TIGER VIII Grant Application Glenwood Springs Maintenance Facility Renovation and Expansion

Transcription

1 TIGER VIII Grant Application Glenwood Springs Maintenance Facility Renovation and Expansion Roaring Fork Transportation Authority April 26, 2016 i

2 TIGER VII Grant Application Table of Contents About RFTA...3 a. Project Description...3 Expected Users... 5 Transportation Challenges and Solutions... 6 Ladders of Opportunity... 7 b. Project Location...8 Location and Connections to Existing Infrastructure... 8 Future Markets and Service Needs... 9 Expanded I-70 Service... 9 Area Description Regional Characteristics Land Use and Land Characteristics Socio-Economic Characteristics c. Project Parties d. Grant Funds and Sources/Uses of Project Funds Pending or Past Federal Funding Requests e & f Selection Criteria and Benefit-cost Analysis i. a. State of Good Repair Operations and Maintenance Costs and Benefits Reduced Deadhead Vehicle Idling Costs Reduced Wear-and-Tear on Buses Other Benefits Not Quantified Ramifications If Left Unimproved i.b. Economic Competitiveness Job Creation Other Economic Benefits i.c. Quality of Life Increased Service i.d. Environmental Sustainability ii

3 Facility Energy Efficiency Reduced Diesel Fuel Consumption Stormwater Management i.e. Safety ii.a. Innovation Facilities Fleet Congestion Management ii.b. Partnership G. Project Readiness Technical Feasibility Basis for Cost Estimate Financial Feasibility Financial Condition / Ability to Management Grants Required Approvals H. Federal Wage Rate Certification Attachments Attachment 1: Project Narrative Attachment 2: Federal Wage Rate Certification Letter Attachment 3: Letters of Support Attachment 4: Benefit Cost Analysis Attachment 5: Project Schedule Attachment 6: GMF Basis of Design Report, June iii

4 List of Figures Figure 1: RFTA Service Area... 2 Figure 2: GMF Renovation and Expansion Project by Phase... 5 Figure 3: Glenwood Springs Aerial Photograph... 7 Figure 4: Project Location and Connections to Existing Infrastructure... 9 Figure 5: Potential Expansion and New Markets for Transit Figure 6: Regional Mode Share (all trips) List of Tables Table 1: Project Scope and Phasing... 4 Table 2: Current and Proposed Space Allocation... 8 Table 3: Project Parties and Roles Table 4: Project Funding and Phasing Table 5: Funding Sources and Basis for Funding Requests Table 6: Assessment of Risks and Mitigation Strategies Table 7: Summary of SGR Benefits and Costs* (Discounted 3%, values in $) Table 8: Cost Comparison - RFTA Fares vs Private Auto Table 9: Quality of Life Benefits Table 10: Benefits from Increased Service (2 Expansion Buses) Table 11: Social Benefits from Deadhead Reduction Table 12: Safety Benefits Summary (from deadhead miles reduction) Table 13: RFTA Regional Transportation and Infrastructure Projects iv

5 TIGER Grant Application Glenwood Maintenance Facility The Roaring Fork Transportation Authority (RFTA) seeks $18 million in TIGER funding to expand and upgrade its most critical asset: the Glenwood Maintenance Facility in Glenwood Springs, Colorado. This facility is the backbone of RFTA s extensive transit system and is essential to supporting Ladders of Opportunity in the region by increasing connectivity to employment, education, services, and other opportunities. RFTA intends to double the maintenance capacity and add indoor bus storage to support long-term operations. According to the benefit-cost analysis, this project will generate an estimated net benefit of over $170 million. Many of these benefits, such as reductions in deadhead miles and vehicle operations, can be reinvested in additional service, generating more Ladders of Opportunity benefits for the people in this three-county region. RFTA is one of the largest and most innovative rural transit systems in the United States, providing regional transit services to a three-county area, covering 70 linear miles, as shown in Figure 1. RFTA transcends the benchmarks of the transit industry in service area, quality and variety of transit options, absolute ridership, and ridership-per-capita. 1

