Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutagenda.council.worksession.20170228 CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION February 28, 2017 4:00 PM, City Council Chambers MEETING AGENDA I. Council Top Ten Goals Quarterly Update II. RFTA Integrated Transportation System Plan (ITSP) Update of findings from Stage 2 Forecasted transit demand Review of alternatives for study during Stage 3 P1 City Council Top Ten Goals Traffic Lights Quarter: Date Scored: February 3, 2017 COA Leadership Team 2016-2017 TOP TEN GOALS Goals in Good Shape 1. Identify and determine the feasibility of viable alternatives to personal vehicles including "next generation" mobility technology in order to improve the downtown experience. Champion: Barry Crook, Ashley Perl, Mitzi Rapkin and Scott Miller 2. Reconcile the land use code to the Aspen Area Community Plan so the land use code delivers what the AACP promises. Champion: Jessica Garrow, Jim True 4. Develop a River Management Plan that seeks to restore and maintain the health of the Roaring Fork River as it flows through Aspen. Champion: Scott Miller, Jim True, Karen Harrington, Dave Hornbacher and Jeff Woods 5. Assess current outreach practices as an overall organization and implement cohesive procedures that unify the City's community outreach; include interactive communication methods along with traditional and proven practices. Champion: Mitzi Rapkin, Karen Harrington, Barry Crook and Linda Manning 6. Develop and implement a plan to reduce traffic within the next two years. Champion: Barry Crook, Richard Pryor, Scott Miller and Ashley Perl 7. Identify and pursue economic opportunities that diversify Aspen's economy without relying on physical development. Champion: Jessica Garrow, Don and Barry, Steve Barwick 8. Pursue energy efficiency-related code changes and complementary programs that will transform the energy use of buildings within the community. Champion: Ashley Perl, David Hornbacher, Jessica Garrow P2 I. 9. Develop a master plan that guides development and the use of the pedestrian malls with a goal of maintaining and improving the pedestrian experience. Champion: Jeff Woods, Barry Crook, Jessica Garrow 10. Analyze the adequacy of facilities and housing for employees as part of the total compensation package and provide recommendations to attract and retain a highly skilled workforce. Champion: Alissa Farrell, Scott Miller, Barry Crook Goals Needing Attention 3. Adopt an affordable housing policy that addresses deferred maintenance in the deed restricted housing stock and in capital reserve funding deficits. Champion: Barry Crook, Mike Kosdrosky, Don Taylor P3 I. RFTA ITSP Stage II - “Determine Future Needs” Meetings with City Councils & County Commissioners February/March 2017 P4II. Study Update February/March 2017 Review ITSP process Present “Ridership Estimation Tool” Preliminary 2036 ridership forecasts Describe alternatives to respond to 2036 ridership forecasts Next Steps P5II. P6II. Ridership Estimation Tool P7II. BENEFITS OF APPROACH  Uses best available data  Transparency of data and results using spreadsheet based forecast  Ability to calibrate for actual conditions  Ability to update forecast as new information / data emerges  Ability to easily transfer information / data into other planning tools P8II. TRAVEL ZONES STEP 1 P9II. GENERAL AREAS DEFINED • Aspen • Snowmass Village • Woody Creek • Old Snowmass • Basalt • El Jebel • SH82 – Carbondale to El Jebel • Carbondale • Missouri Heights • SH82 – Glenwood to Carbondale • Glenwood Springs • New Castle • Silt • Rifle • Parachute • Dotsero / Gypsum • Others: Out of Region P10II. DATA COLLECTION  Collection for 3 Seasons: ▪ Fall ▪ Winter ▪ Summer  Collection for 4 Time