Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutagenda.council.worksession.20090316MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: John D. Krueger, Lynn Rumbaugh, Transportation THRU: Randy Ready, Assistant City Manager DATE: March 12, 2009 MEETING DATE: March 16, 2009 RE: City of Aspen Short-Range Transit Plan SUMMARY/REQUEST OF COUNCIL This memo provides City Council with a summary of the recently completed City of Aspen Short-Range Transit Plan (SRTP) Alternatives Analysis report. Details of the report will be presented to Council by Gordon Shaw with LSC Transportation Consultants. Because the SRTP process commenced prior to the current local economic climate, several . service and facility improvement options were investigated along with a variety of service reduction scenarios. At this time, staff is requesting Council direction as to which, if any, service reduction and/or improvement scenarios should be further contemplated based on Transportation Fund projections. PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION: • In 2001, Council approved and funded the City's last SRTP. • In 2008, Council appointed a Citizen Budget Task Force to review and make recommendations regarding departmental budgets and work programs. • In July 2008, City Council directed the Transportation Subcommittee of the budget task force to focus on possible improvements to local bus routes. Staff recommended an SRTP as the method for reviewing all City routes. • In August 2008, the Citizen's Budget Task Force recommended that the City move forward with aShort-Range Transit Plan. • In August 2008, City Council approved a contract with LSC Transportation Consultants along with supplemental funding for the preparation of a Short-Range Transit Plan. BACKGROUND The Transportation Department contracts with the Roaring Fork Transportation Authority to operate eight in-town routes. Five routes operate year-round: Burlingame/Hwy 82, Castle Maroon, Cemetery Lane, Hunter Creek and the Mountain Valley Dial-a-Ride. Three routes operate only during summer and winter seasons: the Cross Town, Galena Street and Mazoon Creek Road shuttles. Combined, these in-town routes carry more than one-million passengers annually. In 2008 ridership grew by 10.2% over 2007, with a total of 1,194,191 passengers carried. With services operating as they are currently scheduled (see Attachment A) the City's 2009 RFTA contract will total approximately $4.7 million. The Transportation Department has twice conducted third-party reviews of its transit system, the first being completed in 2001. These reviews assess capital, operational and financial needs as well as transit improvement and service reduction options as needed. This most recent planning process began in September of 2008 with the assembly of a seven- membercitizen's advisory group made up of representatives from various service areas as well as members of 2008's Citizen's Budget Task Force. The consultant then undertook a review of existing conditions including routes, ridership, vehicles and bus stops. In addition, a survey of both riders and non-riders was completed. In early 2009 staff, LSC and the citizen's advisory ' group began analyzing and reviewing a number of service alternatives including route consolidations, service reductions, service expansions and passenger amenity improvements. A summary of the citizen advisory group process is included as Attachment B. DISCUSSION The Short-Range Transit Plan process commenced prior to the current state of the local economy and originally focused on service and capital/facility improvements. As local economic conditions worsened, focus shifted to potential service reductions. As a result, both service improvement and reduction scenazios are included in the final Alternatives Analysis report (Attachment D). A summary of service alternatives including citizen advisory group rankings is also attached to this memo (Attachment C). The Transportation Fund has been operating with a structural deficit since 2001 due to the fact that transit operating costs have been outpacing the growth of local transit funding mechanisms. This problem is exacerbated by the fund's need to cover the replacement of all of its transit vehicles, including the purchase of six replacement buses in 2013 and four more buses in 2018 and 2019. To address this problem, Aspen voters approved a 2008 ballot measure creating a 2.1 % use tax combined with a .15% sales tax (to replace the expiring .25% sales tax). The new .15% sales tax will take effect on September 2, 2009. The 2.1% use tax took effect on January 1, 2008 and generated an estimated $1.7-million over the yeaz. However use tax projections show collections declining by 50% in 2009 and then growing by 3% annually beginning in 2010. With these projections in place, the Transportation Fund is once again placed in a deficit scenario by 2011 unless revenues recover, new funding sources are indentified or transit service reductions are made. Based on the above revenue projections, approximately $174,840 in Transportation Department operational and capital budget cuts combined with $450,000 in transit service reductions, ($624,840 total) will be needed to sustain the Transportation Fund and allow for 2013 bus replacements. A reduction of $450,000 in transit services is equal to approximately 5,625 of the City's planned 58,478 annual hours of transit service With this in mind, staff is seeking Council direction on: 1. What, if any, budget reductions should be made to the Transportation Fund in 2009? 2. Which, if any, transit service reductions should receive further consideration? 3. Which, if any, transit service changes/improvements should receive further consideration under improved economic conditions? 4. At what point should staff return to Council for final budgeUtransit decisions? To clarify, staff is currently moving forwazd with its spring 2009 service schedule as outlined in Attachment A. Any transit-service changes would be effective for summer 2009 or later. Any changes to the City's summer transit service schedule must be determined by April 15. This is consistent with RFTA's valley-wide plan which retains normal levels of service for spring 2009. FINANCIAL/BUDGET IMPACTS The financial impacts of the Short-Range Transit Plan will vary based on Council's direction. Attachment C lists the cost implication of each service alternative. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS Service improvements can increase ridership, improving air quality and reducing traffic congestion. Alternatively, service reductions eliminate options and typically increase single occupant vehicle trips. The ridership implication of each service altemative is outlined in Attachment C. DED ACTION Staff is not recommending any immediate transit service reductions as the Transportation Fund is solvent for 2009 and 2010. With little use tax collection history and no information on the .15% sales tax, staff recommends that Council adopt a cautious approach to transit service reductions, making service cuts incrementally as needed. To be specific, staff recommends that no transit service changes be made for the spring or summer 2009 at this time. Work sessions could be scheduled with Council prior to each seasonal schedule deadline to reconsider transit service adjustments based on the most current financial information. This is a similar approach to that which is being taken by the RFTA valley-wide system. Staff does recommend further consideration of four service changes: replacing the existing Burlingame/I-Iwy 82 route with aBurlingame/Roundabout shuttle; raising the fare for Dial-A- Ride service on the Mountain Valley route to $3; reducing summer Highlands service hours [o Sam-8pm; and potentially reconfiguring the Cross Town Shuttle route to travel nearer to the . Aspen Meadows and Aspen History locations. These options could be vetted to the public at transportation open houses scheduled for April 2. In regards to additional issues addressed as part of the SRTS: .Staff recommends that City routes adhere to a service animal-only policy. .Staff recommends that the annual RFTA service contract be negotiated to include improved reporting requirements. .Staff recommends that amulti-year bus stop improvement plan be developed and undertaken as funds allow. 4 .Staff recommends that bike racks be installed on west-bound City routes when the economy improves. .Staff recommends that Spanish translation, increased surveying and other marketing improvements discussed in the Alternatives Analysis be considered when the economy improves. ALTERNATIVES Council may request service reductions/improvements for summer 2009 and beyond at this time. Council may choose to address the Transportation Fund's deficit through 2013 at this time. Council may request analysis of additional service alternatives not listed on Attachment C. ATTACHMENTS Attachment A: 2009 City of Aspen Draft Service Schedule Attachment B: Citizen Advisory Group Summary Attachment C: Information Sheet -Service Alternatives Attachment D: Consultant Technical Memo II -Alternatives Analysis 5 N T !0 3 v m = o 0 0 0 0 0~ o 0 T T ~ ro .b N qq ~;,'^~goov,Soo .b ~ N N (V ~--i h Q~ 00 ~ I I I I I I I ~Ea~ae~~~e po, 6°vN°~ ,°ov _ ~O O~ ~D ~D ~O to 00 00 ~O ' ~ ~ N ~ ~ N N-~ y V V V 7 V ~ . V ~ ~ (\ N l` C` N l` (` C` (` ~ ~ .ter ~ .r ~ .. ~ .. ~ .. ~ .. ~Ni d 7 N Z V N W V a ~~ M ~ C fA 3 ~ o a: ,~ ~ N c x c o ~ ~ x , ro ~ s c ^ o C4 Z ~ ~ ~ l ~ N ~ ~ ~ 4.i {~0 N ~ ~ v U .~ ~ c ^ Q O ' ~ ~, 8 c o °' F, ~ 2 W U U x ~ C7 ?C ~ , U 0 r 0~ o o, 0 rn 0 rn 0 rn 0 rn 0 a` 0 o, 0 ' ~ c o0 o 00 0 00 0 00 0 00 0 0o 0 co 0 00 0 p ul ;: .°3 ~ :: ;: :: : ' ;: N R c ~ a c c c . c c in 3 X 3 3 3 3 3 3 0 0 0 0 0 M N M N M T b O g °o S q b ~ ~ ~ ~ , °o I I I I q ~ o m o o -~ o o g o 0 r ~ t` t; t~ a b ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ b ~ ~ ~ b \ b .Mr ~ ~ .M-i M M 7 V 7 V V R CiM e i v N v k ~ ~ T T pj .U ° `° ~ x cd ~ ~ ~ U c ct ~. ~, ~ E ~ ~ ~ o ~ „ ~ U U x ~ Q 0 0 0 0 0 0 C . G G C G ~ . ~ C]. ~ .~ F1 ~ .~ L1. ~ .~ G ~ .~ FL ~ i fy ~ 0 0 0 0 0~ o 0 T b ~°' 3 ~ ~ ~ a °i o r, o g o ~n g g o 0 0v, _ O .-. c N N N I VI I 'I trod ~ ~ c~d c~tl ~ ~ ~ ^ ~ V N ~ ,~. ~ N I~ ~D ~O ~O AO oo Vl t~ \ M M M M M M M ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 00 0o ao 00 00 00 00 00 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ N 00 3 ~ ~ ~ c ~ x o c x ~ c o ~ ~ ~ N ~ ~ ~ ~ «' U c oc°cn ~ ~ ~ c c °0 0 E ~ o " ~ F, act U U x ~ C7 ~ SC ~ rn rn rn a: ~ rn ~rn 0 0 0 0c~ 0 0 0 0 6 ~ ~ ~ E ~ 7 7 ~ 7 7 ~ 7 N T 3 v R d 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ~ 0 0 M 0 N 0 M ~ o M 0 M M N M N M M D N _T ~~ b T T b b ~ N a a s ~ ~ o ~ o ~ o ~ ~ ~ c ~o 6 ro E ~+ H ~ E ~ 8 ES' ~ M o o o g o°' "' '° o °o °o a ~ o a b ~ ~ ,Ny ~ ~ ~ tFE N N N .-r V1 01 O ~ I I ~ ~ ~ I I I ~ L C C G CC F CC F C i; CC G C C i' C C G a CC G cc G CC G CC G ~ C '` G C C C C O C C v~ ~O O ~n O ~n O -~ 0 0 0 0 0 -~ ~ N 7 N M .~ V 2 ~ ~ ~ ~ t` o~ t` rn ~o ~o ~o ~ o0 00 ~O ~D ~D ~O ~O b .. ~. ,--i ~ N ~ N N ~ N ~ N ~ ~V ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ D T O~ Q~ T T ~ .. '. .--~ ..r .-r .-. .. ,ti Y O C N d d O M . i N ~ U K ~ Y N 00 T 3 T .V T T y F O !C n' O O ~ r d .~ N itl ~ ~ ~ >. xi N O O C ~] .^~' N itl ~ (~/] L ~ ~ ~ w ;; (, .. ~~ 'q tt ~ on 5" ~" ~ :: V ,. ~~ ~ ~ F 3 G 0 • C a ~ ~ a~+ ~ ~ ..Fr ~ ~ N a ~ F ~ a i U U x ~ Q a1 U U 'x ~ C7 SC ~' O ,-. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 i O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 rn O a\ O rn O rn O rn O o y atii a`i m a`i a`i v y ~ w w w w w ~i F 3 C 3 F 3 G 3 G 3 C 3 F. 3 C 3 t` Attachment B Citizen Advisory Group Process Summary Member Representing (Organization and/or Route) Lisa Baker Citizen's Budget Task Force /Cemetery Lane David Hyman Citizen's Budget Task Force /Cemetery Lane Sean Kehoe Aspen Music Festival /Cross Town Shuttle Erik Klanderud ACRA /Mountain Valley Dial-A-Ride Mazk Pisani Castle Mazoon /Highlands Marlene Saleeby Aspen Valley Hospital /Castle Mazoon Anna Scott Aspen Historical Society /Cross Town Shuttle / Burlingame Meeting Date Meeting Tonics December ]7 Existing conditions February 4 Service alternatives discussion March 3 Ranking of service alternatives March 10 Service alternatives and issues recap Mazch 16 City Council meeting Item Recommendation Bike racks on City routes Recommended on out of town routes, at specified stops Pets on City routes Service animals only Spanish translation Recommended on seasonal post-ups Annual survey Increased surveying recommended, but not annually Improved data reporting Recommended Service alternatives Service alternatives were scored by the group, with the lowest scores reflecting the most preferred options. See Attachment C. 8 ATTACHMENT C - ALTERNATIVE$ INFORMATION SHEET ~~ TABLE 1: Aspen City Transit Service Alternatives FY 2008109 Ridership and Cost Analysis Stetua Oua Operating Costs Fixed COSts Total FIXED ROUTE SERVICE ALTERNATIVES Total Annual Ridership Impact (Or1e-WaY Passenger-Trips Trips) Lost per VSH Veh. Serv. Ven. Serv. OPeratiz g Heil Eliminated 534,670 56,903 $2,936,973 _ $1,365,672 534.670 56,903 $4,302,645 Eliminate Summer Highlands Service Reduce Highlands Summer Service l0 8:00 AM to 8:00 PM Eliminate Mountain Valley DAR Ott-Route Requests in W Inter ant Add More Stops Increase Fare tar Off-Rohe Ride Requests on Mountain Valley DAR Limit Mountain Valley DAR O8-ROUIe Ride Requests in Winter Provide Separate Mountain Valley Fixed Route antl DAR Semce In Winter Provitle Mountain Valley DAR Service Every IS Minutes During Peak Hours in Win Operate Cross-Town Shuttle Service Vear-Round Eliminate Cross-TOVm Shuttle Service in Summer Eliminate Cross-TOYT Shuttle Service in Summer Before 8:00 AM and After 8:00 PI Eliminate Service to Aspen Club/Ute Avenue on Cross-Town Shuttle Season Town Bus Combine Cemetery Lane and Burlingame Routes After 10:00 PM in W Inter Add Evening Service to Budin9ame in Summer and 08-Season via Cemetery Lane Add Evening Service to Budin9ame in Summer and Ott-Season pperate Budin9ame Service in Summer and Winter Only Operate Burllingame Route at Full Service RourWabout W tth No Service After 10:00 PM in Summer pffseason and no Service After 10:00 PM in Summer Provitle Service to Litt One wtth an Expantled Galena Street Shuttle Provide Service to Lfi One Vla Mountain Valley DAR in W imer Reinstate Prior Operating Houm During Oft-Season in Eady AM and Late PM Eliminate Service After 10:00 PM Gemle ery Lane the ~ Season Humer Creek Castle Maroon DAR Eliminate Service After 10:00 PM Cemetery Lan1e the Summer Humer Creek Castle Maroon DAR Cross-Town Eliminate Service After 9:00 PM oCemelery Lane he Off Season Hunter Creek Castle Maroon DAR Eliminate Service After 9:00 PM °Cemetery Lane he Summer Humer Creek Castle Maroon DAR Highlands GrOSS-TOwn Begin Service at 7:30 AM on'NI RGemetery Lane Season Humer Creek Castle Maroon ggame DAR -19,700 -4,800 0 N/A N/A 29,500 6,900 12.300 -8,900 -2.W0 23,600 1,300 1 O,WO -3,400 2.600 9,500 -16,600 45.300 46,600 43,700 Begin Service a17:30 AM on All Roulmelery Lanemmar Hunter Creek Castle Maroon DAR Highlands Bgame Combine Cemetery Lane and Mo W~~^NO (Service After 10:00 PM ~ (qll Da W ith No Service After 9:00 PM Combine Huller Creek and Castle/Maroon in the Off-seasons (Ail Day) W ith No Service After 9:00 PM Eliminate Castle-Maroon in the Off-season Eliminate Cemetery Lane in the Off-season Eliminate Hunter Creek in the Ott-Season Eliminate Mountain Valley Dial-A-Ride in the Oft-Season Note 1: Excluding spares, which can only be calculated for the system as a w1x .. __ r,.nc„Ifanf.5. mL. -1,400 app 0 NIA N/A 5.500 900 1,900 -1.300 -300 0 0 -2,300 -600 0 1,200 -2.200 5,800 -1,300 -1,500 .$116700 -$26,000 $D N/A N/A $379,300 $65,500 $126,700 -$92,800 -$21,300 -$36.900 $2,100 -$154.600 $41,700 $4,300 $87,800 $157.600 $423,400 -$800 -15,900 -48 -6 44 21 10 70 37 60 -327 -18 -60 -84 41 15 6 21 -56 22 15 10 .30,400 $365,200 $300,300 $100,600 -$66,800 -$15,800 -$14,500 $21.300 -$15.200 -$107.200 -$23,800 $21.600 -$31,900 -$22.700 -$7.000 -$100,400 -$23,800 $21,800 -$32,100 -$22,700 $130,200 -$23,800 $28.700 -$41,200 -$22,700 -$8,000 -$13,800 -$50,800 -$7.000 $6,800 -$15.200 -$15,000 -$6.800 700 39,700 -1,700 17.300 5,600 30,100 5,500 15,300 1,300 -11,31X1 -BW -2.366 400 -1.500 -200 -5.600 -200 -1 900 -2lM -17,600 -1,300 -3.500 -~ -2 300 -300 -8.400 -300 -2,800 ~ -600 -100 -17,100 -1,200 -3,500 -~ -2 300 -~ -8.500 3~ -2,800 3~ -21.800 -1.700 3 $O6 "300 -2,800 -400 -10,400 -400 -2,800 ~ -1,200 .100 -1,100 -200 -5.300 -7~ -660 -100 -560 .100 -1,906 -200 -1,800 -200 66 -100 -5 -8,600 -900 -600 -3.500 -700 -2,400 -700 Y) -20,100 22,200 -23,200 -22,600 -26,300 54,600 -22,900 14,800 -18,100 -900 $68, -106 -$7.500 -100 -$7,OW -300 -$23.800 -100 -$7.200 -206 -$16.000 -160 -$7.200 -2,200 -$165,400 -2,400 -$182,700 -2,500 -$191,400 -2 006 -$157,800 -2,400 -185,700 -4.400 -$354,600 .2 300 -$174,100 -2,200 -$158, -2306 -$166200 1,239,457 1,239,457 -4,100 -500 -6,300 -7,000 1,500 9,500 5,300 7,900 -28,100 -1,400 13,700 11,300 -9,090 -2.090 1,700 4,540 -7,590 7,900 5,500 5.400 2.9 1.7 N/A N/A N/A NIA NIA N/A 21.6 4.7 N/A N/A 4.0 3.5 NIA N/A 3.5 N/A N/A WA ;ore = higher Pmference by sir of seven members after meetings 10 5,400 NIA ~ a L8l One option N/A favored by 9rou 51,700 225 t favored by the group as a LM One option 37,800 263 N/A no 140 16,200 48 NIA developed otter meetings -6,600 -57 8.3 -4 -400 2.0 -34 -3.900 19.5 -2,100 IB 10.5 -1 -1W 0.5 developed after meetings -350 -30.100 23.2 -30 -2,500 8.3 -141 -12.100 40.3 -158 -13,600 45.3 -13 -1,100 3.7 400 4 4.0 -113 -13,100 47 10.9 -1,200 -10 4.0 60 -7,000 23.3 4 660 -40 15.3 3 -300 1 0 -560 -43,000 25.3 67 -40 -3.400 11.3 -16,300 -190 40.8 -230 -19,800 49.5 -20 "1,7W 5.7 900 -10 9.0 -10 -900 4.5 5 400 -46 7.7 32 4 -400 4.0 -10 -1.200 12.0 -26 -3,000 15.0 500 4 2.5 -3 ~ 3.0 -81 7~Op0 7.8 az 760 -8 7.0 -23 "2.000 20.0 2 506 29 8.3 6 -500 5.0 -706 -8 3.5 .7 -60p 6.0 -BO -10,200 4.6 55 -10,700 -~ 4.5 -100 -11,200 4.5 -210 -28,200 14.1 43 -329 -38.200 15.9 developetl arier meetings -936 -125,200 20.5 developed after meetings -180 -24,500 107 developed after meetings 77 400 -570 35 2 developed arier meetings -11,800 90 000 5.1 As en 2009-2013 p slt Plan Short Range Tran • ,,, ,, LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. Revised Technical Memorandum Two Aspen 2009-2013 Short Range Transit Plan Revised Technical Memorandum Two Prepared for The City of Aspen 130 South Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 970 • 920-5038 Prepared by LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. 2690 Lake Forest Road, Suite C P. O. Box 5875 Tahoe City, California 96145 530 • 583-4053 March 9, 2009 LSC 087290 TABLE OF CONTENTS Chapter Page I Introduction .................................................................................................. .................................... 1 2 Service Altematives ...................................................................................... ...................................2 Service Altematives .............................................................................. .................................... 2 Comparison of Short-Range Service Alternatives ................................ .................................. 24 Summary ................................................................................................ ................................. 31 3 Capital Altematives ...................................................................................... ................................. 37 Passenger Facilities and Amenities .................:...................................... ........:........................ 37 Vehicle Purchases ................................................................................... .................................40 Advanced Public Transit System Technologies ..................................... .................................41 4 Institutional and Management Altematives ...................................................................................44 Marketing Improvements ........................................................................................................ 44 Improved Reporting from RFTA ............................................................................................ 47 Implement New Onboard Policies ...........................................................................................47 5 Financial Altematives ....................................................................................................................49 Federal Transit Funding Sources .............................................................................................49 Local Transit Funding Sources ................................................................................................ 51 LIST OF TABLES Table Page I Aspen City Transit Service Alternatives .......................................................................................... 3 2 Aspen City Transit Service Alternatives Performance Analysis ................................................... 25 3 Aspen City Transit Service Cut Alternatives ................................................................................. 