Boulder Transit Service Delivery Study Phase 2Boulder Transit Service Delivery Study
Phase 2
Prepared for:
(This page intentionally left blank.)
Boulder Transit Service Delivery Study
Phase 2
Final Report
Prepared for:
City of Boulder
1101 Arapahoe Avenue
Boulder, CO 80302
Prepared by:
LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc.
545 East Pikes Peak Avenue, Suite 210
Colorado Springs, CO 80903
(719) 633-2868
In conjunction with
Charlier Associates Inc., (CAI)
LSC #174670
September 13, 2018
-ii-
(This page intentionally left blank.)
-iii-
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Section Title Page
I INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................................................... I
Project Purpose and Background ................................................................................................. I
2 GOALS, OBJECTIVES, AND PERFORMANCE MEASURES .................................................... 3
Development Methodology .......................................................................................................... 3
Governance Goals, Objectives, and Performance Measures...................................................... 4
Project Goal and Objectives ........................................................................................................ 6
Service Goals, Objectives, and Performance Measures ............................................................. 6
3 GOVERNANCE MODELS ........................................................................................................... 9
General Governance Model Considerations ............................................................................... 9
Governance Models .................................................................................................................. 13
4 SERVICE SCENARIOS ............................................................................................................. 23
Introduction ................................................................................................................................ 23
Governance Model 1 ................................................................................................................. 27
Governance Model 2 ................................................................................................................. 28
Governance Model 3 ................................................................................................................. 29
Governance Model 4 ................................................................................................................. 30
Governance Model 5 ................................................................................................................. 31
Governance Model 6 ................................................................................................................. 33
5 EVALUATION OF GOVERNANCE MODELS ........................................................................... 35
Governance Model 1. Maintenance of Current Service Model (Status Quo) ............................. 35
Governance Model 2. Incremental Expansion of City of Boulder Transit Program . (Buy-ups) 39
Governance Model 3. City of Boulder Local Transit Provider .................................................... 40
Governance Model 4a. City of Boulder/Boulder County Transit Provider (Joint Powers) .......... 42
Governance Model 4b. Boulder County Transit Agency With Mass Transit Tax ....................... 44
Governance Model 5. Boulder County RTA (Funding Entity) .................................................... 46
Governance Model 6. Boulder County RTA (Secede From RTD) ............................................. 48
6 POTENTIAL REVENUE SOURCES ......................................................................................... 51
General Local Revenue Sources, Including Joint Powers Authorities ....................................... 51
County Max Transit Agency ...................................................................................................... 52
Regional Transportation Authority ............................................................................................. 52
All Models ................................................................................................................................ 53
7 SUMMARY OF FINDINGS ........................................................................................................ 57
Introduction ................................................................................................................................ 57
Feasibility of Governance Models ............................................................................................. 57
Next Steps ................................................................................................................................ 61
APPENDIX A INNOVATIVE TRENDS IN TRANSIT
-iv-
LIST OF TABLES
Table Title Page
1 Steps in RTA Development and Formation ................................................................... 20
2 Service Scenarios: Long Term Implementation ............................................................ 25
3 Evaluation of Governance Models ................................................................................ 37
4 Available Sources of Revenue ...................................................................................... 51
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure Title Page
1 Model 1 ................................................................................................................... 27
2 Model 2 ................................................................................................................... 28
3 Model 3 ................................................................................................................... 29
4 Model 4 ................................................................................................................... 30
5 Model 5A ................................................................................................................... 31
6 Model 5B ................................................................................................................... 32
7 Model 6 ................................................................................................................... 33
LSC
Boulder Transit Service Delivery Study, Phase 2 Page 1
Section 1
Introduction
PROJECT PURPOSE AND BACKGROUND
The City of Boulder’s 2014 Transportation Master Plan (TMP) describes a
“Renewed Vision for Transit” (RVT) that would expand Boulder’s Community
Transit Network (CTN – local transit services within the City), as well as regional
transit connections. The challenge facing the City in implementing this Vision is
that the current transit service model – which relies heavily on the Regional
Transportation District (RTD) for both local and regional transit service – will be
severely constrained by RTD’s limited resources and competing regional
priorities.
For these reasons, the City is studying potential alternatives for a transit service
delivery model that could facilitate achievement of its transit and TMP goals. This
Study is intended to answer two questions:
1. To what extent can the current service delivery structure deliver the
Renewed Vision for Transit and what is the nature and extent of the
remaining challenges and service gaps?
2. What are the potential alternative “governance models” (funding,
operating, management and partnership structures) that would optimize
opportunities to implement the City’s Renewed Vision for Transit?
Moving forward into implementation will require information provided by this
study including:
• assessment of estimated costs, revenues and outcomes associated with
potential service delivery structures (governance models);
• evaluation of the implementation feasibility of potential governance
models, taking into account Colorado law, the RTD franchise, and the
potential for necessary intergovernmental cooperation among the City’s
partners, including state, regional and local entities;
LSC
Page 2 Boulder Transit Service Delivery Study, Phase 2
• identification and conceptual description of a proposed transit service
delivery governance model that fulfills the transit vision and TMP goals;
and,
• documentation of the analysis and recommendations in a strategic
report and associated presentation materials for use by staff and
stakeholders.
To guide this Study, the City appointed:
• Policy Steering Committee with representation from City Council, Boulder
County Board of Commissioners, and CU-Boulder; and
• Technical Steering Committee with membership from City of Boulder,
Boulder County, and CU-Boulder staff.
The Policy and Steering Committees each met five times between June 2017 and
September 2018 reviewing: the Study purpose and scope (Meeting #1); goals,
objectives and performance measures for use in guiding the Study (Meeting #2);
potential governance models for future transit service delivery (Meeting #3); the
evaluation of governance models (Meeting #4); and the Draft Report (Meeting #5).
LSC
Boulder Transit Service Delivery Study, Phase 2 Page 3
Section 2
Goals, Objectives, and Performance Measures
DEVELOPMENT METHODOLOGY
This section provides goals, objectives and performance measures (GOPM) in
three categories:
I. Governance Goals, Objectives, and Performance Measures
II. Project Goal and Objectives
III. Service Goals, Objectives, and Performance Measures
The Governance GOPM were used to guide a comparative evaluation of alternative
governance and organizational models for implementation of Boulder’s transit
plan. Service GOPM were designed to ensure that, under all models, the vision
and direction established in the City’s Transportation Master Plan and Transit
Modal Plan would be achieved. The Project Goal and Objectives guided conduct
of this study.
Guidelines used in preparing the Governance GOPM included:
• Selected performance measures should relate to specific objectives;
• Performance measures must allow estimating and forecasting for each
alternative;
• Performance measures must support comparison and evaluation of
alternatives;
• The number of performance measures should be short and focused;
• Both quantitative and qualitative performance measures are useful.
The Project Goal and Objectives guided the conduct of this study – transit service
delivery planning – and the technical analysis and coordination efforts of the
project team.
LSC
Page 4 Boulder Transit Service Delivery Study, Phase 2
The Service GOPM are found in the Boulder's 2014 Transit Modal Plan
https://www-
static.bouldercolorado.gov/docs/Boulder_TMP_Transit_Modal_Plan-1-
201601291448.pdf and Appendix B to the Transit Modal Plan.
GOVERNANCE GOALS, OBJECTIVES AND PERFORMANCE
MEASURES
Governance goals and objectives are based on adopted plans and documents,
including the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan, City of Boulder Transportation
Master Plan, and the City of Boulder Transit Modal Plan. Both quantitative [QN]
and qualitative [QL] objectives are identified.
Goal 1: Ensure that transit service improvements are strategic and improve Boulder’s
ability to shape its future.
Objective 1a: Anticipate and account for oncoming technological changes and
trends (autonomous vehicles, shared ride mobility, car share, ITS). [QL]
Qualitative Performance Measure: Capability of governance model to
incorporate and adapt to technological advances and trends (high – medium –
low)
Objective 1b: Ensure that predictability and consistency are designed into any
new revenue sources and that each funding program is sustainable and resilient
in the face of national and regional economic trends and fluctuations.
Qualitative Performance Measure: Relative predictability and stability of
potential new revenue sources available under each governance model (high –
medium – low)
Qualitative Performance Measure: Ability to respond to emerging funding
opportunities and to adapt to a variety of future revenue sources (high – medium
– low)
Objective 1c: Ensure that each governance model can be implemented in a
cooperative manner that preserves the City’s relationship with RTD.
Qualitative Performance Measure: RTD position on governance model (support -
oppose)
LSC
Boulder Transit Service Delivery Study, Phase 2 Page 5
Objective 1d: Ensure that the end result of implementation is not a net reduction
in annual RTD expenditures and investment in Boulder beyond what otherwise
would have occurred.
Quantitative Performance Measure: Annual RTD expenditures attributable to
Boulder/Boulder County services (RTD budget allocable to Boulder and Boulder
County)
Objective 1e: Ensure continued service integration, efficiency, and convenience
to the public in local and regional transit operations.
Qualitative Performance Measure: Capability of governance model to provide
integrated service, like fare structures, schedules, etc. (high – medium – low)
Goal 2: Ensure that any governance model proposed to implement the City’s transit
plans is feasible, equitable, and sustainable.
Objective 2a: Ensure implementation feasibility of the recommended governance
model.
Qualitative Performance Measures:
• Legislation required (yes – no)
• Legal questions or issues that cause uncertainty about feasibility (yes – no)
• Significant opposition from RTD or other key partners (yes – no)
• Service integration challenges and barriers (low – moderate – severe)
• Fare integration challenges and barriers (low – moderate – severe)
Objective 2b: Address labor supply, equipment inventory, and operating
environment as potential limitations to implementation of substantially higher
levels of transit service.
Qualitative Performance Measure: Extent to which each governance model
supports strategies to address scale limitations (high – medium – low)
Objective 2c: Fully identify capital and operating costs, including roadway
infrastructure investments required to achieve desired service levels.
Quantitative Performance Measures: Capital cost to implement and annual
operating cost
LSC
Page 6 Boulder Transit Service Delivery Study, Phase 2
Objective 2d: Address “return on investment” (ROI) for the jurisdictions that
would be directly involved in each governance model.
Quantitative Performance Measure: ROI for City of Boulder and for other
jurisdictions involved in each governance model.
PROJECT GOAL AND OBJECTIVES
This goal addresses the conduct of this study (transit service implementation
planning) and guided the technical analysis and coordination efforts of the project
team. These reflect comments, concerns, and guidance offered by the Policy
Steering Committee. These GOPM were not used to compare governance models,
although they did provide perspective on governance and organizational choices.
Goal 3: Ensure that the transit governance model established to implement the above
goals and objectives also preserves and improves relationships among the City of
Boulder, RTD, Boulder County, and sister cities.
Objective 3a: Coordinate directly and often with RTD to ensure the agency is
aware of the project information as it develops and has an opportunity to
comment and advise the planning effort.
Objective 3b: Coordinate directly and often with other governmental entities that
have a stake in the outcome of this project.
Objective 3c: Coordinate directly and often with other regional funding initiatives,
including Commuting Solutions and the North Front Range.
