3,333 per month 1108 3365 5037 ct01 Not Hispanic or Latino 2841 8286 11045 ct02 Hispanic or Latino 639 1382 1884 cd01 Less than high school 446 1026 1400 cd02 High school or equivalent, no college 643 1669 2285 cd03 Some college or Associate degree 736 2033 2844 cd04 Bachelor's degree or advanced degree 683 2318 3233 cg01 Male 2102 5233 6812 cg02 Female 1378 4435 6117 Snowmass Regional Transit Service Analysis--Progress report WARNER TRANSPORTATION CONSULTING, INC. Page 40 2019 all jobs in Snowmass Village and Aspen—job type Snowmass Village central Aspen all Aspen c000 Total All Jobs 3480 9668 12929 cns01 Agriculture, Forestry, Fishing and Hunting 8 4 9 cns02 Mining, Quarrying, and Oil and Gas Extraction 0 0 0 cns03 Utilities 35 3 15 cns04 Construction 115 142 320 cns05 Manufacturing 0 8 41 cns06 Wholesale Trade 0 37 106 cns07 Retail Trade 122 1047 1144 cns08 Transportation and Warehousing 0 30 276 cns09 Information 3 81 105 cns10 Finance and Insurance 115 158 184 cns11 Real Estate and Rental and Leasing 529 568 787 cns12 Professional, Scientific, and Technical Services 47 523 587 cns13 Management of Companies and Enterprises 16 75 94 cns14 Administration & Support, Waste Management and Remediation 111 231 635 cns15 Educational Services 41 50 564 cns16 Health Care and Social Assistance 47 171 752 cns17 Arts, Entertainment, and Recreation 1029 1736 2120 cns18 Accommodation and Food Services 935 4134 4369 cns19 Other Services (excluding Public Administration) 153 362 513 cns20 Public Administration 174 308 308 Snowmass Regional Transit Service Analysis--Progress report WARNER TRANSPORTATION CONSULTING, INC. Page 41 Snowmass Regional Transit Service Analysis--Progress report WARNER TRANSPORTATION CONSULTING, INC. Page 42 Analysis Type Area Profile Selection area as Work Year(s) 2019 Job Type All Jobs Labor Market Segment All Workers Selection Area Pitkin County, CO from Counties Selected Census Blocks 1,164 Snowmass Regional Transit Service Analysis--Progress report WARNER TRANSPORTATION CONSULTING, INC. Page 43 Employer subsidy for RFTA services by work site and year Aspen-based employers Snowmass-based employers Aspen Skiing Company employers Downvalley employers Aspen-based employers Snowmass-based employers Aspen Skiing Company employers Downvalley employers * * RFTA provides Aspen Ski Co with 2881 $20 SVC in exchange for ski passes. In November 2019, Ski Co received 3894 $40 SVCs for SVCs that they should have received--but did not--in 2016,17,18. The lack of Ski Co sales after 2019 reflects this abundance of SVCs and no need for further orders. Snowmass Regional Transit Service Analysis--Progress report WARNER TRANSPORTATION CONSULTING, INC. Page 44 Estimate of employer-subsidized RFTA trips by work site and year Aspen-based employers Snowmass-based employers Aspen Skiing Company employers Downvalley employers Snowmass Regional Transit Service Analysis--Progress report WARNER TRANSPORTATION CONSULTING, INC. Page 45 From 2022 on-board passenger survey Snowmass Regional Transit Service Analysis--Progress report WARNER TRANSPORTATION CONSULTING, INC. Page 46 From 2022 on-board passenger survey Snowmass Regional Transit Service Analysis--Progress report WARNER TRANSPORTATION CONSULTING, INC. Page 47 To: Linda DuPriest, Pitkin County From: Marc Warner Date: February 13, 2023 Re: Snowmass Regional Transit Service Analysis—options for enhanced summer service This memo looks at opportunities for enhanced service between Snowmass Village and Aspen during the summer season. It lists some ongoing operational questions on page 5 that I need to go over with RFTA staff. In 2022, and in other pre-Covid summers, RFTA operated all Snowmass service as a shuttle between the Snomwass Mall and the Brush Creek Park & Ride. Buses ran up and down Brush Creek Road every 15 minutes from early morning to evening, and then half hourly from 9 PM to 2:30 AM, as shown in the chart below. Travelers to and from Aspen (or downvalley) connected at the P&R to BRTs or Valley Locals for the part of their trip along Highway 82. This approach is operationally efficient. For any given set of buses and operators, it allows the agency to run the greatest trip frequency and the widest service span for service to Snowmass Village. This gives transit travelers the greatest choice of travel times to get to and from Snowmass Village. The tradeoff is that travelers have to connect at Brush Creek Park & Ride. They must make a two-seat ride, and the unreliability of travel times along the Highway 82 corridor means that they will have an unpredictable delay in making the connection. Under bad luck situations, they could be waiting 20 minutes. An earlier memo in the project showed the impacts on passenger wait times of alternative shuttle operating schemes: 15-minute headways with variable holds and fixed schedule departures at Brush Creek P&R, 12-minute headways without the variable holds, and 9-minute headways with a fourth bus assigned to the route. 