35 4 Existing Aspen City Routes Design Passenger Loads ........................:..........................................41 LIST OF FIGURES Figure Page 1 Serve the West End on Cemetery Lane Route in Spring, Summer, and Fall ....................10 2 Combine Burlingame and Cemetery Lane Routes into One Route in Spring, Summer, and Fall ............................................................................................12 3 Combine Burlingame and Cemetery Lane Routes .............................................................13 4 Burlingame - Mazoon Creek Roundabout -Aspen Valley Hospital Shuttle Route..........16 5 Change in Annual Operating Cost .....................................................................................26 6 Marginal Ridership Change - Altematives that Decrease Ridership ................................27 7 Marginal Ridership Change -Alternatives that Increase Ridership ..................................28 Aspen 1009-1013 Short Range Transit Plan LSC Transportation Consultants, lnc. Page i 8 Change in Passenger-Trips per Vehicle Service-Hour for Alternatives that Decrease Ridership ...................................................................................... .............29 9 Change in Passenger-Trips per Vechicle Service-Hour for Alternatives that Increase Ridership ........................................................................................ .............30 10 Change in Operating Cost per Passenger-Trip for Alternatives that Decrease Ridership ............................................................................................. .............32 11 Change in Operating Cost per Passenger-Trip for Alternatives that Increase Ridership ............................................................................................... .............33 12 Pazk City Bus Shelters .......................................................................................... .............38 13 Rubey Park Transit Center .................................................................................... .............39 Aspen 2009-2013 Short Range Transit Plan LSC Transportation Consultants, lnc. Page ii Chapter 1 Introduction A key step in the development of a transit plan is the analysis and evaluation of alternatives for the operation of public transit in the study area. Such an analysis requires consideration of a number of elements necessary [o provide a successful fransit program, including service, capital (vehicles, facilities, and other equipment), institutional/management, and financial alternatives. This document presents a discussion of each of these factors. The discussion presented in Chapters 2 through 5 is not intended to identify a recommended course of action. Rather, this Technical Memorandum outlines the options available to the City of Aspen's ffansit program and explains the advantages and disadvantages of each option. This discussion, and the input to the planning process that it generates, will provide the basis for recommending a course of action to be presented in the Draft Plan to follow. 2009-2013 Short Range Transit Plan LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. Chapter 2 Service Alternatives The basis for any transit plan is the development of an effective and appropriate service strategy. The types of service provided, their schedules and routes, and the quality of service can effectively determine the success or failure of a transit organization. Based on the service plan, capital requirements, and funding requirements, the appropriate institutional and management strategies can be determined. Reflecting the review of the existing performance of the system, a number of service alternatives have been evaluated and are presented in this chapter. The alternatives presented in this chapter include expanded service to areas not currently or inadequately served by Aspen City Transit routes, particularly those associated with new condominium/resort, housing, and institutional developments. Further, service reductions have been reviewed as a result of a potential drop in funding anticipated for the upcoming fiscal years. A number of cost saving alternatives have been explored that can be combined to reduce vehicle service hours, as requested by Aspen city staff. SERVICE ALTERNATIVES The following are service alternatives developed for the City of Aspen routes. Not all City routes were evaluated, as many are performing well and do not warrant any operational changes. The alternatives discussed below correspond to routes that exhibit performance issues, as discussed in Technical Memorandum One, such as low passenger-trips per vehicle service-hour statistics, on-time performance issues, or high costs compazed to actual ridership. Highlands Route Alternatives Eliminate Highlands Route Summer Service While the productivity of the Highlands route in summer is relatively high (27 passenger-trips per vehicle-hour), this route parallels the Castle Mazoon Route, with the exception of not serving the Castle Creek Road azea. In addition, ridership dropped significantly from the summer of 2007 to the summer of 2008. As such, reductions in this service are a potential means of reducing transit subsidy requirements without eliminating service to any one area or portion of the service day. Service reductions for the Highlands route in summer were evaluated; one option to review is to eliminate the summer service entirely. As shown in Table 1, eliminating summer service would save Aspen City roughly $116,700 in annual operating costs, as it would reduce vehicle-hours by 1,400 hours and vehicle-miles by 19,700 miles. As a result of eliminating the service, it is estimated that approximately 4,100 passenger-trips annually would be lost or 48 trips per day. This reduction is based on an evaluation of the impacts that this service change would have on existing ridership, which indicates that a lazge majority (90 percent) of riders will use the Castle Maroon route to get to their destination, rather than using an alternative mode or not making the trip entirely. Eliminating summer service on the Highlands route would shift most existing riders to the Castle Mazoon route. Daily ridership by hour was reviewed for both routes in order to determine if capacity issues would be present during the summer if the service were eliminated. Based on observed passenger loading patterns by direction and by run, the ridership shift to the Castle Maroon route would cause the buses to exceed capacity (resulting in standees and leaving some passengers at the stop) during the peak hours Aspen 2009-2013 Short Range Transit Plan LSC Transportation Cansu![ants, /nc. Page 2 TABLE 1: Aspen City Transit Service Alternatives FY 2008/09 Ridership and Cost Analysis Status Quo ppereting Costs Fixed Costs Total FIXED ROUTE SERVICE ALTERNATIVES Total Annual Ridership Impact (One-Way Passenger-Tdps Tnps) Lost per VSH Veh. Serv. Veh. Sen. Opereting ~~ ~_~_ ~..,, I Eliminated 1,239,457 534,670 56,903 $2,936,973 - _ $1,365,672 1 239 457 534,670 56,903 $4,302,645 -0g 4,100 2.9 -19,700 -1400 $116,700 1.7 -300 -$26,000 -6 -500 -0,800 NIA 0 $0 y1 6,300 0 N/A WA NIA -21 -7,800 NIA NIA N/A 10 1,500 NIA NIA NIA 9,500 29,500 5,500 $379,300 70 N/A 900 $65,500 37 5,300 6,900 N/A 7,900 12,300 1,900 $126,700 60 -28,100 21 6 6,900 -1,300 -$92,800 -327 -ig -1400 4.7 -2,000 -300 -$21,300 -13,700 N/A -23,600 0 -$38,900 60 g $2,100 -84 -11,300 NIA 1,300 -01 -9,090 4.0 -10,000 -2,300 -$154,800 -15 -2,090 3.5 -3,400 -600 -$41,700 NIA 0 $4,300 8 1,700 2,600 NIA 1,200 $87,800 21 4,540 9,500 -7,590 3.5 -16,800 -2,200 -$157,600 -56 NIA 7,900 45,300 5,800 $423,400 22 N/A 15 5,500 46,fi00 -1,300 -$800 10 5400 N/A 43,700 -1,500 -15,900 10 5,400 NIA 39,700 -1,700 -36,400 17,300 5,600 $365,200 225 51,700 N/A 37,800 NIA 30,100 5,500 $380,300 263 N/A 16,200 15,300 1,300 $100,600 140 6,600 8.3 -11,300 -800 -$fi6,800 -~ -000 2.0 -2,300 -200 -$15,800 -3,900 19.5 -1,500 -200 -$14,500 -34 -2,100 10.5 -5,600 -200 -$21,300 -18 -1 -100 0.5 -1,900 -200 -$15,200 23.2 -17,600 -1,300 -$107,200 -350 32,500 8.3 -3,500 -300 -$23,800 -30 40.3 -2,300 -300 -$21,800 -158 -12,100 45.3 -13,600 -8,400 -300 -$31,900 -13 -1,100 3.7 -2,800 -300 -$22,700 -000 4.0 600 -100 -$7,000 -4 -13,100 10.9 -17,100 -1,200 -$100,400 -113 -1 200 4 0 -3,500 -300 -$23,800 -10 -7,000 23.3 -2,300 -300 -$21,800 60 15.3 -0,600 -8,500 -300 -$32,100 -00 -300 1.0 -2,800 -300 $22,700 -g 25.3 -21,800 -1,700 -$138,200 -500 -43,000 11.3 -40 -3,400 -3,500 -300 -$23,800 -16,300 40.8 -2,800 -000 $28,700 -190 -19,800 49.5 -10,400 -000 -$41,200 -230 -1,700 87 -2,800 -300 $22,700 -20 -900 9.0 -1 200 -100 $8,000 -10 -900 4.5 -1,100 -200 -$13,800 -10 -06 -5,400 ~ 7 -5,300 -700 -$50,800 -0 -400 4.0 -600 -100 -$7'000 -10 -1,200 12.0 -500 -100 $6,800 -1,900 -200 -$15,200 -~ -35000 125 -1,800 -200 -$15,000 -300 3.0 -500 -100 -$6,800 -3 -7,000 7.8 -8,800 -900 -$fi8,700 -81 -700 7 0 -900 -100 $7,500 -g _2,000 20.0 -600 -100 $7,000 -23 -3,500 -300 -$23,800 -2B 2500 5.0 -700 -100 -$7,200 -700 3.5 -2,400 -200 -$16,000 -8 .7 -600 6.0 -700 -100 -$7,200 -00,200 4.6 -20,100 -2,200 -$165,400 60 _10,700 4.5 -22,200 -2,400 -$182,700 -90 4.5 -23,200 -2,500 -$191,400 -100 -11,200 141 -22,800 -2,000 -$157,800 -210 -20,200 -26,300 -2400 -185,700 -329 -38,200 15.9 -r~q,g00 -4,400 -$354,600 -930 -125,200 285 -22,900 -2,300 -$174,100 -180 -24,500 10.7 -14,800 -2,200 -$158,000 -570 -77,400 35.2 -11,800 5.1 -18,100 -2,300 -$166 200 -90 Eliminate Summer Highlands Service Reduce Highlands Summer Service to 8:00 AM l0 8:00 PM Eliminate Mountain Valey DAR OH-ROUIe Requests in Winter and Adtl More Stops Increase Fare for O%-Route Ritle Requests on Mountain Valley DAR Limit Mountain Valley DAR OH-Route Ride Requests in Winter Provide Separete Mountain Valley Fized Route and DAR Service In Winter Provide Mountain Valley DAR Service Every t5 Mlnules During Peak Hours in W inter pperete Cross-Town Shuttle Service Vear-Round Eliminate Cross-Town Shuttle Service in Summer Eliminate Cross-Town Shuttle Service in Summer Before 8:00 AM and Afler 8:00 PM Eliminate Service to Aspen ClublUle Avenue on Cross-Town Shuttle Revise Cemetery Lane to Provide Service in Wesl End in Summer and Ott-Season Combine Cemetery Lane and Burlingame in OH-Season and Summer as Out of Town Bus Combine Cemetery Lane antl Burlingame Routes After 10:00 PM in W nter Lane Add Evening Service to Burlingame in Summer antl Oft-Season via Cemetery Adtl Evening Service to Burlingame in Summer and O%-Season Operate Burlingame Service in Summer and Winter Only Operete Burllingame Raule at Full Service Eliminate Burlingame Service and Provide Direct Shutte to Maroon Creek Rountlabout Wlh No Service Afler 10:00 PM in Summer WM No Service Before 7:30 AM in Summer antl Offseason and no Service Afler 10 :00 PM in Summer Provide Service Io Lift One wiM an Expanded Galena Street ShuWe Provide Service to Lift One Via Mountain Valley DAR in Winter Reinstate Pdor Operating Hours During Ott-Season in Early AM antl Lale PM Eliminate Service After 10:00 PM on All Routes in Me OH-Season Cemetery Lane Hunter Creek Castle Maroon DAR Eliminate Service A%er 10:00 PM on All Routes in Me Summer Cemetery Lane Hunter Creek Cas%e Maroon DAR Cross-Town Eliminate Service After 9:00 PM on All Routes in Me O%-Season Cemetery Lane Hunter Creek Casge Maroon DAR Eliminate Service Afler 9:00 PM on All Routes in the Summer Cemetery Lane Hunter Creek Cas%e Maroon DAR Highlands Cross-Town Begin Service a17:30 AM on All Routes in Me Oft-Season Cemetery Lane Hunter Creak Castle Maroon Bgame DAR Begin Service at 7:30 AM on All Routes in Me Summer Cemetery Lane HunlerCreek Castle Maroon DAR Highlands Bgame Combine Cemetery Lane and Mountain Valley DAR in Me OH-Seasons (All Day) WiM No Service A%ar 10:00 PM With No Service A%er 9:00 PM Combine Hunter Creek antl Castle/Maroon in the O%-Seasons (All Day) WiM No Service After 9:00 PM Eliminate Castle-Maroon in Me OH-Season Eliminate Cemetery Lane in the O%-Season Eliminate Hunter Creek in Me Off-Season Eliminate Mountain Valley Dial-A-Ritle in Me Ofl-Season Nol¢ 1: 6tGudin9 spares, which can only be celculatetl for the system as a whole. a~ ~f rv-3S 333~F+33..+33..333 333imrv--erv:99^~0~..-~R:99^ii mm,.-rvn~°R^^^°+i..%?q9p: Sg ~ ~ @@g$p$$$~d86@$8BC$ S@@a Sp9@eR@RSev a@$§ @$@Rd $ga$ $ $5ge€k@@@~yw@@5 @$ ~ g Q g g ~ a a ; q , P ~ ry rv rc q ry~. • P ~ ~~ 9 M- te e .. m -Y - M.~ .* . Y w .. ' 7•~ .. qq ~E g F ¢ i 0 9';59Pn9~=$;~~ F§p^^@69r.3n_8R]~9•~=89"g;®@q°e=t°5v~49g5°++$$B 'lWSN9 f. ~a 6ci ' @g $@@S@@e§@R5$$@S $R°R$@@§&k°z@@@@$$@BRa 9S@&@$@$°g$@a$@®a§S§@§@$$@$°s$R s".: n `` uei ~ga,i, ,Ss§9+° aqE,;;5;;95:5;95,5y94;Ha;;ssq;»;;;;°;;°~ -,_ afz = y,; $~mg `3 $®$a$^m.Rrvgmaa@$a a$§$$RR$q eggs&e kRRRP $$$$€s.B@$@g€a 9ss§a~@~,aj'~&8888@ aa ag S e n h $@mag§§PB g$$R$§a°e@$@ @Aaq A@9@S v5R 5B¢¢^.S@BB o§B$6@@_§dpy @§ 6 Q@§@S$$$B®$°e$ eT p9i~=i -Wi Prv°m Rm 4 ' 9 F 1 S° 1 R -R9m'4' P 4 ° nr - q-• ^ .. ~.. ~4 . jq 9?JN? ~ a 3 s 3 ~ ~§a {gg ~g~ a ~ } 1 g i y f b ~S° g ~€ i ~ai F $a p J ° ~ @ c i ~:~ Ee~ 6 3~8 ~F f 6 ~ ~$Ee aF ( $ E E ~ ~3~ ~ ~([p~.a~$$~ 4~~~~gb, gigg =g § :g sg.g ~g.g €°'= E ^3g ~ F~; Ee pE3 ~ € .a! 9 ;€~ 3 ~pt~3 ~ i a~5 ['~ § s ; ~~§ ~ ~ { G f F 6 x y3 + € € e[ ax pp f x55 f i~sf. + . ] € € tn~@€ ~1 ~9E ~59ES g~a936E4Jg-PO aJiJ}E f~PJE~B §53 ~3~~J~ SI v~gt$~~~ g ~ A< ~ ~~ x } 6 6 8 a ga f~~d gi ~ 4 9 d d g E a z d J ff L ll~ ~ f d ai ; i s % $ g 3f a~~i g ~3~~'3 a~ aaf= g g S 55 $g $g € gg e? ~~~? € 1 € ~ t ~i~~ Ea~~~~~~ g ~ te ~. a g a~ sa a a: a a ~~ between 12:00 PM and 3:00 PM. Further, the Aspen Valley Hospital expansion project is expected to increase ridership on the Castle Maroon route by roughly 15 to 20 peroent, given the expected increase in the number of employees and potential new patients. When combined with the already anticipated capacity issues, this further reduces the viability of this altemative. Outside of this 12:00 PM to 3:00 PM period, however, adequate capacity would be available on the Castle Maroon route, even with the expansion of the Hospital. During the summer season, a Maroon Bells bus service is offered out of the Highlands Village. Since the Maroon Bells service operates between the hours of 9:00 AM and 5:00 PM, this service would not be impacted by the reduction in service hours on the Highlands route. Reduce Highlands Route to 8:00 AM - 8:00 PM in Summer Another summer service-reduction option for the Highlands route would be to reduce operating hours, rather than to eliminate the service as a whole. The service currently operates in the summer from 5:45 AM to 10:00 PM. However, as shown in Table I 1 in Chapter 3 of Technical Memorandum One, ridership is quite low before 8:00 AM and after 8:00 PM when compazed to ridership in the remaining operating hours. Therefore, another alternative is to reduce operating hours to 8:00 AM to 8:00 PM during the summer. Table 1 details the impacts of this altemative with respect to vehicle-hours, vehicle-miles, operating cost, and ridership. As shown, operating costs would be reduced by $26,000, while vehicle-miles and vehicle- hours would be reduced by 4,800 miles and 300 hours. The alternative would have a relatively minor impact on ridership, with an estimated annua1500 passenger-trip reduction. As with the previous altemative, mast passengers on the Highlands route would instead use the Castle Maroon route during the hours that are considered for elimination. As discussed above, there would be adequate capacity available on this route to accommodate the increase. The Aspen Recreation Center (ARC) is located along this route and is open unti19:00 PM. Although service would be cut after 8:00 PM, ARC patrons and employees would still be provided with bus service after that time via the Castle Maroon route, which also serves the ARC. Alternatives for Mountain Valley Dial-A-Ride The Mountain Valley Dial-A-Ride (DAR) route provides a deviated Fixed-route service, where ofF route requests are allowed within a given service area. During most of the year, the route has fairly good on- time performance. However, during winter months when weather is a challenge and ridership is highest, the bus often falls behind schedule. As a result, passengers must wait for long periods, and the overall effectiveness of the transit service is reduced. The poor on-time performance can likely be attributed to a high number of deviations combined with poor road conditions, particulazly on the winding steep streets the route serves. Below are four alternatives that are aimed at improving on-time performance on the Mountain Valley DAR. Eliminate Off-Route Reouests in W inter on Mountain Vallev Dial-A-Ride and Add More Stops Since route deviations can create on-time performance problems, or exacerbate already existing on-time problems, one altemative is to eliminate requests entirely and add more stops along the route in areas that currently have frequent requests, such as up McSkimming Drive, Lupine Drive, and Northway Drive. Operating hours would not be increased. Without deviations, the route will be able to cover more of a fixed area within the 30-minute timefmme. Aspen 2009-2013 Short Range Transit Plan LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. Page 4 Based on an evaluation of existing ridership patterns, ridership is expected to decrease to some extent, with an estimated loss of 6,300 passenger-trips annually. Approximately 37 percent of the winter ridership is generated from deviation requests; in 2008, this equated to 17,547 passenger-trips. Based on the existing service area, a reasonable fixed-route service azea and common deviation request locations combined with the potential for deviation passengers to walk to a stop in winter, it is estimated that only one-quarter of the deviation riders would be served. This results in 4,387 existing deviation passengers that would likely continue to be served by a new fixed-route. However, eliminating stops also provides for better on-time performance, which has shown to increase ridership by roughly 20 percent. When this factor is applied to the ridership associated with passengers that already only use the fixed-route service, as well as the remaining deviation passengers to be served, ridership increases. Overall, however, there would be roughly a 13 percent loss of ridership by no longer providing deviations. Increase the Fare for Off-Route Ride Reouests on Mountain Vallev Dial-A-Ride Cost and route operation data show that each deviation costs the transit program slightly more than $3.00. By only charging $1.00 per deviation, the passenger is only paying one-third the marginal cost of the trip. Another alternative is to increase the cost per deviation during all seasons to $3.00, which would in effect reduce the number of deviations requested as some passengers would choose to either walk to the fixed- route stops or would stop using the transit service, thus indirectly improving on-time performance. Using an elasticity analysis, this altemative would result in an annual ridership reduction of 7,800 passenger- trips. Because no alterations to the operating time are proposed, there are no impacts to vehicle-hours. Likewise, mileage would be reduced slightly, if at all; therefore, impacts to operating costs would be negligible. The reduction in demand for deviation service would increase the ability of the route to stay on schedule. This altemative would also generate an increase in passenger faze revenue of approximately $41,000 per year. Limit Off-Route Ride Requests on Mountain Valley Dial-A-Ride in Winter Rather than eliminating all requests, the City may wish to implement a deviation request policy that limits the number of requests allowed per run in an effort to enhance on-time performance in winter. Winter Mountain Valley DAR data (January 13-19, 2008) shows that by limiting the number of deviation requests to three per run, roughly 89 percent of all requests would be served, on average, and that only about 17 percent of passengers associated with deviations would not be served at the requested time. By limiting the number of deviations, the on-time performance of each run would be improved, and thus potential ridership would be increased. When an on-time factor is applied to deviation-only passengers [hat would be served (roughly 14,556 passenger-trips) and the fixed-route ridership (29,977 passenger-trips), an increase of 1,500 passenger-trips is anticipated. Since the actual route would not be changed, vehicle-miles, vehicle-hours, and operating costs are not expected to change. Given this, limiting the number of deviations is a beneficial alternative, as it would not increase costs, but would increase ridership. One issue associated with this option would be how best to limit the number of phone ride requests for pick-ups. As deviations can also be requested by passengers boazding at scheduled stops (such as at Rubey Park), the number of phone requests accepted in each half-hour period would need to be limited. When return requests are minimal, this number could be as high as three during the eazly portion of the day, but would have to be relatively law in periods when a high number of passengers request a deviation for a return trip directly from the driver. This could sometimes result in no capacity during specific periods for pick-up requests, as all of the "deviation time" would be needed for drop-off requests. This altemative would also put the RFTA dispatchers in the position of often refusing ride requests. Aspen 1009-10/3 Short Range Transit Plan LSC Transportation Consultants /nc. Page 5 Provide a Separate Mountain Vallev Fixed-Route and Dia]-A-Ride Service in Winter A more aggressive and expensive alternative to improve on-time performance on this route in winter would be to operate both a Mountain Valley fixed-route and a separate DAR service. The fixed portion of the route would operate every 30 minutes only along the existing route azea, and the DAR portion would accommodate all requests. Doing so would not require elimination of deviation requests or limit the number of requests along the route and would ensure an on-time service for both deviation and fixed- route passengers. As the current fixed-route would not take the entire 30 minutes, it provides some "padding" when there is unfavorable weather, traffic, or other causes for delay. Further, the deviation data shows that with the maximum number of deviations observed during the January 2009 survey period, the route would be capable of operating each run within 30 minutes. As detailed in Table 1, this alternative would significantly increase costs by $379,300 as a