SERVICE GOALS, OBJECTIVES, AND PERFORMANCE MEASURES
Service goals and objectives were used to ensure that implementation of Boulder’s
transit plan will achieve the transit future envisioned in the Boulder Valley
Comprehensive Plan, City of Boulder Transportation Master Plan and Transit
Modal Plan. These GOPM were used to compare Governance Alternatives and
provided additional perspective on governance and organizational choices.
LSC
Boulder Transit Service Delivery Study, Phase 2 Page 7
Details on the Service GOPM can be found in Boulder’s Transit Modal Plan and
in particular in Appendix B to the Transit Modal Plan, available at this link:
https://www-
static.bouldercolorado.gov/docs/Boulder_TMP_Transit_Modal_Plan_APP_B_Transit_Sce
nario_Analysis-1-201601291658.pdf
The specific performance measures which relate directly to the Governance
Alternatives, include the following.
• Annual weekday riders
• Annual operating costs
The potential impacts on annual weekday riders and annual operating costs are
addressed in the evaluation of the service scenarios.
LSC
Page 8 Boulder Transit Service Delivery Study, Phase 2
(This page intentionally left blank.)
LSC
Boulder Transit Service Delivery Study, Phase 2 Page 9
Section 3
Governance Models
GENERAL GOVERNANCE MODEL CONSIDERATIONS
The evaluation of these alternative approaches to achieving the City’s Transit
Vision takes into account several general considerations that affect feasibility and
prospects for successful implementation.
Technological Trends
Transportation in the US is changing more rapidly than at any time in recent
memory. The rise of private sector ride-hailing services (e.g., Lyft and Uber) and
the imminent arrival of semi-autonomous and fully-autonomous vehicles could
significantly affect demand for and feasibility of certain types of transit service
within just a few years. It will be important to preserve the City’s options for
responding to, and perhaps taking advantage of, these trends. For example, fully-
autonomous, electric “micro-transit” vehicles are being operated in regular
service on limited routes in several US cities and this could be an option for
Boulder sooner than is generally realized. More information about these emerging
trends is provided in Appendix A.
Historic Capital Investments
The City also has to take into account the complexities of its long-term
relationship with RTD and its role as a major “stockholder” within that regional
system. Boulder’s citizens have (through taxation, fares, and passes) made a
substantial cumulative investment in RTD’s capital assets (physical plant,
vehicles, corridors, etc.) that must be reckoned with in any governance model
that contemplates replacing some or all of RTD’s services with locally-
governed/operated services.
Federally-Designated Recipient
The federal system of support to public transit systems identifies “designated
recipients” eligible to receive federal funds through the Urbanized Area Formula
(5307) and Bus and Bus Facilities (5339) programs. These formula funds are only
LSC
Page 10 Boulder Transit Service Delivery Study, Phase 2
available to designated recipients that are public bodies with legal authority to
receive and dispense federal funds. For urbanized areas over 200,000 in
population (e.g., the Denver region), funds are apportioned and flow directly to a
designated recipient selected locally to apply for and receive these federal funds.
In the Denver region that designated recipient is RTD. For areas over 200,000,
5307 and 5339 funds can only be used for capital investments (unless a special
exception is granted). For urbanized areas under 200,000 in population, the
funds are apportioned to the state for distribution to agencies and 5307 funds
can be used for both capital and operations.
These programs are an important source of bus transit funding. Loss of this
funding would increase Boulder’s local capital and operating cost burden. Other
programs (discretionary grants, rural formula funds, etc.) can flow directly to
agencies other than a regionally designated provider. How each governance model
would affect the City’s ability to draw on federal transit support is a key
consideration. If the City decides it wishes to withdraw its transit services from
RTD, it would need to consider whether to pursue designated provider status for
whatever transit entity takes over or, alternatively, an agreement with RTD for
proportional access to FTA Formula funds.
Continuation of FLEX Service
FLEX is a regional bus route serving stops between Fort Collins, Loveland,
Berthoud, Longmont, and Boulder. This service is operated by Transfort and is
made possible through a regional partnership that includes the City of Boulder.
This service is expected to be increasingly important in the future. Preserving and
strengthening the service and the partnership it supports is a priority for the City.
Return on Investment (ROI)
Protecting the interests of the City and its stakeholders requires that
implementing a preferred governance model must not have the effect—intended
or unintended—of reducing annual expenditures for transit services provided by
RTD to and within the City of Boulder. RTD’s capital and operating expenditures
are funded through two regional taxes:
LSC
Boulder Transit Service Delivery Study, Phase 2 Page 11
• a 0.6¢ sales tax that has been in effect for decades and is used to fund
RTD’s bus transit services; and,
• the 0.4¢ FasTracks tax approved by regional voters in November, 2004
that funds the FasTracks rail network and the US 36 Flatiron Flyer BRT
service.
Recent research conducted for the City indicates that RTD expenditures for
transit services to and within Boulder using the original 0.6¢ tax are relatively in
balance with the amount of tax revenues attributable to the City. The ROI for the
FasTracks program, however, is significantly out of balance, with tax revenues
attributable to Boulder exceeding by a large margin the amount of expenditures
by RTD for the only FasTracks service to or within Boulder – the Flatiron Flyer
BRT service.
Under any of the governance models, disposition and reallocation of revenues
from the RTD 0.6¢ sales tax collected in Boulder and/or Boulder County must
be addressed to maintain a minimum acceptable ROI. Under some governance
models it will also be necessary to work with RTD to determine an acceptable
methodology for allocation and disposition of revenues from passes and fares
collected from Boulder and/or Boulder County residents and employers on routes
operated by RTD, but funded locally.
Feasible Scale of Operations
An underlying premise of Boulder’s Renewed Vision for Transit is that, with
adequate funding and the right governance model, it would be possible to
significantly increase transit service levels within and to Boulder. However, there
may be other constraints on the feasible scale of transit operations. RTD
currently is having difficulty hiring drivers. The chronic staffing shortage of over
100 drivers is affecting the agency’s ability to run its published schedules, leave
alone expand the scope of bus operations. RTD currently starts new bus drivers
at $19.40 per hour and offers a $2,000 signing bonus. It might be possible for a
Boulder transit entity to offer higher pay to attract, hire, and retain drivers, but
a confounding factor would be the cost of living and housing availability in
Boulder and Boulder County. RTD is also having trouble hiring enough diesel
mechanics. Further, the RTD bus fleet is sized for current operations and
LSC
Page 12 Boulder Transit Service Delivery Study, Phase 2
enlarging the fleet to reach Boulder’s desired service levels would require
significant capital funding and time to procure new vehicles. Therefore, any effort
to increase transit services in Boulder (and Boulder County) may face scale
challenges.
Organizational Issues
The alternative governance models described in the next section would require
varying levels of administrative effort on the part of Boulder’s city government.
Under Governance Model 3 the expanded transit responsibility would reside at
the City. Governance Model 4 would involve the City and Boulder County working
together in a “joint powers” framework, and a City/County transit entity would
be needed. Under the Regional Transportation Authority models (5 and 6) the
RTA itself could be an independent agency, or could be housed in and staffed by
a member government.
A number of factors should be considered in organizational design once a
preferred governance model has been selected. These include:
• Staffing . The level of staffing dedicated to managing transit operations
can vary widely, from a single person managing a contract with a private
operator, to a multidisciplinary staff including contract management,
accounting, operations management, human resources, procurement,
etc.
• Fleet Management, Storage and Fueling. Under future scenarios where a
Boulder or Boulder/Boulder County entity owns and operates a transit
fleet, facilities for storage, maintenance and fueling would be needed.
Management of such facilities and fleets – including especially Federal
Transit Administration auditing and reporting requirements – would
entail significant staff, from mechanics to professional office staff.
Physical facilities for vehicle storage, maintenance and fueling would
have to be either owned or leased.
• Transit Operations. Under scenarios where a local entity is operating a
local transit system, bus drivers, dispatch staff, and associated shift
supervisors and operations managers would be required. Under some
LSC
Boulder Transit Service Delivery Study, Phase 2 Page 13
scenarios, professional labor relations capability would be needed, either
by staffing or contracting.
• Insurance and Indemnification. A transit entity with fleet, facilities and
staff would need to address liability at a number of levels, from staff
injuries to traffic crashes. Transit agencies may pool cash reserves
among several agencies in a form of self-insurance and may buy
insurance on the municipal market.
To the extent that a transit entity would be housed within an existing City or
County department, some of these requirements could be met through existing
organization capabilities. It is also possible to contract for most or even all of the
functions described above, and many municipalities hire a single turn-key transit
management firm to manage a local transit system under contract. Many
variations of these approaches are possible and should be considered once a
governance approach has been decided.
Implementation Phasing
The preferred governance model will take time – perhaps years – to implement.
The phasing of specific steps (taking on certain transit routes, etc.) may vary
somewhat by governance model.
GOVERNANCE MODELS
This study has evaluated a range of potential institutional arrangements,
partnerships, operational entities and funding options. Six alternative models
have been identified:
1. Maintenance of Current Service Model (Status Quo)
2. Incremental Expansion of City of Boulder Transit Program (Buy-Ups)
3. City of Boulder Local Transit Provider
4. City of Boulder/Boulder County Transit Provider (Joint Powers)
5. Boulder County Regional Transportation Authority (Funding Entity)
6. Boulder County Regional Transportation Authority (Secede from RTD)
These models are described in more detail below.
LSC
Page 14 Boulder Transit Service Delivery Study, Phase 2
(1) Maintenance of Current Service Model (Status Quo)
The City could choose not to undertake any major change in how transit services
are provided to and within Boulder. RTD would continue to provide most local
and regional transit services, including most of the Community Transit Network
(CTN). The HOP route would continue to be a contracted service.
This is not a “no change” alternative, because change will inevitably occur. Due
to system-wide cost pressures, RTD would likely continue reducing service hours
district-wide. Certain lower-ridership routes in Boulder could be candidates for
service reduction or elimination. Private ride-hailing services (e.g., Lyft, Uber)
could attract ridership away from public transit.
Funding
The City would increase funding for some CTN services. RTD funding of services
is expected to decrease.
Operations
Boulder would continue to contract for operation of the HOP. Other routes would
continue to be operated by RTD with some routes having a lower level of service.
(2) Incremental Expansion of City of Boulder Transit Program (Buy-Ups)
This could be thought of as a likely “trend” alternative. As cost pressures at RTD
cause bus transit service levels to continue dropping, the City would step in to
maintain or increase service levels on some local routes. The City would fund
service improvements through buy-ups of routes operated by RTD.
Funding
Increased local funding would be required for the service buy-ups, but no new
agency or operational entity would be created. To the extent that the City agreed
to fund CTN routes, the City would work with RTD to ensure that the RTD funding
attributable to those routes would be reallocated to Boulder services to maintain
ROI (see above) or paid to the City in lieu of service.
LSC
Boulder Transit Service Delivery Study, Phase 2 Page 15
Operations
RTD would continue to operate regional routes and local routes within Boulder.
It is possible the City might work with mobility-on-demand service providers to
replace less productive, local routes, and in that case, reallocated RTD funds
could be used to subsidize those mobility-on-demand services.
(3) City of Boulder Local Transit Provider
With this alternative, the City would assume responsibility for management of
the CTN network within the City, including both existing routes and potential
new local routes. The City would operate some local routes and RTD would
continue to operate all regional routes.
Funding
Significant new city transit funding would be required to implement this model
to make it possible for the City to incrementally assume responsibility for the
existing and future/expanded CTN network.
