APTA 2009 2009 Bus & Paratransit Conference &
International Bus Roadeo/Bus Rapid Transit Conference
BRT in the Roaring Fork Valley:
A Unique Application
William D. Byrne, P.E.
Vice President, Transit Practice Leader
Kara A. Showalter, E.I.T.
Transit Planner
David Evans and Associates, Inc.,
Denver, CO
QUALITY TRANSIT -- NOW
Overview of Roaring Fork Valley
“Down-Valley”
Glenwood Springs
Carbondale
El Jebel
Overview of Roaring Fork Valley
“Up-Valley”
Basalt
Mt. Sopris from SH82
Aspen
Pitkin County Characteristics
• Job growth is outrunning population growth,
creating growing demand for commuting
– Service-related employment (resort and second/luxury home) is
primary source of job growth
– 2005 Pop. = 16,420; projected to increase 46% (2025)
– 2005 Emp. = 20,880; projected to increase 48% (2025)
– Only a portion of population are potential members of the
workforce
• High price of real estate contributing to long
commute trips
– Average single family home = $3.7M
– Average condo = $1.5M
– Rental prices very high
Sources: Colorado State Dept. of Local Government (2008); Land Title (2008)
Characteristics of SH82
• Project is in 40-mile corridor along SH82
– 4-lanes from Glenwood Springs to Buttermilk Ski Area
– 2-lanes of general traffic with 2-lanes of Bus/HOV in peak periods
from Buttermilk to Maroon Creek Roundabout (~1.7-miles)
• SH82 is most congested rural highway in CO
– Summer ADT of over 28,000 vehicles
– Peak commuter traffic flows EB
(“up-valley”) in AM
– Peak commuter traffic flows WB
(“down-valley”) in PM
– Operates at LOS C or worse during peak seasons
– Segments up-valley of Basalt operate at LOS E or worse during
peak hours
– CDOT funding does not exist for roadway widening
Source: West Glenwood Springs to Aspen Corridor Investment Study, RFTA (2003)
Overview of RFTA and SH82 Service
Roaring Fork Transportation
Authority (RFTA)
• Provides service to three counties
(Garfield, Eagle, Pitkin) and eight
incorporated communities in the
corridor:
– Rifle
– Silt
– New Castle
– Glenwood Springs
– Carbondale
– Basalt
– Snowmass
– Aspen
Overview of RFTA SH82 Service
• Local Service
– All day service from West Glenwood Springs to Aspen
• Aspen Direct Express Service
– Service to/from Glenwood Springs, Basalt, Carbondale, and El
Jebel
– 16 up-valley trips to Aspen in the AM peak
– 17 down-valley trips from Aspen in the PM peak
• Snowmass Direct Express Service
– 3 trips to Snowmass in the AM peak (from Carbondale)
– 3 trips from Snowmass in the PM peak (to Carbondale)
• 2007 Annual Boardings = ~2.0M
(up 17% from 2006)
• Fleet Size = ~80 vehicles
Source: The Case for the Project Report, RFTA (2008); Alternatives Analysis Report, RFTA (2008)
Overview of RFTA SH82 Service
BRT in the Roaring Fork Valley
VISION
By 2017, our region will significantly reduce
dependence on oil through a resource efficient, climate
friendly, multimodal transportation system with a
regional express line unimpeded by traffic and weather,
competitive with the private vehicle in terms of
convenience, travel time, and quality.