result of essentially doubling the service miles (marginal increase of 29,500 miles) and hours (marginal increase of 5,500 hours) to operate a separate DAR service. Ridership would be expected to increase by 20 percent due to better on-time performance and reliability, which equates to approximately 9,500 passenger-trips annually. Rather than have RFTA operate the two separate Mountain Valley services, the DAR portion could be contracted out to a local taxi provider, similaz to the existing services provided during the offseason. The current late night taxi service in the offseason charges the City roughly $80 per hour. Should this remain the same, it would cost the City roughly $219,000 annually to fund DAR service through a taxi company (based on a total of 2,736 hours of deviation service), or approximately $15,500 more than through RFTA (based on the forecast 2009 operating costs). In reality, the City may well be able to negotiate a lower rate with a taxi firm for this substantial and consistent piece of work. If the City were to pursue this option further, it is encouraged to explore contracting for the demand response service through a taxi firm. Provide Mountain Vallev Dial-A-Ride Service Every 15 Minutes in Winter Durine Peak Hours The winter months present the biggest challenge for the Mountain Valley buses to stay on time due to increased ridership and weather conditions. in order to provide more options and frequent service for passengers, a second vehicle could be implemented to provide service every 15 minutes during the peak hours in winter, between 8:00 AM and 11:00 AM, and between 3:00 PM and 6:00 PM. Doing so would offer service four times per hour, rather than only two, providing more service options and the likelihood for better on-time performance. As shown in Table 1, adding this second vehicle would increase costs by $65,500, as existing costs incurred based on vehicle-hours and miles would essentially double during the peak hours of operation. Ridership would also increase by nearly 5,300 passenger-trips annually, or about 37 passenger-trips per day, as a result of the more frequent service. By combining this alternative with the increase in fare for deviation requests, additional funding would be generated to help offset the costs associated with the second vehicle. If combined with the increase in deviation fare to $3 (as discussed above), the net additional subsidy needed would be approximately $25,400 per yeaz. It is also worthwhile to evaluate the fare level that would be needed to fully offset the additional cast of 15-minute service. As shown in Table 1, the cost to provide 15-minute headways during peak periods in winter would cost on the order of $65,500 annually. Approximately 37 percent of [he Mountain Valley DAR ridership is generated from deviation requests in the winter; for the 2008/09 season, this equated to roughly 17,600 passenger-trips. Assuming this ratio remains constant, it would require aone-way fare of $3.73 for each deviation passenger to cover the cost of the extra service. Given some loss of ridership due to the increased fare, a fare of $4.00 is estimated to be required to fully fund the expansion of service. Aspen 2009-1013 Short Range Transit Plan LSC Transportation Consultants, /nc. Page 6 Cross-Town Shuttle Alternatives Overate Cross-Town Shuttle Year-Round Service to the West End of town is currently provided on the Cross-Town Shuttle during winter and summer, and by an on-demand taxi service during the spring and fall. As a means to provide service to this azea in Aspen with the same level of service as other City routes, the Cross-Town Shuttle could be operated yeaz-round, eliminating the offseason taxi service. During these seasons, operating hours would run from 7:00 AM to 9:00 PM Monday through Saturday and from 9:00 AM to 9:00 PM on Sundays. This alternative would increase operating costs by roughly $126,700 annually, due to an increase of 12,300 vehicle-miles and 1,900 vehicle-hours, as shown in Table 1. This also takes into consideration [he cost savings from not providing the existing offseason taxi service. Ridership is anticipated to increase by approximately 7,900 passenger-trips annually. This figure was generated by determining a mte of passengers per housing unit in the West End near the Cross-Town Shuttle route, and factoring it to reflect the number of units occupied full-time, rather than seasonally. Another component of this altemative considered was to include service to Aspen Meadows. This is not recommended for two primary reasons. First, a new stop at Aspen Meadows would add roughly 1 mile to each run. When traffic in the summer gets particularly heavy, it would not be possible to adequately operate the current 30-minute headways. Second, given the location of Aspen Meadows, the summer buses may already be full and thus would not be able to pick up any additional passengers. This is due to the bus stopping at the Music Tent prior to serving Aspen Meadows, creating issues during the height of the summer and MAA Music Festival. Another potential route modification for the Cross-Town Shuttle would be to directly serve the Aspen Historical Society's Wheeler/Stallazd Museum at 620 West Bleeker Street. At present, the nearest stop is on Hallam Street two to three blocks away (dependirig on direction). While nofa substantial inconvenience for many passengers, service duectly to the Museum could be a benefit, particulazly for persons with limited mobility. Providing a permanent stop on the Cross-Town Shuttle would extend the northbound route by six blocks and the southbound route by four blocks, which would both increase the running time of the route and increase the impact of transit buses on residential streets. For these reasons, this is not considered a beneficial altemative. However, it would be feasible to establish the Museum as a "request stop" on the Cross-Town Shuttle. The availability of this direct service would be advertised both on transit schedules as well as on Historical Society materials (including a sign at the Museum for retum trips). Passengers would be informed to simply request a deviation to the Museum when boarding the bus (for inbound trips) and to ask the Museum docent to call for apick-up on the next Cross-Town run for return trips. Cost implications of this aze expected to be negligible. Eliminate Cross-Town Shuttle Service in Summer The Cross-Town Shuttle operated in the winter and summer seasons, had the second lowest ridership total for the 12-month period observed (as discussed in Chapter 3 of Technical Memorandum One). A seasonal comparison of the route shows that ridership has increased in both winter and summer over the past five years; ridership in winter gew 189 percent between 2004 and 2008, while summer ridership grew only 4 percent during the same period. Further, summer ridership on the route actually decreased slightly between 2007 and 2008. To reduce operating costs, one option to consider would be to eliminate the Cross-Town Shuttle service in the summer season. 2009-2013 Shorl Range Transit Plan Consultants, This alternative would reduce operating costs by $92,800, due to a reduction of vehicle-hours by 1,300 hours and of vehicle-miles by 8,900 miles (see Table 1). Further, ridership is estimated to decrease by 28,100 passenger-trips annually, which is roughly 90 percent of the season's ridership. The majority of the ridership will be lost for two primary reasons: (1) the route provides service to an area that would otherwise not be served directly without walking to Main Street, and (2) the route provides direct service to the Music Tent associated with the summer music festival, which would not otherwise be offered. While this altemative may save the City a substantial amount of subsidy, the ridership impacts would not be favorable. This option would also eliminate the benefits of the Cross-Town Shuttle regarding reduction in traffic and parking issues associated with amenities such as the Music Festival, Aspen Institute, Aspen Meadows and Physics Institute. Eliminate Cross-Town Shuttle Service After 8:00 PM and Before 8:00 AM in Summer Rather than eliminating the service entirely, another option would be to reduce the operating hours of the Cross-Town Shuttle Route. The route currently operates until 11:00 PM in the summer. According to the data obtained from RFTA, ridership at this hour is very minimal compared to the remainder of the day. In fact, ridership during the 8:00 PM hour generates 71 percent fewer passenger-trips than the preceding hour; ridership declines further each hour thereafter. Morning hours currently begin at 7:24 AM, which generates approximately 2.4 passengers per hour and roughly 76 percent fewer passenger-trips than the 8:00 AM hour. Given that, an altemative eliminating service before 8:00 AM and after 8:00 PM on the Cross-Town Shuttle in the summer has been evaluated. Table 1 provides details on the impacts of this altemative. As shown, the City would save on the order of $21,300 annually by implementing this alternative. The savings are generated from a reduction of 2,000 vehicle-miles and 300 vehicle-hours. Further, due to the very low ridership on this route during the hours before 8:00 AM and after 8:00 PM, ridership is only expected to decrease by 1,400 passenger-trips annually. . Eliminate the Aspen Club/Ute Avenue from the Cross-Town Shuttle Another alternative explored for the Cross-Town Shuttle was to eliminate service to the Aspen Club on Ute Avenue, thereby only providing service between Rubey Park and the West End. Without service to the Aspen Club, the running time would be reduced and would allow for better on-time performance, particulazly in the summer season when traffic in the West End increases. Currently, the route takes 30 minutes to run, but has the tendency to fall behind schedule. Since additional time may not always be necessary, the bus could wait at Rubey Park at the end of each run until the next scheduled run, if needed. Eliminating this service area would reduce operating costs by roughly $38,900 annually, as shown in Table ]. Since the headways would not change, there is no reduction in vehicle-hours, however an estimated 23,600 annual vehicle-miles would be saved. According to ridership data collected in January 2009, approximately 29 percent of ridership on the route is generated from the Aspen Club. This results in roughly 13,700 passenger-trips lost annually, or 60 passenger-trips per day. Given the relatively low cos[ savings and large loss in ridership, this is not a preferred alternative. Provide On-Call Service to the Aspen Historical Museum The Aspen Historical Museum is located just off the Cross-Town Shuttle route on Sleeker Street. To provide service to this location, Aspen City should consider adding the museum as an on-call stop, which would require passengers to inform the bus driver ahead of time [hat they would like to be dropped-off a[ Aspen 2009-2013 Short Range Transit Plan LSC Transportatiw~ Consultants, lnc. Page 8 this location. On the return trip, passengers would need to phone the dispatch service (at the Rubey Park Transit Center) to request spick-up. Because the Aspen Historical Museum is very close to the existing route, the costs associated with providing on-call service would be negligible. Cemetery Lane and Burlingame Alternatives Revise Cemetery Lane to include Service on the West End in the Sprn>:, Summer. and Fall An alternative to provide more frequent and regular service on the west end of town year-round would be to add this neighborhood onto the Cemetery Lane route during the offseason and summer, and maintain service as scheduled on Cross-Town Shuttle during the winter. Rather than traveling out of town via Main Street, the bus could travel up Monarch Street to West Hallam Street, where it would then link up to Power Plant Road Yo continue on to Cemetery Lane, as shown in Figure 1. While it would be ideal to provide this service year-round, Power Plant Road is not ideal far transit vehicles during winter weather, due to the tight turns and the steep incline of some roadway sections. However, since service is already provided to the West End during the winter via the Cross-Town Shuttle, the residents and visitors in that area would continue to be served. While the revised route would operate along residential streets with lower speeds, it would also avoid congestion along State Route (SR) 82. The net ridership impact of this alternative is the result of several individual factors Ridership would be gained by providing service closer to more residences in the West End. An increase in ridership (7,900 passenger-trips) would be generated due to new service opportunities in the West End during the spring and fall, as well as more frequent summer service since the Cross- Town Shuttle would continue to operate. The increase in ridership was determined by a ridership rate per housing unit within atwo-block radius of the potential route, further factored to reflect the number of full-time occupied housing units. This was done so as to not take into account seasonally occupied units, which would not gehemte significant ridership culside of peak seasons. This alternative would also eliminate some service along SR 82 (Main Street) west of Hallam Avenue. While most passengers currently using the Cemetery Lane route at stops along SR 82 (not down Cemetery Lane) would simply shift to the other buses serving these stops, passengers riding between stops along Cemetery Lane and stops along SR 82 west of Hallam would either need to transfer to other routes in downtown Aspen, or would have to walk several blocks from the revised route to Main Street. Overall, this factor is estimated to reduce ridership by 16,800 passenger-trips per year, based on a review of existing passenger trip patterns. Overall, this change would reduce ridership by 8,900 passenger-trips per year. From a cost standpoint, this altemative would increase operating costs by $2,100 annually as a result of increased miles. As mentioned above, Power Plant Road can present some operational challenges, particularly in the winter months. Although driving conditions are better during the remainder of the year, RFTA fmds the roadway to be difficult yeaz round -due to grades, sharp curves, and liinited driver sight lines. In addition, heavy afternoon and evening traffic on Power Plant Road and Smuggler Road may make it difficult for this route to maintain 30-minute headways during the summer. Lastly, by taking the bus off of Main Street, the route would not be able to take advantage of the newly designed bus lane that aims at improving on-time performance and general operations through heavy traffic areas. Overall, this alternative was found not to be feasible from an operational perspective, and not result in an expansion of transit ridership. Aspen 2009-10/3 Short Range Transit Plan LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. Pn%e 9 ~ ~ r ibNi~ ao ~ ,~ / GF / ~ w J~' I • ti ~' . _. ~~ h 4r 1 ~Nr / S adS ~ 2 r ~ ~ ~ fie: - ~ LL ~ ~ 1Sb31NHH J~~Py~ , ~• / / 1Sbly37b~ ~ I L ~ ~~ l e ~ ~ ~ J , 577x{1, ~ ~ O PP~~ CIR. ~ O ." / ! ~ (~ / 1SH~bbNOW c eti c ~ / a o / ? ~ a o C / ,? i o° ~ ~ o .Q / 1S N3dSb N :LS ~N12/o'S z ~ / ~ ~ ~, W ~' a o / h ~ = o ~ 1S bN37b~ 7-. ~ w ._ / a ~ 1S H~Srwby~ >e a 0 1S 77rKr .N .~ ~ k..-~`~ 4 ~ 15 bbNQ ~ ~ w ~ ~ N~d$y ~ c Q ~ HCSati2rb9 r n/ ® c~ ~ I.L m ,n ? W U uj ~ Q j / ~~~ ~.15H1b ~ p. _ (~ 15 H1S / w ~ .J ~ / a f / J h _ Q '` / ~ ~' ~ x` I r 3~ ~F~ w Q~ ~ CAS 7 t E_ CRE f K RU. U ~,~, _ ~ z 0 cF~~ zj J 1 ~ / I ti aU ~ F' ~QJ ~ fI) ~ ; W ~ ~~ N ; ~ I o g~~z ~'x {;mow x ~ y ~_ W ~ ~ a ~a ~ ww / UO ~ ~~~' ~A~ ~ DU i/ ~j~d' VVV J// QO /~~ Jti~p O~~ ~ ,mow gbh ~ri ~~ w Q J ~~ m ~~'., a~ .r e'' ~' y • , - Aspen 2009-2013 Short Rarrge Transit Plmr LSC Trmrsportatiwr Consultants, Inc. Page 10 Create a Combined Cemetery Lane/Burlin~ame Route with Transfers at Maroon Creek Roundabout In the summer and offseasons when ridership is lowest on the Cemetery Lane and Burlingame routes, a new route could be created combining the two and not traveling into Rubey Park. The result would be an "out of town" bus that provides transfers to other City and Down Valley buses at the Maroon Creek roundabout via the Highlands or Castle Maroon routes, as shown in Figure 2. Based on the frequency of these routes, passengers would have five opportunities per hour to transfer to a bus inbound for downtown, at :00, :15, :20, :40, and :45 past the hour. Due to higher ridership demand in the winter season, the routes would operate as they currently do. The combined route itself would take roughly 40 minutes roundtrip. Table 1 outlines the impacts of the potential new route. As shown, the alternative would result in a significant cost savings of $154,800 annually due to decreases in vehicle-miles (10,000 miles annually) and vehicle-hours (2,300 hours annually). However, ridership is also expected to decrease due to the increased travel time and the inconvenience associated with the transfers, as passengers would be required to transfer to travel into downtown on routes where they currently do not. A reduction of 9,090 annual passenger-trips is anticipated, based on a loss of 7,500 passenger-trips on Cemetery Lane and 1,590 passenger-trips on Burlingame. Despite this loss, the cost savings generated by the alternative may outweigh the ridership impacts, should Aspen City Transit be required to reduce service due to budget constraints. It should be noted that these ridership estimates reflect the current level of Burlingame development generated from Phase I of construction (84 units), with an approximate rate of 120 annual passenger-trips per unit. With the implementation of Phases 2 and 3, total development density could range between 236 units and 293 units, creating up to a 147 percent ridership increase at the stops within the Burlingame development. However, considering these stops only comprises a small portion of the total ridership route-wide (16 percent), it is estimated that the overall route would generate only a 24 percent annual increase in ridership upon completion of the Burlingame development. Combine Cemetery Lane and Burlingame Routes After 10:00 PM in Winter The Burlingame route is the least productive route within the Aspen City Transit system and warrants creative solutions to continue to provide service to the residents in the Burlingame development while making effective use of limited financial resources. One alternative that may achieve this is to combine the Cemetery Lane and Burlingame routes after 10:00 PM in the winter season when ridership is much lower on both routes and operating hours are increased. Between 10:00 PM and 2:00 AM, ridership on Cemetery Lane is between 33 percent and 66 percent lower than the 10:00 PM hour and between 35 percent and 53 percent lower on the Burlingame Route. The combined route is shown in Figure 3. As shown, the bus would travel along Cemetery Lane before heading out to the Burlingame development and then return via Cemetery Lane to Rubey Park. It is anticipated that this route would take one hour to complete, resulting in hourly headways between 10:00 PM and 2:00 AM, thereby reducing the frequency of service for existing Cemetery Lane passengers. This frequency reduction is anticipated to reduce annual ridership on Cemetery Lane by roughly 1,819 passenger-trips. Further, because the route would create a slightly increased travel time for the Burlingame passengers, ridership is estimated to decrease by 275 annual passenger-trips. Cumulatively, the alternative would reduce ridership by roughly 2,090 passenger-trips annually. As shown in Table 1, the alternative would save on the order of $41,700 annually. This is the result of a more efficient route that would reduce vehicle-miles by 3,400 miles and vehicle-hours by 600 hours annually. Aspen 2009-2013 Short Runge Transit Plan LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. Page 11 • -~ ~~1S )bNf~lb0 ~ r ~ I ti GR ~~ tiI 1S pN1ads '` ~ . I PP~~ ~ ? ~~ ~ ~ F / I I 1S2}31NnH S ' J~~P I v ? w e rI e I 1S bN3 4 ~ 2 UO j O I )yp 1S pNt21dS ~ W ~ ~ ~ ~_ O ` (S bN3)b~ I 1S )7/cy O 2 c 0.O 1S ))It~y /~ ~ ~ o o ® . HJ21b/y I i pW m ~S I v i ~ N3pSb L H~ 1 1SNJbbNpW , w stwrrb~ w I c ~ ;1 ti m ~/ I I 1Sty~dSb ''. m ~w a 1SN1Y ~I ~ 1SHls I h' ~~ ~ ~ ~ e ~ 15 NpSt ~ ' J i. Ntbyp ~C ~ = S~ ~ 31 Q~ NE c o EkxR R~ ~ ~ ° J tt`~ w G~ c p w r~ '© T 2~ 4C ~ c p ~• LL c ~ r¢~ a= ~ 0 ~- o ~~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~p ~ aQ .Pjf ~ y WN CV ~ ~ S/.~~ a pd' Q W ~ ~ W Y ~ ~ ~ O ? o U= ~ ~ C`' 2 p°~b LL ~ '^^ c w 'p ~ LI m ~ a~Np ~C ~C, ~°.f Z p . W~1V ~/~ - t{ Y ! y ~~ . J a W w ¢ F- J ~ .~ VI ~ A \ W C ~ C W Q ~, } (Y ~ rr L ~ i+_1~N w W W O Q,~._ _ ~ >N~~ ¢~w ^` ~ ~ ``~~ W Z ~' W U J C 7 ~ W ~ _ (n Z t70 O ~ - U ~ , , ~_ , •~ gs :~r~~ i ~c Fu Aspen 2009-2013 Short Range Transit Plan LSC Transportation Consultants, l~tc. ~ Page 12 1 - ~' ~7bN1p121o i.. i. .~ i ~ ~ ~ 7 1S pNtb ~ PP ~ CIR, ;J wr~ dS e ~ w ro ~, J~c 1S a31Nr)H ~~P J ~ e'~ e ~ °w ~ z o ~ 1S bN37bg ~ 1S pNtadS o ~ e ~~ y~ W 0 ~ 1S bN3)bp w is ))i6y O z' Q z c a O 1S 77lW'N U o q ® ti HJ21bNpw m ~' 1SHJttb W Np vt .swc~ w ~ 1S N3~Sb ~ rt~Sth2ib9 .~ s , ~ ~ o ~ C ~ 1 ~ 1 SN3 dSb ~± a w m c:~ ~ ~ Sylb W . LS N1S w ~ ` ~ J I Q ~ a j c. ~c 1SkCStWbbp h. N z ~~ ~ ~ h y e li ~. ,.~ .. ~ . = ~ 2P s~~ C ~ 4PNE, o EEK Rt ~~R W wC W C Q ~(~ 2 W V4 ~/ ~ ~: F ~ j O ^ W U -. 0 z ~ cn ~~ = =W ~Q ~ ~ . {~ W ~ a--+ ~--' ` Y a ~ M ~ ~ ~ ~ a, ~ ~ w ~- ww w~ ` -yd d ~ ~~ V ~ ~11 ~~ ~ W ~ a ` ~ c0 J2~d, LL ~ ~ c o C~ C b~ .~ ~ m o ob~NpW ~~ ~ : ~ NbH J ~ z 00 ~WQ rY g~ ~ N~ 1+ mN ~ ~ ~ _ ~ ~~ ... ~ ~ ~ ~ .. . w H ~ ~ lyt Q 7 QF W( . = W U Z ~ ~ ~ ~ O = N W ~ zm U i ~ ~= az + ~ ~: ~ ~.