6 Figure 1: RFTA Service Area 2

7 ABOUT RFTA RFTA operates a variety of public transportation services along the State Highway 82 (SH 82) corridor from Glenwood Springs to Aspen, and the I-70 corridor from Glenwood Springs to Rifle, encompassing a 70-mile linear corridor and three counties in central Colorado. Over the last 38 years, RFTA has evolved to become the second largest transit agency in Colorado, second only to Denver-RTD, and the largest rural transit agency in the United States. Between 1976, when transit service first began in the region, and 2014, ridership grew from approximately 312,000 trips per year to nearly 5 million, a 1,450% increase. Consistent with its vision to provide preferred transportation choices that connect and support vibrant communities, RFTA offers a wide array of public transportation options, including regional services, local circulator systems, skier shuttles, dial-a-ride, and bus rapid transit (BRT). Approximately 70% of RFTA s passengers use the transit system for Ladders of Opportunity trip purposes, such as access to employment and education. A. PROJECT DESCRIPTION RFTA intends to renovate and expand its main storage and maintenance facility, the Glenwood Maintenance Facility (GMF) in Glenwood Springs. Most of the demand for Approximately 70% of RFTA s passengers, including people like Clarence Beard, use the transit system for Ladders of Opportunity trip purposes, such as access to employment and education. If it wasn t for RFTA it would be hard getting up and down the valley, says Beard. transit bus storage and maintenance in the next 20 years will fall on the GMF, which is centrally located in RFTA s 3-county service area, at the intersection of I-70, along the Colorado River, and SH 82, along the Roaring Fork River. RFTA intends to double the amount of capacity for storage and maintenance, and to renovate and expand operations and administration functions. These updates will address long-term needs and expand Ladders of Opportunity for the region s residents. The three-phase renovation/expansion program is summarized in Table 1 and depicted in Figure 2. Each phase has independent utility. 3

8 Table 1: Project Scope and Phasing Phase Title Description Cost I Site civil work Grading of entire site to support Phase II and Phase III $5 million improvements, utility relocation, drainage improvements, and retaining walls. Temporary outside storage for 20 additional buses. II Maintenance building renovation and expansion Expand maintenance building and renovate interior to accommodate newer technologies and space-saving equipment in order to increase maintenance capacity from 30 buses to 60 buses or more. $3.5 million III IV Future phase Bus storage and parking deck, bus canopy enclosure Office and Administrative Space Renovation and Expansion TOTAL (excluding future Phase IV) Create enclosed, climate-controlled storage for approximately 60 full-size buses at grade, with car and small bus parking above grade; purchase two 57-passenger Overthe-Road Coaches Future Phase, not covered by TIGER Grant Proposal: renovate and expand Administration and Operations building $17.5 million (facilities) + $1.5 million (vehicles) $6.5 million $27.5 million The program will double the amount of bus storage space, accommodating all buses in secure, climate-controlled conditions, renovate and expand maintenance capabilities commensurately, and establish office space to accommodate long-term administrative and operative functions. This will double RFTA s capacity to provide connectivity to employment, education, services, and other opportunities and will generate an estimate $170 million in net benefits. 4

9 Figure 2: GMF Renovation and Expansion Project by Phase 1 Expected Users The GMF is the backbone of RFTA s infrastructure. RFTA recently unveiled the nation's first rural BRT system VelociRFTA. The VelociRFTA fleet consists of 22 CNG-powered buses, and the GMF is the only CNG fueling station in the area. Other agencies and entities, including the Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT), the City of Glenwood Springs, and Garfield County, are considering using the GMF CNG fueling station as they purchase CNG vehicles. Additionally, RFTA depends heavily on the GMF to support its growing I-70 corridor service. The GMF is the only CNG fueling station in the 3-county area. Future potential users include CDOT s new Bustang interregional express bus service and Glenwood Springs City buses. The primary users of RFTA s transit system, which this project supports, have been and will continue to be workers in its service area, for Ladders of Opportunity trip needs. According to on-board surveys conducted since 2006, about 65% of people traveling on RFTA buses are on their way to or from work. Approximately 50% of 1 Phase IV is not part of this current package; it will occur after the other three phases have been completed. 5

