During the 2017 National Regional Transportation Conference, Dan Blankenship shared information about the Roaring Forks Transportation Authority's work to serve the mobility needs of the region, including through bus rapid transit and other innovations.
5. Genesis of RFTA
The City of Aspen began operating its own municipal transit services in the mid-
seventies
Pitkin County began providing regional commuter services in the Highway 82
corridor in the mid-seventies
The Roaring Fork Transit Agency was formed by Intergovernmental Agreement
between City of Aspen and Pitkin County in 1983 and City & Pitkin County
Services were Merged to Achieve Economies of Scale
Region Transportation Authority (RTA) Enabling Legislation passed by the
Colorado Legislature in 1997
7 local governments (Aspen, Pitkin County, Snowmass Village, Basalt, Eagle
County, Carbondale & Glenwood Springs) executed Intergovernmental Agreement
(IGA) and placed RTA issue before their respective voters ----- and it passed in all
jurisdictions in November 2000!
Town of New Castle, in the Interstate 70 Corridor joined RFTA in 2004. RFTA now
has 8 member jurisdictions on its Board
7. • Initial Goals of RFTA included:
– Merging Transit Agency and Roaring Fork Railroad Holding
Authority into RFTA over 18-month period
– Maintaining existing transit services in Hwy 82 corridor
– Implementing Transit service improvements in Hwy 82/I-70
corridors
– Developing Short/Long-term transit planning capability
– Completing the Rio Grande Trail
– Maintaining/preserving Rio Grande rail corridor for future
transit
Genesis of RFTA
8. Regional Rural Resort Transit Benefits
• Transit allows Seniors and Persons with Disabilities to remain independent
to the maximum extent
• Tourism is one of State’s largest economic drivers
• Mountain resort communities draw many tourists from around the state,
nation, and globe
• Mountain resorts need employees
• Employees can’t afford to live where the jobs are
• Mountain communities are compact, lack parking, and can’t
accommodate the cars of residents, tourists and employees
• Affordable transit services are needed to transport employees to/from
bedroom communities to/from job centers
• Major events require transit. Major events are televised around the globe
• Transit, combined with Travel Demand Management Measures reduces
highway congestion and helps preserve highway capacity
• Transit and carpooling about the only game in town during Carmegedon
8
9. Annual Average Daily Traffic in Aspen
20,000
20,500
21,000
21,500
22,000
22,500
23,000
23,500
24,000
1993 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015
Average Annual Daily Traffic
Crossing Castle Creek Bridge
30%+ of Average Peak Hour
Person Trips on Transit
9
11. RFTA Overview
RFTA:
2nd Largest public transit system in Colorado after
Denver RTD
Believed to be the largest rural public transit system in
the U.S.
Opened nations’ first rural BRT system on 9/3/13
Received 2014 Federal Transit Administrator’s Award
for Outstanding Public Service
2016 Information:
5.07 million passengers
5.5 million miles of service
350 employees during peak winter season
106 large transit vehicles (29-CNG), 22 vans
$60.7 million budget ($33.8m Operating/$21.6m
Capital/5.34 Debt Service)
70-mile corridor
Aspen to Glenwood Springs (40 miles)
Glenwood Springs to Rifle (30 miles)
34-mile Rio Grande Rail Corridor and Trail
11
12. 12
50%
25%
12%
4% 4%
3% 2%
0%
2017 Estimated Revenue Composition
Sales and use tax
Service contracts
Operating revenue
Local gov't contributions - operating
Other income
Grant revenue - operating
Grant revenue - capital
Local gov't contributions - capital
14. RFTA Overview
RFTA provides the following types of
transit services:
VelociRFTA BRT service in the Hwy 82
corridor
Regional commuter services in the
Hwy 82 & I-70 corridors
Municipal transit services under
contracts with the City of Aspen and
the City of Glenwood Springs
Skier shuttle services under contract
with Aspen Skiing Co.