Operations
The City could choose to contract with one or more operators to implement this
model, and could decide to form a City of Boulder transit operations entity
(agency, department, etc.) to manage those contracts. The City could also choose
to operate its transit services through a new organizational entity using City
employees and City-owned/leased transit vehicles. Capital requirements would
include maintenance facilities, a bus fleet, and communications systems.
Staffing for operations and maintenance could be accomplished with employees
of one of the partners or could be provided through a transit services contract.
One example of how this alternative might be implemented would be: Boulder
could take on the responsibility to provide the HOP, SKIP, BOUND, STAMPEDE,
and future new local CTN routes and services needed to implement the City’s
Renewed Vision for Transit.
(4) City of Boulder/Boulder County Transit Provider (Joint Powers Authority)
The City of Boulder could form a “joint powers” transit partnership with Boulder
County, (and, potentially with CU and other cities in Boulder County). Such a
LSC
Page 16 Boulder Transit Service Delivery Study, Phase 2
partnership would be chartered through an intergovernmental agreement (IGA).
The partnership would focus on transit routes and services operating within
Boulder County. RTD would continue to operate regional services that extend
outside Boulder County.
Funding
There are two options for this governance model. Initially one model was
presented to the Steering Committees, but the Committees requested that two
options be evaluated. The first option (#4A – Intergovernmental Transit Agency)
is to form the transit provider partnership with no new taxing authority using the
joint powers of the member governments. This would be done through an IGA
that would require approval only by the participating government entities. The
second option (#4B – County Mass Transit Agency) would be to create a county
transit agency with a dedicated transit funding source as described below. This
would require legislative action to revise state statutes and voter approval.
Operations
This program could be governed cooperatively through an intergovernmental
committee structure, but some sort of administrative agency or operational entity
would be needed to handle day-to-day management of what would be a sizable
transit operation. This could be a private sector transit management firm or could
be a new agency staffed by one of the partners. Capital requirements would
include maintenance facilities, a bus fleet, and communications systems.
Staffing for operations and maintenance could be accomplished with employees
of one of the partners or could be provided through a transit services contract.
The City also might work with mobility on demand service providers to replace
less productive, local routes, and in that case, reallocated RTD funds could be
used to subsidize those mobility-on-demand services.
Funding
Significant new funding from the partners, including the City and County, would
be required to fund the transit provider, probably beyond what could be budgeted
through local general fund sources. Therefore, a new source or sources of
dedicated funding would be required to ensure sustainability of the new transit
LSC
Boulder Transit Service Delivery Study, Phase 2 Page 17
operator and to justify the required capital investments. This dedicated funding
could be provided from a single county-wide taxing source or could come from a
variety of sources that might vary by local jurisdiction.
The City and County (and other partners) would work with RTD to ensure that
RTD’s funding levels formerly attributable to Boulder County routes would be
reallocated to services benefiting Boulder County to maintain ROI, or paid to the
City in lieu of service. Reallocated funding could be used to buy up RTD service
levels on any local routes that RTD continued to operate and/or on regional
routes such as the US 36 BRT (Flatiron Flyer). A comprehensive agreement with
RTD would be required to implement the various service components.
Statutory Requirements
Colorado Statutes section 29-2-1035 authorizes counties outside RTD
boundaries to create a county transit agency funded by a sales and use tax of up
to 1%, with approval by county voters in a general election. All revenues collected
from such a county sales tax would be credited to a special fund in the county
treasury known as the “county mass transportation fund.” The fund could only
be used only for the financing, constructing, operating, or maintaining of a mass
transportation system within the county. For this source to be available under
this governance model, Colorado Statutes would have to be amended by the
Legislature to allow use of this authority in Boulder County.
(5) Boulder County RTA (Funding and/or Operations Entity)
This alternative would entail establishing a Regional Transportation Authority
(RTA), pursuant to Colorado Statutes 43-4, Part 6 (the "Regional Transportation
Authority Law"). The City of Boulder, Boulder County, and other cities in Boulder
County would create the RTA by placing its formation on a general election ballot.
A majority of voters in each jurisdiction (City of Boulder, rural Boulder County,
and each partner city) must vote “yes” for that jurisdiction to become part of the
RTA.
There are two variations of this governance model. Under governance model #5A,
the RTA would serve primarily as a source of funding for multimodal
transportation needs in Boulder County. Under governance model #5B, the RTA
LSC
Page 18 Boulder Transit Service Delivery Study, Phase 2
would be used as a funding mechanism and would be responsible for operations
of local routes in Boulder County. The statute would also allow the RTA to provide
other functions such as road projects or a county trail network. The RTA would
be governed by a multi-jurisdictional board of directors.
Funding
The new RTA would provide funding for enhanced transit services, including
implementation of the City’s Renewed Vision for Transit, and the funding
source(s) (sales tax, vehicle registration fees, etc.) would also have to be approved
by voters in the same or a subsequent general election. Other entities, such as
the University of Colorado, could become part of the RTA by agreement.
If the RTA were formed to serve only as a source of funding (#5A) for transit
services in Boulder County, it could buy up service levels on the RTD-operated
CTN network and branded intercity routes or contract for services from other
operators. It could also fund service buy-ups on regional routes and could provide
funding for other services that venture outside the County, such as the FLEX.
Operations
The RTA could also be formed to operate (#5B) high priority transit services
within Boulder County. RTD could continue to operate certain local routes within
Boulder County and would continue to operate regional services that extend
outside Boulder County. With this approach, some sort of administrative or
operational entity would be needed to handle day-to-day management of transit
services. This could be a private sector transit management firm or could be the
RTA itself. Capital requirements would include maintenance facilities, a bus fleet,
and communications systems. Staffing for operations and maintenance could be
part of the RTA or could be provided through a transit services contract.
The RTA would work with RTD to ensure that RTD’s funding levels formerly
attributable to Boulder County routes would be reallocated to services benefiting
Boulder County to maintain ROI, or paid to the City in lieu of service. Reallocated
funding could be used to buy up RTD service levels on any local routes that RTD
continued to operate and/or on regional routes, such as the US 36 BRT (Flatiron
LSC
Boulder Transit Service Delivery Study, Phase 2 Page 19
Flyer). A comprehensive agreement with RTD would be required to implement the
various service changes.
The City also might work with mobility-on-demand service providers to replace
less productive, local routes, and in that case reallocated RTD funds could be
used to subsidize those mobility-on-demand services.
Statutory Requirements
The statutory provisions (Colorado Statutes 43-4 Part 6) guiding RTA formation
as applied to a potential Boulder County RTA (Governance Models 5 and 6) would
include:
(1) Each of the towns, cities, counties and special districts considering becoming
part of a Boulder County “Combination” to form an RTA must hold at least two
public hearings, providing the public with at least 10 days notice for each
hearing.
(2) The Combination of towns, cities and counties proposing to form an RTA must
prepare a proposed “contract” describing the boundaries, functions and funding
of the proposed RTA. The contract must be provided to the following entities
(including all jurisdictions bordering Boulder County):
• CDOT;
• RTD;
• Plenary Roads Denver (US 36 operator);
• Grand, Larimer, Weld, Broomfield, Jefferson, Gilpin Counties;
• City of Erie; and,
• Director of Department of Local Affairs.
(3) If any of the above entities determine (within 90 days) that the RTA would
“alter the physical structure of, or negatively impact safe operation of any
highway, road, or street under its jurisdiction or will provide mass transportation
services that impact the district (RTD),” then the Combination must enter into an
intergovernmental agreement with each such entity specifying the “terms the
Combination and the affected entity or entities deem necessary to avoid
duplication of effort and to ensure coordinated transportation planning, efficient
allocation of resources, and equitable sharing of costs.”
LSC
Page 20 Boulder Transit Service Delivery Study, Phase 2
(4) Once steps (1) – (3) have been completed and any required intergovernmental
agreements have been approved, the proposed RTA formation must be presented
to the voters for approval at either a general or special election. The proposed
form of taxation must also be presented to voters for approval, either at the same
election as the proposed RTA formation or at a subsequent election.
(5) Revenues would begin to flow to the new RTA beginning in January of the year
following the year of election.
Table 1 provides a conceptual schedule for formation of an RTA in Boulder County.
Table 1
STEPS IN RTA DEVELOPMENT AND FORMATION
MONTH
1 By way of updating the Transportation Master Plan, the City of Boulder and Boulder County
staff and elected bodies decide that an RTA is the preferred Governance Model
1 Meetings and coordination begin with CDOT, RTD, Plenary Roads and Boulder County
cities and towns - discussion and consideration of Phase II report and RTA formation
1 Initiate a parallel county-wide public engagement process
4
City and County develop proposed Contract describing the boundaries, functions and
funding of the proposed RTA. Signatories to the contract become the “Combination” in
subsequent steps
6 Combination sends proposed RTA Contract to CDOT, RTD, Plenary Roads, bordering
counties and DOLA Director for review
9 Comments, objections, concerns due back to Combination
11 Initiate discussions and negotiations to revise proposed Contract and develop draft
intergovernmental agreements with affected entities
13 Draft intergovernmental agreements presented to all affected bodies for approval
13-23 Public engagement process pivots to election campaign (need citizens' entity to take lead
at this point)
23 Elections
25 Revenues begin to flow to RTA
(6) Boulder County Regional Transportation Authority (Secede from RTD)
This alternative would entail establishing a Regional Transportation Authority
(RTA), pursuant to Colorado Statutes 43-4, Part 6 (the "Regional Transportation
Authority Law"). Governance model (6) also would entail modifying RTD district
boundaries to exclude the land area within Boulder County. Because Colorado
Statutes Title 32, Part 9 sets RTD boundaries and gives RTD exclusive franchise
rights to transit service within those boundaries, legislation would be needed to
LSC
Boulder Transit Service Delivery Study, Phase 2 Page 21
implement governance model (6). Effectively, the City of Boulder, Boulder County,
and municipalities within the County would be seceding from RTD, which would
require approval by the Colorado Legislature.
The City of Boulder, Boulder County, and other cities in Boulder County would
create the RTA by placing its formation on a general election ballot as described
under governance model #5B.
Funding
The RTA would fund transit routes operating within Boulder County. The RTA
would work with RTD to ensure that RTD’s funding levels formerly attributable
to Boulder County routes would be reallocated to services benefiting Boulder
County to maintain ROI, or paid to the City in lieu of service. Reallocated funding
could be used to buy up RTD service levels on any local routes that RTD
continued to operate and/or on regional routes, such as the US 36 BRT (Flatiron
Flyer). A comprehensive agreement with RTD would be required to implement the
various service changes.
Operations
The RTA would assume responsibility for the operations of all transit services
within Boulder County. RTD would continue to operate regional services that
extend into Boulder County. Some sort of administrative or operational entity
would be needed to handle day-to-day management of transit services. This could
be a private sector transit management firm or could be the RTA itself. Capital
requirements would include maintenance facilities, a bus fleet, and
communications systems. Staffing for operations and maintenance could be part
of the RTA or could be provided through a transit services contract.
The City also might work with mobility-on-demand service providers to replace
less productive, local routes, and in that case, reallocated RTD funds could be
used to subsidize those mobility-on-demand services.
Statutory Requirements
Governance model (6) would require legislation to revise the RTD boundary map
to remove Boulder County from RTD.