Periods: ▪ AM ▪ Mid-day ▪ PM ▪ Daily  Collection for 2 Average Day Conditions: ▪ Weekday ▪ Weekend  Classification of Data into 9 Trip Purposes: ▪ HH – Home to Home ▪ HW – Home to Work* ▪ HO – Home to Other ▪ WH – Work to Home ▪ WW – Work to Work ▪ WO – Work to Other ▪ OH – Other to Home ▪ OW – Other to Work ▪ OO – Other to Other *Work or school P11II. DATA COLLECTION  6 Traveler Types (classifies the people making trips based on their home and/or work location): Live & Work* within Study Area – Commutes within Study Area ▪ Resident Worker (i.e. Lives in New Castle; works in Glenwood) ▪ Home Worker (i.e. Lives in Aspen; works in Aspen) Lives outside Study Area – Commutes to Study Area from External Area ▪ Inbound Worker (i.e. Lives in Paonia; works in Aspen ) Lives inside Study Area – Commutes from Study Area to External Area ▪ Outbound Worker (i.e. Lives in Rifle; works in Grand Junction) Lives outside Study Area ▪ Single-Day Visitor (i.e. < 1 day per month (not-overnight) in study area) ▪ Multi-Day or Repeat Visitor (i.e. > 1 day per month or multiple visits per month in Study Area *Work or school P12II. TYPICAL RIDERSHIP TABLE FORMAT STEP 2 P13II. RFTA Ridership Data RFTA Survey Data AirSage Data Transit Trip Table Person Trip Table EXISTING RIDERSHIP Transit Shares (% of all trips made by transit) STEP 3 STEP 2 STEP 4 P14II. Forecast 2036 Population & Employment Data (Land Use Analysis) FORECASTING RIDERSHIP Future Transit Ridership (with no capacity changes) Transit Shares (% of all trips made by transit) STEP 6 STEP 5 P15II. ANALYZING ALTERNATIVES Future Transit Ridership BRT Service Plan Alternatives STEP 7 Local/Express Service Plan Alternatives P16II. Preliminary 2036 Ridership Forecasts P17II. Transit Trip Forecasts 2016 - 2036  High-level summaries of the winter and summer transit trip tables for 2016 and 2036 (No-Build), expressed as average weekday trips  2016 base year transit trip tables developed from boarding & alighting, O&D survey data, and line loads 2036 (No-Build) transit trip tables developed by factoring changes in population and employment data into the 2016 transit trip tables  Assumes transit share will remain constant and no changes in transit service levels  Includes the increase in enplanements at Aspen Airport, based on EA (~3,500 annual transit trips to and from the airport by 2036) P18II. Winter Average Weekday Trips Route 2016 2036 Increase Increase % Systemwide 17,603 22,273 4,670 27% SH 82 Corridor 6,547 8,902 2,345 36% •Local & Express 3,470 4,717 1,247 36% •BRT 3,077 4,185 1,108 36% I-70 Grand Hogback Route 351 598 247 71% SM-DV; DV-SM 783 1,150 368 47% Make using, accessing, & getting info re public transit more intuitive Expand I-70 Grand Hogback Service Bus Stop Improvements (I-70) Park n Ride Improvements in Silt, Rifle, Parachute Alternatives P19II. Summer Average Weekday Trips Route 2016 2036 Increase Increase % Systemwide 13,771 16,641 2,870 21% SH 82 Corridor 7,885 9,934 2,049 26% •Local & Express 4,179 5,264 1,085 26% •BRT 3,706 4,670 964 26% I-70 Grand Hogback Route 319 391 72 22% SM-DV; DV-SM 338 491 153 45% Optimize Regional BRT system Better transit connections to Snowmass Village in Brush Creek Road We -Cycle Bike Share Expansion Micro-Transit 1 st & Last mile connections to BRT Transportation Demand Management Park n Ride Expansion at 27th St., Carbondale, & Basalt Park n Ride Expansion at Brush Creek Bus Stop improvements (SH 82) 27th Street Pedestrian Crossing, Glenwood Springs SH 133 / Rio Grande Trail Pedestrian Crossing Alternatives P20II. Stage III: Analyze Options P21II. What we heard in Stages I and II: •Optimize and increase transit service including community circulators, direct/express routes, existing bus rapid transit on SH82 