Non-Agenda Item - Information re: Regional Transportation District (RTD) service reductions
Weekly Information Item
To: Mayor and Members of City Council
From: Christine Andersen, Acting City Manager
Amy Mueller, Acting Public Affairs Director
Tracy Winfree, Director of Public Works for Transportation
Michael Gardner-Sweeney, Transportation Planning and Operations Coordinator
Micki Kaplan, Senior Transportation Planner
Bob Whitson, Senior Transportation Planner
Nataly Handlos, Transportation Planner
Date: Oct. 8, 2002
Subject: Information regarding RTD service reductions
PURPOSE:
The purpose of this memorandum is to inform Council about recent proposals from RTD
regarding significant reductions to the Community Transit Network services.
BACKGROUND:
RTD and the region are experiencing hard economic times. As a result, RTD has been cutting
operational and capital budgets significantly. At the same time, RTD is under pressure to make
sure that the southwest and southeast corridors are working well and successfully. Boulder
County's transit network is expanding and some of the "demonstrations" are finishing out their
federal grants (LEAP and BOUND), such that RTD is facing paying the bill for successful
service.
In early September, RTD staff recommended to the Operations Subcommittee of the RTD Board
the following service reductions in Boulder County:
1. Reduce the LEAP (along Pearl) to 30-minute frequency during the peak hour and one-hour
frequency during the off-peak.
2. Reduce the BOUND (along 30th) to 15-minute frequency during the peak and 30-minute
frequency during the off-peak.
3. Reduce the JUMP (along Arapahoe) to 15-minute frequency during the peak and 30-minute
frequency during the off-peak.
RTD staff recommended that these service changes be reviewed in September, approved in
October, and implemented in January. During this time, city staff was in discussions with RTD
about the LEAP; however, we were never informed of these recommendations that were already
moving forward in the RTD decision-making process.
Although the LEAP is not performing at RTD service standards, the JUMP and BOUND have
been performing quite well. City staff had been working with RTD to develop a different
solution to the LEAP and had been prepared to invest in some changes to the service. During
these LEAP discussions, RTD staff did not inform the Boulder/Boulder County staffs that
significant service changes were being planned and recommended for the JUMP and BOUND.
In addition, RTD developed new service productivity standards that only applied to "10-minute
frequency services." Previous information, which is referenced in the RTD/city HOP contract,
identifies a productivity standard of 13 to 18 passengers per bus hour. The "new" standard for
10-minute frequency service is 40 to 60 passengers per bus hour. There are only three lines in the
entire RTD service area that meet this standard: Colfax (Denver), South Broadway (Denver), and
the SKIP (Boulder). Currently, the BOUND averages nearly 30 passengers per bus hour; the
JUMP (a much more suburban service and a longer route) carries 19.5 to 20 passengers per bus
hour; and the HOP carries in the low 30s per bus hour.
These new productivity standards dictate that RTD will no longer provide 10-minute frequency
service on these routes. Among the guiding principles of the unfolding Community Transit
Network is that local services be schedule-free, which customers tell us is 10 minutes or better.
This 10-minute issue is an obvious point of disagreement, given RTD's new standard. Since
many other communities in Boulder County (Lafayette, Louisville, Longmont, CU-Boulder,
Boulder County) and some other areas of the district are pursuing these types of services, the
issues are larger than the city of Boulder.
In mid-September, city staff also learned that RTD is not budgeting additional funding for the
HOP. The city of Boulder had entered into an "official demonstration" for the HOP service,
similar to the SKIP, with the understanding that RTD would take over funding after a three-year
demonstration. That three years is up in January 2004. RTD staff has informed us that the HOP
funding issue is not related to productivity but rather simply to RTD's budget woes.
Mayor Will Toor, city staff and Boulder County have worked together and have been able to
remove the JUMP and BOUND service reductions from consideration for January 2003 service
changes. However, RTD staff plans to recommend service reductions to the JUMP and the
BOUND services for their May 2003 service changes.
City staff has about three months to develop an agreement with RID and Boulder County for
continued integrity of the JUMP and BOUND. The LEAP, however, remains on the reduction
list for January 2003, and there is not a strong position to retain it since the LEAP only carries
about nine passengers per bus hour. It appears, however, that the LEAP may be combined with
RTD's Route 206, which would fulfill the original routing intended for the LEAP (connecting
with Flatiron Business Park area with Table Mesa Park-n-Ride). The LEAP savings for RTD
will be significant, which needs to be considered when evaluating "savings" that RTD wants to
achieve from the JUMP and BOUND.
Longer Term Issues:
This set of experiences illustrates that RTD is not committed to providing the level and quality
of transit service that the city of Boulder needs to achieve our transportation goals. In the context
of a faltering economy and other important regional investments, RTD is not obligated to
implement Boulder's Transportation Master Plan. While RTD is our regional transit provider,
another model for the entire transit program to be realized and successful must be considered. If
we work in a coalition with Boulder County and our neighboring communities, each entity has a
stronger chance for success. Our neighbors have become very supportive of county-level transit
connections such as the JUMP, DASH and DART.
The city is working on these short-, medium- and long-term strategies at the same time that RTD
is looking for support for a FasTracks vote as early as November 2003. One of the findings from
the failed "Guide the Ride" package was that people wanted to know that suburb-to-suburb and
community-based transit service would be a part of the overall package.
In other regions across the country, there has been concern expressed about major regional rail
shifting investments away from bus service. The Boulder County transit system is essential to
achieving city transportation goals. While the unfolding Boulder County transit system supports
the entire community and many connecting corridors, FasTracks benefits two corridors affecting
Boulder.