10 these people are not able to drive to work; their employment would be jeopardized if RFTA did not provide transportation. In 2016, 51% of all passengers reported to be female, and 43% of all passenger survey respondents indicated that they were an ethnicity other than Caucasian. Transportation Challenges and Solutions The Roaring Fork and Colorado River Valleys offer access to world-class recreation, arts and culture, and a small town atmosphere; however, this region also suffers from transportation woes and a cost of living akin to those of major metropolitan areas. Affordable housing is lacking in the economic engines of Aspen, Snowmass Village, and Glenwood Springs. In order to find affordable housing, employees must commute many miles to and from their jobs each day. Highways are congested and driving conditions are hazardous, particularly during the winter when roads are covered by snow and ice. RFTA services provide a safer and more affordable option for many members of the region s commuting workforce. The New York Times, in an article published October 20, 1999, titled Five commutes that make you feel better about yours, listed the Roaring Fork Valley commute as one of The New York Times listed the Roaring Fork Valley commute as one of the five worst in the entire country. the worst in the country. According to the 2003 West Glenwood Springs to Aspen Corridor Investment Study, SH 82 was the state s most congested rural highway. CDOT has invested $500 million into safety and capacity improvements since 2005, primarily to convert the remaining 20 miles of SH 82 from a 2-lane to a 4-lane platform between Basalt and Aspen. In spite of these investments, travel demand forecasts predicted that without additional investment, the highway would reach peak-hour capacity as soon as For the foreseeable future, RFTA transit will be the primary source of capacity increases on SH 82. The main driver for this region s unique transportation demands is land use. Livable, developable land and transportation facilities are constrained to linear river valley corridors. According to the Northwest Colorado Council of Governments, an average of 74% of land in RFTA s 3-county area is owned by the Federal Government, primarily by the United States Forest Service (USFS) and the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), rendering it off limits to residential and commercial development. Land is further constrained by mountainous terrain and rivers, as shown in Figure 3. Parking is expensive and minimal. All of these things come together to make public transit a significant mode of travel. RFTA has grown, expanded, and adapted to meet these challenges and to make transit an integral part of the region's transportation network. This growth has placed significant additional requirements on the GMF. Land constraints impede building additional facilities; RFTA has focused on retrofitting and expanding current facilities to meet the additional requirements. 2 The great recession of 2008 created a significant drop in employment and trip-making in the region, which delayed the peak hour conditions forecast in the CIS. 6

11 The GMF was commissioned in 2002 and was intended to be a small, satellite facility, accommodating a maximum capacity of 30 buses for storage and maintenance. Canopy storage is available for a maximum of 14 buses, and the remainder must be parked outside, in a relatively harsh winter environment. Administrative space is minimal. Transportation demands have changed significantly since the GMF was commissioned 13 years ago. Ridership has increased nearly 50%, RFTA implemented BRT, and the agency is gearing up to expand service into the I-70 corridor. The GMF sits at the connection of I- 70 and SH 82, the two primary service areas, and is the primary facility for storage and maintenance of the vehicles needed for all of these systems. Figure 3: Glenwood Springs Aerial Photograph Ladders of Opportunity Diana Cardenaz uses RFTA for a variety of trip purposes. The bus gives my family the freedom to get around. RFTA is committed to making transportation attractive, affordable, reliable, and efficient, especially for residents and workers, whether transit dependent or choice riders. In 2013, RFTA initiated VelociRFTA BRT. During peak hours, VelociRFTA operates at 10-minute headways along the 40-mile SH 82 corridor between Aspen and Glenwood Springs. Using a combination of bus/hov lanes and transit signal priority, BRT provides travel times that are competitive with the private automobile. RFTA is also highly involved in developing multimodal options that are affordable, efficient, and accessible to all. RFTA is committed to promoting healthy communities, especially for those who are do not have access to automobiles. Data from the 2014 Regional Travel Patterns Study ( illustrates very high rates of transit use, walking and bicycling, capturing nearly 50% of commute trips in the region. This level of multimodalism is unprecedented for a rural area. 7

12 RFTA intends to expand multimodal opportunities, allowing the transportation disadvantaged to access employment and educational opportunities. The GMF project is essential to this continued success, because it supports the majority of the regional commuter services RFTA provides. B. PROJECT LOCATION The extent of the GMF expansion is outlined in Table 2. Table 2: Current and Proposed Space Allocation SPACE NEEDS PROGRAM SUMMARY Current 60 Bus Program Building Areas Administration 1,984 4,239 Operations 2,208 6,564 Facilities 0 2,702 Maintenance 8,961 16,294 Information Technology 0 2,000 Fuel/Wash 6,600 6,311 Heated Bus Storage 0 63,688 Subtotal Building Areas 17, ,798 Site Areas Exiting Bus Canopy (remove) 9,720 0 Exterior Bus and Vehicle Parking Areas 11,964 49,172 Exterior Areas (staging, other parking) 22,202 17,952 Subtotal Site Areas 43,886 67,124 Circulation/Landscape/Setbacks/Storm water 171, ,922 Total Site Area Requirements (SF) 232, ,844 Acres Location and Connections to Existing Infrastructure Most of the region s population, employment, and other infrastructures are concentrated in the Colorado River and Roaring Fork River Valleys. The primary roads that service these areas are I-70 and SH 82. Roughly parallel to SH 82 is the 40-mile railbanked Denver and Rio Grande Western (DRGW) rail ROW, owned by RFTA. Under the terms of the railbanking, the corridor is currently used as a very popular bicycle and pedestrian trail and is preserved for future mass transit, such as passenger rail. The Union Pacific Rail line runs parallel to I-70, hosting freight rail and Amtrak passenger rail. RFTA operates a variety of transit services on the I-70 and SH 82 corridors. The GMF is located at the confluence of these major roads, trails, transit, and rail systems, as shown in Figure 4 on the next page. RFTA's future plans involve building more connections to other transit options in the region in 8