and expanded bus rapid transit service on I-70 to Parachute •Better connect pedestrian/bicycle routes to transit, including connecting Rio Grande trail to Brush Creek station, and adding more pedestrian underpasses •Better connect to other transit services such as Bustang, ECO Transit, and community circulators •Expand existing and add new park and ride facilities •Construct and maintain LoVa trail •Potential fixed guideway transit from Brush Creek station to Rubey Park •Expand on-demand services such as bikesharing (WE-cycle), ridesourcing (Uber, Lyft), carsharing (car2go, Zipcar) •Accommodate future gondola connections at transit stations •Expand intelligent transportation systems/technology services such as google maps schedule integration, regional app-based trip planner •Expand maintenance facilities to keep up with fleet demand •Expand employee housing to keep up with staff demand •Offer more accommodations for bicycles on buses P22II. Scope for ITSP Stage III - Analyze Options •Assist RFTA to Develop Multi-Modal/Transit Service Alternatives based on: –outreach efforts from Stage I –based on needs from Stage II •Create Capital and O&M Costs for each Alternative •Evaluate and Compare Alternatives –utilize ridership estimation tool –develop evaluation matrix •Complete Service Alternatives Plan •Draft of ITSP Report & Public Outreach P23II. Alternatives Stage III 1 Transit Station in downtown GWS, possibly Confluence Area, transit priority measures on Grand Avenue from 27th Street to downtown station, space for micro-transit 2 PNR expansion at 27th Street, Carbondale, and Basalt 3 PNR Enhancements at BC 4 Bus Stop improvements (SH82 and I-70) 5 Design places at bus stations for micro-transit to drop off/pick up 6 Improvements in Silt, Rifle, Parachute Capital Alternatives - Park and Rides and Boarding Areas P24II. Alternatives Stage III 1 UVMS Fixed Guideway Transit from Brush Creek Intercept Lot to Aspen (Option A) 2 UVMS Electric Buses from Brush Creek Intercept Lot to Aspen (Option B) 3 UVMS Optimized BRT Service from Brush Creek Intercept Lot to Aspen (Option B) 4 Optimize Regional BRT System 5 Better transit connections to Snowmass Village on Brush Creek Road 6 Expand BRT in Glenwood Springs 7 We -Cycle Bike Share Expansion 8 Micro-Transit (Uber, Lyft) for first and last mile connections to BRT, major boarding locations and for general on-demand service Service Alternatives P25II. Alternatives Stage III 9 Transportation Demand Management 10 Make using, accessing, and getting information about public transit more intuitive 11 Expanded Circulators 12 Expand I-70 Grand Hogback Service 13 Connection to ECO Transit 14 Improve connection to Bustang 15 Upper Valley Parking Management 16 Real -time vehicle and bus travel time information, combined with dynamic parking pricing in Aspen Service Alternatives contd. P26II. Alternatives Stage III Capital Alternatives - Bicycle/Pedestrian Crossings 1 27th Street , Glenwood Springs 2 Buttermilk 3 SH133/Rio Grande Trail 4 23rd Street, Glenwood Springs P27II. Alternatives Stage III Capital Alternatives - Other Priority Projects 1 Bus Replacement 2 Expand GMF 3 Employee Housing Projects (including P3 Alternatives) 4 Expand AMF 5 Bus Expansion 6 Airport Connection 7 UVMS Gondola connections between mountains and to bus stations P28II. Next Steps P29II. P30II. Upper Valley Mobility Study •Improve mobility between Brush Creek and Rubey Park. •Reduce number of buses and congestion in Aspen. •Enhance transit service to make it faster, more reliable and attractive for users. •Support City of Aspen, Town of Snowmass Village, and Pitkin County transportation plans and policies. •Next Presentation at March 23, 2017 EOTC Meeting P31II. Questions/Discussion P32II.