~+~ zz ,~ ~o vudnana ~~ Aspect 2009-2013 Short Rattge Transit Plan L5C Transportation Consultants, Inc. Page 13 Add Evenine Service to Burlingame in Summer and Offseason via Cemetery Lane During summer and the offseason, the Burlingame route ceases operating at 7:00 PM, while the other routes provide service until 12:00 AM in the offseason and 2:00 AM in the summer. To provide the same level of service on the Burlingame route, an alternative could be to provide evening service after 7:00 PM via the Cemetery Lane route, as shown in Figure 3. The route would provide hourly service from 7:00 PM until 12:00 AM in the offseason and unti12:00 AM in the summer, reducing the service to Cemetery Lane to hourly during this timeframe. On an annual basis, this alternative would have insignificant impacts on operations, as shown in Table 1. While vehicle-miles would increase slightly (by 2,600 miles per year), there would be no increase in vehicle-hours, as the new route would require the same vehicle-hours as the existing Cemetery Lane route, only operating once per hour rather than twice per hour. The result is a slight increase in cost of $4,300 annually. To determine the impact of ridership generated by the Burlingame route, the ratio of evening to daytime ridership on the Cemetery Lane route was applied to the respective existing seasonal daytime ridership on the Burlingame route. The result is an increase in ridership on the Burlingame route of roughly 4,544 passenger-trips annually. This was offset to a degree by a loss of ridership on the Cemetery Lane route caused by decreased frequency; an elasticity analysis showed a loss of 2,841 annual passenger-trips. Ridership is expected to increase by 1,700 annual passenger-trips with expanded operating hours to the Burlingame development. The relatively minor cost impacts and increased ridership make this a strong altemative for increased Burlingame service. Add Evening Service to Burlingame in Summer and Offseason Rather than providing service to Burlingame on another route, the existing Burlingame route hours of service could be expanded to provide service until 12:00 AM in the offseason and 2:00 AM in the' summer. By doing so, impacts to other routes (such as Cemetery Lane) would be avoided, though costs would increase quite significantly. As shown in Table 1, adding evening service after 7:00 PM on the Burlingame route would increase costs by $87,800 annually. Providing the extra five runs in the offseason and seven runs in the summer would increase vehicle-miles by 9,500 miles annually and would increase vehicle-hours by 1,200 hours annually. Ridership is also expected to increase by 4,540 passenger-trips annually due to extended operating hours. Onerate Burlingame Route in Summer and Winter Onl Ridership on the Burlingame route is highest in the summer and winter, suggesting an alternative that operates the service during those seasons only. The service would operate as-is, with operations ending at 7:00 PM in the summer and 2:00 AM in the winter. Eliminating this service would save roughly $157,600 annually, with a reduction of 16,800 annual vehicle-miles and a reduction of 2,200 annual vehicle-hours. Ridership is expected to be reduced by 7,590 passenger-trips annually, which includes the assumption that 90 percent of existing spring and fall ridership will be lost and that 10 percent of existing passengers will use the RFTA Valley service along SR 82. Ouerate Burlingame Route at Full Service The Burlingame development is currently served on a different schedule than the rest of the routes within the Aspen City system. In the offseason and summer, the route operates 8 hours per day (in two 4-hour Aspen 2009-1013 Short Range Transit Plan LSC Transportation Cnnsnlrants, Ltc. Page 14 blocks), rather than the 17 hours of service on the remaining routes. While Burlingame service is offered during the same time periods in the winter, at 20 hours per day, the service is split between 30 minute headways during peak periods (6:00 AM to 9:00 AM and 3:00 PM to 6:00 PM) and hourly headways during non-peak periods (9:00 AM to 3:00 PM and 6:00 PM to 2:00 AM). One option to equalize the service would be to operate the route at hours consistent with all other routes and with 30-minute headways, as follows: spring and fall - 7:00 AM through 12:00 AM, and summer - 6:00 AM through 2:00 AM. As shown in Table 1, this would require approximately 45,300 additional vehicle service miles and 5,800 additional vehicle service hours. Subsequently, costs would increase by roughly $423,400, thereby bringing the total cost for the Burlingame route to nearly $1 million annually. Ridership is expected to increase by an estimated 7,900 passenger-trips annually (22 passenger-trips per day). Given the significant operating costs and the comparatively low ridership that would be generated by the new service hours, this is not a preferred option for the Burlingame route. Eliminate Burlingame Route and Provide a Burlingame Shuttle to the Maroon Creek Roundabout and Aspen Valle ~ Hospital As discussed, the Burlingame route is quite expensive due to the mileage and hours required to operate the service. Further, a very small portion of the route-wide ridership (roughly 16 percent) is actually generated from the Burlingame development, showing that demand is elsewhere along the route where service is available on other routes. One alternative to improve service, and possibly to reduce operating costs, to Burlingame with existing resources would be to provide a shuttle service from the Burlingame development that transports residents to the Maroon Creek roundabout, where passengers may catch one of the Aspen City routes into town (Highlands and Castle Maroon routes), as well as RFTA down- and up-valley routes. Once the bus leaves the roundabout, service will be extended to Aspen Valley Hospital to allow more opportunities for connections to the hospital from the RFTA valley routes and the Highlands route. Figure 4 illustrates this potential new route. To further provide more convenient transfer opportunities for service between the roundabout and the hospital, the City may consider revising the existing Castle Maroon layover location, having buses lay over at the roundabout rather than the Highlands development. This would reduce the time needed for the Burlingame shuttle to wait for eastbound Castle Maroon buses, helping the shuttle route to remain on schedule. Under this alternative, the shuttle route would operate every 20 minutes, providing service 3 times per hour, over an expanded period of time compared to the existing Burlingame service. Specifically, the route would operate between 6:00 AM to 2:00 AM in winter, 6:00 AM to 12:00 AM in summer, and between 7:00 AM and 7:00 PM in the fall and spring. This equates to a total reduction in vehicle service hours of roughly 1,300 hours, primarily because only one bus would be needed to operate the route at all times, as shown in Table 1. While vehicle-hours are reduced, vehicle-miles are anticipated to increase by roughly 46,600 miles. Despite the mileage increase, overall operating costs would decrease by an estimated $800 annually (Table 1). Further, ridership is expected to increase by 5,500 annual passenger-trips. First, ridership generated by the new service hours outside the existing hours was determined for the summer and offseasons (winter hours remain the same). Next, an elasticity analysis was performed for the existing Burlingame ridership, reflecting an increased frequency of service (from 30 minutes to 20 minutes during the summer, offseason and peak winter, and from 60 minutes to 20 minutes during the off-peak winter). Another elasticity analysis was performed for the sum of the new ridership generated, reflecting a "transfer penalty" for having to transfer to another route at the Maroon Creek roundabout. Lastly, new ridership from the Aspen 2009-2013 Short Range Transit Plan LSC Transporlatian Ca~st~ltants, hoc. Page JS ~ TS l bN Ji~ ~ ~ 4 / / ~ a--~ ' ~ / QP~~ CIR. / 0 ~ ~~ ~SDN/ ~~r~ $~ ads ~ e m ~/ ~ u; ~ ~ 1Sa31N ~~~, e c/ e +-+ ~ nH `~ e `" 2 3 ~ ~o ~ ~ U O / lS bN37b,~ J S DNIadS (a / ¢ ~ "~ ~ 15 bN37bD i-~ ~ 1S 17r a z ~ a o 1S 771yy 'N / W U ~ o ® HDabN~W m O / O ~ 1SN3dSy _ ~ 1SHDbb/yD~ W ~ H~S~W2ib9 W / , U ~ ~ e / c Hlr gl e ~z is / / N3dSb +~ ~ c~ ~SH1S / 1 ro L Q / r ~ 1sH~s~wab~ ~ ~ /~ ~/ y,.I... S 2' N r° 1 ~/ Q 31 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ F.~~a~ ' JJ L"ASTLf~RffKRD. E~~S W ~ Q wC c`", ~ ~~yti e QJ O w'C ~~O// U~ l.L p 2 C J Y g c cx^, g ~ x~ L ~1 v o~ `~, O ~ w `~ ~°~ c~a ~~~~ ~ c ° aJ ~~~ C~ 7 ~ .oar eo C m° NppyabH ~ ~~ .~~ °° ~' ~w w ° w 4 ~ - ty~ ~ vYi O ~~ 3',~m w o 2 • ~ Q I'PI ~ ~ ~ Z VJ Q IN- ~_ ~wm L- = u~i z m j = ~~ I' N< ..r.~~ r wanane ~~ Aspen 2009-2013 Short Range Transit Plan LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. roundabout to the Aspen Valley Hospital was estimated by reviewing the passenger activity along the Castle Maroon route and doing an elasticity analysis for increased service frequency between the two locations. Revise Burlingame to Serve the Asnen Airport Business Center and Buttermilk One alternative that was briefly explored was to eliminate the Burlingame service and replace it with a shuttle operating between the Aspen Airport Business Center (AABC), the Burlingame development, and the Maroon Creek roundabout. In order to provide a viable and attractive service, the route would optimally operate on 30-minute headways, at most. However, due to traffic along SR 82 and the general time it takes for transit passenger activity at the areas of service provided, this route could not be completed within this [imeframe; therefore, a 40-minute headway would be more realistic. Given the necessity for passengers to transfer at the roundabout,-the service would not be conveniently timed with the Castle Maroon and Highlands routes. Further, with 40-minute headways, the bus would increase the travel time for AABC passengers, as they would be required to travel into the Burlingame development on both the inbound and outbound directions. With the increased travel time and requirement to transfer at [he roundabout, passengers traveling between downtown Aspen and the AABC are more likely to use the RFTA valley services than the revised Burlingame service. Given these factors, this option was not explored in more detail. Alternatives to Serve the Lift One Development The proposed Lift One development is located at the end of South Aspen Street just outside of downtown Aspen. The development is proposed to provide approximately 166 hotel rooms, fractional ownership units, and for-sale units, as well as 28 units of affordable housing, all of which have the potential to generate increased ridership demand. The following aze three options that address the increased demand for transit service. It is important to note that al] costs and ridership estimates discussed are based on 2009 fmancial and operating data; thus, actual costs and ridership data may increase at the time of project ' completion and occupancy. Provide Service with an Expanded Galena Street Shuttle -The Galena Street Shuttle currently travels down South Aspen Street in the summer neaz the proposed development, however based on recent site plans, Gilbert Street will be closed and no longer usable. Given this, the route could drive into the lodge entryway to pick up potential passengers. This is problematic for two reasons: the bus would have to travel down a narrow street (22 feet wide) in both directions that could delay transit vehicles, and the bus would also need to negotiate the hotel entryway where it could be delayed by other vehicles. Further, the Galena Street Shuttle is operating on very tight headways, and with new service to the development, there would not be enough time built into the schedule. Therefore, the schedule would need to be revised to increase the run times, which has the potential to impact ridership. One option to address this would be to add another vehicle to the route, for a total of three vehicles operating throughout the day. This would allow the route to maintain the 12-minute headways and serve the Lift One development while staying on schedule. This option is also attractive in that it would provide Lift One passengers with direct service across downtown Aspen. The cost of this altemative is estimated to total roughly $365,200 for service in the summer and winter, based on the operating costs for the additional vehicle on the route, as well as the extra mileage required to serve the development with the existing two vehicles. In total, the alternative would increase vehicle-hours by 5,600 hours and vehicle-miles by 17,300 miles, annually. To cover the somewhat substantial costs associated with this altemative, the Ciry could require the developer to pay the additional casts in lieu of providing transit services on their own. A review of the Aspen 2009-2013 Short Range Transit Plan LSC Transportation Consultants, Znc. Page /7 development components shows that with the combination of tourist units and affordable housing, new transit ridership generated is estimated to be upwards of 52,000 passenger-trips per year (summer and winter), as shown in Table 1. Provide Service on the Cross-Town Shuttle -The Cross-Town Shuttle Route could be revised to provide service to the Lift One development. Currently, the mute travels along Durant Street. It could be revised to travel into the Lift One Development without incurring significant costs, or along a street closer to the development, as the increased mileage would be negligible. However, due to some of the proposed street closures (such as Gilbert Street or Dean Street), the route would experience the same issues as the previous alternative associated with narrow streets and traffic conflicts. Further, as with the Galena Street shuttle, the route operates on a very tight schedule and any new service area may cause the route to fall behind, thus requiring a schedule change. Since the route runs on 30- minute headways, it would not make sense from an operational viewpoint to increase the headways. Rather, portions of the route may need to be revised and eliminated in order to allow more time. One option is to eliminate service down Ute Avenue to the Aspen Club, which currently provides their own private transportation services for both employees and guests. According to ridership data collected during a peak week in January 2009, roughly 27 percent of ridership activity on the Cross- Town Shuttle is generated from the Aspen Club, despite services being offered through the Club. Should this service area be cut from the route, a significant portion of the existing ridership would be lost. Further, the capacity of the Aspen Club's transit services may not be great enough to handle nearly aone-third increase in ridership. Based on these factors, this altemative was not explored in detail. Provide Service on the Revised Winter Mountain Vallev DAR- The Mountain Valley DAR route travels along the same streets as the Galena Street Shuttle (South Aspen Street and Gilbert Street), thus also presenting the opportunity for service to the Lift One development. As with the Galena Street Shuttle, street closures will present logistical issues with respect to the narrow street proposed . in th0 development plans and traffic delays at the building entradce. Current on-time performahce problems also may result in operational issues, however this could be negated by implementing the altemative that includes afixed-route plus a separate DAR service in winter (as discussed in an earlier section). Note that direct service would only be available to Lift One during the winter, thus guests would need to walk to Rubey Pazk or to a bus stop within the vicinity of the development during summer, spring, and fall. Because the fixed-mute would only serve designated stops, there is more flexibility built into the schedule and less chance for the route to run late. Providing the service in the winter season would add negligible costs to the mute as revised with the two separate buses, the route would only need [o travel less than a mile total to serve the development. It is estimated that the additional cost to serve Lift One would be roughly $1,000; in total, the combined alternatives would increase operating costs by $380,300, vehicle-hours by 5,500 hours and vehicle-miles by 30,100 miles. The estimated ridership generated by the Lift One development is roughly 51,700 annual passenger-trips, which includes both the affordable housing and tourist unit trips. However, because this altemative would only provide service in the winter, summer transit ridership could not be accommodated. Thus, new ridership for the winter season only is estimated at 37,809 passenger-trips, as shown in Table 1. Do Not Provide Direct Transit Service - A fourth option would be not provide any direct service to the development at all. The development will be located within one-quarter of a mile of Rubey Park and closer to other points on Durant Street where there are bus stops. This distance is considered a reasonable distance to walk to transit opportunities. This City may also require that the developer pay for transit service operated by the Lift One property as a condition of project approval. Aspen 2009-2013 Short Range Transit Plan LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. Page 18 Of the four options presented, the expansion of the Galena Street Shuttle route appears to be the most attractive. The route would allow service to Lift One in both peak seasons (winter and summer), which is an important factor when serving a large development that includes tourist units. Further, the route stretches through downtown providing duect service to many of the retail and commercial centers in Aspen that are frequented by visitors. This characteristic makes the route more appealing for service to a tourist development than the Mountain Valley DAR route, which serves mainly an outlying residential area and a small portion of downtown. In addition, providing a third vehicle on the Galena Street Shuttle would allow it to operate more frequently (at roughly a 10 minute frequency) during many periods of the day. Lastly, the Mountain Valley DAR and the Cross-Town Shuttle service would need more significant alterations to their existing routes -making them more costly and requiring greater schedule changes. Other Service Alternatives Reinstate Previous Operating Hours in Early AM and Late PM in the Offseason The last Transit Development Plan prepared for the City of Aspen included a number of service cuts during the offseason in order to reduce costs. One option to revisit would be to reinstate the previous level of service, specifically by adding in service prior to 7:00 AM and after 12:00 AM during fall and spring on the Castle Maroon, Hunter Creek, Cemetery Lane, and Mountain Valley DAR routes. Sunday service would remain the same with hours of operation between 9:00 AM and 9:00 PM, and changes [o Burlingame would not be made. As shown in Table 1, addmg additional operating hours would increase annual costs by $100,600, as a result of a 15,300-mile increase in vehicle-miles and 1,300-hour increase in vehicle-hours. Originally, service was cut during these hours due to low ridership. Offseason ridership after midnight comprised only 5 percent of all ridership on Cemetery Lane and Hunter Creek, 3 percent on Castle Maroon, and 4 percent on Mountain Valley DAR. Likewise, ridership in the offseason prior to 7:00 AM only comprised I'percent of the Cemetery Lane ridership, 3 percent of the Hunter Creek ridership, 4 percent of the Castle Maroon ridership, and 2 percent of the Mountain Valley DAR ridership. Using these proportions of ridership for each route, it is not surprising that the total ridership increase for all four routes is estimated at 16,200 annual passenger-trips with the implementation of the alternative. This consists of 1,500 additional trips on Cemetery Lane, 5,700 additional trips on Castle Maroon, 8,300 additional trips on Mountain Valley DAR, and 700 annual trips on Hunter Creek. While this altemative would require a substantial increase in operating costs, this would be a relatively effective service improvement as measured by the number of passengers served per hour of expanded service. Eliminate Service After 9:00 PM on All Routes in the Offseason As a means to help reduce operating casts for the City of Aspen, one option would be to reduce the evening operating hours on all routes during the offseason. Affected routes would include Cemetery Lane, Hunter Creek, Castle Maroon, and Mountain Valley DAR. Buses would be in service until a final departure around 9:00 PM, rather than the existing 12:00 AM stop time. It is estimated that this alternative would reduce operating costs by roughly $100,400 annually, with a reduction in vehicle-hours of 1,200 hours and in vehicle-miles of 20,400 mites. Based on ridership data, approximately 13,100 one-way passenger-trips annually would be lost, or 113 passenger-trips per day, system wide. Table I provides detailed information for this alternative. When reviewing the impact on each route individually, the reduction in evening service on Cemetery Lane and Mountain Valley DAR routes would have the least impact on passenger-trips lost for every vehicle hour eliminated, with 4 passenger-trips and 1 passenger-trip lost, respectively. Hunter Creek and Aspen 2009-2013 Short Range Transit Plan LSC Transportation Consultants, lnc. Page !9 Castle Maroon would not fare as favorably based on higher ridership and would experience a loss of 23 passenger-trips per hour eliminated (Hunter Creek) and 15 passenger-trips per hour eliminated (Castle Maroon). Eliminate Service After 9:00 PM on All Routes in the Summer A more substantial altemative would be to reduce the operating hours during the summer season, which impacts more routes (in addition to those mentioned above, Highlands and Cross-Town Shuttle would also be affected) during a busier portion of the year. Rather than ending service at 