13 addition to continuing to expand within its own service area. Some of these are described in the next section. Figure 4: Project Location and Connections to Existing Infrastructure Future Markets and Service Needs As RFTA looks to the future, new opportunities for transit exhibit a significant geographic shift, with the GMF emerging as the center of activity. Since 1976, the Aspen area showed the greatest demand for transit; now the BRT fleet stages each morning at the GMF, and the emerging demand for Ladders of Opportunity-type transit services is increasingly focused on western Garfield County and the areas along the I-70 corridor, as depicted in Figure 5. Expanded I-70 Service According to forecasts, most population growth, economic growth, and regional commuting will occur in the I-70 corridor west of Glenwood Springs. RFTA currently runs the I-70 Grand Hogback service between Glenwood Springs and Rifle at service levels comparable to the SH 82 corridor decades ago. Over the last two years, with the implementation of BRT in the SH 82 corridor and minimal improvements to the I-70 corridor, transit trips increased about 25% on I- 70. Demand for increased transit service, or even BRT II, are expected on the I-70 corridor. Meeting these demands would provide connectivity to employment, 9

14 education, and other Ladders of Opportunity services. This will require increases in capacity at the GMF and/or a new facility somewhere along this corridor. 10 ECO Transit-RFTA Connection For the last decade, RFTA has been in dialogue with its sister transit agency to the east, ECO Transit, about connecting services through the 18-mile Glenwood Canyon. ECO Transit provides about one million trips annually, serving Eagle and Lake Counties, with a similar focus on Ladders of Opportunity. A study in 2009 showed that adequate demand warranted about 12 daily round trips connecting the 4-county region. The study recommended that buses for these increased services be stored at the GMF. Figure 5: Potential Expansion and New Markets for Transit CDOT Bustang Service CDOT begin inter-regional bus services from Glenwood Springs to Denver in 2015, dubbed Bustang. Average occupancy quickly grew to 75% on the single round-trip per day service, and CDOT expanded the service to weekends and intends to add more services. As the Bustang service grows and evolves, RFTA and CDOT hope to store, fuel, and maintain the Bustang fleet at the GMF. Area Description The GMF is centrally located in RFTA s 3-county service area, comprised of Garfield County, Pitkin County, and the southwest corner of Eagle County, Colorado.

15 Regional Characteristics RFTA provides BRT, regional transit, local transit circulators, and other transit services to a roughly 75-mile linear service area with an estimated total population of about 77,000 people. In spite of this small population, ridership is close to five million trips per year. According to the Local and Regional Travel Patterns Study, published in 2004, bus mode share in the corridor was about 5 10 times what would Figure 6: Regional Mode Share (all trips) normally be expected in a rural/small town regional setting in the U.S., and 2 3 times the rate of major rail transit cities like the Portland-Salem Metropolitan Statistical Area (5.7% public transportation in 2000). The 2014 Local and Regional Travel Patterns Study (published after BRT was implemented) illustrates equally significant rates of transit, walking, and bicycling for work-related and other general transportation purposes. Land Use and Land Characteristics Development is generally limited to the SH 82/Roaring Fork River Valley and the I-70/Colorado River Valley. It is further limited by lack of public infrastructure outside these corridors, and by land development policies that focus development within the town centers. Socio-Economic Characteristics While all three counties are considered rural, and all three face similarly high costs of living, they are all unique and facing their own distinct challenges. Pitkin County Located in the heart of the White River National Forest, Pitkin County is best known for its four world-class ski resorts, including Aspen Mountain and Snowmass. Tourism is the While the average annual wages are high mainstay of the local economy, attracting (around $52,000), the cost of housing is visitors from all over the world. The largest even higher, with average prices for single employer in the entire region is Aspen Ski family homes exceeding $650,000. Company, with 3,600 employees. In 2008, thanks primarily to the ski industry, the three counties, served by RFTA, accounted for nearly $34 billion in property values and generated about $6.4 billion in retail sales. Pitkin County s construction and tourism-based economy does not generate incomes 11