LSC
Page 22 Boulder Transit Service Delivery Study, Phase 2
(This page intentionally left blank.)
LSC
Boulder Transit Service Delivery Study, Phase 2 Page 23
Section 4
Service Scenarios
INTRODUCTION
This section describes the service scenarios analyzed for each of the governance
models. The service scenarios support the evaluation by determining how well
each governance model supports implementation of Boulder’s Renewed Vision for
Transit.
While the RVT shows implementation of service improvements in three phases;
near term (2018-2020), mid term (2021-2024), and long term (2025-2035); the
service scenarios have been developed to compare the long term implementation
of the plan.
The service scenarios are described under each governance model with a
summary of the services to be funded and/or operated by the City of Boulder,
Boulder County, or the RTA shown in Table 2.
LSC
Page 24 Boulder Transit Service Delivery Study, Phase 2
(This page intentionally left blank.)
Route Code Route Name
Governance Model 1:
Maintenance of Current
Service Model (Status Quo)
Governance Model 2:
Incremental Expansion of
City of Boulder Transit
Program
Governance Model 3: City of
Boulder Local Transit
Provider
Governance Model 4: city of
Boulder/ Boulder County
Transit Provider (Joint
Powers)
Governance Model 5:
Boulder County RTA -
Fund
Governance Model 5:
Boulder County RTA -
Fund and Operate
Governance Model 6:
Boulder County RTA
(secede from RTD)
204 Table Mesa / Moorhead / North 19th RTD/No improvement RTD/No improvement Boulder/Increased frequency Agency/Increased frequency RTA/Increased frequency RTA/Increased frequency RTA/Increased frequency
205 28th Street / Gunbarrel RTD/No improvement RTD/No improvement Boulder/Increased frequency Agency/Increased frequency RTA/Increased frequency RTA/Increased frequency RTA/Increased frequency
206 Pearl / Manhattan / Pearl H.S.RTD/Reduced service RTD/Reduced service Boulder/Reduced service Agency/Reduced service RTD/Reduced service RTA/Reduced service RTA/Reduced service
208 Iris / Valmont RTD/Reduced service RTD/Reduced service Boulder/Reduced service Agency/Reduced service RTD/Reduced service RTA/Reduced service RTA/Reduced service
209 CU / Thunderbird RTD/Reduced service RTD/Reduced service Boulder/Reduced service Agency/Reduced service RTD/Reduced service RTA/Reduced service RTA/Reduced service
225 Boulder / Lafayette via Baseline RTD/No improvement RTD/No improvement Boulder/Increased frequency Agency/Increased frequency RTA/Increased frequency RTA/Increased frequency RTA/Increased frequency
AB Boulder / DIA RTD RTD RTD RTD RTD RTD RTD
BOLT Boulder / Longmont RTD/119 BRT consolidation RTD/119 BRT consolidation RTD/119 BRT consolidation RTD/119 BRT consolidation RTD/119 BRT consolidation RTD/119 BRT consolidation RTD/119 BRT consolidation
BOUND 30th Street RTD/No improvement Boulder/Maintain frequency Boulder/Maintain frequency Agency/Maintain frequency RTA/Maintain frequency RTA/Maintain frequency RTA/Maintain frequency
DASH Boulder / Lafayette via Louisville RTD/Reduced frequency RTD/Reduced frequency Boulder/Increased frequency Agency/Increased frequency RTA/Increased frequency RTA/Increased frequency RTA/Increased frequency
FF Flatiron Flyer RTD/No improvement RTD/No improvement RTD/No improvement RTD/Increased frequency RTD/Increased frequency RTD/Increased frequency RTD/Increased frequency
GS Golden / Boulder RTD RTD RTD RTD RTD RTD RTD
HOP Boulder Circulator Boulder Boulder Boulder Agency RTA Contracts RTA RTA
J Longmont / East Boulder / CU RTD/119 BRT consolidation RTD/119 BRT consolidation RTD/119 BRT consolidation RTD/119 BRT consolidation RTD/119 BRT consolidation RTD/119 BRT consolidation RTD/119 BRT consolidation
JUMP Boulder / Lafayette via Arapahoe RTD/Reduced frequency RTD/Reduced frequency Boulder/Maintain frequency RTD/Maintain frequency RTD/Maintain frequency RTA/Maintain frequency RTA/Maintain frequency
L Longmont / Denver RTD RTD RTD RTD RTD RTD RTD
N Nederland / Boulder RTD RTD RTD RTD RTD RTD RTA
SKIP Broadway RTD RTD Boulder/Maintain frequency Agency/Maintain frequency RTA/Maintain frequency RTA/Maintain frequency RTA/Maintain frequency
STAMPEDE CU East Campus RTD/Shortened RTD/Shortened Boulder/Shortened Agency/Shortened RTD/Shortened RTA/Shortened RTA/Shortened
Y Lyons / Boulder RTD RTD RTD RTD RTD RTD RTA
Valmont (9th - 55th)Not implemented Boulder funds and contracts Boulder Agency RTA funds/Contracts RTA RTA
9th/Baseline/Folsom Not implemented Boulder funds and contracts Boulder Agency RTA funds/Contracts RTA RTA
SH7 BRT Not implemented Not implemented Not implemented Agency RTA funds/Contracts RTA RTA
South Boulder BRT Not implemented Not implemented Not implemented Agency RTA funds/Contracts RTA RTA
SH119 BRT RTD RTD RTD RTD RTD RTD RTD
FLEX Boulder / Fort Collins Transfort Transfort Transfort Transfort Transfort Transfort Transfort
CLIMB Gold Hill Boulder County Boulder County Boulder County Boulder County Boulder County Boulder County Boulder County
323 RTD RTD RTD Agency/Service TBD RTD Agency/Service TBD Agency/Service TBD
324 RTD RTD RTD Agency/Service TBD RTD Agency/Service TBD Agency/Service TBD
326 RTD RTD RTD Agency/Service TBD RTD Agency/Service TBD Agency/Service TBD
327 RTD RTD RTD Agency/Service TBD RTD Agency/Service TBD Agency/Service TBD
Legend:
Local Route Indicates full implemetation of RVT
CTN Route Indicates partial implementation of RVT
Regional Route Indicates RVT service is not implemented
TMP 2018-19 update will likely recommend removing these Renewed Vision for Transit routes and incorporating this service into the future SH 119 BRT and expanded FF service.
Table 2
Service Scenarios: Long Term Implementation
Scenarios
(This page intentionally left blank.)
LSC
Boulder Transit Service Delivery Study, Phase 2 Page 27
GOVERNANCE MODEL 1
Governance model 1 is the status quo condition, but the current arrangement
does not ensure that the current level of service will continue. The Service
scenario has been developed to reflect the potential reduction in service provided
by RTD as shown in Figure 1.
This scenario incorporates anticipated cuts in service provided by RTD as RTD is
unable to maintain service levels because of increasing costs without a
corresponding increase in revenue. In this scenario, Boulder is not expected to
provide additional funding or to have buy-ups of service operated by RTD.
Figure 1
Model 1
LSC
Page 28 Boulder Transit Service Delivery Study, Phase 2
GOVERNANCE MODEL 2
Governance model 2 incorporates additional funding from the City of Boulder to
operate the CTN and local service.
Boulder would fund more frequent service on select local routes and on existing
and planned CTN routes through service buy-ups from RTD as shown in Figure
2.
Figure 2
Model 2
LSC
Boulder Transit Service Delivery Study, Phase 2 Page 29
GOVERNANCE MODEL 3
In this model, the City of Boulder would become a local transit provider, either
contracting for operation or developing a city-operated service. The service
scenario for this model is based on the long-term service plan and build-out of
the RVT.
The service scenario for Model #3 is shown in Figure 3. The City would take
responsibility for operation of existing and planned CTN routes and some of the
200 numbered routes in Boulder County. RTD would continue to fund and
operate other regional and local services in Boulder County.
Figure 3
Model 3
LSC
Page 30 Boulder Transit Service Delivery Study, Phase 2
GOVERNANCE MODEL 4
Under model #4A, a joint City and County Intergovernmental Transit Agency
would be formed as the local transit provider. Under Model #4B, a County Mass
Transit Agency would be formed with a dedicated sales tax for funding. The
service scenario for both models, as, shown in Figure 4 is based on the long-term
service plan and build-out of the RVT.
In this scenario, the City/County transit agency would take responsibility for
operating all existing and planned CTN routes and all numbered routes operating
within Boulder County. The agency would also operate other routes operating
completely within Boulder County. RTD would continue to fund and operate
regional routes connecting Boulder County to other parts of the RTD service area.
Figure 4
Model 4
LSC
Boulder Transit Service Delivery Study, Phase 2 Page 31
GOVERNANCE MODEL 5
This model is based on formation of a Regional Transit Authority (RTA) for
Boulder County. There are two service scenarios reflecting the option to have the
RTA serve as a funding mechanism only or to fund and operate services.
Service Scenario #5A-Funding
This scenario assumes that the RTA is established as a funding mechanism and
that services would be operated by the City (through a contractor) and RTD. The
RTA would not be responsible for operating any services. The service scenario is
shown in Figure 5.
Figure 5
Model 5A
LSC
Page 32 Boulder Transit Service Delivery Study, Phase 2
Service Scenario #5B - Fund and Operate
In this scenario, the RTA would both fund and operate local transit services with
RTD continuing to provide regional transit service as shown in Figure 6. The City
of Boulder would not operate or contract for operation of service. The RTA would
take responsibility for operating all existing and planned CTN routes and all
numbered routes operating within Boulder County. The agency would also
operate other routes operating completely within Boulder County. RTD would
continue to fund and operate regional routes connecting Boulder County to other
parts of the RTD service area.
Figure 6
Model 5B
LSC
Boulder Transit Service Delivery Study, Phase 2 Page 33
GOVERNANCE MODEL 6
In this model, a Regional Transportation Authority (RTA) would be formed and
Boulder County would be separated from RTD. The RTA would fund and operate
local services and RTD would continue to operate only regional service.
The RTA would take responsibility for operation of all existing and planned CTN
routes and all existing and planned routes operating completely within Boulder
County as shown in Figure 7. RTD is assumed to continue operating regional
service routes connecting to areas outside Boulder County assuming that RTD
would operate some service extending outside the district boundaries.
Figure 7
Model 6
LSC
Page 34 Boulder Transit Service Delivery Study, Phase 2
(This page intentionally left blank.)
LSC
Boulder Transit Service Delivery Study, Phase 2 Page 35
Section 5
Evaluation of Governance Models
This section provides the evaluation and comparison of the different governance
models. The models are compared based on the service scenarios and
performance measures presented in Section 2. The comparison is summarized in
Table 3.
Performance measures for the governance models are estimated based on the
service scenarios described in the previous section and the Boulder Transit Cost
Model. Services operated by the City of Boulder and contractors have a lower
operating cost per hour than services operated by RTD. Capital costs are
assumed to be the same, but responsibility for capital expenditure changes based
on the operating entity for each route and the facilities which would be required.
The cost comparisons do not include any adjustments for reallocation of tax
revenue collected by RTD or reductions for farebox and pass revenue. Use of these
revenue sources for the local routes would have to be determined as part of the
coordination with RTD and implementation of the specific governance model.