2:00 AM, service would end at 9:00 PM. This alternative would reduce annual vehicle-hours by 1,700 and would reduce annual vehicle-miles by 21,800, resulting in a reduction of $182,400 in annual operating costs, as shown in Table 1. Ridership loss would be greater, with roughly 43,000 annual passenger-trips eliminated, based on ridership data during the hours of 9:00 PM and 2:00 AM. This altemative is not as attractive as cutting evening service in the offseasons. When compared to the previous altemative, this option would only provide a 27 percent greater cost savings and would result in a ridership loss more than three times as great. Therefore, should the Ciry of Aspen wish to reduce operating hours, it is not advised that this option be implemented, as the losses are very significant in comparison with the cost savings. Individually, the Cross-Town Shuttle, Mountain Valley DAR, and Highlands routes would result in the lowest passenger-trips lost per vehicle-hour eliminated, also shown in Table 1. The Cross-Town Shuttle would see a reduction of 5 passenger-[rips per hour eliminated, while Mountain Valley would have 6 passenger-trips lost, and Highlands would have 9 passenger-trips lost per hour eliminated. Castle Maroon would be impacted the most, with a loss of 50 passenger-trips per hour eliminated, followed by Hunter Creek with 41 passenger-trips lost, and Cemetery Lane ] 1 passenger-trips lost. Eliminate Service Aftei 10:00 PM on All Routes in the Offseason ' To reduce the impact of ridership loss yet provide a cost saving alternative, another potential option is to reduce service after 10:00 PM in the offseason on all four routes that operate during this time. The result would yield a 6,600 one-way passenger-trip ridership loss, annually. This is roughly 6,500 one-way passenger-trips less (or half) than if service is stopped at 9:00 PM. With this altemative, there would be roughly 800 fewer vehicle-hours and 11,300 fewer vehicle-miles, as shown in Table 1. On an individual route basis, the Cemetery Lane and Mountain Valley DAR routes would experience [he least impact with respect to loss of ridership for every vehicle-hour eliminated. Specifically, Cemetery Lane would lose only 2 passenger-trips for every hour eliminated, while Mountain Valley DAR would lose less than 1 passenger-trip for every hour eliminated. Because overall ridership is higher, Hunter Creek would lose 20 passenger-trips and Castle Maroon would lose 11 passenger-trips for every vehicle hour eliminated. Eliminate Service After 10:00 PM on All Routes in the Summer Eliminating service after 10:00 PM was also reviewed for the routes operating during the summer season. These routes include Cemetery Lane, Hunter Creek, Castle Maroon, Mountain Valley DAR, and the Cross-Town Shuttle. Less ridership is impacted, with an estimated loss of 30,100 one-way passenger-trips annually. It is anticipated that overall, the alternative would save the City of Aspen 1,300 vehicle-hours and 17,600 vehicle-miles annually. Aspen 2009-20/3 Start Range Transit Plan LSC Transportation Consukants, lnc. Page 20 Table 1 presents detailed information regarding the impacts of this altemative. As shown, both the Mountain Valley DAR and Cross-Town Shuttle would present the least impact with respect to ridership lost for every vehicle hour eliminated (each would lose 4 passenger-trips per vehicle-hour eliminated). The Cemetery Lane route would lose 8 passenger-trips for every hour eliminated, while Hunter Creek and Castle Mazoon would have significantly greater impacts, with 40 passenger-trips lost and 45 passenger- trips lost far every hour eliminated, respectively. Begin Service At 7:30 AM on All Routes in the Offseason In lieu of, or in accordance with, reducing hours at the end of the service day, another option is to begin service slightly later in the morning to provide additional cost savings. Most routes in the offseason begin at 7:00 AM. While eliminating essentially one mn per day in the morning is not significant, it is important to maintain a schedule that will allow residents to get to work by 8:00 AM. This altemative would reduce operating costs by $50,800 annually, based on a reduction in vehicle-hours of 700 and in vehicle-miles of 5,300. Ridership would be reduced by roughly 5,400 one-way passenger- trips annually. This was determined by looking at the ridership prior to 7:00 AM as well as one-half the ridership during the 7:00 AM hour, as not all ridership would be lost since there would be at least one ran in operation during the later portion of the hour. As shown in Table 1, the Burlingame and Mountain Valley DAR routes would be impacted the least, with each lasing 3 passenger-trips for every vehicle-hour eliminated. Cemetery Lane follows closely, with an estimated 4 passenger-trips lost for every hour eliminated. Both Hunter Creek (12 passenger-trips lost) and Castle Maroon (15 passenger-trips lost) would have greater impacts. Begin Service At 7:30 AM on All Routes in the Summer As with the evening service options, another alternative that would reduce costs more would be to start all ' routes in the summer at 7:30 AM. For most routes, this would result in roughly 1 hour less time in service; exceptions include the Highlands route which begins prior to 6:00 AM, and the Burlingame Route, which begins at 7:00 AM. Both the Galena Street Shuttle and Cross-Town Shuttle will not be impacted, as service begins at 8:15 AM and 7:24 AM, respectively. As shown in Table 1, approximately 7,000 one-way passenger-trips would be lost annually with this altemative, or 81 passenger-trips per day. From a cost perspective, annual operating costs would be reduced by $68,700, with a reduction in vehicle-miles of 8,800 miles and in vehicle-hours of 800 hours. Table 1 details the impacts of each individual route. As shown, the Highlands route would have the least impact with only 4 passenger-trips lost for every vehicle hour eliminated. Following closely is the Mountain Valley DAR route (5 passenger-trips lost) and the Burlingame route (6 passenger-trips lost). Also with fair results would be the Cemetery Lane route with 7 passenger-trips lost for every hour eliminated and the Castle Mazoon route with 8 passenger-trips lost for every hour eliminated. Combine Cemeterv Lane and Mountain Vallev DAR in the Offseason Instead of eliminating routes, one cost saving option would be to combine routes. The 30-minute headway schedule for both [he Cemetery Lane and Mountain Valley DAR routes makes combining these two routes a feasible altemative. This altemative would combine Cemetery Lane and Mountain Valley DAR into one hourly interlined route using a single bus. The route would begin at Red Butte Drive as the Cemetery Lane route, arrive at Rubey Pazk Transit Center, and continue on as Mountain Valley DAR. Aspen 2009-2013 Short Range Transit Plan LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. Page 21 Once back at the transit center, the route would fmish as Cemetery Lane. For example, using the existing offseason schedule, the bus would depart Red Butte Drive at 7:00 AM, depart as the Mountain Valley route from Rubey Park at 7:15 AM, and depart as the Cemetery Lane route from Rubey Park at 7:45 AM. This interlining option would reduce vehicle-hours by 2,200 hours annually and reduce annual vehicle- miles by 20,100 miles, as shown in Table 1. As a result, operating cost would be reduced by $165,400 and ridership would be reduced by 10,200 passenger-trips annually (or 80 passenger-trips per day). Ridership impacts were determined by an elasticity analysis that considered existing ridership and the reduction in service frequency on both routes from half-hourly to hourly. Given the number of hours reduced, the alternative has a low ratio of passenger-trips lost per vehicle-hours eliminated (5.0 passenger-trips). A review of the ridership data shows that the Cemetery Lane route carries anywhere between 1 and 15 passengers per hour, while the Mountain Valley DAR route has between 1 and 7 passengers per hour. The Mountain Valley route uses a 15-passenger capacity minibus, as the terrain on many of the residential streets may not be suitable for a larger vehicle. Requiring the driver to switch between a minibus and standard bus at Rubey Park is not considered to be operationally feasible, as the driver would need to make apre-trip inspection prior to every run. A minibus would therefore need to be operated on both of the paired routes, which could result in some standees on the Cemetery Lane route at unusually busy times. Another operational issue is that, by interlining the routes, delays on one route would also impact on-time performance on the other. In particulaz, delays along SR 82/Main Street west of downtown on the Cemetery Lane route could well result in delayed service on the Mountain Valley DAR. Combine Hunter Creek and Castle-Maroon in the Offseason Another 'interlining option is to combine the Hunter Creek and Castle'Mazoon routes in the offseason. The Hunter Creek route operates with 20-minute headways, while the Castle Mamon route has two buses each completing the 40-minute route. If combined and operated with two buses, a single mute could be offered with 30-minute headways. The route would begin at The Highlands as the Castle Mazoon route and would travel to Rubey Park, where it would continue on as Hunter Creek. Once the bus returns to the transit center, the route would be completed as Castle Mazoon. Unlike the previous interlining alternative, there would be no bus capacity issues with this option, as both routes generate similar ridership and utilize higher capacity vehicles. As shown in Table 1, this altemative would save the City of Aspen approximately $157,800 annually, based on a reduction in vehicle-hours of 2,000 hours and in vehicle-miles of 22,800 miles annually. An elasticity analysis showed that roughly 28,200 annual one-way passenger-trips would be lost (or 210 passenger-trips per day). When compared to vehicle-hours lost, this equates to roughly 14 passenger-trips lost for every vehicle hour eliminated. As with the previous altemative, delays on one route (such as Castle Maroon) would result in late service on the Hunter Creek route. Other Interlinine Alternatives In addition to the above interlining options between Cemetery Lane/Mountain Valley DAR and Hunter Creek/Castle-Maroon, two other route combinations were explored: Interlining Hunter Creek Route with the Mountain Valley DAR Route -This route combination would have the advantage of avoiding either leg of [he combined route being impacted by traffic delays along Main Street/SR 82 west of town. However, Hunter Creek currently operates on Aspect 2009-2013 Short Range Transit Plan LSC Transportatton Consultants, /nc. Page 22 20-minute headways and Mountain Valley on 30-minute headways. In order to provide consistent "clock headways" whereby the transit schedule is the same for every hour of the day, which is very important in providing a convenient easy-to-understand transit service, the interlined route would consist of one run per hour of Mountain Valley followed by one run per hour of Hunter Creek, with a 10 minute layover/recovery period each hour. In effect, service on Hunter Creek would be reduced from 3 times per hour to only hourly service, which would have a dramatic negative impact on both ridership and bus ovemrowdmg. Putting a second bus on this interlined route would yield 30 minute service on both routes, but would not result in any cost savings. In addition, a lazge bus (required to accommodate the Hunter Creek bus) would need to also operate the Mountain Valley service, which is not feasible given the geometrics of the East End roadways. (Another option -having one driver move twice per hour between a bus and a van in order to operate a van on Mountain Valley -would require the driver to make apre-trip inspection of the vehicle twice per hour.) For these reasons, it was concluded that this alternative is not feasible. Interlining the Cemetery Lane Route with the Castle-Maroon Route - As the Cemetery Lane Route operates on 30-minute headways and Castle-Maroon on 40-minute headways, combining these different schedules would yield a 1 hour 10 minute cycle length, and thus not yield "clock headways: ' For instance, with two buses on this interlined route, Castle Maoon buses would depart Rubey Pazk at 8:00 AM, 8:35 AM, 9:10 AM, 9:45 AM, 10:20 AM, 11:55 AM, and so on. To provide clock headways would require a 25 minute layover every cycle and the use of 3 buses, which would not result in any noticeable savings in operating costs while still reducing service frequency on Castle- Maroon from 20 minutes to 30 minutes. For these reasons, it was concluded that this alternative is not feasible. Eliminate One or More Offseason Routes A more drastic cost saving measure is to reduce individual routes entirely in the offseason, when ridership is'considerably lower. The following analysis details each alternative (also see Table 1): ' Eliminate Castle Maroon - By eliminating the entire route during the offseason, approximately $354,600 would be saved in operating costs annually. Further, vehicle-hours would be reduced by 4,400 and vehicle-miles reduced by 54,600. However, this route has the highest ridership of all the offseason routes, at over 125,200 one-way passenger-trips in fall and spring combined. As such, the ridership lost is too great in comparison with the savings and reduction in hours, as demonstrated by a result of roughly 28 passenger-trips lost for every hour of service eliminated. • Eliminate Cemetery Lane -The Cemetery Lane route generates roughly 24,500 annual one-way passenger-trips during the offseasons combined, all of which would be eliminated with this alternative. It is estimated that approximately $174,100 in annual operating costs would be saved, based on a 2,300 reduction in vehicle-hours and a 22,900 reduction invehicle-miles. The alternative would result in roughly 1 I passenger-trips lost for every vehicle hour eliminated. • Eliminate Hunter Creek -Another high ridership route during the offseason is the Hunter Creek route, with 77,400 passenger-trips. Elimination of the service entirely would save Aspen City $158,000 annually, and would reduce vehicle-hours by 2,200 and vehicle-miles by 14,800. Given the ridership and reduction in hours, this alternative would yield a loss of 35 passenger-trips for every hour of service eliminated, making this one of the least favorable alternatives. Eliminate Mountain Valley DAR- The last route operated in the offseason is the Mountain Valley DAR route, which would lose approximately 11,800 passenger-trips if the service was eliminated. The alternative would save Aspen City roughly $166,200 annually, and would result in a 2,300 hour Aspen 2009-2013 Short Range Transit Plan LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. Page 23 reduction in vehicle-hours and an 18,100 mile reduction in vehicle-miles. Because of the relatively low ridership on the route during the season, the alternative would reduce ridership by 5 passenger- trips for every service hour eliminated. Of all the complete service elimination altematives presented, this option would have the least impact on ridership while reducing a significant amount of vehicle- hours. Complete elimination of offseason service -even to an area with relatively little transit ridership -should be pursued with great caution. One of the great strengths of Aspen's current transit program is that it is comprehensive enough to reasonably avoid the need for many households to have a second or even a first car. By eliminating service through a substantial portion of the year, many existing residents currently relying on the transit program would instead choose to purchase a caz, and then would tend to use that car throughout the year. Elimination of service in the offseasons would therefore hurt efforts to reduce auto use throughout the yeaz. COMPARISON OF SHORT-RANGE SERVICE ALTERNATIVES This section presents a comparison of the various alternatives discussed above. Table 2 presents a series of "performance indicators" for the various service alternatives. Figure 5 illustrates the savings in annual operating costs for each alternative, while the ridership impact of the various altematives, as measured in marginal annual one-way passenger-trips, is presented in Figure 6 (for altematives that reduce ridership) and Figure 7 (for altematives that increase ridership). A review of this comparison indicates the following: The greatest ridership potential increase would be generated by Galena Street Shuttle service to Lift One (providing that the development is constmcted), with 51,700 passenger-trips per yeaz, followed by Lift One service via a reconfigured Mountain Valley DAR (37,800 passenger-trips per yeaz). Reinstating the extended operating hours in the offseason would have the next greatest cumulative ridership increase, at 16,200 passenger-trips annually. This is followed by providing a sepazate Mountain Valley DAR and fixed-route alternative, with 9,500 annual one-way passenger-trips. On the other extreme, eliminating Castle-Mazoon service in the offseasons would reduce ridership by approximately 125,200 passenger-trips per year. The operating effectiveness of the altematives, measured in terms of marginal one-way passenger- trips per vehicle service hour, is depicted in Figure 8 (for altematives reducing ridership) and Figure 9 (for altematives increasing ridership). As a comparison, the current City service as a whole carries 22.0 one-way passenger-trips per vehicle service hour on average. Of those alternatives that increase both ridership and costs, the addition of eazly morning and late evening offseason hours generates the greatest ridership per vehicle hour, at 12.5, followed by providing service to [he Lift One development on Galena Street Shuttle (9.2 passengers per vehicle service hour) and providing Mountain Valley DAR service every 15 minutes during the peak winter hours, at 5.9 passengers per vehicle service hour. The "best" altemative is actually eliminating the Burlingame service and creating a shuttle service to the roundabout and Aspen Valley Hospital. This altemative would generate a significant ridership increase along with a decrease in vehicle-hours and operating costs. Comparing these figures with a reasonable minimum standard of 8.0 passenger-trips per vehicle-hour, the expansions altemative that would attain this level would be the alternative reinstating the offseason cuts in service hours, extending the Galena Street Shuttle to Lift I, and creating the Burlingame shuttle service. Far those alternatives resulting in a reduction of ridership and vehicle-hours, the best alternatives are those that yield the smallest loss in ridership per vehicle-hour of service eliminated. This best "reduction alternative" reduces summer Highlands service to 8:00 AM - 8:00 PM, and eliminates Aspen 2009-2013 Short Range Transit Plan LSC Transporla[ion Consultants, Inc. Page 24 ~ v O U p y O_ ~p y < O ONi uOt O N ~ O OI ~ ~ ~ ~ N R N ~ m N N ~ ~ 6~ M pj . N d o> O N N p ~ p ~mW W W M H. ~~ I I l~ N h W p N N~ M W w w w N N W w p • M M M M N N g ~ m $ m F Q~ 1 ~ m m o m 8 a a E ~ N N r N^ I I N N O N I~ b r OI ~O I~ N N N^ O r! ~ b r W O O D O N Ci ^ OO OO OO OO OO OI OO OO W OO OO O O O O O t7 ~ ~ OO ~ OO N ~ OO OO ~ lV E N O w~ E f ~ ° a ~ ~ O m n m O ~ N I~ N^ OI F I~ m N~ 1~ O m 0 N V N N Q~ lh I a~2 lV m X 1 1 I ~ •m d N d I I d (~,M ~ y OI b ~ m N~ N n < a N~~ N Pi p E n m m 0f" U C P h q p 8 8 8 88 O pp O O pp yy po 8 p p p 00 00 pO p p O O O O p 8 S2 S g • N O Om ~~ ~ ~ O y o N N~ •Ofl_ Y 0 N C! W O a O~ 0 0 o b n O XX m o m c N ~ n r v ~~ ~O 1~ .- N N I~ N A M .f- T N ~ d~ N~ ty ~ W l~ ~ v •(t I~ O 0 N !~ ~ b • E a m ~ m~ 8 8 8 8 ~ N A S ~ 8 ~ g ~ 8~ ~ 8~ g $ ~ ° $ o ffi U U V i g, . 8 y g yy a a a p p p ~ O Z Z Z~~ N P ~ N ~ •O N~ 0 O b O O ~ h ,$~$ [O irO m r~ b w w'^'^ w 7 ` '~'~19 ~ $~ ~ ac' an w 7» a 'Aw 7 H ~ 7 7 Ea v (, U 1 0 ~ p $$~~ o p ,Q O o S p p p p p p p p $~ 8~ Q a Q ~fj Q O m o a a fvl V Z N N~~ ~O N t7 0~ N~ O O N O d t~ N tYl ` d -? 2 ~ • Z Z Z N di • Z Z, N SYY~ ~ N y~ ~ ^ W r ~ i mi Cl N v N N N N ~ ` i ¢ G ~ Q v ' ~ m E a v ~ {0 0 ~ .. ~ g dt R ~ O 5 z' $ 0 a ~ ~ ° v v ° ` y m g c ~ ¢ cm ~ a m r 'o ~ $ Q 3 m~ E E 3 ~ s a~ i; o b ry m p`7 f m E E E @ S a o Q ~ O y ww &_£ t 3 g~ s a g m m O44 ~~~~ E~ E ~ c m ~ y Q N E~ o qq v m~ v~ y~ '• e m K a 3' 3 co ~ y ~ = ~ v $ m S 9 ? 3 E ~ ~ a~ ~ ~ O ~ $ °n t 8 ~ N m ii m~_ S£ m E Q ° Xi ~ m d~ ~• ~ m m :: H d E ~ S m~ o E E~~~ °«' .. .. v X 3 4 C~C '~ m-_ O y~ S O ` ?• a~ o o: o Z• ~ E E U S E E `m Ij O g• m c c 4 E m •t 6 m~ HI a w v E E c w m$ 4 v ~~`- W m~¢ rc``~ °o m~ m,_ F G X $ ~ v H~ E v w m-- E v 2 a ~ a a a a~~ m ~_ N N a ~ m ( ~ r U I~ o - a W~~ E~ o o K K'~~~ c a z` E E N ll m v 2 m v u 2~ ~ E-- a m v 0 1 m y m m °- m' m' ii C s an r ~', ~` m g m~ d a a ~ ~ `~ m ~ m ~ ~ a a ~ x ¢ d ° a ~ ~ S o ° ° ` ~ ~ ~ o o m m x o `m m o ~ ~ ° '~ E a o¢ m m m °i v G y fl a a J~ v m s ~ E _ ~ o o rm ~ - y ul y n v v m m ` ` 8 2~~ d p m v ~ ~~ i N c~ m f c~ ti ~' ~ Z 2• ~ _u v v E ¢ a¢ a iO ~ Z `~ i0 ' E ~ t ~ c~ N K & m m 0 u ~ °u u m m a b `v ~ E D~ 3~ w ' 9 ~ h m O v 5mi ~ y Z m c ~ c Q m O ~ c E« y ~~ << ._ ._ c- ~ ~~ 2 t v v E E t mm ~ E E y _rn ~ m~~ p e U U Q E U U o~ a t c m m 2 y 2 a iq 4~ f~i ' U 2 U U x E N ' W O •• U q y p ~ U &~ 'O ~~ m& L& U L L y y~~ X01• N 41 ~ H Te N 6 N N 0 L L N PI F] m c ~ c ~ c ~~ c c ` c c c ~ c ~ J J N E m $ a 'k p p~ a ~ _ R N W W ~ ~ c c c c_ c j ° E °v E~ E e 2 S. E E E >y o o °v m m E o Pm-y E E E E v o o E E E E ° ~ ~ W w m w= a a O w w w rc U v a ¢ O O w a a m w w w w~ m ~+ v w w w w 5 y 2009-20/3 ShoK Rance Transit Plan LSC Transportation Consultants, Page 25 N O Ol d a O C C a C m rn C R U W 7 LL :Aim t ~ ~ .