16 commensurate with home prices. According to a May 2014 article in the Aspen media 3, the average price of a home in Aspen is more than $3.2 million. In the mid-valley area (Basalt, Carbondale, and El Jebel), average asking price for homes in April 2014 was $505,000. Average annual wages in the region in 2012, however, were approximately $52,260. The region s socioeconomic conditions fuel the unique demand for transit and account for 70% of trips related to Ladders of Opportunity-type purposes Garfield County Garfield County s socio-economic characteristics are significantly different than Pitkin County s. Natural resource development, specifically natural gas and prospectively oil shale, has exhibited a dramatic economic influence on Garfield County over the last decade. As of 2008, nearly onethird of all mining industry employment for the State of Colorado was located in Garfield and neighboring Mesa and Rio Blanco Counties. Today, approximately 9.5% of all mining employment in Colorado is in Garfield County. In 2012, the oil and gas industry accounted for 73% of total property tax assessed values, and of that 73%, 74.4% came from natural gas production. In contract to the home values in Pitkin County ($653,000 in 2012), the median value of homes in western Garfield County on the I-70 corridor was about $268,000. This is likely to fuel population and employment growth on the I-70 corridor, and will spur demand for transit connections to employment, education, and other Ladders of Opportunity services Eagle County Eagle County, which contains the major ski resorts of Vail and Beaver Creek, has similar land patterns and economic circumstances to those of Pitkin County. RFTA serves the far southwest portion of Eagle County, including the communities of Basalt and El Jebel on the SH 82 corridor, which represent about 10% 15% of Eagle County s population. According to the state demographer, over the next 25 years, about 5% of Eagle County s workforce will need to be imported from neighboring counties, such as Garfield County. This may necessitate a transit connection between RFTA and Eagle County s transit agency, primarily for employment purposes. C. PROJECT PARTIES Table 3 outlines the project parties and their roles. Letters of support are provided in Attachment 3. 3 Catherine Lutz, Build and let live: 40 years of affordable housing in Aspen, Aspen Sojourner and Aspen Journalism, May 27,

17 Table 3: Project Parties and Roles Entity Role RFTA Grant Recipient, Project Lead, Project Manager 4 City of Glenwood Springs RFTA Member Jurisdiction; Authorizing Jurisdiction - Permitting and Entitlements Colorado Department of Transportation FASTER Funding, Bustang service coordination Town of New Castle RFTA Member Jurisdiction Eagle County RFTA Member Jurisdiction Town of Carbondale RFTA Member Jurisdiction Town of Basalt RFTA Member Jurisdiction Town of Snowmass Village RFTA Member Jurisdiction City of Aspen RFTA Member Jurisdiction Pitkin County RFTA Member Jurisdiction Elected Officials Transportation Funding Committee (EOTC) Garfield County Federal Mineral Lease Funding District (FMLD) Colorado Department of Local Affairs Funding Federal Transit Administration 5311/5339 Funding D. GRANT FUNDS AND SOURCES/USES OF PROJECT FUNDS RFTA envisions this to be a four phase project, with the first three being constructed under the TIGER grant process. These three phases will be complete within four years. Thus, RFTA envisions all funds to be fully obligated, if not fully expended, by September 30, Table 4 and Table 5 show the cost estimates for each phase and the proposed funding sources. Total Project Cost: $27.5 million TIGER Funding Request: $18 million (65%) Local Match: $9.5 million (35%) Table 4: Project Funding and Phasing Phase Total Amount Share of Source Amount Needed Project Cost TIGER $0 0% I $5,000,000 RFTA $4,500,000 FTA 5311 $500, % II $3,500,000 TIGER $3,000,000 85% FTA 5311/5339 $500,000 15% III $19,000,000 TIGER $15,000,000 80% EOTC, FMLD, EMIA, RFTA $4,000,000 20% TOTAL $27,5000,000 $27,500,000 4 RFTA will be the grantee and the project manager of this project. RFTA has extensive experience managing a variety of projects of similar or greater scope. These projects are outlined in the Project Readiness section. 13

