Colorado Statewide Intercity and Regional Bus Network Study

1. Colorado Statewide Intercity and Regional Bus Network Study Presentation to the Statewide Transportation Advisory Committee October 12, 2007

2. Study Scope • Review Federal and State Policies • Inventory Existing Services • Analysis of Unmet Needs and Service Gaps • Stakeholder Outreach • STAC Input • Telephone Interviews/e-mail surveys • Develop Preferred Network(s) • Develop Cost Estimates • Integrate Preferred Network proposals with 2035 Transportation Plan Process

3. Issues in the Development of a Preferred Network • Stakeholder and Committee Input suggested needs for several types of service: • Long-Distance Commuter • Essential trips to distant medical, social services, etc. • Connections to Intercity networks (bus, rail, air) • Colorado allocation of federal S.5311f funding is limited ($1,182,286 for FY 2008) • Federal Transit Administration (FTA) Rural Intercity Bus Funding (S. 5311f) cannot be used for commuter service, must have intercity network connection. • Long-distance commuter needs: • Call for much higher levels of service (frequency), • Would require other sources of funding. • Will be implemented based on local willingness to provide operating match.

4. Issues (continued) • Existing Intercity Bus Services are primarily those supported by fares--additional services are needed to provide coverage for rural communities. • Existing regional services are those funded by local entities—additional services are needed to: • Support employment trips • Reduce the role of the single occupant vehicle in peak periods • Build ridership for future Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) or rail in some corridors

5. Result: Two Preferred Network Plans: Intercity and Regional • Intercity Bus (ICB) Network (Figure 1): • Provides minimal coverage statewide • Includes existing intercity services provided by private carriers without subsidies, plus • Additional proposed corridors that would require S.5311f funding to operate at Level of Service D (one round-trip per day). • Estimated annual federal/state operating cost of $800,000 (Table 1), if localities provide local match (50% of net operating deficit) • Using FTA “Pilot Project” S.5311(f) funding method additional local/state annual operating costs would be $1,600,000, with no local cash match.

6. Figure 1: Intercity Network

7. Table 1: Intercity Program Operating Costs

8. Regional Network • Regional Network (Figure 2): • Includes existing commuter services operated by public transit systems across the state, plus • Additional proposed services based on three levels of service – A, B, or C • Services focus on major employment centers • Recommended and Interim plans are identified

9. Figure 2: Regional Network

10. Level Rural Regional RTD Regional Total Regional Additional Local $ Needed Recom-mended $34.8 million $16.4 million $51.2 million $13.9 million Interim $28.4 million $16.4 million $44.8 million $7.6 million Table 2: Regional Network Operating Cost Summary* *Complete detail provided in Appendix A.

11. Regions Corridor Change to Corridor Vision Intermountain CO 131 Add “transit” as a future mode Northwest CO 13 Add “transit” as a future mode Eastern and Upper Front Range US 34 Add “transit” as a future mode Southeast US 50 Add “transit” as future mode Relationship to 2035 Plan Corridor Vision Statements • Most proposed regional or intercity service is on corridors identified as needing transit service in 2035. • Regions needing to amend their Corridor Vision statements to be consistent:

12. Recommendations • Identified Intercity Bus (ICB) services are the first priority for S.5311(f) funding. • To the extent feasible the full 15% S.5311(f) set-aside for rural intercity bus services should be used for that purpose—however other S.5311 needs will also be considered. • CDOT should take a proactive role in utilizing S.5311(f) funding for service-related projects, including such things as: • internet service information (Google Transit, for example), • trailblazer signs, • costs related to Denver International Airport access, • appropriate costs for intermodal terminals, etc. • Recommendations for regional bus services should be viewed as a framework for further consideration and analysis at the regional and state levels. • CDOT should take a proactive lead role in planning and promoting regional bus services and intercity bus services.

13. Conclusions • This study is a solid first step in identifying ICB and regional transit needs, and linking them to the ongoing statewide transportation planning process. • Issues are complex and there is not currently an effective institutional framework to address many of the issues, as both regional and intercity services are multi-jurisdictional in nature. • Statewide policies regarding regional and intercity bus services are not well developed, including organizational responsibilities and potential funding sources.

14. Conclusions, cont. • It will be important to identify initial policy directions and to begin to integrate these policies with those for other modes and services—additional policy and planning work is needed in this area. • Questions for Consideration: • What role should the State have in regional and/or ICB services? • Planning? Prioritizing? Funding? Contractor for ICB Services? • What are the State’s specific policy objectives and goals for regional and ICB services? • Policy objectives might consider connectivity, coverage and productivity and might address operating and capital costs • Policies will provide a basis for setting priorities for State funding of services • What process would be appropriate to determine role of State and the development of policies regarding regional and ICB services?

15. Attachment A: Description of Rural and Urban Regional Services

16. Recommended Rural Regional Services:

17. Recommended Rural Regional Services (cont.):

18. Existing RTD Regional Services:

19. Interim Rural Regional Services:

20. Interim Rural Regional Services (continued):