177 Riverside Drive, Northampton, MA 01062 413 585-5026 warnertransportation.com WARNER TRANSPORTATION CONSULTING WARNER TRANSPORTATION CONSULTING, INC. Page 2 This memo now considers another alternative: direct summer bus service between Snowmass Village and Aspen. This is less operationally efficient than the shuttle, but it gives transit travelers between Aspen and Snowmass Village the chance for a one-seat ride with no dwell or unpredictable wait time at Brush Creek Park & Ride. The chart below shows how this would fit among other buses at Brush Creek P&R. Buses to and from Snowmass would continue to run every 15 minutes to and from Snowmass Village. Every other bus from Snowmass would then continue from the P&R up to Aspen. The buses would be slotted into the schedule of BRTs and Valley Locals to provide a more even gap between buses to Aspen. The service would require that RFTA operate a fourth bus from 6:30 AM to 9 PM on Snowmass service. The table below shows the morning service. You can see that operators would alternate between running the SMV-BCP&R-SMV pattern and the SMV-RP-SMV service. The travel times are consistent with those in past summer schedules: 18 minutes BCP&R to Rubey Park, and 15 minutes from Rubey Park back to BCP&R. Operators would have 31 percent scheduled recovery/layovers, distributed as follows: 13 minutes at BCP&R on shuttle trip; 8 minutes at Rubey Park on Aspen trip; and 8 minutes at Snowmass Mall on both patterns. (This compares with 40 percent scheduled recovery on current Snowmass service with each operator having an 18 minute break at the Snowmass Mall every 45 minutes.) WARNER TRANSPORTATION CONSULTING, INC. Page 3 Does SM-Aspen bus need to stop at Brush Creek P&R The connection at Brush Creek P&R serves bus travelers between Snowmass Village and Aspen, but also between Snowmass Village and downvalley communities, and a very small number of transit travelers to and from Woody Creek. Motorists will also fill the Brush Creek P&R lot and take the bus to Snowmass Village during a few special events each summer. (RFTA or TOSV can provide supplemental, possibly chartered service on these occasions.) Under non-special event conditions, the Snowmass transit connections at Brush Creek are overwhelmingly for travel to and from Aspen. Trips between Snowmass Village and downvaley communities are almost exclusively between 6 to 9 AM and 3 to 6 PM. This is evident from the charts on the next page, which shows the average demand by hour and by day-of-week and by connections with the BRT and Valley Locals in both directions. The source of this data is actual boarding and alighting data on the July 2022 buses at Brush Creek P&R. (Note that a very small share of these boardings and alightings would be connecting to Woody Creek, but these are assumed to be negligible.) The charts also show that peak period (commute hour) ridership drops off on the weekend, but that ridership patterns are otherwise fairly constant across all days of week. This also means that there will be many times of day when there few people traveling to or from downvalley communities that will need a bus connection for the other leg of the trip to Snowmass Village. Thus, the turn-off of the Snowmass to Aspen bus to BCP&R will not have been needed; the bus could have saved about two minutes by not detouring into the park & ride. Unneeded connections in both directions would thus allow the bus to save four minutes on the round trip between Snowmass Village and Aspen. WARNER TRANSPORTATION CONSULTING, INC. Page 4 This approach, however, does not seem like it should be a default even during non-peak hours. The issue is that some Snowmass travelers will still be waiting for a connection to or from downvalley, and others will have taken the BRT and Valley Local from Aspen. Both of these groups plus the occasional traveler between Snowmass Village and Woody Creek suggest that the Snowmass Village to Aspen bus in Alternative A would still need to take the detour into the BCP&R. Charts at the end of this memo show this data in greater detail. RFTA operations planners should note that AM peak period BRT trips from downvalley generate far more people waiting for a connection to Snowmass Village than do the Valley Locals from downvalley. The agency’s current approach, however, is to minimize the connection time with the Valley Local from downvalley rather than with the BRT. WARNER TRANSPORTATION CONSULTING, INC. Page 5 Passenger benefits The key benefit is that travelers between Snowmass Village and Aspen would now have half-hourly direct service in both directions. These travelers would not have an unpredictable—or any—wait at Brush Creek P&R. This would prompt many travelers between Snowmass Village and Aspen to favor these trips, and thus would reduce by more than 50 percent the overall delay for these travelers. The continuation of 15-minute service would not have an adverse effect on the travelers between Snowmass Village and downvalley communities. The added half-hourly service between Rubey Park and Brush Creek P&R would increase buses in this corridor from 6 buses to 8 buses per hour in each direction. Travelers would have a bus scheduled a maximum of every 9 minutes under the new scenario, compared with up to a 15 minute gap under the current service. This would add to transit attractiveness on the main trunk of the Aspen free zone, and would likely induce added transit demand. Together, these benefits make Alternative A a more beneficial option than the enhanced SMI shuttle options tested in earlier project memo. This includes the use of a fourth Snowmass service bus for higher frequency shuttle service. Operational questions 1. Does RFTA have a fourth operator to dedicate this summer to the Snowmass service? Lack of operators was a serious constraint in 2022. 