18 Table 5: Funding Sources and Basis for Funding Requests Grant Source Description Funding Levels and Basis of Request Federal Transit FTA formula funding to rural areas, RFTA received Administration administered by State DOT approximately $900,000 Section 5311/5339 in CY2015 Cycle Annual Garfield County Federal Mineral Lease District (FMLD) Colorado Department of Local affairs Energy and Mineral Impact Assistance (EMIA) Program Elected Officials Transportation Committee (EOTC) An independent public body charged by the state legislature with distributing financial resources it receives from the development of natural resources on federal lands within Garfield County to communities impacted by these activities. Assists political subdivisions that are socially and/or economically impacted by the development, processing, or energy conversion of minerals and mineral fuels. Funds come from the state severance tax on energy and mineral production and from a portion of the state's share of royalties paid to the federal government for mining and drilling of minerals and mineral fuels on federally-owned land. This group of elected officials from Pitkin County, Town of Snowmass Village and City of Aspen administers a 0.5% sales and use tax dedicated to transit projects in Pitkin County Up to $500,000 per project RFTA received $200,000 in 2014 and $279,000 in 2015 Tier I: Up to $200,00 Tier II: Up to $2 million Tier III: Up to $10 million RFTA received $105,000 in 2015 for Preliminary Design of Phase I of this project; EMIA staff have indicated interest in funding up to $3 million for Phases II/III of the project In 2014 RFTA, Pitkin County, City of Aspen and Town of Snowmass Village allocated $4.9 million of these funds toward renovation of the Rubey Park Transit Center Semi- Annual Tier I-II: 3 cycles/ year Tier III: Not available at this time RFTA has analyzed the potential risks, particularly those associated with the budget, and has come up with a plan to mitigate these risks. Table 6 summarizes the risk mitigation plan. 14

19 Table 6: Assessment of Risks and Mitigation Strategies Risk Description Mitigation Strategy Permitting and entitlements Geographic/ geologic hazards and natural disasters Construction cost escalation RFTA unable to reach terms with authorizing agencies on entitlements, access permits, or other permits Design and construction fails to address current or future geographic and geologic conditions or natural disasters Construction cost escalates as design process progresses Pending or Past Federal Funding Requests RFTA received a CatEx in 2004 and received another CatEx in 2015; RFTA is working with CDOT and city of Glenwood Springs on permitting and entitlements. RFTA and the City have agreed to Location and Extent review as the appropriate process, which is the most streamlined of processes. The facility has been in place since 2002 and has undergone improvements that required soils testing and other assessment. Based on this experience RFTA feels aware of such risks and design costs are in conformance with those risks. RFTA completed a soil stabilization project for the entire existing building footprint to protect it from collapsing soils, which have been a problem for the surrounding area. This project will protect the current facility and all additional facilities and infrastructure will be engineered to withstand unstable soil conditions. The site is not located in a 100-year or 500-year flood plain. RFTA has requested modest funding from all potential sources, and it can request more funding in upcoming grant cycles if necessary. In addition, RFTA can reduce project elements, such as the two-bus purchase ($1.5 million savings) or Maintenance building remodel ($1 million) to align costs with revenues. In 2014 and 2015, RFTA submitted TIGER funding proposals for GMF renovation and expansion. RFTA did not receive funding. RFTA received $500,000 in FTA Section 5311 capital funds in 2015, which will be applied to this project. E & F SELECTION CRITERIA AND BENEFIT-COST ANALYSIS RFTA prepared a benefit-cost analysis (BCA) for each phase of the project. The full BCA, with assumptions and references, is available in Attachment 4 and can also be accessed electronically at RFTA believes that the 3% discount rate is appropriate for this project, because the money for this project, if this project were not to proceed, would stay in public projects and not be invested in the private sector. We describe the 3% discount rate numbers throughout this section; however, we calculated both rates. See the full BCA for worksheets summarizing each phase with a 3% discount applied and separate worksheets with a 7% discount applied. Each of the three phases shows net benefits with the ratio of net benefits (benefits minus costs) to costs ranging from 5.32 in Phase 1 to 9.03 in Phase 2. Phase 3's ratio is If all three 15

20 phases of the project are built, net benefits (benefits minus costs) will exceed $170 million over the 20-year lifetime. i. a. State of Good Repair In Phase 2, RFTA will expand and renovate the GMF. The expansion will more than double the square footage; this additional size will increase the operations and maintenance (O&M) costs. In Phase 3, RFTA will create indoor storage for approximately 60 buses. This roughly 65,000 ft 2 of new indoor storage will create new O&M costs; however, these new O&M costs will be offset by reduced capital expenditures to maintain an aging building and lower utility costs per square foot (approximately 40% less) due to energy efficient measures. RFTA has recently implemented similar measures at the AMF with great success. The most significant O&M cost reductions will come from reduced fleet deadheading, idling, and maintenance costs. Table 7 summarizes the state of good repair costs and benefits. 16