-, z .v t ~ sG § n ^ s T ~ a:, t r " w~ C i x F ~ ~ h ~ 4 { .., i 4 ~ 4 r l 2. '. ~ } : h 4 ~ ~ ;; 4 ; ~ ~': NE ~ 3 ~ , f . i- *~~ r~~ a' .,i. ~ d. T kk g a ~ C~ ~ ~' . , rt,,.,+. ~ ~. ",.e .; yc ~ .zy~,... }3 ~ ~~ ~~ ~. .c . ~ dt ,x. ~.:kx wx x x5~ ! .. '' ' rt „ ¢ 'ml t.: f $ € t:~~ y ~ ~ ..E~. { Y ~ ,'c ~XsL. ~~1 3iM { "~ 'Y i t T ~ y 3{~" F Sy` ~ n } ,~ ) aa~ ! t ix ~ a~i ., t4 f4 A"~ v A _ ° $ ~ a T `m o `m = `m = ~ ~ 5 $ ~ = m m `~ o m ~ `m c m m m ~ n ~ g m m E m E ~+ E ~+ a~~$ ~~ O$= c m m a a ¢ y a' ~a~i d d m o o? m j m? `° ~ o N~ m m~ 3~ m a o~~~ 3 3° N$ v ~nrna~a~aamq~?y~tw~'Ja ,q}~ =~?S~ z~ m~ ~~oa~ ~~ppp~ y~ ~ ~ d m~~ O ~ C C L ~ Y ~ t ~ C ~ C ~ IL S ~ ~l ~ O ~ ~ ~ ryCry T 0 C$C '~ > ~ ~ C « wL. «~ A q C« C« C«~ a O Yo m C C m O j C fn ¢ U N C L j ~IO V~ L c c c c m m m= m= m=¢~ ~$ m m m 0 0 0 m 3 ~ .t 522 N Q C¢ o m m Y ~m c~~ 5 w 5 m 5 m t 3 m U o m E~ m E F m~ y ~n a K 'o °c o= o m m~ o m m m~ c K E c ~ m ¢ m~ m CO `m m~ QO~K ~fL ~f15w5 m E E $z m ~ `~¢ g+ ZO? c g E QU Z`~~£QKQ Katy ~~~ n.~vly m¢ Era egt =>°c~ ° __ ~ ~ m c~ a~~ `o a o¢ o¢ y °y `m o w c m vl 5 m~ L~~ rq a .Wm. 5 w~ z m m C O m C N m ~_ ~U ~¢~ oa oa o~ii W 4m' `~ m ~K c a E ml°- o m¢~ m~y dTca `°'° m m~ ygi,¢oo a°o,a~ m f ~ m E cw'k t!i mN'm ~ E_E = E~ E $> m ~m ~~ ~£> c m~ EiD m c m m~ E U `¢LLOfL $~w ~ W E._ m e ~ C m `m ° 50,v_O D o E- m 3 m E d U p ~, a.m ~ m ~ ILwU $_ m¢ d~ ~'9c~ yo c m gym' c<rn c~= °-' ~'S 5°c ~ C~ Z K¢ C~ O J LL L U fn ~ m e jp m N O O m m m °ia 2 Z¢ $_¢~~ oa a0 Z c ~ E ~~~ E n>.c>Kw m c $~ ~ fn m Z 2 .~ `` £$ m m r~ E a E m~ Z w O .~ '~ m~~ 2 .E °c °' c. m m r9'i 2 0 '~ 'Z $ L° ~ ~ = m al U m c > j ~ K $ w ~ c E~ c m g' O~ y O w ~ m~ Q°~ ~~~ ty O K ~ `~ W S E ~ m~ y m a m m m a~ c a~ 'E m r E w E n J~ m Q~ U=~ ~ c ~~ w~ ~ a E w w O~ a c ~ m m$~ o m E m .g c c ~ E F a m . c VO a~ m mE`92,w ,m~ ° ° m m t~ m m° m m o o g c a ~a c 'EU ro 5 U a m m m E c_ > U m` W w U U = E ¢ a < c $ .E w a K W E 0 U 0 0 O O O M 43 O N ~3 O O O °o N °o CI O 0 N V G A N 0 L Aspen 2009-20/3 Short Range Transit Plan LSC Transportation Consultants, /na Page 26 0 i o° 0 o "' N r r k p , p l~# ~ Wl ,~ •~. _ } O '~~ T 0 r ' O v ,~~ ~. ~~'~ ~.~ ` ~. ~ ~ L U o ~ „ Y ~ a ~_a ~{ ~ "~^ G y ~4`~ a'la ~. d O '~_ O ~ e' ; ~~ 1 d a ° ! `~ ~ t °o ~~~„~~ . c ~ ~ o d ~ U a ~~; _ d Q' ° ~ L y o ; ~! R N : y V N O O . ~ a; , ~ .., __ ~. C R ' ~ ~ ~ a n • ~ `m ~ a ~ d ~ c c m c m` ~ `m ~ c c o `o • o ~ t . ~ z o o o E E g ~ E. c ~ 0 ~ E ~ E ~ E c g ~ ~ ~ N ~ ~ m ~. y ~ ~ m ~ m ~ m ~ ~ m m m m A N ~ w ~ y c ~ m ° c ~? rn ~ y ul ~ m a) to m ~ ~ ~ °c ' ~ > ~ ~ c ~ 3 ~ t O 5 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ O W ° a m N a N « £ c c c c C ~ S o ' p C ~ m O ~ E m` m o i 5 ~ a m N . 5 N ~ C 4L ~ ~ E p~ o ~ r E ' E m a) ' J ~ E 5 K K 5 ~ o C o m Y ~ m r ~ Q E . . `m o r rn i ~ ~ Q 5 i o ~ ~ U K _ _~ c_ ~ n n a ' Q K Q ~ Q O ~° ~ Z Q LL 4I Z 3 ,~ (n m ~ m 5 C . V C Q~ Q ' C o ¢ C o >` ~ m m m ~ m V) c ~ ' J m ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ y E ~ O ~ S9 0 m m K O ~ O O J m m S T ~ m w . E y a 8 a o a ' 5 a =~ « c > w y U ' m ~ m E oo ° oo rn cGi q 1 r m c ~ E c N K ¢ c w o c o p ~ 3 E m m' s m Q ~ Q m °~ C U IL IL ~ L K w E F U C g m Q ~ Q ryW .Y ~ ati m ~ T ~ ~ w ~ Z ~ m 'Z `~ m a2i m ~ ~ m ~ O O U !%J Z` « ~ ~ N Z fn m m N m N c SI 'J = a ^ N m m 'O m y d y m N O m 01 111 N ~ w am, m 1J c ~ d U y m m ~ m c E~ E - m E a o > m m E a ° c E m 'E w E w m U U c m ~ W m 'n U w w ~ c ~ U n E d U ~ a m m ~ U m U '~ W m ani;eu~a;Itl Aspen 2009-2013 Shart Range Transit Plan LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. page 27 0 0 min oxm°., yr ,. } , ,y # y y ^ ' y,e ~" 0 ~ -~. .~Ar~: ;r .. ,,r o ~, ~' ~ y~ ~ ~ r ~ ~~F i 0 lfJ .. -~~~~e( .~ ,~.~. ~ . ~ ~` 'v K`+ _ a +~. O O P ~/' ~ L~BE ~ r~vy 'Yel }d ~` # k J ~ d ~ q Sx ' : ' ~ er~a ~ .~ ~ Q _ ~~ ~~~ `4 O M C l yy~ C '~ .. °p U ~ a ~ % ` ~ O ~ C L R ~ z ~ i a~ + ~' t d U u,,~ ~p d'd-i-. ;t~j „ _~... - °o N ~ ~¢ o o d ~' yr ~ ~O V ff`'-- ~.. A ~. }~'.~~' C F .C L ~ ~ d ~ ~ a ~ 5 8 v o ~ ~ ~~ m a~ `m c c c ' « N ~ r, J ~ m ~ m m m m ~ o rr 3 3 d ~ 9 d m ~ F u, u, ~ z < ' C ° LL ~ C ~ } m U_ y 2 W E a L m c m m m J ~ ~ J V C 2 ~ v, ~ r 2 m m m c7 U c ¢ E E ' ~ ~ ~ ¢ m m U' Q _ w 5 ~ ° 9 m ° O m E N ° y t, O ~+ m o K V' C ~ C f~ 2 OI G N ~ L W ~ m X 6 Q - ~ C m em. O Y fn T N W r ~ at m ~+ ~ G O t ~ F- m ; ~ ~ J m a ~ X a > c ~ a m ° o m E LL O U O E £ 2 O m E > m = ~ = ° O ° ~ J o a o ° ~~ O c ~ ~ ~ n > > > u m rn E O ~ n m 'a 3 .2 vmi ~' '° ~ ~ ~ J ° m ~' rp d m = ° ~ ~ ~ ~ N O ~ J m j m N E w 9 J m ~ m .r D N E > N J m Q ~ O d ry D a V a 6 ` 'm' Oi C _ Z m m o m m y ~ y m r~ m m ~ m c c a a c v_ c E w K [L W a D a ani~ewa~ltl Aspen 2009-20]3 Short Range Transit Plan LSC Transportation Consid[an[s, Inc. Page 28 0 0 ~'° `'`,,~ f~ v ~ ~ '- ~ ~ ac o -~. '. t ~ '~~ ~ °: a ~ ~ ~ ` to "~ r - ~ r`~i `~ '~ ~' > - m a ~ ~ ~ a ~- ~m~ m t,~ ~ ~:~ °. d Y f ~ ~ 4T ~ ~ ~ ~ % ~ ~ u ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ N ~ Lfiu t k :r ~ t r f/1 ~ N j j O d ~ y ,'~ ~ ~ ~ ~ N l[J U t _ o a~ ', ~ V a 2 5~ s % . ~, N t p ~ d ~ .., '= v t: N G , ,_ ,,,~ d L C V Y1 L .. ,~.+ . ~. ~,. fix,;.'.. ~; ~ N l6 ~ *~;~ ~ 5 • ~ y y ~ o d w ~ y F'` r L N •~ ~ k ~~.•Y ~ ` U . ~ ~ rm ~ ' d y f 1. A C S P . y ~/ F V € "s O N N gg c E E E c E a E ~ a O ~~ m i6 m m y ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 'Z +' a~ ~' v v v ~ ` ~ v ~~ ~ v m~ E _ ° E ° g v C C N N N a) ~ N N N N N a) N ~ c a) ao N m aG w o `~ 2 R ~ L O ~ m c ° c c d o d d ~ ~ d ' v E rn E o ~ ~. U W U J ~ c p S ¢ ~ ~ o ~ v N ° E Q Z` ~ ¢ fY tY ¢ ¢ CY N ~ ~ ~ L C ry tJ ~ w ~' ~ d ~ ~ o a _ 5 a 5 _ a N `- ~ d ~ N e d ' o _ ~ ° . ~ ~ N d ~ ~ m ~ ~ a ° a ° 'z tr m ~ c d ~ U U c ~ ~ ~ v rn w c m ~ E w lL . a .E ~ c .E x ~ o ~ o M bi o o 0 o o v E c ~ m Q r U q) c w E v ~ ' r ,~ ci ~ ° ~ o N v w ~ ° w w E U o ~ m 2 `m v ¢ d ' Q x ¢ x c ~ t m c v c m c ~ ~ m g $ ~ C ( l ~ = E = Z. N (n C 4J Z ~ d N a) Z ` L N N ~' v O ryN U ~ ffl N ~ n J ~ U W C N m C ° .E N c_ m O Z v E v N m U v ~ U J w E ~~ c U E C w E E v ~' c u1 W U a w E v c E o O a U U E 0 U ani;ewa31V n 2009-2013 Short Range Transit Plan Transportation Consultants, /nc. Page 29 0 ® C ~ •. m a m °'o ° ~: ~.~Y, V ~„ - ~N W~ O y m L N m ~ r. d, ,: + ~~ ~ O d y G ~ ~ Q O ~.? ` ?, E 0 G 7 `~ ~~ " T r ~ d o e O ~ a x; ~ V o d N C N N O. o ~t n~ ~ ~ gi N c av ~ g e ~ ~ ~ •~ L m d d u i m~ ~ v C a ~ ~ ° 0 V C V ~ ~ c c d R v N o t A yZy ~ K _ _ c r ~ °' V! d N g - !n ~ `° `- ~ W> m ~ t m y m ~ m °~ c Z v d R v ~ m v m c ~ g to ^ d d ` ~ ~ °v E rn ~ ~ A fA ~ -o °c ~ m c N w Q {Q - ~Np K X O t ~ ~ 3 ~ 7 N LL d O m 3 N m c w v of d > d „ d m' 2 ~ ¢ '-' W/ ``' ~ 0 ° O g U ° ~. ~ LL C j J O a U L" ~ ~ N ~ ° ~ ° g v ~ LL C ' L .3 ~ ~ N a) a ~ V N ~ o ~ ~ c ~ ~ c O ~ N W ~ v N K ) N E Q D N n o a m °Q Q n O ~, ~' a m ~ ' o a v m > v O v o ` m ~ ~ a ~ > E ~ a w ani;eu~a;~~y Aspen 1009-2013 Short Range Transit Plan LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. Page 30 only 1.7 passenger-trips per vehicle-hour. On the other hand. Eliminating the Hunter Creek service in the offseason would reduce ridership by 34.8 passenger-trips for every vehicle-hour of service eliminated. Several of the altematives that reduce ridership would be consistent with a standard of 8.0 passenger-trips per vehicle-hour, as they would not reduce ridership in excess of [he standard (these do not include more detailed scenarios, such as individual service hour changes for specific routes): - Eliminating Summer Highlands service - Reducing Highlands service to 8:00 AM-8:00 PM - Eliminating the Cross-Town Shuttle after 8:00 PM in summer - Beginning all routes at 7:30 AM in the offseason - Beginning all routes at 7:30 AM in the summer - Operate Burlingame Service in summer and winter only - Combining Cemetery Lane and Burlingame Routes after 10:00 PM in winter - Combining Cemetery Lane and Burlingame as an out of town bus - Combining Cemetery Lane and Mountain Valley in the offseason - Eliminating Mountain Valley in the offseason Another key performance measure is the operating cost per passenger-trip, as presented in Figure 10 (for altematives reducing ridership) and Figure 11 (for altematives increasing ridership). The best altemative is providing a Burlingame/Maroon Creek Road shuttle, which would decrease costs by $0.15 for every new passenger served, as costs are decreased while ridership is increased. For those altematives increasing both costs and ridership, the best alternatives have a relatively low cost per new passenger-trip. Here the best alternative is adding evening service to Burlingame in the summer and offseason via Cemetery Lane, which would cost $2.53 per new passenger-trip. Even this altemative, however, would require more funding per passenger than the existing service average of $2,37 per passenger-trip. Operating the Burlingame route at full service would cost the most, at $53.59 per passenger-trip. For alternatives reducing both costs and ridership, a high value is better, as it reflects a greater cost savings per passenger-trip lost. Reducing the Highlands service in the summer would save the highest marginal cost per passenger-trip at $52.00, while eliminating the Highlands service in summer would save $28.46 per passenger-trip. On the other hand, eliminating the offseason Hunter Creek service would save only $2.04 per passenger-trip lost, and eliminating the Castle Mazoon route in the offseason would save only $2.85 for every passenger-trip eliminated. SUMMARY The analysis presented in this chapter identifies a few strong alternatives for consideration. Specifically, an attractive altemative is a Burlingame shuttle service, which would provide a cost savings per passenger-trip, would increase ridership, and would provide a better span of service for the Burlingame residents (as well as Aspen Valley Hospital). Another attractive alternative would be to provide service to Lift One via an expanded Galena Street shuttle. The project is anticipated to generate substantial ridership, and because the City may have the opportunity to require the developer to fund the expanded service, the City would potentially not incur any additional costs while improving service. This option would also provide a convenient service for Lift One passengers, as the Galena Street Shuttle would provide direct service across the downtown area. Aspen 2009-20/3 Short Range Transit Plan LSC Transportation Consudtants /nc. Page 31 0 0 0 r-.~ cy .. w t ~' j:y ~ ~ ~ b T' k ~' ~` ,~'~L"~ ~i[ jrj ....iii~s } q , ~ ( w 1 ,rn^$ } "i ~ ~ C .~y y. n: # ~ ~ .a A.A#Pf .,3 y.g.. ~ f ~ A h "Y if i . art m _ l '~ 4I A 3 L >. O ~1 C A 9~ [~S A t ~ 01 ~ m y ~;~ a +" f+°` ~ ~+ ~ ~ Q f e ~ o ~ * t~ ~ w N ~ N W 43 +~``CSiR. f r -~'~ ~~ k ~ ~ ~~ ~ M , ~ O U C O L N _ ~ d j ~ ~ O O L C ~ N Ry a c s a w ~ ,« ~ ,: ~ ~, o `v v Q' o c c ~ o c c m c `m o d o c d `m o 5 a a d U + m ~ E `° E `° E ~ ~ Z •+ W N UI C ~ ~ v m ~ ~ m ~ E o m~ o ' +.. vJ ~ ~ N rn *n rn w ~ O rn w ~ ~ c ~ w m ~ w m ' c o ~ V ~ C ~ ~ ~ O ~ t ~ ~ ~ a r ~ c V +y.. m v m m y r m v m m m m C Y C ~ c m « v C a p m a ul a ~~ C a m !~ L C~ y c c c c$ ~ m c m c '~ c m C $ 3 °' m o __°' r ++ U m m c p` c !r o m 'o m o ~ E mm ~~ E to ~ ~ ~ m 8~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ N a) ~ O r c .'~ ? J " ~ ~ D O O rr ~ O ~ ~ a 7 a, e ~ t g E . ~ r m ~ ,, < a a _ m o m U rA O ~ `-° c m ~ la ~ o a o Q O Q c - ~ 5 Z « m~ c m m C ~ ~ E to s ~0 c c c ~ o m ct. Z 3 ~i k N U ry U U ~ ~ ~ 0 O c U) m N m m a; m ~ ~ ~ a °p a °o a U m E i _ w '~ °~ o E C c E ~ ~ m o ~' c°~ m$ ~ g ~ ~ m y c~ j w ip c w E .E '~ ~ m n~ m ' `m ° rn 'c y t N 3 m a) m m V c W w~ ~ ~ To a c ¢ m 5 m' `m o a C c °c a $ 6 ' ° ~ E ~ m m O m m c ~i 2 t ~ _ ~ p ~ ~ ~ c J ~ i c V I ~ w r W C "E ~ _ J r C VI In m ~' c m ~, U z `` m ' r m N = a, ~ e _ w m m y m 'm ~ m m aJ ~. O ~ m L c U ~ ~ E y m E ~ E ~ m E m~ c ~ ~ ~ w E w E ~ ~ ~ ~ E LL ~ ~ . w ~ ~ a w E w ~ E r m E ~ U a U m W m ~ U m m m fY 2A~~CUJ B~~ f/ Aspen 2009-2013 Shorl Range Transit Plan LSC Transper[arion Consultanl.~ Inc. Page 32 p~ 0 o ;~ ~ ~ ,.. „""' ` m h y m 3 m a ~~, z o ~ ~ '~ ~ C m ~ o0 Z $ 3~ '~^~ ~ d 44'~"s~'~- Y3`~ s {id ~. ~ Q ~ 0 a r } k , ~ ~a ~ j, , . 2 . X » II..11 ~ya ~ ~ ~ ~~ a~ hn s' ~ C> f . O ~ Ypi " I 0 l . 0 0 l j } .'fit a C~ >` Y~ S'~ O d ~ rf i.4"K~rt' ~i} ~ ~' _ _ 0 ~ ~" a y H W ,S" ~ R F ~. w µ S e +Ee " ° r: y 8 °7 to ~~ a ~ ~ rn L{§~. '~ ~~ ~ .~ 6 i Bui' N 0. ~ '.u,,. Y~ ~ 0 ~ ~ C. ' v'% ~ a W [ a. n F ~ N r ° U ~_~ '' 0 ~ a a ~ N r 1/1 R g ~ O. ~ U ~e~ r ~ ~ s 4.t x t va ~ z ~ e} . g w N N N C ., ' s R; ~.h a.. .+.~. c' O $~Y) p g ~ m ~ st o m ~ ~ m S» 01 C ~ ~ y ~ m m ~ tl°' C C y ~ m ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ c c A P m a N ~ LL a E Y v v d L w ~ ~ t m ~ m ~ ~ ~ c Z d :~" a 3 m U c ~ ~ ~ ~ y C N U `m m w 5 try c fY . °o N E ~ ~ o y m Z o ' ~ 5 ~ ° ~ `N ~ N m > > ~ ~ 0 9 N C ~ of ~ ~ V1 VJ W m m N ~ m m ii O w m ~ N ~ ~ 3 ~ o U S = m s ~ m ~ ~ o ~ re ~ N ~ y N N 0 ~ a N r d > ~ c d y d c o ° m d E U o X a ~ w .W ~ > ~ ° E v ~, m ~ ~ p ° ~ J a o v 2 S n m > > c 7 ~+ r c g m m N m O .~ 'm ~ '0 3 2 w ~ c . rn > lL ~ ~ 2 m ~ ~ o ~ ~ 5 ~ ~ °o N ~ w o m m ° ° a rn < g ° d p c z a y o m a` m' iq m m vi m ~ 2 m c ~ ~ ~ a > i E w i w r a a ani~ewal~y Aspen 2009-2013 Short Range Transit Plan LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. Page 33 Regarding Mountain Valley service, increasing the faze for deviation requests coupled with restrictions on requests in peak periods is beneficial in that it can improve on-time performance at no increase in subsidy requirements. The additional fare revenues could potentially be applied to additional service during particularly busy winter periods to further improve service quality. Discussion of Potential Service Reduction Scenarios With current economic conditions across the country, many transit agencies are making service cuts due to reduced funding availability. The following are three scenarios that would reduce vehicle-hours throughout the Aspen City system by 5 percent, 10 percent, and 15 percent, all of which strive to have the least impact on ridership while achieving the desired reduction milestones. In particular, services that yield the greatest savings per passenger-trip eliminated (as shown in Table 2 and Figure 10) were given a higher priority in developing these scenarios. These services were also identified to avoid complete elimination of service to any one portion of the community during relatively busy ridership periods. Service Reductions - 5 Percent Scenario Based on the current contract between RFTA and the City of Aspen, a 5 percent reduction in vehicle- hours would total roughly 2,845 hours. As summarized in Table 3, the following plan would reduce vehicle-hours by 2,800 hours: • Reduce the Highlands service to 8:00 AM and 8:00 PM in the summer • Eliminate Cross-Town Shuttle service in the summer before 8:00 AM and after 8:00 PM • Eliminate Burlingame service and provide a direct shuttle to the Maroon Creek Roundabout • Eliminate service after 10:00 PM in the offseason on Cemetery Lane and Mountain Valley DAR • Begin service at 7:30 AM in the offseason on Cemetery Lane, Hunter Creek, Castle Maroon, and Mountain Valley DAR Service Reductions - 10 percent A 10 percent reduction in vehicle-hours would equate to 5,626 hours based on the current transit services contract. The following plan would reduce vehicle-hours by an estimated 5,500 hours: • Reduce Highlands service to 8:00 AM - 8:00 PM in the summer • Eliminate Cross-Town Shuttle service in the summer before 8:00 AM and after 8:00 PM • Eliminate Burlingame service and provide a direct shuttle to the Maroon Creek Roundabout (with no service after 10:00 PM in the summer) • Eliminate service in the offseason after 10:00 PM on Hunter Creek and Castle Mazoon • Eliminate service in the summer after 10:00 PM on Cemetery Lane and Mountain Valley DAR • Combine Cemetery Lane and Mountain Valley DAR in the offseasons (with no service afer 10:00 PM in the offseason) Aspen 2009-1013 Short Range Transit Plan - LSCTransportation Consultants, Inc. Page 34 C f m p p pp S N ~ S M 0 O N W m OI O N O N n N rn 0 S q m ENO 4fJ O N n (r) uj a~ N 1° N I~ (7 N al tD t7 h r V M a to M ~ ~ ~ W ~ M ~ ~ to N3 N t9 d3 ~ M to ~ i9 ~ 6 ~ m S p i0 8 °~ ~ S O~ O ~° O S 8 p ~ S g S S O C 4 . ~ ~ . v c7 .- ~ ~ c'I O T . ~ H M ~ .`- ~ aD R ~ ° m U 2 EU S8 00 o O° °O pOO $ 00 O So°a m C O t? S O ~ Q N (`1 Of (0 lA O b' O (") O N ~ Q I~ ~ ~ t0 r O r YJ ' ~m e- N fyp N ~ f0 ~ tG 1~ ~ r tK m d3 ~ ~' ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ NSW ~M ~ N~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ C9 N O ~ N = SSSSS ~ SS~SS~ 53 SS ~ ~S~°<. $ a m ° L m m ~ v~ N (h C] ' q~ N h ~~ ~ ~ W N N q 1 m a ~ C jp m ~ N fJ a `~ E E S E c w o ~ °o a ~ m `y _ °o m ~ c a c ~ c m m qq > a y~ Q a a~ a n coo y m 2 r ~~ m e ~ O m y m .a' m C a'oa a cNN pE= ° ~ o o ~ ui 'Ir ~ m O O O> L O m L~ m Gl S C~ O m .ti Z N cG ~ C W 'Z N 'I~ W~ ; L w Q m V J N m '2 j O C `m d C '3 Uc V ~ Q c Z` ~ Q O~ O ty0 ~ Q O ~ m C m a.° S d a az"~ N as c E y~ a O C m C L~ 'O N L > ~~ V N o m `m E g m c .~ g V ro~~ m w cG ~ 3 ~ m 0 cow 3 ~ `mO~n c ~ o d o a ~ o 'o Y m~ 0 5 ~ E£~ `m o 41 < of ~ c ~_ ¢ iG m ~ r c < ai $ m N ~ $ " N !+ o c o d o ~ c I~ E .t a S a E 2 V o°~ E .~ U' o o~ m S~ m'~ haw N`n paa~ °`~ p` ~~~ ~ ~ ° C j m O~ C m O O O a C m O~ G a D U m U V {~ .Y O E $ m o c c $ m D. o p C a c ~ c m o g v L~ o~ m u r ~ S ° g m m $ 'a° y ~tNa) ¢ tat o d o ~ZN o G cY m 22 m Q_ m o m m r N C~ b~ Q~ C fn C~ Q N J C V) C ~y Q M J m N a~ m m r C a~ L ry m m C '° F L C ~` m 0 m e Q ~~ N C V m yy N N !a U U m ~= Nn fn Q ~ N m m m~ ~"~ ~ t~~ t t~ W L E~ m m m N L° m° m~ m~ m U m~m~'~ cmU v~mU ~mU_~w~Ux a~ W c= g m m m m= m o m m m m= m^ N m m m m c -+ J m m m m m a) ~ m m m m m c m 'm m m m u) c c O m ~~ ~ c c c y~ ~ a c c 'a y m c a m c c 'n 'n a~ E E .E ~' o oa °m E° .E .E o o n d E°~ .E d Ep o 0 0 0 n¢wwwm i- o!wawwU ~ ¢w a0 wmCJO ~ z ur Aspen 1009-20/3 Short Range Transit Plan LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. ~ Page 35 Service Reductions - 15 percent A 15 percent reduction in service hours would amount to a total of 8,535 hours. The following plan would reduce service hours by roughly 9,100 hours while limiting any major service cuts: • Reduce the Highlands Service to 8:00 AM and 8:00 PM in the summer • Eliminate Cross-Town Shuttle service before 8:00 AM and after 8:00 PM • Eliminate Burlingame service and provide a direct shuttle to the Maroon Creek Roundabout (with no service before 7:30 AM in the summer and offseason and no service after 10:00 PM in the summer) • Begin service in the summer at 7:30 AM on Cemetery Lane, Hunter Creek, Castle Maroon, and Mountain Valley DAR • Eliminate service in the summer after 10:00 PM on Cemetery Lane, Hunter Creek, Castle Maroon, and Mountain Valley DAR • Combine Cemetery Lane and Mountain Valley DAR in the offseason (with no service after 9:00 PM; due to the new hourly schedule, service would still begin at 7:00 AM) • Combine Hunter Creek and Castle Maroon to provide half-hourly service in the offseason (with no service after 9:00 PM; due to the new hourly schedule, service would still begin at 7:00 AM). Note that this would require an additional Castle Maroon Route run to accommodate high afternoon passenger loads on school days. 2009-2013 Short Range Trnnsit Plan LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. 