Current investments must be shifted from expansion of the transit system to maintaining the
transit service and ridership that we have today and will have in the next two years with the
addition of DASH and DART. Investments for the HOP, JUMP, and BOUND could be
substantial. Until a new model of providing transit in Boulder and, hopefully, Boulder County, is
developed, the city will focus on preserving our collective progress to date through the DART
connection to Longmont.
NEXT STEPS:
Here are the strategies city staff will pursue:
Short-term:
1. Work with Boulder County and our neighboring county communities interested in high
frequency transit service to advocate that RTD continue to support successful high frequency
transit routes.
2. Adjust the LEAP, with likely service reduction, to improve productivity and manage budget
impacts. Targeted for January service changes. Savings to RTD will be significant.
Medium-term:
1. Work with Boulder County and our neighboring county communities interested in high
frequency transit service to advocate that RTD continue to support successful high frequency
transit routes.
2. Work with RTD and Boulder County and neighboring community staffs over the next three
months on the JUMP and BOUND service profiles to preserve and enhance ridership with a goal
of providing 10-minute service all day. Targeted for May service changes.
3. Work with Boulder County to establish financial commitments from the city and county for
the JUMP and BOUND.
4. Work with RTD staff on budgeting for 2004 for the HOP. Work with CU to increase its
contribution to the HOP.
Long-term:
Continue working with Boulder County and our neighboring county communities interested in
high frequency transit service to advocate that RTD continue to support successful high
frequency transit routes. In addition, Boulder County has offered to host a conversation among
the Boulder County communities to consider different models for providing our collective transit
future. At this point, no options have been set aside. These models could range from:
• Raising additional funding at a county and/or city level to provide to RTD to "fill in" the
service gap,
• Raising additional funding and operating services at a county level,
• Removing Boulder County from the RTD area and creating IGA's for regional
connections beyond the county, regional fares and other important issues.
These models must consider local, county, and regional services as well as amenities such as bus
shelters and pass programs.
Staff will continue to proactively partner with our neighbors and search for creative ways to
provide transit to the area. Staff will keep Council informed on these important issues. If you
have any questions or comments, please contact Tracy Winfree at ext. 3200 or e-mail to
winfreet@ci.boulder.co.us
City of Boulder
Downtown and University Hill Management Division
and Parking Services
Downtown Management Commission University Hill General Improvement District Parking Services
September 25, 2002
Rick Stein
3122 Ninth Street
Boulder, CO 80304 _
Dear Mr. Stein,
Thank you for your letter and suggestions regarding city support for alternative fuel vehicles through providing free
parking on-street and in city lots and garages. As director of hire Downtown and University Hill Management Division and
Parking Services, I can see some perhaps-unintended consequences of your proposal and would like to share them with
you. In our division, we strive for a balance between different forms of access - vehicles and alternative modes - to the
downtown and hill area. We have programs in place that enable downtown employees to have an alt mode share of 429/a
wnici is remarkable `or a city of our size. The goal of --his balance of access is to reduce traffic congestion, provide
parking access for customers, visitors and clients to maintain an economically healthy downtown and to promote a better
environment.
Providing free parking for certain vehicles could have several unintended consequences. One of the reasons for charging
for parking is to manage where and for hew long vehid.es are stared. It is impoRant, partlculariy on-street, to encourage
turnover of vehicles to ensure access of parking spaces `or clients, customers and visitors to the downtown and hill area.
Without charging, it s human nature to remain in the free space and there is no incentive to move the venicle and
provide access for someone else. A good example of this ,vas the situation in downtown before we instituted paid
parking at the meters on Saturday, Before charging, all the on-street dose-m spaces were filled by downtown employees
by gam, before any shops were open, and remained there throughout the day. The public coming to shop were
discouraged that there was no readily available parking. Once we started charging at the meters, the spaces opened up
and customers and visitors would readily accessible parking.
You did suggest a permit system for these alternative fuel vehicles. While possible, it would pose a challenge to the
efficiency or our parking enforcement. With a permit system, an officer would need to caulk the vehicle's tire and then
return after the specific time limit of the meter. We have a variety of time limits - 30 minutes, 1,2, 3, 4, and 10 hour
meters. This would complicate an officer's route and create inefficiencies in their time. Our officers also enforce the
neighborhood parking permit areas, and we are constantly asked to increase our enforcement in the neighborhoods.
Enforcing a permit system for alternative fuel verides would require more of the officer's time in the meter districts rather
than the neighborhoods.
As you point out, the proposal would be a revenue loss for the city. As I mentioned earlier, our division is involved with
both vehicle and alternative mode access. We have quite an extensive alternative mode program including a free
ecopass program for downtown employees. The revenues from parking provide the funding to pay for these programs;
so a decrease in parking revenues could negatively impact our 42% alternative mode share. Raising parking races on all
other vehicles is a possibility. However, increasing parking rates beyond a certain level Can have a negative impact on
.he economic viability of both the office and retail market, as the downtown strives to compete with other regional
commerdal centers.
The concept of promoting alternative fuel vehicles is a worthv one. Funding it through no parking fees has numerous
consequences, some outlined in this response. Perhaps a more direct incentive would be some form of rebate of sales
tax should our policy leaders `eel this s a valid program to support.. The Transportation Master Update is currently
coking at dean burning tecnirology and how to promote it. These ideas could be considered in upcoming discussions. I
am copying this letter to the transportation director, Tracy Winfree, and Transportation Advisory Board members.
I would be happy to provide any further information and answer any questions.
3%~inter_
cc: Gordon Riggie, City Council
Christine Andersen, Acting City Manager
'racy Winfree, Transportation Director
lane Jenkins, BID Director
Downtown Manacement Commission
Transdcrtaticn Adviscrd Board
1500 Pearl, Suite 302 Phone: (30-,) 413-7100
Boulder, Colorado 80302 Fax: (303) 413-7301