21 Table 7: Summary of SGR Benefits and Costs* (Discounted 3%, values in $) No-Build Facility O&M Reduced DH Costs Reduced Indoor Idling Storage Net Benefits ($) Calendar Project Utility Maint. Capital Year Year Costs Costs Costs Phase 2 Phase 3 Phase 1 Phase 2 Phase 3 Phase 3 Phase 3 Phase 1 Phase 2 Phase ,094 96, , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,919-1,128, ,407-1,128, , , , , ,029-39,760-1,157, ,941-1,944, ,921-27,081-1,157, ,971-2,258, , , , , ,608-1,187, ,978-4,987, ,530-69,734-1,187, ,693-5,799, , , , , ,701-1,218, ,327-5,116, ,192-71,826-1,218, ,333-5,957, , , , , ,764-1,249, ,998-5,249, ,299-73,981-1,249, ,138-6,121, , , , , ,894-1,282, ,998-5,386, ,865-76,200-1,282, ,612-6,289, , , , , ,194-1,315, ,336-5,526, ,902-78,486-1,315, ,569-6,463, , , , , ,780-1,350, ,020-5,670, ,423-80,841-1,350, ,198-6,642, , , , , ,778-1,385, ,061-5,817, ,440-83,266-1,385, ,136-6,827, , , , , ,326-1,421, ,466-5,968, ,968-85,764-1,421, ,561-7,017, , , , , ,578-1,458, ,246-6,124, ,020-88,337-1,458,116-1,115,302-7,215, ,396 1,033, , , ,701-1,496, ,411-6,283, ,611-90,987-1,496,027-1,275,968-7,418, ,416 1,239, , , ,879-1,534, ,970-6,446, ,755-93,716-1,534,924-1,469,108-7,629, ,087 1,487, ,000-1,071, ,316-1,574, ,933-6,614, ,468-96,528-1,574,832-1,701,398-7,846, ,441 1,785, ,000-1,334, ,234-1,615, ,311-6,786, ,765-99,424-1,615,778-1,980,874-8,071, ,513 2,142, ,000-1,654, ,878-1,657, ,115-6,962, , ,407-1,657,788-2,317,199-8,304, ,339 2,570, ,000-2,041, ,517-1,700, ,356-7,143, , ,479-1,700,890-2,721,996-8,545, ,956 3,084, ,000-2,511, ,448-1,745, ,045-7,329, , ,643-1,745,113-3,209,239-8,795,888 TOTAL 4,566,199 18,027,035 3,000,000-13,544,704-3,755,356-25,754,163-10,078,919-99,358,840-12,656,318-1,432,698-25,754,163-23,623, ,203,212 *Costs are shown as positive and benefits as negative values. A negative value in net benefits shows that benefits outweigh costs. 17

22 Operations and Maintenance Costs and Benefits The GMF is nearing 15 years of age and utilizes most of the original equipment, facilities, and building sub-systems. In Phase 2, the fleet maintenance buildings will be renovated and expanded. Although Phase 2 will roughly double the building space and maintenance functions, O&M costs will be reduced because buildings and equipment will be new and will not require extensive maintenance for the first 10 years. In addition, the buildings will utilize geo-exchange systems and other energy efficiency measures to reduce electric and gas utility consumption by an estimated 40% per square foot. Reduced Deadhead The GMF was originally designed to be an ancillary facility at the edge of RFTA s service area. Today, the GMF is in the center of RFTA s service area. Current and future vehicles must be deadheaded approximately 45 miles from the Aspen Maintenance Facility to the GMF to start their shift. The most Reducing deadhead miles will save more than $131 million over 20 years. significant contribution of this 3-phase project is the ability to reduce vehicle deadheading. Savings from reduced deadhead increase as each phase is completed. A total of more than $131 million in savings are anticipated to accrue over a 20-year period, as shown in Table 8. Vehicle Idling Costs Keeping buses operating in freezing temperatures can take several hours of idling, consuming substantial amounts of fuel. As buses become increasingly complex with low-emissions and/or CNG engines and complicated electronics, storing outside in the cold may compromise transit operations significantly. In the roughly 150 days of winter, buses stored outside must be idled four hours per night to ensure that engines and sub-systems are operable for their morning shift. Parking 60 buses in enclosed, climate-controlled conditions (Phase 3) eliminates this vehicle idling and generates $12.6 million in savings from reduced fuel and labor costs. Reduced Wear-and-Tear on Buses In 2014, RFTA spent $3.5 million per year on vehicle maintenance. Of this, approximately $926,102 was spent on parts and materials; RFTA estimates (very conservatively) that creating indoor storage for 60 buses will reduce these parts and materials costs by 10% per year. Other Benefits Not Quantified In addition to the four State of Good Repair benefits that were quantified, there are additional benefits to this project. Ability to Withstand Disaster RFTA is a critical component of emergency plans for local governments, schools, health care facilities, police and fire departments, EMS, and other institutions in the region. It is important to RFTA to protect its facilities from natural disaster and other concerns. 18