36 Chapter 3 Capital Alternatives Before transit services can be provided, a myriad of capital items are required. The capital items required for public transit service consist of vehicles, vehicle maintenance facilities, computer equipment, and passenger amenities such as shelters, and benches. Indeed, many capital elements will be required to maintain and potentially expand Aspen City Transit services over the coming years, as discussed below. PASSENGER FACILITIES AND AMENTTIES The "street furniture" provided by the transit system is a key determinant of the system's attractiveness to both passengers and community residents. In addition, they increase the physical presence of the transit system in the community. Bus benches and shelters can play a large role in improving the overall image of a transit system and in improving the convenience of transit as a travel mode. More importantly, shelter is vital to those waiting for buses in harsh weather conditions. In addition, passengers could benefit by installing passenger amenities at major bus stops, particularly adjacent to regional shopping centers, medical facilities, and social service agencies. Adequate shelters and benches aze particulazly important in attracting ridership among those that have a car available as an alternative to the bus for their trip. Preference should be given to locations with a high proportion of elderly or disabled passengers and areas with a high number of daily boazdings. Lighting and safety issues are equally important along major highways. The approximate cost of a 13-foot metal shelter is $5,000 and installation of the shelter can be an additional $5,000 or more depending on any required site improvements. Another $550 can be added for a perforated metal 8-foot bench and an additional $550 would be required fora 30-gallon trash receptacle. Adding solar lighting to~a shelter costs approximately~$1,500. While total costs including installation, depend on site characteristics and the ability to use public works staff during off periods, total costs for a new shelter fall in the range of $8,000 to $10,000. Improvements to Bus Stops and Shelters As discussed in Technical Memorandum One, the bus stop amenities along the Aspen City Routes warrant substantial improvement. Many busy locations provide no protection from the elements and aze undersized for the level of use. In addition, Aspen's bus stops are less attractive overall than those found at many other mountain resort communities, such as Park City and Vail. It is recommended that stops with 5 or more boardings per day have a bus bench (minimum) and stops with 10 or more boardings per day have an appropriately sized bus shelter. A standard bus shelter adequate to address the requirements of the Americans with Disabilities Act is approximately 5 feet in depth times 10 feet in width, and can accommodate roughly ten passengers at a time. Shelters for stops with more than ten passengers at a time should optimally be sized to provide 4 additional squaze feet for every additional passenger. The bus benches and shelters currently in place are not cohesive and many aze in disrepair. Replacement of existing shelters and benches should be completed as a means to coordinate with any new amenities installed. The new amenities should reflect a style preferred by the City of Aspen that reflects the image of the system well. More importantly, the amenities should be constructed of materials that are durable, Aspen 2009-2013 Short Range Transit Plan LSC Transportation Consultants, lnc. Page 37 _, appropriate for the seasonal climate, easy to maintain, and provide adequate protection from the elements. Good examples can be found in Park City, Utah, a similar mountain resort community, as shown in Figure 12 below. FIGURE 12: Park City Bus Shelters ---^ ~ ` ~~` ~ti ~ ~~ ~ ~~ Another benefit to improving the bus stops would be to distinguish the City Route stops from the RFTA Valley stops. As is, the stop signs look the same, which can generate confusion with those riding the services and particularly with tourists who are unfamiliar with the system. In order to ease the confusion, the City should considering "branding" their buses and stops with a logo specific only to City routes. This branding would include a graphic element consistent with the RFTA system (such as the Aspen leaf), modified to show the distinction between City Service and other RFTA services. Rubey Park Transit Center As mentioned in Chapter 3 of Technical Memorandum One, Aspen's existing transit center has many deficiencies that need to be addressed. First and foremost, there are safety concerns associated with the sidewalks, pavement, and curbs around the center. Figure 13 depicts some of the hazards present at the site. In addition to presenting safety issues, such deterioration of the facility can provide a negative image of the transit system for passengers, thereby potentially limiting the amount of ridership. It is recommended that the City of Aspen address these safety hazards by removing and replacing all sidewalks and pavement that are cracked or otherwise deteriorating. The transit center was constructed in 1989, when the service level of the City routes was much lower than the current level. As the system has expanded, the existing passenger and employee areas have become inadequate due to increases in both the number of passengers and number of transit employees that the center must accommodate. Sufficient indoor space for waiting passengers is especially important, due to the high level of ridership during the winter months when weather is the harshest. The City of Aspen should look into expanding the transit center to accommodate the existing level of service, as well as the potential for future expansion. The existing building provides roughly 590 square feet of indoor passenger waiting area, which does not include restrooms, and 546 square feet for driver and administrative space, including the ticket booth and upstairs open loft. Given the site and layout, it would be feasible to expand Aspen 2009-2013 Short Range Trmasit Plan LSC Transportation Consultants, Ltc. Page 38 .~ FIGURE 13: Rubey Park Transit Center ,i -,. .. _ . ~ 4 _ r~ ~M R ~ y1 the building footprint to gain both passenger and employee space. Passenger space could be increased by expanding the "wings" on each side end of the building. The addition at the rear of the building could also be expanded outward to gain space for the drivers and administrative functions. mother improvement that should be explored includes remodeling the bathrooms with commercial-grade fixtures, as the existing fixtures are not adequate for the amount of use received and thus have become degraded and require a high level of maintenance. Further, new indoor passenger facilities, such as benches/seats, should be removed and replaced with products that are more durable. In 2008, a measure supporting the Bus Rapid Transit program (BRT) in Aspen was passed. This measure included $2 million for improvements to the Rubey Park Transit Center. While this sum could not cover all repairs and updates recommended for the site, it will help to resolve some of the more important issues. It is recommended that the money be allocated first to repair the pavement and sidewalks around the site to eliminate safety hazards and improve the image of the center. Next, fixtures and furniture throughout the building should be upgraded to industrial grade items to improve durability and extend their life. Last, rather than construct a complete addition for more interior space, the money could be used to construct an overhead shelter around the outdoor planting area and a windbreak. This would provide covered waiting areas for passengers when there is not room inside at a lower expense than a 100 percent enclosed and heated building. Further related to the system expansion is the lack of capacity along the curb for buses to park. The number of routes has increased since the transit center was constructed, and there is not a sufficient amount of space for all buses associated with the Aspen City routes and RFTA Valley routes. Additionally, any extra curb space is being occupied by taxicabs that otherwise would be available for Aspen 2009-2013 Short Range Transit Plart LSC Transportation Consnltm~ts, b~c. Page 39 buses. Another issue to explore would be how to capture more pazking space for buses, particulazly as the system continues to grow and expand. A focused study would be appropriate to consider how the very limited curb space around Rubey Park can be utilized, and if there are other locations in the downtown area where the taxi stand can be relocated. On-Vehicle Bicycle Facilities During the spring, summer, and fall months, Aspen and the surrounding areas offer recreational opportunities to visitors and residents, including mountain biking. Additionally, many people opt to ride bicycles around town rather than driving vehicles during the milder weather. Unfortunately, none of the vehicles within the Aspen City Transit system aze equipped with bicycle racks. RFTA Valley service buses between Aspen and Rifle are capable of carrying up to 4 bicycles at a time (charging $2.00 per bicycle), which can be loaded at Rubey Park Transit Center and the Mazoon Creek roundabout. To further promote the use of the Aspen City Routes and reduce the dependence on the private automobile within the City, it is recommended that bicycle racks be installed on the buses. Providing bicycle racks on buses can encourage multimodal travel and can expand ridership. While one-fourth mile is considered a reasonable distance to walk to a bus stop, athree-mile distance is considered reasonable for biking. Therefore, if racks are installed on buses, ridership may increase due to additional travel mode opportunities. Further, bicyclists tend to fill a gap in weekend or off-peak seasons/times when regular ridership may be low. Survey data collected on Aspen City mutes strengthens this recommendation, as 70 percent of respondents believed that bicycle racks would be beneficial: approximately 55 percent believed they should be installed on all buses and 15 percent thought they should be installed on specific routes, such as those that access trails and not on any routes that only travel within downtown. As a start, racks should be limited to buses that do not operate exclusively within the downtown area. These include the Burlingame and Cemetery Lane Routes, as many riders may wish to have bicycles once they are in town, as well as the Castle Maroon Route; which provides access to recreational trails in the summer. Due to the impact of bicycle loading/unloading on route running times, it is recommended that bicycles not be accommodated on the Hunter Creek, Cross-Town Shuttle, Galena Street Shuttle, or Mountain Valley Routes. The City may also want to consider chazging a faze compazable to RFTA's charge of $2.00 per bicycle. To avoid the long delays associated with unloading bicycles buried three or four deep on a rack, it is recommended that the City Route bike racks be limited to two positions only. Bus-mounted racks cost between $600 and $1,000, depending on the manufacturer and installation costs. VEHICLE PURCHASES Much of the existing Aspen City Transit fleet is fairly new, with manufacture dates ranging between 2001 and 2006. According to the Transportation Department, all six of the 2001 Neoplan diesel buses will be replaced in 2013 with new diesel vehicles. It is estimated that these vehicles will cost $350,000 each, for a total of $2,822,000, which includes a 3 percent cost increase per yeas The remaining vehicles are scheduled for replacement outside of this 5-year transit plan, including 1 hybrid (model year 2005) in 2017 and 3 hybrids (model yeaz 2006) in 2018. The current replacement schedule indicates that all diesel buses will be replaced with diesels and all hybrids will be replaced with hybrid vehicles. These vehicles have a 40-passenger capacity, while any future replacement of shuttle buses (Mountain Valley DAR vehicles) will have a 15-passenger capacity. A limited review of appropriate bus size was conducted as part of this study, building on the evaluation conducted in February 2007 and reflecting the current ridership levels. As shown in Table 4, a "design capacity" for each route and season was identified, representing a busy but not absolute peak ridership Aspen 2009-20/3 Short Range Transit Plan LSC Transportation Consultants, lnc. Page 40 TABLE 4: Existing Aspen City Routes Design Passenger Loads Cemetery Hunter Castle Dial-A- Cross Maroon Lane Creek Maroon Ride Burlingame Town Galena St Creek Rd Summer 16 20 32 7 10 35 12 18 Winter 20 44 37 13 17 13 12 28 Off-Season 9 12 21 4 6 -- -- - condition. A comparison of this data with the existing bus capacity indicates that current vehicle sizes aze appropriate, particularly in the peak summer and winter seasons. In actuality, i[ would be beneficial from the passenger's perspective to operate a bus on the Hunter Creek route with more than a 40-passenger seating capacity -however, this would be impracticable given the geometrics of the streets along this route. It should also be noted that providing a separate fleet of smaller vehicles for the offseasons would not be acost-effective use of capital funds and would not save significant operating dollars, as much of the cost of providing transit service consists of driver wages and benefits which do not vary by vehicle size. ADVANCED PUBLIC TRANSIT SYSTEM TECHNOLOGIES Recent advances in communication and communication technologies have impacted all segments of modem society and have found new applications in the transit industry. These technologies have come to be known as Advanced Public Transportation Systems (APTS). For purposes of Aspen's transit environment, there are two promising technologies within the APTS umbrella that have been developed over recent yeazs: Automatic Vehicle Location (AVL) systems and Automatic Passenger Counters (APC). Automatic Vehicle Location (AVL) Originally developed in the tracking and package delivery industries, AVL has increasingly found application within transit services. AVL employs in-vehicle transponders and a central geographic mapping system using geo-positioning satellites (GPS) to locate, track, and monitor vehicles. The central computer system automatically or manually polls one or more vehicles by the dispatcher. The polled vehicle transmits the longitude and latitude coordinates, time/date, and other information if available (such as riders on board, etc.) back to the central computer. The dispatcher knows the vehicle's location based on triangulation of the signals received from the global positioning satellites. A computer screen in [he dispatch office displays a map indicating vehicle location, with an accuracy of plus or minus four feet. This map can also display direction of travel and on-time status or for example, the use of a different color for vehicles operating behind schedule. Another potential benefit of AVL is increased emergency response in case of an accident or security threat. 2009-2013 Short Ranxe Transit Plan Transportation Consultants, Inc. Page 4! A number of Waal and small urban transit systems have implemented AVL systems. The extent to which each has incorporated these systems into a systemwide APTS program varies according to the complexity of each transit system'. From 2001 to 2005, the Wisconsin Department of Transportation surveyed several small- to medium-sized transit agencies before and after implementation of AVL systems. The results were summarized in the Evaluation of User Impacts of Transit Automatic vehicle Location System in Medium and Small Size Transit Systems. One important finding of this research was that the implementation of AVL in some cases improved on-time performance by 36 percent. Such a system could prove to be beneficial for routes such as Mountain Valley DAR, which has shown to have on-time performance issues. According to the FTA, the average cost of a baseline AVL system including on-board GPS, vehicle tracking integrated with operations control center dispatching, and security systems is $315,000. When combined with other technologies or processes, AVL can deliver increased benefits in [he areas of fleet management, systems planning, safety and security, traveler information, faze payment, and data collection. Introduction of an AVL system is often the first step in a more comprehensive APTS implementation. AVL technologies open up a range of additional services and benefits: The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) requires transit systems to provide voice announcements prior to major transit stops, allowing visually impaired persons to more easily use transit services. Drivers, who are often more than busy coping with traffic congestion, fmd it difficult to consistently provide these announcements. With AVL, vehicle location and direction of travel can be used to trigger a computer processor on a transit vehicle to automatically make a synthesized announcement, and also potentially to display a message inside the vehicle. ! An important benefit in larger urban systems is the ability for drivers to trigger a silent alarm, which automatically dispatches police to a bus. The response time to criminal activity on a bus is gr8atly reduced. This is probably not of particular concern in the City of Aspen. Pre-emption of traffic signals to allow quick passage for transit vehicles is also possible. Tying the GPS system into the traffic signal's computer can trigger an extended green indication for buses approaching a signal. This option could potentially be used for all buses, be limited to those buses operating behind schedule, or those carrying relatively high passenger loads. As some areas can cause significant traffic delays (i.e. downtown or the S-Curves), this technology may be appropriate for the City of Aspen. Automatic Passenger Counters (APC) RFTA drivers currently tally passenger boazdings by hand, making APC of particular interest to the Aspen City Transit services. APC systems provide accurate ridership data that can identify operational strengths and weaknesses or justify service level changes. When combined with AVL, it becomes an automated method for collecting information about passenger hoardings and alightings at a range of system levels; these include passengers by route, route segment, day of week, and specific stop by time of day. Further, the APC and AVL technologies combined can allow for automatic collection of vehicle wait times, door cycles, distance traveled, and average speed. The cost of this technology has decreased substantially over the past several years, equating to $1,000 to $1,200 per bus if installed at the same time the AVL system is installed. ~ FHWA-RD-98-146, U.S. Department of Transportation. 2009-2013 Short Range Transit Plan ransportation Consultants, Inc. Page 42 APTS Coordination with the RFTA Bus Rapid Transit Program RFTA is pursuing a "Bus Rapid Transit" (BRT) program entitled VelociRFTA that will ultimately bring the service quality benefits of rail transit service to the Roaring Fork Valley (and beyond) with the flexibility of operations and reduced costs associated with bus service. Along with dedicated bus facilities and improved bus stops, a key element of the BRT program is APTS strategies, including AVL, APC, and real-time passenger information services. While specific technologies and schedules for BRT implementation are currently under development, the City should ensure that any APTS technologies adopted for City routes are complementary to the overall BRT program. Aspen 2009-2013 Short Range Transit Plan LSC Trnnsportation Consultants, Inc. Page 43 Chapter 4 Institutional and Management Alternatives MARKETING IMPROVEMENTS Marketing in its broadest context should be viewed as a management philosophy focusing on identifying and satisfying customers' wants and needs. The basic premises of successful marketing is providing the right product or service, offering it at the right price, and adequately promoting or communicating the existence and appropriateness of the product or service to potential customers. Unfortunately, the word "marketing" is often only associated with the advertising and promotional efforts that accompany "selling" the product or service to a customer. Instead, such promotional efforts are only a part of an overall marketing process. Without a properly designed and developed product or service offered at the right price, the expenditure of promotional monies is often ill advised. Obviously, the marketing program must fit within budgetary limitations of any organization. According to the American Public Transit Association, transit providers typically budget between 0.75 and 3.0 percent of their gross budget on marketing promotions (excluding salaries), with the majority around 2 percent. Although this is slightly less than most private sector businesses, public sector organizations can rely more heavily on media support for their public relations programs. Existing marketing efforts for the Aspen City routes are primarily directed towards tourists and commuter routes through RFTA services. In addition to the RFTA and City websites, schedule and route information is promoted via radio advertisements as well as partnerships with various hotels and visitor guides. For example, hotels in Aspen have printed transit materials available and the Colorado Mountain Express (a shuttle between Denver and Aspen) provides information on their vans and on [heir website. The RFTA commuter services aze promoted by the City as a means to encourage people to commute into Aspen so as to reduce traffic congestion along SR 82. Advertisement is done through the radio and newspaper, as well as programs such as the Commuter Club. Given that the goals of the transit system are to reduce auto traffic and auto-related emissions, it is appropriate that a portion of the mazketing continue to be directed at commuters into Aspen. In addition, there is a high level of awareness of local transit options among Aspen residents. However, since Aspen is also a tourist destination, additional marketing efforts should be made towards the use of the local transit program (and the 4 Mountain Connector service) by visitors. Doing so may dissuade visitors from renting vehicles and promote use of the free bus routes to further meet the goals of the system. Improve Service Quality A key principle of marketing is to provide a quality "product." In the case of public transit, a reputation for providing quality service encourages increased ridership and public support for transit. Tax-based funding is mare acceptable when service quality is high. An integral marketing effort, therefore, is to improve on-time performance, passenger amenities, and reduce in-vehicle [ravel time. The following service monitoring techniques should be ongoing: On-Time Performance -Comprehensive records of on-time performance are useful in determining proper scheduling and ensuring quality service. At a minimum, RFTA should do a standardized observance of on-time performance as part of their service checks. This data should be entered into spreadsheets to allow tracking. In addition, on-time performance surveys should be conducted at least twice per year (once each during peak and off-peak seasons). A more thorough result would be to Aspen 2009-2013 Short Range Transit Plan LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. Page 44 conduct this twice per year for the peak winter and summer seasons. (So long as services aze provided to yield good on-time performance in these peak seasons, they should also be able to stay on-time in the offseasons, negating the need for offseason surveys). Annual Passenger Survey - On-board passenger surveys are a vital source of planning information regarding ridership and the purpose of their trips. In addition, surveys are the single best way to gain "feedback" regazding the service. Funding for annual onboard surveys should be a priority. Limited surveys (resulting in surveys conducted on half of summer and winter runs) can be completed for approximately $10,000 per year (including temporary staff for data collection and entry). Questions that should be addressed in the annual passenger survey include the following: - Day and date that the survey is completed - Time at which the survey is completed - Route that the passenger is [raveling - Passenger gender - Passenger age - Whether the passenger is disabled, and if so, the type of disability - Origin of trip (major intersection near trip origin) and trip destination (major intersection near