BRT Service Concept Development
• Service Concept Development
– Operational/Financial Challenges: long trip lengths and
distribution of urban centers
– Must address park-and-ride and “walk-in” travelers needs
• Guidance for BRT service configuration
– Provide travel times no more than 60% longer than auto travel
times (for trips of 10-miles or more)
– Provide park-and-rides at locations 4 to 6 miles apart
– Provide stop spacing of 0.4 to 0.6-miles in urban areas
– Provide 10-min peak/15-min off-peak service at BRT stops
Source: Alternatives Analysis Report, RFTA (2008)
BRT Service Concept Development
• Concept 1 – Combined Core
– Single BRT route provides access to ~16 stops (park-and-ride
and walk-in stations)
– Feeder/circulator service serve as background network
• Concept 2 – Modified Combined Core Service
– Same as above, with single local trunk instead of
feeder/circulator to serve as background network
• Concept 3 – Dual Core Service
– One BRT core route to serve all major park-and-rides along the
corridor (~10 stops)
– One BRT core route to serve major park-and-rides and
additional walk-in stations (~20 stops)
Source: Alternatives Analysis Report, RFTA (2008)
BRT Service Concept Development
Concept 2 –
Modified Combined
Core Service
BRT Service Concept Development
Concept 3 –
Dual Core Service
BRT Station Concept Development
• Objectives considered:
–
–
–
–
–
–
Reduce deceleration and acceleration time for buses
Minimize bus movements off the highway
Improve pedestrian safety
Locate within walking distance to development
Consider possibility of kiss-and-ride drop off locations
Minimize parking, where possible
• Four types of stations developed:
– On-Line BRT multi-purpose walk-in station (parking may be
available as practical and may not be adjacent to station)
– Principal BRT walk-in station with TOD (limited parking supply
that may not be adjacent to station)
– Minor BRT park-and-ride station (up to 100 spaces)
– Major BRT park-and-ride station (up to 300 spaces)
Source: Alternatives Analysis Report, RFTA (2008)
BRT Station Concept
PRINCIPAL WALK-IN BRT
STATIONS WITH TOD
Should be on-line wherever
possible
BRT
LOCAL
Accommodates transfer
between all services (BRT and
local)
Amidst established urban
development or high TOD
potential – part of urban
‘identity’
Parking: not necessarily
immediately adjacent, and
supply may be limited
Stations suited to utilize local
street hierarchy-zone
surrounding land uses for mixed
use
Pedestrian linkages to both sides
of BRT guideway
HIGH DENSITY MIXED USE DEVELOPMENT
WITHIN 10 MINUTES WALKING DISTANCE
OF THE STATION
STATION
STATION
ESTABLISHED COMMUNITIES
MEDIUM DENSITY MIXED USE
DEVELOPMENT WITHIN 10 MINUTES
WALKING DISTANCE OF THE STATION
GRADE –
SEPARATED
PEDESTRIAN
CROSSING
BRT Station Concept
MAJOR BRT PARK & RIDE
STATIONS (UP TO 300 SPACES)
BRT
Accommodates transfer
between all services (BRT and
local)
LOCAL
STAND ALONE/INTEGRATED
PARKING STRUCTURE
Possibility of a Feeder bus
service to the station
FEEDER BUS
SERVICE
Station could be on highway
or off line
KISS AND RIDE / DROP OFF
STATION
Parking structure is
immediately adjacent to
station
Can be integrated with the
station for pedestrian comfort
Furthest parking spot is within
5 minutes walk to the station
POTENTIAL WEATHER
PROTECTED PEDESTRIAN
CONNECTION
MEDIAN
ACCELERATION
DECELERATION
HIGHWAY
BRT Station Location Development
• Determined number of parking spaces required
– In some cases, need to plan for parking supply “downstream”
of due to land availability and acquisition constraints
Location
Current Supply
Buttermilk
ABC
Brush Creek
Basalt
Willits
El Jebel
Carbondale
CME
Roaring Fork Marketplace
GW Springs Downtown
GW Springs Courthouse
West Glenwood
TOTAL
92
0
200
95
N/A
50
100
20
40
0
0
60
657
Potential Supply to Meet
Future Demand
92
400
500
350
40
350
530
100
250
100
0
450
3,162
Source: Alternatives Analysis Report, RFTA (2008)