GOVERNANCE MODEL 1. MAINTENANCE OF CURRENT SERVICE
MODEL (STATUS QUO)
Capability to incorporate and adapt to technological advances and trends: LOW
RTD remains as the primary operating agency and incorporation of new
technologies would take place through RTD.
Relative predictability and stability of potential new revenue sources available
under each governance model: NOT APPLICABLE
This alternative makes no new revenue sources available for Boulder’s transit
needs.
Ability to respond to emerging funding opportunities and to adapt to a variety of
future revenue sources: LOW
LSC
Page 36 Boulder Transit Service Delivery Study, Phase 2
This alternative makes no changes to the current operations regime, limiting the
City’s access to emerging funding opportunities and providing access to no new
revenue sources.
Capability to provide integrated service: HIGH
RTD remains the primary operator so that a single fare system is possible with
integrated services on most or all routes.
RTD position on governance model: NEUTRAL (tentative)
It is expected that RTD will weigh in on governance alternatives only if the agency
believes it is necessary to take a position in opposition to a specific proposal. This
evaluation is tentative and will be updated once more detailed discussions with
RTD staff have taken place.
Legislation required
Legal questions or issues
that cause uncertainty
about feasibility
Requires new
funding
partnerships with
other communities
Annualized
Capital Cost to
Implement
Additional
Annual
Operating
Funds
Required
Annual RTD
Operating
Funds
Governance Model 1:
Maintenance of Current
Service Model (Status Quo)
Low Not Applicable Low High Neutral
(tentative)
No No No $0 $1,300,000 $55,200,000 11% decrease
below existing
Governance Model 2:
Incremental Expansion of City
of Boulder Transit Program
Low Moderate Moderate High Neutral
(tentative)
No No No $1,000,000 $9,900,000 $53,200,000 2% decrease
below existing
Governance Model 3: City of
Boulder Local Transit Provider
High Moderate Moderate High Neutral
(tentative)
No No No $6,500,000 $46,900,000 $28,800,000 Low
39% of RVT
Governance Model 4A:
Intergovernmental Transit
Agency
Moderate Moderate High Moderate Neutral
(tentative)
No No Yes $13,100,000 $50,000,000 $47,600,000 High
100% of RVT
Governance Model 4B:
Boulder County Mass Transit
Agency
Moderate Moderate High Moderate Could oppose,
approval
required.
Yes
Under CRS 29-2-
103.5 Any county
outside RTD may levy
a sales tax for transit
No No $13,100,000 $50,000,000 $47,600,000 High
100% of RVT
Governance Model 5A:
Boulder County RTA - Fund
Moderate Moderate High Low Could oppose,
approval
required.
No No Yes $11,700,000 $39,900,000 $57,800,000 High
100% of RVT
Governance Model 5B:
Boulder County RTA - Fund
and Operate
Moderate Moderate High Low Could oppose,
approval
required.
No No Yes $13,800,000 $57,000,000 $40,600,000 High
100% of RVT
Governance Model 6: Boulder
County RTA (secede from
RTD)
High Moderate High Neutral RTD would
probably oppose.
Yes - changing RTD
boundaries to
exclude Boulder
County.
Potentially a number of
legal questions associated
with RTA formation,
disposition of Boulder
County share capital assets
attributable to historic tax
payments, and other similar
issues.
Yes $14,000,000 $58,100,000 $39,500,000 High
100% of RVT
Note: Local capital and operating costs to implement could be reduced by RTD funding and farebox revenues.
Table 3
Evaluation of Governance Models
Implementation feasibility of the recommended governance model
Governance Model
Potential RTD
position on
governance
model
Cost to Implement
Source: LSC, 2018. All costs are 2017.
Flexibility
to provide
integrated
service
Flexibility to respond to
emerging grant
opportunities and to
adapt to a variety of
future revenue sources
Relative predictability and
stability of potential new
revenue sources available
under each governance
model
Flexibility to
incorporate and adapt
to technological
advances and trends
Ability to
Achieve RVT
Ridership
Goals
(This page intentionally left blank.)
LSC
Boulder Transit Service Delivery Study, Phase 2 Page 39
Implementation feasibility of the recommended governance model
Legislation required: NO
Legal questions or issues that cause uncertainty about feasibility: NO
Requires new funding partnership with other communities: NO
Cost to Implement
• Annualized Capital Cost to Implement: $0
• Additional Annual Operating Funds Required: $1,300,000
• Annual RTD Operating Funds: $55,200,000
Ability to Achieve Ridership Goals: LOW
Ridership is expected to decrease by 11 percent from existing.
GOVERNANCE MODEL 2. INCREMENTAL EXPANSION OF CITY OF
BOULDER TRANSIT PROGRAM (BUY-UPS)
Capability to incorporate and adapt to technological advances and trends: LOW
RTD remains as the primary operating agency and incorporation of new
technologies would take place through RTD.
Relative predictability and stability of potential new revenue sources available
under each governance model: MODERATE
The City controls the level of funding through the budget process although there
are no specific new funding sources identified.
Ability to respond to emerging funding opportunities and to adapt to a variety of
future revenue sources: MODERATE
The City has legal authority to pursue funding through grant programs but may
be limited in obtaining funding through the Federal Transit Administration.
Capability to provide integrated service: HIGH
RTD remains the primary operator so that a single fare system is possible with
integrated services on most or all routes.
LSC
Page 40 Boulder Transit Service Delivery Study, Phase 2
RTD position on governance model: NEUTRAL (tentative)
It is expected that RTD will weigh in on governance alternatives only if the agency
believes it is necessary to take a position in opposition to a specific proposal. This
evaluation is tentative and will be updated once more detailed discussions with
RTD staff have taken place.
Implementation feasibility of the recommended governance model
Legislation required: NO
Legal questions or issues that cause uncertainty about feasibility: NO
Requires new funding partnership with other communities: NO
Cost to Implement:
• Annualized Capital Cost to Implement: $977,500
• Additional Annual Operating Funds Required: $9,900,000
• Annual RTD Operating Funds: $53,200,000
Ability to Achieve Ridership Goals: LOW
Ridership is expected to decrease by two percent from existing.
GOVERNANCE MODEL 3. CITY OF BOULDER LOCAL TRANSIT
PROVIDER
Capability to incorporate and adapt to technological advances and trends: HIGH
With a higher amount of local control, Boulder has increased opportunities to
adjust to new technologies and integrate technological advances.
Relative predictability and stability of potential new revenue sources available
under each governance model: MODERATE
New revenue sources for this alternative would likely come from an adjustment
to the City’s transportation sales tax, or another new source, like head tax of
development fees.
LSC
Boulder Transit Service Delivery Study, Phase 2 Page 41
Ability to respond to emerging funding opportunities and to adapt to a variety of
future revenue sources: MODERATE
The City has legal authority to pursue funding through grant programs but may
be limited in obtaining funding through the Federal Transit Administration.
Capability to provide integrated service: HIGH
RTD remains the primary operator so that a single fare system is possible with
integrated services on most or all routes.
RTD position on governance model: NEUTRAL (tentative)
It is expected that RTD will weigh in on governance alternatives only if the agency
believes it is necessary to take a position in opposition to a specific proposal. This
evaluation is tentative and will be updated once more detailed discussions with
RTD staff have taken place.
Implementation feasibility of the recommended governance model
Legislation required: NO
Legal questions or issues that cause uncertainty about feasibility: NO
Requires new funding partnership with other communities: NO
Cost to Implement:
• Annualized Capital Cost to Implement: $5,400,000
• Additional Annual Operating Funds Required: $46,900,000
• Annual RTD Operating Funds: $28,800,000
Ability to Achieve Ridership Goals: LOW
Expected to achieve about 39 percent of Renewed Vision for Transit ridership
goal.
LSC
Page 42 Boulder Transit Service Delivery Study, Phase 2
GOVERNANCE MODEL 4A. INTERGOVERNMENTAL TRANSIT
AGENCY (JOINT POWERS)
Flexibility to incorporate and adapt to technological advances and trends:
MODERATE
As Boulder and Boulder County assume more responsibility for local and regional
services, the opportunity to adjust to new technologies and integrate
technological advances will increase.
Relative predictability and stability of potential new revenue sources available
under each governance model: MODERATE
Overview. This alternative could make new revenue sources available, and could
set the stage for broadening the revenue base for transit in Boulder County by
involving multiple jurisdictions: the City of Boulder, Boulder County, and –
potentially – other cities within Boulder County. Because Boulder County’s
economy is regional and highly integrated, it is unlikely any increased
predictability or stability would result from a broadening of the revenue base:
trends in one part of the county will be mirrored to a large degree county-wide.
Predictability and stability of a multi-jurisdictional revenue system also would
depend on what sources of revenue individual jurisdictions might implement.
Property taxes and special districts. The most stable potential revenue source is
the property tax, which local cities, towns and counties have authority to apply,
within various statutory restrictions. While any proposals for jurisdiction-wide
property tax rate increases are likely to be highly unpopular, there is potential
for creation of property-tax-funded special districts around major transit stations
or mobility hubs. These likely would have to be tied to some sort of zoning overlay
to allow/guide higher intensity of mixed-use development under a benefit capture
concept. In Colorado under TABOR, any property tax increase by any local
government requires a vote of the people in a general election.
Sales taxes. Sales (and related) taxes represent the most robust of the potential
revenue sources for transit. Sales taxes are viewed with somewhat less hostility
by voters because at least some of the tax revenue comes from visitors and
tourists. However, sales tax revenues are quite volatile, increasing during strong
economies and declining during recessions and other downturns. In Colorado
LSC
Boulder Transit Service Delivery Study, Phase 2 Page 43
under TABOR, any sales tax increase by any local government requires a vote of
the people in a general election.
Other sources. Other potential sources of revenue – accommodations tax,
admissions tax, and so forth – could be brought to bear on a transit program by
various local governments joint powers partners. These generally tend to follow
trends in overall sales tax revenues and are similarly volatile. In Colorado under
TABOR, any local tax increase by any local government requires a vote of the
people in a general election.
Flexibility to respond to emerging funding opportunities and to adapt to a variety
of future revenue sources: HIGH
A range of possible tax and revenue plans could be pursued under this
governance model, including all of the normal tax sources available to local
governments – property tax, sales and use tax, accommodations tax, admissions
tax, and direct fees and fares. However, under any likely revenue scenario, the
Boulder County transit system would be heavily dependent on sales tax revenues,
which as noted above can be volatile.
Flexibility to provide integrated service: MODERATE
As services operated by Boulder expand, integration of services with RTD will
become more difficult. Services within Boulder County may be integrated as part
of the city-county transit agency.
RTD position on governance model: NEUTRAL (tentative)
It is expected that RTD will weigh in on governance alternatives only if the agency
believes it is necessary to take a position in opposition to a specific proposal.
Implementation feasibility of the recommended governance model
Legislation required: NO – The City and County may form a transit agency.
Legal questions or issues that cause uncertainty about feasibility: NO
Requires new funding partnership with other communities: YES
Cost to Implement:
• Annualized Capital Cost to Implement: $13,060,000
LSC
Page 44 Boulder Transit Service Delivery Study, Phase 2
• Additional Annual Operating Funds Required: $50,000,000
• Annual RTD Operating Funds: $47,600,000
Ability to Achieve Ridership Goals: HIGH
Expected to achieve 100 percent of Renewed Vision for Transit ridership goal.