trip destination) - Purpose of trip, typically categorized as work, shopping, recreational, social, educational, or other - Rating of the transit service (poor, fair, good, very good, excellent) - Suggestions for improvements in transit service or opportunity for general customer comments Boarding and Alighting Counts - It is worthwhile, on at least an annual or biannual basis, to conduct a daylong count for boarding and alighting by stop for each of the services operated. Given the high level of passenger activity, it is not feasible fnr transit drivers to collect this.information (at least during the peak seasons) while also operating the bus; as a result, temporary staff will need to be put onboazd to collect this information (preferably at the same time that passenger surveys are conducted). There are a number of useful pieces of information that can be gleaned from a boarding and alighting count: - Identify the most important stops - Rank bus stops for potential passenger amenities, such as shelters or benches - Identify the section along the route where the maximum load occurs This information is very important in identifying the appropriate vehicle size for the service, as well as to track the service quality issues, such as passenger overcrowding. If conducted as part of the passenger survey, incremental costs for these counts is on the order of $4,000. Incident and Accident Information - in order for the City to have a broad understanding of the strengths and weaknesses of their system, RFTA should also provide monthly incident and accident information. Both at-fault and not at-fault accidents should be recorded, noting the location and route that the incidenUaccident occurred. Additionally, any customer comments provided by passengers should also be included in this report. This will allow the City to see where problem areas re-occur, if any, and address them to avoid any future issues. Aspen 2009-2013 Short Range Transit Plan LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. Page 45 System Map and Schedule A large component of a successful transit system is offering accurate and detailed transit information. Currently, Aspen City Route information can be found on both the Aspen City and RFTA websites. Because operating hours for the routes change seasonally, it is imperative that both websites are updated regularly to reflect the current and most accurate schedules. While the information for each route is fairly simplistic, schedule information could be presented in a more user-friendly manner, such as a table format where a passenger could more easily identify the stops and departure times of each route bus. Attention should also be paid to route maps on both websites. It is important to make sure the maps are accurate between sites, as well as accurate for the current season. Additionally, maps should be easier to read, particulazly on the Aspen City site. It is difficult to read the street names, which is important in identifying where passengers can pick up buses since there is not an extensive list of bus stops for each route. Provide Transit Information in Spanish According to the 2000 US Census, roughly 7 percent of the City of Aspen population is Spanish speaking. While not a significant proportion of the overall population, it is still important to make transit information more accessible to these residents, particularly if they are more inclined to use the transit services. It is recommended that basic information be translated into Spanish, such as simple route descriptions and schedules. Information does not need to be provided on the website, but rather at the Rubey Park Transit Center and other locations with transit route information, as well as via email. The initial cost to develop Spanish materials is estimated to equal $4,000, with ongoing costs of $2,000 per year to update materials. Utilize Google Transit Techpology With intemet-based mapping programs gaining in popularity, Google has developed a new technology called Google Transit that provides more comprehensive trip planning opportunities beyond driving directions. A user is asked to input their origin and destination information and has the ability to get directions by caz, walking, or public transit. Directions by mode are generated and include details for the overall suggested trip times, bus routes, and departure/arrival times for each mode and stop. The program has the ability to link different modes and transportation providers, simplifying travel for those who wish to use public transportation by displaying trip plan including schedule options and fares. In order to take part in Google Transit, transit agencies must provide specific information to Google. There are 11 key components, 6 of which are required. Once provided with this data, Google gathers it into a schedule design that is easy to use. The components include: • Transit Agency -General information about the transit agency (required component) • Transit Stops -Information about locations where vehicles pickup or drop off passengers (required component) • Transit Routes -Information about a transit organization's routes, with a route defined as a sequence of two or more stops (required component) • Trips -Information about scheduled service along a particular route, with a trip consisting of two or more stops that are made at regularly scheduled intervals (required component) • Arrival and Departure -Lists of the schedule times a vehicle arrives at and departs from individual stops for each trip along a route (required component) Aspen 1009-10/3 Short Range Transit Plan LSC Transportation Considlants, Inc. Page 46 • Service Categories -Information regarding the service availability, such as operating days and when the service begins and ends (required component) • Service Exceptions - Provides a list of exceptions for service categories (optional component) • Fares -Information regarding fares for a transit agency's routes (optional component) • Fare Rules -Rules for applying faze information (optional component) • Mapping - DeSnes rules for drawing lines on a map to represent routes (optional component) • Frequency -Provides headway data for routes (optional component) According to the Google Transit website, there aze currently 91 agencies within 28 states participating in the progmm. Three of the agencies are located in Colorado - RTD in DenverBoulder, Grand Valley Transit in Grand Junction, and Mountain Metro Transit in Colorado Springs. Because of the ability to provide directions linking different modes, as well as a relatively simplistic program to use, participating in the program could be a valuable resource for Aspen where many of the visitors may not have access to a private automobile. IMPROVED REPORTING FROM RFTA In addition to providing increased mazketing efforts, monitoring service qn a regular basis helps the transit agency remain aware of existing transit operations and performance. While boazding and alighting data, on-time performance and surveys should be collected about twice per year, standazd ridership, vehicle revenue miles and vehicle revenue hours should be collected, compiled, and submitted to the City of Aspen on a monthly basis. This should include the following: • Ridership by route by day • Monthly Vehicle-hours and vehicle-miles by route • Missed runs • Passenger incidents • Accidents • Customer comments • Service stoppages The data should be provided electronically in an Fxcel spreadsheet (or other easily accessible spreadsheet program) so that productivity and other service-related information can be generated. This will allow the agency to identify what routes are performing per standards and where improvements may be warranted. Any future service contracts with RFTA should include language that ensures data and reports are provided to the City of Aspen each month, and that RFTA staff provides additional data as needed to address City Council or resident inquiries on a timely basis. IMPLEMENT NEW ONBOARD POLICIES Pet Policy on Buses The City of Aspen has been receiving requests to allow pets on the City Route buses. Both RFTA and Aspen City Transit do not have policies regarding this issue. Based on research of other public transit agencies within the United States and Canada, a small but increasing number of agencies are developing Aspen 2009-2013 Short Range Trnnsit Plan LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. Page 47 pet-friendly transit polices for their systems. A total of 26 transit agencies operating buses, trolleys, or subways within 19 states have accessible pe[ policies. Most transit agencies (15 agencies) allow only small dogs and service dogs on their vehicles; only 2 have policies that are restricted to service dogs only, and 9 agencies allow all types of animals regardless of size. All agencies have provisions for the animals, including requirements that dogs remain within a carrier or on a leash at all times, weight limits (i.e. 25 lbs or under), or that larger animals can only ride during off-peak hours or must pay a fare. Pets on buses are an issue with many pros and cons. From the passenger perspective, some people may find this to be a reason to start riding the bus when they had not before, or riding it more frequently, therefore potentially increasing ridership. However, on the opposite spectrum, other potential passengers may see this as a problem due to allergies, sensitivities, or the potential for injury if a dog is not restrained properly. Of particular concern would be the potential for accidents associated with two dogs fighting on the bus. Wet and muddy dogs on buses during "mud season" would also be an issue. These factors could potentially decrease ridership. Overall, any ridership impact would be negligible. According to an on-board survey conducted in January 2009, roughly 60 percent of passengers thought that dogs should be allowed on the City buses; 40.6 percent responded that all dogs should be allowed, and 19.4 percent responded that only small dogs in carriers or service dogs should be allowed. Approximately 29 percent of the respondents did not believe that any dogs should be allowed on the City buses, and 11 percent had no opinion on the topic. Given that the primary purpose of the transit program is to provide an attractive means of transportation for Aspen's residents and visitors, LSC finds it particularly pertinent to the discussion that 29 percent of existing ridership would see dogs on buses to be a detriment to the service. From the system provider's point of view, insurance and the legal aspects of potential liabilities may also present problems with allowing pets (particularly unrestrained pets) on City buses. In addition, allowing pets on buses would add to the already-substantial level, of stress associated with being a bus driver, as drivers would need to make judg~hent calls regarding allowing'specific pets onboard given the passenger load on the bus, the condition of the animal, and the presence of any animals already on the bus. A clear and concise policy that is easy to enforce (such as pets other than service animals in a carrier that completely prevents escape of the pet) would greatly reduce the potential for conflict between pets and passengers, and increase the ability of drivers to fairly enforce the policy. Like any other object brought on the bus by a passenger, a pet tamer would need to be small enough so as not to block other passengers. Aspen 1009-2013 Short Range Transit P7mi LSC Transportation Consultants, lnc. Page 48 Chapter 5 Financial Alternatives The crux of any issue regarding the provision of public service is the matter of funding. Provision of a sustainable, permanent funding source has proven to be the single greatest determinant in the success or failure of transit service. Experience with transit systems outside of large urban areas underscores the critical importance of a secure source or sources of local funding if the long-term viability of transit service is to be assured. Transit services dependent on annual appropriations and informal agreements suffer in the following manners: • Passengers aze not sure from one year to the next if service will be provided. As a result, potential passengers may opt to purchase a first or second car, rather than rely on the continued availability of transit service. • Transit drivers are also not sure of having a long-teen position. As a result, a transit system may suffer from high turnover, low morale, and a resulting high accident rate. • The lack of a dependable source of fmancial support inhibits investment in both vehicles and facilities. Public agencies are less likely to enter into cooperative agreements if the long-term survival of the transit organization is in doubt. • To provide high-quality transit service and to become awell-established part of the community, a dependable source of funding is essential. Factors which must be cazefully considered in evaluating fmancial alternatives include the following: ~ ~ ' - It must be equitable -the costs of transit service to various segments of the population must correspond with the benefits they accrue. - Collection of tax funds must be efficient. - It must be sustainable -the ability to confidently forecast future revenues is vital in making correct decisions regazding capital investments such as vehicles and facilities. - It must be acceptable to the public. A wide number of potential transit funding sources are available, primarily through taxes and the federal government. The following discussion provides an overview of these programs. This discussion will be developed in greater detail as analysis of operating and capital alternatives yield estimates of total future funding requirements. FEDERAL TRANSTT FUNDING SOURCES In Colorado, the main source of transit funding is through the federal government. Unlike many states, each transit agency or jurisdiction does not apply for these grants individually. In an effort to streamline the process for the Federal Transit Administration and each agency, the Colorado Association of Transit Agencies (CASTA) completes one application for the Colorado Department of Transportation (the designated state agency for FTA funds) and distributes the funding. CASTA is a statewide support Aspen 1009-20/3 Short Range Transit Plan LSC Transportation Constdtants, Inc. page q9 organization for transit-related industries that promotes the development and enhancement of transit through training and coordination with government agencies (local, state, and federal), transit operators/providers, and vendors. Below is a brief overview of each federal funding source potentially available to transit agencies; however, the City of Aspen may not be eligible for all. In general, Aspen typically obtains federal funding from the FTA 5309 and 5311 programs. FTA Section 5309 Capital Program These grants are split into three categories: New Starts, Fixed Guideway Modernization, and Bus and Bus Facilities. Typically, an intensive lobbying effort is necessary to receive a Section 5309 earmark. The Small Starts component of the New Starts program, which provides funding and oversight for projects seeking less than $75 million dollars in New Starts funds, was authorized. for separate funding beginning in Fiscal Year (FY) 2007-08 under the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient, and Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU). A 20 percent local match is required. FTA Section 5310 Elderly and Persons with Disabilities Program FTA funds are also potentially available through the Section 5310 Elderly and Persons with Disabilities Program (largely vehicles). The goal of this program is to improve mobility for elderly and disabled persons by providing fmancial assistance for transportation projects that will benefit these groups in rural, small urban and urbanized areas. Until recently, recipients of Section 5310 funding were restricted to non- profit organizations. However, with passage of the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act (ISTEA) and subsequent Transportation Equity Act of the 21st Century (TEA-21), local governmental jurisdictions are also eligible for funding. Apportionments are determined by a formula based on the latest US Census data for the number of elderly and disabled persons in an area. This program requires a 20 percent minimum local match. FTA Secfion 5311 Non-Urbanized Area Formula Program Federal transit funding for rural areas is currently provided through the FTA Section 5311 Non-Urbanized Area Formula Program. A 20 percent local match for capital and project administration expenses is required, unless the project meets the requirements of the ADA, the Clean Air Act, or is a bicycle access project such as bicycle racks on vehicles. Then, the match is only 10 percent. For operating expenses, a 50 percent local match is required. These funds are segmented into "apportioned" and "discretionary" programs, with the bulls apportioned duectly to rural counties based on population levels (80 percent) and land area (20 percent). FTA Section 5308 Clean Fuels Grant Program This is a discretionary grant program funded through SAFETEA-LU. The program has atwo-fold purpose. First, [he program was developed to assist non-attainment and maintenance areas in achieving or maintaining the National Ambient Air Quality Standards for ozone and carbon monoxide (CO). Second, the program supports emerging clean fuel and advanced propulsion technologies for transit buses and markets for those technologies. Recipients must be eligible to receive FTA 5307 funding, and be classified as a maintenance ornon-attainment area for ozone and CO. Congestion MitigalioNAir Quality (CMAQ) SAFETEA-LU Funding A strong source of funding for many transit services across the country has been provided by the Congestion Mitigation/Air Quality (CMAQ) program, authorized through SAFETEA-LU. This funding is available to regions that are not in compliance with federal air quality standards regarding ozone or Aspen 2009-1013 Short Range Transit Plan LSC Transportation Consultants, lnc. Page 50 carbon monoxide. The City of Aspen is located within a maintenance area and is eligible for funding, however the grant funds t~ceived have historically been used for vehicle purchases rather than transit opemtions. LOCAL TRANSIT FUNDING SOURCES The City of Aspen and RFTA gain local funding from both city and county based taxes and fees, as described below. City of Aspen Sales Tax In 2007, voters approved a ballot measure (Referendum 2A) to replace the previous 0.25 percent City saleA tax that would expire iti September 2009 with a 0.15 percent City sales tax. It is estimated that this would generate nearly $273,000 in 2009 (September 2, 2009 through December 31, 2009) and $835,000 in 2010 that would be used towards transit and pedestrian projects. Current budget projections estimate the funds generated from the new sales tax will continue to increase. City of Aspen Use Tax A large portion of Aspen's economic activity is related to construction. In order to leverage this and gain additional transit funding, the City of Aspen proposed a 2.1 percent use tax on construction and building materials purchased outside the City limits as part of Referendum 2A, which was passed in 2007. Smaller construction projects that use less than $100,000 in building materials (i.e. residential remodels) are exempt from this tax in order to focus on larger scale construction projects such as resort and condominium developments. In January 2009, the tax took effect and is expected to generate about $919,400 for the 2009 budget. As with the sales tax, revenues from this use tax will be used for transit and pedestrian purposes. City of Aspen Lodging Tax Lodging facilities within the City of Aspen impose a 1 percent lodging tax on all overnight stays, a portion of which is applied to the transit budget for operations. Roughly one-half of the revenues aze spent by agreement with the Aspen Chamber and Resort Association for marketing purposes. The other half is spent by the City of Aspen to help fund the in-town City shuttles. In 2008, a total City share of $618,601 was forecast, which is expected to increase slightly to $624,500 in 2009. City of Aspen Parking Fees In 1993 the Transportation and Parking Control Fund was established as a mechanism to offset the costs of transit and transportation improvements in the City of Aspen. This fund generates revenue from on- street parking operations, including parking fees and fines, which aze then used for the development and promotion of transportation alternatives including the City transit routes. In 2008, revenues from the Fund were allocated for RFTA operating expenses, Rubey Pazk facility improvements, and fleet replacement. As of 2009 and beyond, revenues from parking will be used to maintain and support the parking program in Aspen. Should there be any excess revenues after all parking costs are covered, there is the potential for funding to be used towards transit in the future. Countywide Transit Tax Pitkin County imposes a 1 percent tax on all sales, called the "transit tax" used to fund transit services provided by RFTA, including those contracted by the City of Aspen. The tax revenues are divided among Aspen 2009-10/3 Shorl Range Transit Plan LSC Transportation Consultants, lnc. Page 51 .~ RFTA, the City of Aspen, and the Town of Snowmass Village, with RFTA being guaranteed roughly 48 percent of the tax revenue each year and the remainder being split between Aspen and Snowmass Village. Distribution of this remainder is based on the proportion of sales tax collected by Aspen and Snowmass Village. In 2008, the budget forecast a total of $3.26 million to be allocated to the City of Aspen. In comparison, the 2009 budget has projected this to decrease slightly to $3.16 million. Aspen 2009-1013 Shart Range Trnnsit Plan LSC Transportaaon Consultants, Lnc. Page 52