Senior/Paratransit transportation
services through Senior Van/Traveler
Maroon Bells bus tours in partnership
with USFS
Event Transportation: World Cup,
Winter X-games (59,000 passengers in
one day)
Grand Avenue Bridge Transit
Mitigation
30. 7. Construction
2011-2013
• Complete Final Design
• FY2011 Appropriation
• $2 M FTA Construction
Grant
• ROW Acquisition
• ITS Acquisition
• Construction
• Order BRT Vehicles
• Testing of System
VelociRFTA BRT Overview: Implementation Process
8. Began Revenue
Service
September 3, 2013
On Time / On Budget!
6. Project Construction
Preparation
4th Quarter 2010
• Final Design Stage
• Vehicle Procurement
Awaiting NTP
• ITS Procurement Begun
• Service Plan Refinement
• Planning Approvals
• NEPA Process Complete –
FONSI Received
1. Corridor Investment
Study
2003
• Compared Rail vs. BRT
• Rail $300 + Million
• BRT $100 Million
2. Alternatives Analysis
2007-2008
• SAFETEA-LU Auth.
• Design goals
• Service goals
• Preferred Alternative (BRT)
• Approximately $46 Million
4. Very Small Starts
Application
2008
• Received FTA Approval in
December 2008
• Began Project Development
3. Voter Support
November 2008
• Sales Tax for BRT
• Bonding Approval
5. Project Development
2009-2010
• Program Management
Consultant Retained
• Advanced Planning
• Program Definition
Refined
• Branding Plan
• Community Outreach
• Jurisdiction Coordination
• Planning Approvals
• NEPA Process
• Issued Bonds
31. VelociRFTA BRT Overview: Cost / Funding
• VelociRFTA is in the Federal Transit
Administration (FTA) Very Small Starts
Program for projects up to $50 million.
Maximum $25m FTA share
Project Financing:
– Project Cost = $46.2m
– FTA share = $24.97m (54%)
– RFTA share = $21.23m (46%)
• 2008: Regional voters approved a 0.4% sales
tax increase and $44.5 million in bonding
authority for VelociRFTA BRT
• 2009: RFTA issued bonds in order to have
local matching funds available
32. What RFTA Riders Wanted……..Fast!
• BRT Route Design
– Rail-like Features
– Only 8 BRT Stops from
Aspen to Glenwood
Springs
– Direct Routing
– Shorter Travel Times
34. What RFTA Riders Wanted……..Fast!
Transit Priority Measures
• Transit Signal Priority (TSP) at congested intersections
• Queue Bypass Lanes at congested intersections
• Use of Existing Bus/HOV & Exclusive Bus lanes
35. What RFTA Riders Wanted………Information Technology!
Information Program
• ITS Technology
• Real Time Sign Information
• Automated Vehicle Location
• Automated passenger counters
• Automated Annunciators
• Electronic Fare Collection
• Mobile Wi-Fi service
• System Map Integration
• Schedule Integration
• Community Information
37. What RFTA Riders Wanted…..…Frequent!
BRT Service Plan – High-Frequency Service
• Span of Service – at least 14 hours each weekday
• Approximately 1-hour travel time between Glenwood Springs
and Aspen (previously 90 minutes)
• Local valley bus service to continue every 30 minutes
• BRT service levels are adjusted during the off-season according
to demand
38. What RFTA Riders Wanted……..Comfort and Convenience!
BRT Station Program
• Passenger Shelters
– Ticket vending
– Enclosed waiting
and seating area
– Lighting
• Bicycle Storage
– Covered and
uncovered
• Outside Seating
• Landscaping
• Trash and Recycling
• Optional Elements
– Parking
– Restroom Facilities
Carbondale BRT Station
71. RFTA’s Challenge: Many vehicles and assets acquired with some level of
Federal and State funding. RFTA has $50 million in bus replacements over 15
years and Federal and State funding are currently inadequate.
71