GOVERNANCE MODEL 4B. BOULDER COUNTY TRANSIT AGENCY
WITH MASS TRANSIT TAX
Flexibility to incorporate and adapt to technological advances and trends:
MODERATE
As Boulder and Boulder County assume more responsibility for local and regional
services, the opportunity to adjust to new technologies and integrate
technological advances will increase.
Relative predictability and stability of potential new revenue sources available
under each governance model: MODERATE
Under this model, the sources of funding described for Model 4A would also be
available through participation of other local governments and county tax
revenues. In addition, a county sales tax for mass transit could be used to fund
a county transit agency. Colorado Statutes section 29-2-103.5 authorizes
counties outside the RTD service area boundaries to levy a sales tax of up to 1
percent to fund a “mass transportation system within the county.” Eagle County
(ECO Transit) and Summit County (Summit Stage) have both created transit
agencies funded through this authority. Approval by county voters is required.
Flexibility to respond to emerging funding opportunities and to adapt to a variety
of future revenue sources: HIGH
A range of possible tax and revenue plans could be pursued under this
governance model, including all of the normal tax sources available to local
governments – property tax, sales and use tax, accommodations tax, admissions
tax, and direct fees and fares. The county-wide frame of this model also suggests
that a “county mass transportation” system and sales tax could be applied,
although that would require legislation. However, under any likely revenue
scenario, the Boulder County transit system would be heavily dependent on sales
tax revenues, which as noted above can be volatile.
LSC
Boulder Transit Service Delivery Study, Phase 2 Page 45
Flexibility to provide integrated service: MODERATE
As services operated by Boulder expand, integration of services with RTD will
become more difficult. Services within Boulder County may be integrated as part
of the county transit agency.
RTD position on governance model: COULD OPPOSE, APPROVAL REQUIRED
It is expected that RTD will weigh in on governance alternatives only if the agency
believes it is necessary to take a position in opposition to a specific proposal.
Implementation of a “county sales tax for mass transit” would require a legislation
to modify Colorado Statutes section 29-2-103.5. RTD’s position on such
legislation would be of critical importance to its passage and it is possible RTD
would oppose this.
Implementation feasibility of the recommended governance model
Legislation required: YES – The City and County may form an agency, but under
CRS 29-2-103.5, only counties outside RTD may levy a sales tax for transit.
Legal questions or issues that cause uncertainty about feasibility: NO
Requires new funding partnership with other communities: NO
Cost to Implement:
• Annualized Capital Cost to Implement: $13,060,000
• Additional Annual Operating Funds Required: $50,000,000
• Annual RTD Operating Funds: $47,600,000
Ability to Achieve Ridership Goals: HIGH
Expected to achieve 100 percent of Renewed Vision for Transit ridership goal.
LSC
Page 46 Boulder Transit Service Delivery Study, Phase 2
GOVERNANCE MODEL 5. BOULDER COUNTY RTA (FUNDING
ENTITY)
Capability to incorporate and adapt to technological advances and trends:
MODERATE
As Boulder assumes more responsibility for local and regional services, the
opportunity to adjust to new technologies and integrate technological advances
will increase.
Relative predictability and stability of potential new revenue sources available
under each governance model: MODERATE
RTA’s are authorized by Colorado Statutes 43-4 Part 6. Revenue sources
authorized by the statute include:
• direct user charges (tolls, fares, fees, etc.)
• vehicle registration fee – up to $10
• visitor benefit tax – up to 2 percent
• sales or use tax – up to 1 percent
• property tax up to 4 mills
The statute also authorizes the establishment of local improvement districts and
imposition of special assessments within them, presumably around major
stations and transit centers. This potential diversity of revenue base could
improve the stability of transit system revenues beyond what would be the case
with a sales tax only based system. All of these sources are well-known and
already exist at some level in city and county government in Boulder County.
Forecasting revenues from these sources would be fairly straightforward.
However, of the revenue sources authorized for RTA’s, only the sales tax would
generate revenues at a level sufficient to support a major transit service level
increase in Boulder County. As noted above, sales tax revenues are relatively
volatile, fluctuating with economic conditions.
Implementation of an RTA requires voter approval, both for creation of the entity
and for any taxes. Placing the RTA (and/or any taxes) on the ballot requires a
vote of the governing body for each jurisdiction (city, town, unincorporated
LSC
Boulder Transit Service Delivery Study, Phase 2 Page 47
county) to authorize the question to be presented to the voters in that jurisdiction.
RTA’s and their taxes and fees are exempted from coverage by TABOR.
Ability to respond to emerging funding opportunities and to adapt to a variety of
future revenue sources: HIGH
The diversity and scale of revenue sources authorized by the RTA statute would
have the potential of supporting a significant increase in transit service levels,
both for the City of Boulder and for all of Boulder County. An RTA also would
have considerable flexibility to compete for discretionary funds (state and federal)
and could serve as a platform for a variety of public/private endeavors.
Capability to provide integrated service: LOW
As services operated by Boulder expand, integration of services will become more
difficult.
RTD position on governance model: COULD OPPOSE, APPROVAL REQUIRED
Implementation of an RTA that includes any areas within RTD’s service
boundaries would require an intergovernmental agreement with RTD. Effectively,
then, establishment of a Boulder County RTA would require approval by the RTD
board. Because under this alternative, the RTA would be used to generate
revenue for transit and would not involve Boulder or Boulder County seceding
from RTD, it is possible RTD would be willing to work on an intergovernmental
agreement with Boulder and Boulder County.
Implementation feasibility of the recommended governance model
Legislation required: NO
Legal questions or issues that cause uncertainty about feasibility: NO
Requires new funding partnership with other communities: YES
Cost to Implement:
• Scenario #5A (Funding):
o Annualized Capital Cost to Implement: $11,700,000
o Additional Annual Operating Funds Required: $39,900,000
o Annual RTD Operating Funds: $57,800,000
LSC
Page 48 Boulder Transit Service Delivery Study, Phase 2
• Scenario #5B (Funding and Operating):
o Annualized Capital Cost to Implement: $13,800,000
o Additional Annual Operating Funds Required: $57,000,000
o Annual RTD Operating Funds: $40,600,000
Ability to Achieve Ridership Goals: HIGH
Expected to achieve 100 percent of Renewed Vision for Transit ridership goal.
GOVERNANCE MODEL 6. BOULDER COUNTY RTA (SECEDE FROM
RTD)
Capability to incorporate and adapt to technological advances and trends: HIGH
An independent RTA which funds and operates service would have the greatest
flexibility to implement technological advances.
Relative predictability and stability of potential new revenue sources available
under each governance model: MODERATE
RTA’s are authorized by Colorado Statutes 43-4 Part 6. Revenue sources
authorized by the statute include:
• direct user charges (tolls, fares, fees, etc.)
• vehicle registration fee – up to $10
• visitor benefit tax – up to 2 percent
• sales or use tax – up to 1 percent
This potential diversity of revenue base could improve the stability of transit
system revenues beyond what would be the case with a sales tax only based
system. All of these sources are well-known and exist at some level in city and
county government in Boulder County. Forecasting revenues from these sources
would be fairly straightforward. However, of the revenue sources authorized for
RTA’s, only the sales tax would generate revenues at a level sufficient to support
a major transit service level increase in Boulder County. As noted above, sales
tax revenues are relatively volatile, fluctuating with economic conditions.
Implementation of an RTA requires voter approval, both for creation of the entity
and for any taxes. Placing the RTA (and/or any taxes) on the ballot requires a
LSC
Boulder Transit Service Delivery Study, Phase 2 Page 49
vote of the governing body for each jurisdiction (city, town, unincorporated
county) to authorize the question to be presented to the voters in that jurisdiction.
RTA’s and their taxes and fees are exempted from coverage by TABOR.
Ability to respond to emerging funding opportunities and to adapt to a variety of
future revenue sources: HIGH
The diversity and scale of revenue sources authorized by the RTA statute would
have the potential of supporting a significant increase in transit service levels,
both for the City of Boulder and for all of Boulder County. An RTA also would
have considerable flexibility to compete for discretionary funds (state and federal)
and could serve as a platform for a variety of public/private endeavors.
Capability to provide integrated service: NEUTRAL
With the RTA providing all services and the county seceding from RTD, all local
services could be integrated. Connections with regional services provided by RTD
would require coordination with RTD.
RTD position on governance model: RTD WOULD PROBABLY OPPOSE
Implementation of an RTA that includes any areas within RTD’s service
boundaries would require an intergovernmental agreement with RTD. Effectively,
then, establishment of a Boulder County RTA would require approval by the RTD
board. Because under this alternative, the RTA would be used to generate
revenue for transit and would also involve Boulder or Boulder County seceding
from RTD, it is highly unlikely RTD would be willing to work on an
intergovernmental agreement with Boulder and Boulder County.
Implementation feasibility of the recommended governance model
Legislation required: YES – changing RTD boundaries to exclude Boulder County
Legal questions or issues that cause uncertainty about feasibility: POTENTIALLY
– a number of legal questions associated with RTA formation, disposition of
Boulder County share capital assets attributable to historic tax payments, and
other similar issues
Requires new funding partnership with other communities: YES
LSC
Page 50 Boulder Transit Service Delivery Study, Phase 2
Cost to Implement:
• Annualized Capital Cost to Implement: $14,000,000
• Additional Annual Operating Funds Required: $58,100,000
• Annual RTD Operating Funds: $39,500,000
Ability to Achieve Ridership Goals: HIGH
Expected to achieve 100 percent of Renewed Vision for Transit ridership goal.
LSC
Boulder Transit Service Delivery Study, Phase 2 Page 51
Section 6
Potential Revenue Sources
Each of the governance models has access to various sources of revenue. While
some of these are common to multiple models, others are unique to specific
models. Potential revenue sources would include operating revenues (fares,
passes, etc.), local tax revenues, and state and federal grants and fund
allocations. Table 4 shows the sources of revenue associated with each of the
governance models. An initial assessment of the amount which could be
generated by each source is discussed in this section.
Table 4
Available Sources of Revenue
City of
Boulder
Boulder
County
Other
Cities
Special
Districts
County
Transit
Agency RTA
Sales Tax
Property Tax
Vehicle Registration Fees
Tourism Benefit Fee
Exactions and Impact
Fees
Employment Opportunity
Fee
Lodging Tax
Ride-Hailing Surcharge
State Funds
Federal Discretionary
Funds
Federal Formula Funds ? ? ? ? ? ?
GENERAL LOCAL REVENUE SOURCES, INCLUDING JOINT POWERS
AUTHORITIES
Potential Revenue Sources: Governance Models 1, 2, 3, 4a
• County sales tax up to statutory limit
• City sales tax up to statutory limit
• Special district sales tax
• County-wide property tax
LSC
Page 52 Boulder Transit Service Delivery Study, Phase 2
• City property tax
• Special district property tax
• City occupational privilege tax (head tax) – charter cities only
Potential Annual Revenues
COUNTY MASS TRANSIT AGENCY
Potential Revenue Sources: Governance Model 4b (CRS 29-2- 103)
• Sales tax up to 1¢ - countywide
REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY
Potential Revenue Sources: Governance Models 5 and 6 (CRS 43-4 Part 6)
• Sales tax up to 1¢
• Property tax up to 5 mills
Governance Models Sales and Use Property Tax Occup. Privilege Total Potential
1, 2, 3 and 4a Tax (at 1¢) (at 5 mills) Fee (@ $6/mo)Annual Revenues
Boulder $27,200,000 $18,300,000 $7,200,000 $52,700,000
Lafayette $3,100,000 $2,700,000 $0 $5,800,000
Longmont $14,200,000 $7,100,000 $0 $21,300,000
Louisville $3,900,000 $3,200,000 $0 $7,100,000
Superior $2,400,000 $1,100,000 $0 $3,500,000
Other $4,500,000 $6,900,000 $0 $11,400,000
TOTAL COUNTY $55,300,000 $39,300,000 $7,200,000 $101,800,000
Note: Revenues are 2017.