BRT – Bus Priority Treatments
• Bus Priority Treatments
– Far-side stops: Queue jump lanes
– Near-side stops and locations without stops: Queue jump lanes
and traffic signal improvements
– Select locations: Extended turn pockets so buses can bypass
the stopped queue
Source: Alternatives Analysis Report, RFTA (2008)
BRT Funding Options
• Potential Sources of Revenue:
– Sales and use taxes
– Annual motor vehicle registration fee
– Visitor benefit tax
– Potential new RFTA members
– Fees, tolls, rates, and charges
– Federal and state grant funding
Source: RFTA Bus Rapid Transit Financial Plan, BBC (2008)
BRT – Development of Final Plan
• Preferred Alternative chosen to achieve the
following benefits:
–
–
–
–
Improved transit travel time, reliability, and convenience
Increased transit capacity
Improved transit visibility and image through branding
Improved ease of use for transit by providing real time
information and consistent headways on individual bus routes
– Improved transit comfort and convenience
– Transit-Oriented Development opportunities
• Preferred Alternative composed of the following
elements:
– Service Concept: 1 BRT Route
– Station Concepts: Three types
– Station Locations: 9 BRT locations
Source: The Case for the Project Report, RFTA (2008); Alternatives Analysis Report, RFTA (2008)
BRT Proposed Service Concepts
• BRT service from Glenwood Springs to downtown
Aspen:
– 10 min peak/15 off-peak with limited stops
– ~65 min one-way travel time
• Additional peak period Express BRT services
• Local service operating every 30 min making all
stops
Source: The Case for the Project Report, RFTA (2008); Alternatives Analysis Report, RFTA (2008)
BRT Proposed Service Concepts
BRT Proposed Service Concepts
BRT – Proposed Plan
• 300 new/replacement parking spaces at 2 BRT
station location
• Expansion of maintenance facility capacity
• Intelligent Transportation System elements
• Bus priority improvements at 6 locations
• 15 additional buses
• 48,500 additional hours of BRT and regional transit
service
Source: The Case for the Project Report, RFTA (2008); Alternatives Analysis Report, RFTA (2008)
BRT – Station Concept
Roaring Fork Market Place (Glenwood Springs)
BRT – Station Concept
Basalt Typical Station
BRT – Phase 1 Cost Estimate
Capital Investments
Inflated Cost
in Millions
Estimated FTA Share
2010
2011
Buses
$7.37
$4.13
ITS
$5.51
$3.09
Bus Priority Improvements
$2.54
$1.42
Stations and Parking
$28.70
$1.86
$12.94
Maintenance Facility
Expansion
TOTAL Capital
Investment
TOTAL Estimated
Construction Cost
$2.69
$0.35
$1.21
$10.85
$14.15
$46.81
$31.39
Sub-total Estimated FTA Share 2010-2011
TOTAL Estimated FTA Share 2010-2011
$25.00
FTA Very Small Starts (VSS)
Requirements
Project must be a bus, rail, or ferry project and contain
the following features:
• Substantial Transit Stations
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Signal Priority/Pre-emption
Low Floor / Level Boarding Vehicles
Special Branding of Service
Frequent Service – 10 min peak.15 min off peak
Service offered at least 14 hours per day
Existing corridor ridership exceeding 3,000/day
Less than $50 million total cost
Less than $3 million per mile (excluding vehicles)
Source: Very Small Starts Fact Sheet, FTA (2009)
FTA Process Challenges
• 3,000 “Existing Riders”
• Operating Costs as Percentage of
Total Cost – Required Detailed Financial Plan
• Atypical corridor and service needs
Status of Project Development
• Successful referendum – additional sales tax to
fund local share
• Approval to enter VSS project development by by
FTA
• Initiating contracting with Program Management
consultant
• NEPA and design work to begin in Summer 2009
• Scheduled completion in June 2012
QUESTIONS?
Bill Byrne, Vice President and Transit Practice Leader
wdby@deainc.com, 720-225-4624
Kara Showalter, Transit Planner
kash@deainc.com, 720-225-4612
QUALITY TRANSIT -- NOW