2. Are there any labor constraints or facility issues that would preclude a recovery/layover time at Brush Creek P&R? Is there a bathroom here for operator use? 3. Are there any labor issues that would preclude the reduced total recovery/layover time on the Snomwass service from the current 40 percent (18 minutes every 45 minutes), to 31 percent (37 minutes in chunks of 8 to 13 minutes every 120 minutes). WARNER TRANSPORTATION CONSULTING, INC. Page 6 WARNER TRANSPORTATION CONSULTING, INC. Page 7 WARNER TRANSPORTATION CONSULTING, INC. Page 8 WARNER TRANSPORTATION CONSULTING, INC. Page 9 AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY EOTC MEETING DATE: April 6, 2023 AGENDA ITEM TITLE: 2023 Work Plan Updates STAFF RESPONSIBLE: Linda DuPriest, Regional Transportation Director ISSUE STATEMENT: This memo includes key updates on projects from the 2023 Work Plan, approved by the EOTC on October 27, 2022. A. Near Term Transit Improvement Program One of the projects in the program, the Buttermilk Crossing and Transit Signal Bypass, has been underway since late 2022 with SGM engaged as lead consultant. The two elements of this project are located in the area at the intersection of Owl Creek Rd and Hwy 82, and include a feasibility study of a proposed bicycle/pedestrian crossing to serve the transit stops near Buttermilk ski area, and improvements at the Harmony Drive/Hwy 82 and Owl Creek Rd/Hwy 82 intersections improvements intended to ease movements of RFTA buses through the area and speed up transit times. The Buttermilk Crossing project is still underway, with an expected completion date of early June 2023, and will be presented to the EOTC at its June 29th meeting. However, the technical advisory team of staff from Pitkin County, City of Aspen, Town of Snowmass Village, and EOTC plus engineers with SGM recommend against the Transit Signal Bypass Project due to concerns about safety for buses, other vehicles and pedestrians, plus the determination that the ideas proposed would not achieve significant travel time savings for RFTA buses traveling through the area. A more complete explanation of the TAC’s decision will be presented at the June 29th EOTC meeting along with the report on the Buttermilk Crossing. B. Brush Creek Park & Ride Partially funded by a grant from the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) Federal Lands Access Program (FLAP) grant, this project will improve the Brush Creek Park & Ride with new pavement, lighting, EV charging infrastructure and the expansion from 200 to 400 parking spaces. The original scope of the project also included paving of a carpool/bus turnaround aisle and restroom facilities, but after construction bids came in exorbitantly high in late 2022, the project was scaled back to include the parking space expansion described above and access road. The project is on schedule to begin this May 2023. In addition, the Food Truck will be back this summer, again in an “experimental” capacity due to its temporary location during the FLAP grant construction, operating from May to early September. C. HOV Lane Enforcement The 2023 EOTC Work Plan and Budget included $95,000 for a program to achieve driver compliance with the HOV Lane from Basalt to Buttermilk, including funds for overtime for Pitkin County and Colorado State Patrol officers. HOV Lane Enforcement was one of the recommendations from the Integrated Mobility Study completed in 2021, following the work by the Community Mobility Task Force in 2016 and 2017. As its first project task, EOTC staff sought to confirm the legality of EOTC funds being used for projects that may not have a strong “transit nexus”. As the HOV lane project is primarily concerned with managing SOV traffic and is not directly serving public transportation, we sought a legal opinion from County Attorney, John Ely. His opinion is that Pitkin County sales tax fund designated for projects related to public transit cannot be used on motor vehicle enforcement, or the programming thereof (specifically, EOTC staff time). Based on General Counsel opinion, staff recommends removing HOV Lane Enforcement from the 2023 Work Plan. D. Dynamic Road Pricing While the EOTC staff is excited about this bold and innovative idea and acknowledge the work of the 2017 Community Mobility Task Force and subsequent 2021 Integrated Mobility Study, the project is premature until the Entrance to Aspen/Castle Creek Bridge alignment is determined. Any technical or human analysis of either tolling or cordon pricing could be a waste of funding if we do not know if there will be a dedicated bus lane all the way into Aspen, or if Cemetery Lane will be disconnected from the roundabout, as just two notable examples of unknowns. In addition, a discussion of road tolling or cordon pricing may be counterproductive without a simultaneous analysis of our transit system including the possibility of needing to greatly increase RFTA’s funding to both increase and enhance current service (several peak hour BRT buses into Aspen are already at standing-room-only). Due to exorbitant housing costs plus an industry-wide driver shortage, RFTA could be facing years of continued service reductions such as it experienced this winter. Staff recommendation is to delay Dynamic Road Pricing from the 2023 workplan until the Entrance to Aspen/New Castle Creek Bridge alignment is determined.