Governance Model Sales and Use
4b Tax (at 1¢)
Boulder $27,200,000
Lafayette $3,100,000
Longmont $14,200,000
Louisville $3,900,000
Superior $2,400,000
Other $4,500,000
TOTAL COUNTY $55,300,000
Note: Revenues are 2017.
LSC
Boulder Transit Service Delivery Study, Phase 2 Page 53
• Vehicle registration fee of flat $10 per registered vehicle
• Visitor benefit fee (lodging receipts tax) up to 2%
Notes to Tables:
• “Other” includes Nederland, Erie, Jamestown, Lyons, Ward, and
unincorporated areas of Boulder County.
• Sales and Use Tax and Property Tax revenues are estimated at tax rates
allowable under an RTA (Governance Models 5 and 6) to facilitate direct
comparisons.
• Occupational Privilege Fee (or “Head Tax”) revenue is estimated at $6 per
employee per month. Denver’s current rate is $5.75. This analysis assumes
only the City of Boulder would implement this revenue source.
• Implementation of any tax increase or new tax by any municipality or county
in Colorado requires approval by a vote of the electorate in a general election.
• Implementation of an RTA and associated taxes requires approval by a vote of
the electorate in a general election in each of the jurisdictions, or parts of
jurisdictions, to be included in the RTA.
ALL MODELS
Additional Potential City of Boulder Revenue Sources
In addition to revenue sources traditionally associated with transit funding or
have been authorized by Colorado Statutes for transit agencies, the City of
Boulder could consider several additional revenue sources. These could provide
funding in addition to, or in lieu of, funding from sources shown in the tables
under some scenarios.
• Transportation Maintenance (or Utility) Fee. A monthly fee (not a tax) assessed
to commercial and residential property owners for operations and
maintenance costs. Such fees are normally associated with street
Governance Models Sales and Use Property Tax Vehicle Reg Visitor Benefit Occup. Privilege Total Potential
5 and 6 Tax (at 1¢) (at 5 mills)Fee (at $10)Tax (at 2%) Fee (@ $6/mo)Annual Revenues
Boulder $27,200,000 $18,300,000 $600,000 $3,200,000 $7,200,000 $56,500,000
Lafayette $3,100,000 $2,700,000 $200,000 $100,000 $0 $6,100,000
Longmont $14,200,000 $7,100,000 $800,000 $1,000,000 $0 $23,100,000
Louisville $3,900,000 $3,200,000 $200,000 $400,000 $0 $7,700,000
Superior $2,400,000 $1,100,000 $100,000 $0 $0 $3,600,000
Other $4,500,000 $6,900,000 $600,000 $0 $0 $12,000,000
TOTAL COUNTY $55,300,000 $39,300,000 $2,500,000 $4,700,000 $7,200,000 $109,000,000
Note: Revenues are 2017.
LSC
Page 54 Boulder Transit Service Delivery Study, Phase 2
maintenance and repair needs. Using this source for transit costs would have
to survive a “rational nexus” test in the inevitable lawsuits that would follow
its adoption.
• Transit Shelter Advertising Revenues. The City could allow and approve
lease(s) for placard-style advertising on transit shelters. This would involve
one or more contractors or concessionaires who would sell advertising,
remitting rents to the City. Several issues, including ownership of the shelters
(RTD?), changes to City outdoor advertising ordinances, and content
management would have to be addressed and resolved.
• Parking Space Fees. The strong, direct relationship between parking
availability and transit demand suggests that a fee on off-street private
parking might be legally feasible. Significant opposition from property owners
and commuters could be expected, but the nexus between source and use of
revenues would be appealing.
• Ride-Hailing Services Surcharge. Another strong, direct relationship exists
between ride-hailing services (Uber, Lyft, taxi companies) and transit demand.
These services compete with transit and also add traffic volume to city streets.
Consequently a number of jurisdictions (Chicago, Philadelphia, State of
Massachusetts, among others) have imposed fees (per ride) on such services.
Boulder may have the authority to do this as a charter city. The technological
and political challenges associated with this appear to be surmountable. It
might be possible to implement this surcharge County-wide.
• Local Option Gas Tax. The State of Colorado has not authorized a local option
gas tax for use by cities or counties, although these have been approved and
placed in use in other states (Florida, Nevada, Hawaii, etc.). Because there
are no fuel wholesalers in Boulder, the tax would have to be applied at the
retail level to generate revenue for the City. Also, given the prevalence of in-
commute vehicles in the Boulder traffic stream, avoiding the tax by buying
fuel at retailers in other cities and towns would be fairly easy. This would
reduce the revenue potential for the City and also would probably adversely
impact Boulder fuel/retail businesses.
LSC
Boulder Transit Service Delivery Study, Phase 2 Page 55
• Mileage Fees. Several states (notably Oregon) are actively testing the
feasibility of mileage, or VMT fees (VMT – vehicle miles traveled). These require
a system for recording the amount, time and location of vehicular travel and
collecting a fee or tax for that road usage. It is possible that mileage fees could
replace fuel taxes at the state and federal levels. However, implementing this
at the municipal level is unlikely to be feasible, given the technological,
privacy, and state preemption issues.
LSC
Page 56 Boulder Transit Service Delivery Study, Phase 2
(This page intentionally left blank.)
LSC
Boulder Transit Service Delivery Study, Phase 2 Page 57
Section 7
Summary of Findings
INTRODUCTION
As presented in the previous sections, each of the governance models has
advantages and disadvantages for implementing the Renewed Vision for Transit.
The evaluation presented in Section 5 identified those strengths and weaknesses
and the potential funding sources described in Section 6 gives an indication of
how well each model may support achievement of the Renewed Vision for Transit.
This section provides a summary of the governance models, the feasibility of each,
and implementation steps to support the Vision.
FEASIBILITY OF GOVERNANCE MODELS
Table 4 shows the recommendations for those governance models which should
no longer be considered and those which are feasible for implementation.
Table 4
Summary of Governance Model Findings
Governance Model Recommendation Advances Local
Transit Service
Goals
Advances
Regional Transit
Service Goals
#1 – Maintenance of
Current Governance
Not Viable No No
#2 – Incremental
Expansion (Buy-Ups)
Not Viable No No
#3 – City Provider Viable Yes No
#4A – Intergovernmental
Transit Agency
Viable Yes Yes
#4B – County Transit
Agency with Mass
Transit Tax
Viable Yes Yes
#5A – RTA Funding Only Not Viable Yes Yes
#5B – RTA Funding and
Operating
Viable Yes Yes
#6 – RTA Secede from
RTD
Not Viable Yes Yes
LSC
Page 58 Boulder Transit Service Delivery Study, Phase 2
Governance Model #1 – Maintenance of Current Governance
Although governance model #1 maintains the current governance structure, it
will not maintain the current level of service. As costs increase, service cuts are
anticipated. No additional funding is included for expansion of service or
implementation of new services as part of the Renewed Vision for Transit. This
model fails in accomplishing the primary goals and will result in less service and
reduced ridership compared to the goals of the Vision.
This model is considered feasible to implement because it requires no action on
the part of the City or County. However, it does not accomplish the goals of the
City and is not recommended.
Governance Model #2 – Incremental Expansion (Buy-Ups)
This model relies on service buy-ups for service operated by RTD. RTD has
indicated that, due to other limitations, it would not be able to provide
significantly increased service, even with additional funding provided by the City
of Boulder. The Steering Committees determined that based on the evaluation
and reliance on RTD to operate service, this option is not feasible for
implementation.
Governance Model #3 – City of Boulder Local Transit Provider
In this model, the City of Boulder would assume operations of all CTN and local
routes and operate them either directly or through a contract operator. This
option requires additional sources of revenue, but could be implemented by the
City independent of other local governments. The City would need to work with
RTD for reallocation of funds collected by RTD and currently used for these routes
so that the funds could be used by the City for operation of routes formerly
operated by RTD.
The greatest challenge for implementation of this option is the need for increased
funding for implementation. Local funding sources could potentially meet this
level of funding, but would compete for other funding needs. The City has the
legal authority to implement this model and the corresponding transit services.
It is not clear whether the City would have access to Federal Transit
Administration (FTA) funds or RTD facilities in Boulder.
LSC
Boulder Transit Service Delivery Study, Phase 2 Page 59
This option could be seen as an incremental step to full implementation with
future governance based on one of the county-wide or regional models. Longer
term implementation of county-wide services may require a governance model
that partners with other local governments.
Governance Model 4A – Intergovernmental Transit Agency
In this model a new county transit agency would be formed through
intergovernmental agreements using Joint Powers Authority of the City and
County. The new agency would assume responsibility for operating all CTN and
local routes in Boulder County. RTD would continue to operate regional services.
Funding for this option would rely on current local revenue sources and would
require additional funding for full implementation of the RVT plus other local
Boulder County routes (300 numbered routes). Local funding sources have the
potential to support this level of funding, but local funding would have to compete
with other needs.
This may be a feasible option for long-term implementation. Local revenues could
be available to implement the service, but would require voter approval of any
new taxes.
Governance Model 4B – County Transit Agency with Mass Transit Tax
Boulder County would form a new county transit agency. The primary difference
in this model is that funding would be through a county mass transit tax of up
to one cent.
Boulder County has the legal authority to create a transit agency. However, state
laws limit use of a county mass transit tax to those counties outside the
boundaries of RTD. This tax also requires approval of the voters through a
county-wide ballot initiative. To pursue this funding would require a change in
state statutes and would most likely require support from RTD for the new sales
tax within the boundaries of RTD.
This may be a feasible option for long-term implementation, but would require
support from RTD, legislative action, voter approval of the sales tax, and
additional local revenue. However, implementation of the county-wide sales tax
LSC
Page 60 Boulder Transit Service Delivery Study, Phase 2
would be somewhat simpler than implementing a sales tax through an RTA (see
5 and 6 below) because it would require only one county-wide vote. The RTA
requires separate votes in each participating jurisdiction.
Governance Model 5A – RTA Funding Only
Under this option, the City and County would form a Regional Transportation
Authority. To cover all of Boulder County would also require participation by the
each of the local municipalities. The RTA would be used as a funding mechanism
for service operated by local entities and RTD. Funding options available through
an RTA could cover this additional cost.
The process to form an RTA is more complex than forming a county transit
agency. Formation requires three steps as described earlier. The first is to gain
approval of the participating local governments through an intergovernmental
agreement to place the measure on the ballot in each local jurisdiction. The RTA
must then be approved through two votes in each jurisdiction; the first to approve
formation of the RTA and the second to approve the revenue sources. It is possible
that some local governments would approve the ballot measure, but one or both
of the ballot measures could fail. This could result in an RTA that does not cover
all of Boulder County and has funding from only portions of the county. The City
and unincorporated Boulder County do have the potential to fund this option
without participation from the other local municipalities.
The Policy Steering Committee determined that this model is not feasible because
of the reliance on RTD to provide additional service through additional funding
and service buy-ups.
Governance Model 5B – RTA Funding and Operations
Model 5B is similar to Model 5A except that the RTA would both fund and operate
transit services. Funding sources available to an RTA could provide this level of
funding but would require participation of some local municipalities to achieve
the required level of funding.
This may be a feasible option for long-term implementation, but would require
support from RTD, participation of multiple local governments, voter approval of
the RTA, and voter approval of the RTA funding.
LSC
Boulder Transit Service Delivery Study, Phase 2 Page 61
Governance Model 6 – RTA Secede from RTD
Under this model, an RTA would be formed in Boulder County and Boulder
County would secede from the RTD.
This model is not considered to be feasible for multiple reasons:
• This model would require voter approval of the RTA as described above.
• Formation of an RTA would require support from RTD. Seceding from RTD
is not likely to be supported by RTD and legislative changes are not likely.
• It is unclear if Boulder County could separate from RTD for both the base
level of taxation (sixth tenths percent) and the FasTracks funding (four
tenths). As RTD bonding is based on revenue from Boulder County,
rescinding the FasTracks funding is not likely.
• Use of RTD facility assets in Boulder County is unclear. There is a high
level of uncertainty about whether a new RTA would have access to RTD
facilities. It is unknown if RTD would be willing to share the facilities or
would require purchase or rent.
• Access to FTA funding is uncertain as RTD is currently the designated
provider and recipient of FTA funds.
NEXT STEPS
A number of steps must be completed to create a new governance model to
implement the RVT.
The first step should be to obtain affirmation and support from TAB and City
Council on the best governance models to continue considering based on the
results of this study. Additional information will be required to select a preferred
model and service plan, but several of the governance model options could be
eliminated from any further consideration. The results of this study should also
be taken into consideration as part of the future TMP funding analysis and
update.
LSC
Page 62 Boulder Transit Service Delivery Study, Phase 2
Transportation Master Plan
The City of Boulder Transportation Master Plan will be updated in the next year.
The long-term preferred governance model should be selected based on funding
potential, potential position of RTD, and City/County goals.
Coordination with Boulder County and Agency Partners
Continue conversations with Boulder County and other municipalities within
Boulder County should take place to determine the level of interest and potential
support for establishing a county-wide transit governance model.
The University of Colorado and Boulder County are in the process of updating
their Transportation Master Plans. The City should continue to coordinate with
these planning efforts and incorporate the preferred transit governance models
and service scenario in the plans.
Funding and Revenue Analysis
As part of the TMP Update, the City will be completing a transportation funding
study in the fall and winter of 2018/19. This study will provide more detail about
the potential funding which could be generated by local revenue sources. Other
programs which may compete for funding from the local revenue sources need to
be identified and prioritized to determine a realistic level of funding for
implementation of the enhanced transit service. A better understanding of the
potential funding level given competing needs will assist in selecting a governance
model and service level which will then be best for implementing the RVT.
A similar analysis may be needed for Boulder County if the preferred governance
model is a county-wide transit system, whether through a county transit agency
or an RTA.
Transportation funding is addressed each year by the Colorado State Legislature.
Action by the Legislature or statewide ballot initiatives could change the potential
funding available to local communities and counties.
Coordination with RTD
A large amount of uncertainty remains with respect to the position which may be
taken by RTD for local funding of transit service, particularly through a county
LSC
Boulder Transit Service Delivery Study, Phase 2 Page 63
mass transit tax or an RTA. City and County staff should initiate discussions
with RTD leadership to determine the potential reaction of RTD and the likely
position to be taken by RTD regarding a county mass transit tax or RTA for transit
funding.
Trends to Consider
There are emerging trends and technologies that should be considered as
decisions are made and steps taken to implement a change in the governance
structure for the City of Boulder and potentially Boulder County. Changes in RTD
service and the ability of RTD to deliver service at current levels or increased
levels is uncertain. Similarly, the level of Federal Transit Administration (FTA)
funding always has some uncertainty and programs are often changed as part of
the reauthorization process for the surface transportation bill. Two ballot
initiatives have been submitted for the 2018 statewide election for transportation
funding. One of the ballot measures would provide some funding for transit
operation while the second measure provides no funding for transit capital or
operations.
Technology trends which could impact service delivery include Mobility on
Demand, Mobility as a Service, Transportation Network Companies, and
autonomous vehicles. The developments in technology should be monitored and
integrated as appropriate in the development of service changes under the
selected governance models.
Phased Implementation
Once a preferred long-term strategy is selected, which may include more than
one governance model, interim changes in the governance structure should be
decided. This may be the city operating transit directly or through the use of a
contractor to operate service that may be cut by RTD and to implement new or
enhanced services under Model #3 and creation of a County Transit Agency as
described in Model #4. Other municipalities within Boulder County could
establish municipal transit agencies similar to that described for the City of
Boulder in Model #3.
LSC
Page 64 Boulder Transit Service Delivery Study, Phase 2
A timeline similar to that for RTA implementation should be created to identify
the various steps required to move from the current governance structure to the
short-term, mid-term, and long-term preferred governance models.
LSC
Boulder Transit Service Delivery Study Page A-1
Appendix A
Innovative Trends in Transit
Transit operators and public agencies across the country are looking for new and
innovative ways to provide public transit that will attract more riders while also
managing costs. Many of these innovations involve partnerships between
traditional public transit providers and newer, technology-enabled mobility
services like Transportation Network Companies (TNCs), the largest of which are
Uber and Lyft, or microtransit solutions, from companies like Via, Chariot, or
Transloc. Other emerging trends include deployment of autonomous vehicles for
transit service and shared mobility.
Many of the newer models for service delivery, like TNCs and microtransit, are
still rapidly evolving with little long-term data or analysis to determine costs and
benefits.
• Transportation Network Companies (TNCs) are a privately-operated
form of demand response transportation that use mobile phone apps and
an online platform to pair passengers needing a ride with drivers operating
their own personal car to perform the ride. TNCs rely on smartphones with
GPS capability to identify the rider pick-up location and inform the rider
how long it will take for the driver to arrive. Passengers must have a
smartphone in order to book a ride. TNCs are private companies, the
largest of which are Uber and Lyft, that treat the drivers as independent
contractors who are required to meet certain minimum standards in order
to use the online platform and provide rides. Drivers generally choose the
hours and areas they serve, rather than being dispatched like a taxi.
Drivers are responsible for all the costs associated with operating their
own vehicle, including having insurance coverage for the vehicle, but TNCs
provide additional insurance coverage while a driver is performing a trip.
TNCs are part of what is often called the “sharing economy” where people
with assets like cars or spare bedrooms can use them to make extra
money. TNCs can also be known as ride hailing, technology-enabled ride
sharing, or shared mobility.
LSC
Page A-2 Boulder Transit Service Delivery Study
• Microtransit is a relatively new term and can be difficult to define.
Microtransit is defined as a ridehailing form of transportation which
employs on-demand dynamic route transportation technology to serve
multiple passengers in the same vehicle along a route that can either be
fixed or flexible. Microtransit companies, such as, Bridj, Chariot, Split, and
Via, serve passengers using dynamically generated routes and may expect
passengers to make their way to and from common pick-up or drop-off
points. Vehicles can range from large SUVs to vans to shuttle buses.
Microtransit can also be called dynamic shuttles or private flexible transit.
It should also be noted that some existing microtransit program have used
public agency vehicles and drivers. The primary difference between
microtransit and a route deviation service is that microtransit employs
technology that has only recently been available. Microtransit includes the
use of software and smartphone technology which: (1) allow the passenger
to reserve a ride directly (without the use of a dispatcher), (2) provides the
driver with pick-ups and drop off assignments in real time and (3)
calculates the most efficient route between passenger pick-ups/drop offs.
General routes and schedules are followed, but these can be modified as
passenger demands evolve. Microtransit services will typically use vans
instead of larger buses but will cost more than a fixed route service. The
hope is that technology will allow microtransit programs to carry more
passengers than a DAR service for a smaller cost.
• Vouchers or Contracted Services – Vouchers are provided by a transit
agency at a base rate and quantity to give a rider access to a taxi or van
operated by another agency. In some cases, a transit agency would
contract for these services while, in others, an agency would just purchase
vouchers in bulk for use by transit passengers who may not be served by
a fixed route bus. This report looks at examples where service was
contracted with a private provider dedicated to maintaining a fixed amount
of scheduled service (unlike on demand TNC service), possibly in
combination with taxi vouchers.
• Mobility-on-Demand (MOD) – MOD is a user-focused approach which
leverages emerging mobility services, integrated transit networks and
operations, real-time data, connected travelers, and cooperative Intelligent
LSC
Boulder Transit Service Delivery Study Page A-3
Transportation Systems (ITS) to allow for a more traveler-centric,
transportation “system-of-systems” approach, providing improved
mobility options to all travelers and users of the system in an efficient and
safe manner. MOD combines different mobility options under one
technology platform, often a smartphone app, and allows a user to plan a
trip from point A to point B without regard for what agency or company is
providing the service. MOD can encompass many different newer,
innovative, technology-enabled service alternatives like TNCs or
microtransit. MOD solutions explored in this report are those which
utilized a technology platform that fell under the auspices of a transit
agency. Inherent in MOD is cooperation and coordination among many
transportation providers within a given geographic area.
Shared ride mobility is emerging as an option both for local and regional trips.
This addresses its implications for local circulation travel and access within the
City of Boulder.
LOCAL SHARED RIDE MOBILITY
RELEVANT TO TRANSIT AND DIRECTLY
RELEVANT TO THIS PROJECT
RELEVANT TO TRANSIT, NOT DIRECTLY
RELEVANT TO THIS PROJECT
Ride-hailing services (Uber, Lyft, taxi) Car share - membership
Integrated mobile fare/fee payment Car share – personal, app-enabled
Autonomous buses Bike share
Electric buses Personal autonomous vehicles
ITS – V2V and V2I connectivity
Microtransit
Mobility on Demand (MOD)
Local shared ride mobility implications:
• may be reducing transit ridership on local routes;
• may be increasing vehicular traffic on Boulder streets;
• may eventually reduce personal vehicle ownership among Boulder
residents;
• may have a lower cost per ride than local transit;
• could replace low-volume, fixed-route, scheduled transit service;
• may or may not meet needs of transit-dependent population;
LSC
Page A-4 Boulder Transit Service Delivery Study
• may or may not be integrated into an interconnected, adaptive traffic
signal network;
• could be integrated into a mobile platform multimodal fare system; and,
• could or could not take the form of an electric micro-transit network (ala
EZ10).
There are two potential strategic directions for City of Boulder:
• Reactive – The trends are too complex and uncertain to predict. The City
should watch what happens and react as appropriate. Scenarios should
be agnostic with respect to potential roles of local shared ride mobility
and adaptable to a range of outcomes.
• Proactive – While we cannot predict exactly what will happen, the general
direction of trends is clear. The City should work to shape how local
shared ride mobility evolves in Boulder and should guide what its role
will be relative to local transit.