23 RFTA completed a soil stabilization project for the entire existing building footprint to protect it from collapsing soils, which have been a problem for the surrounding area. This project will protect the current facility and all additional facilities, and infrastructure will be engineered to withstand unstable soil conditions. The site is not located in a 100-year or 500-year flood plain. The GMF has been designed to fuel and maintain gasoline, diesel, and CNG-powered buses. This provides operational flexibility if one fuel source is compromised, and, in the case of CNG, is a hedge against non-domestic fuel volatility. RFTA currently uses 24 CNG buses, and has fueling capacity for at least 30 more. Backup diesel generators provide power to the CNG compressors, allowing RFTA to fuel buses if electric power is disrupted. Energy Consumption This project is proposed to reduce energy consumption significantly compared to baseline technologies, thereby protecting RFTA from energy disruption or fluctuations in energy costs. Improve Reliability of Multimodal Transportation System The region hosts one of the nation s most robust multi-modal rural transportation systems, and RFTA plays the leading role. RFTA s VelociRFTA BRT system includes many multimodal features, such as bikes on buses, covered bike parking, park and ride facilities at BRT stations, convenient connections to hiking and biking trails and local feeder transit systems, and connections to We- Cycle bike share in Aspen, Basalt and Glenwood Springs. For transit specifically, renovation and expansion of the GMF is critical to support an estimated 6.5 million annual transit trips by 2035, most of which will be for Ladders of Opportunity trip purposes. In the short term, some of these trips can be supported at the Aspen Maintenance Facility, at significant operational cost. Passenger Comfort Currently, RFTA buses are parked outdoors in sub-freezing temperatures during winter months. Buses must be started several hours before they go into revenue service to warm the passenger compartments sufficiently. Nonetheless, RFTA receives numerous complaints from passengers and bus operators that buses are too cold in the winter. Indoor storage of buses will not only help to conserve fuel and reduce harmful greenhouse emissions by minimizing idle time, it will also help to make the interior temperature warmer and more comfortable for passengers who have already been waiting outdoors for their buses to arrive. Ramifications If Left Unimproved In the short term, buses can be stored outside at the Aspen Maintenance Facility (AMF) and deadheaded to Glenwood Springs (approximately 45 miles) and other locations in the service area, and back again. This is very costly and time-consuming, as shown in the cost-benefit analysis. Keeping buses operating in freezing temperatures can take several hours of idling, consuming substantial fuel. As buses become increasingly complex with low-emissions and/or CNG engines and complicated electronics, storing outside in the cold may compromise transit operations significantly. 19

24 i.b. Economic Competitiveness This project will have a significant impact on job creation, job preservation, and job access. Economic competitiveness analysis calculations are limited to jobs created by construction of the renovation and expansion, and a few jobs created by bringing extra buses into the system and onto routes; however, actual benefits from job preservation and expanded opportunity are much higher. This section covers first the benefits identified in the analysis and then discusses other benefits that have not been quantified. Job Creation Based on spending levels, there will be jobs created during the construction phase. The BCA shows a total of 339 job years created at a value of $32 million, with another $15 million in long-term job creation. Other Economic Benefits In this region, job creation, economic opportunity, and transit availability are highly interrelated. According to the 2010, 2012, and 2014 surveys of non-brt passengers, over 50% of passengers did not have a vehicle to make the trip to work, if transit was not available. Decreasing Transportation Costs RFTA offers two primary regional transit services: The Grand Hogback (I-70) and the Roaring Fork Valley (SH 82 VelociRFTA BRT). Table 8 below shows the cost of riding RFTA versus driving the length of the corridors. In both cases, RFTA s highest fare (one-way, cash) is still 24% to 30% of the cost of driving an automobile. Moreover, in the case of SH 82 corridor service, passengers enjoy 10- minute headways during peak hours, travel times that are competitive with the automobile, and they avoid high parking costs and parking scarcities prevalent in the up-valley communities. Table 8: Cost Comparison - RFTA Fares vs Private Auto Service Corridor Length (miles) Private Automobile Cost (per mile) Christian Mendez rides RFTA about 3 days per week, primarily to get to work. I feel safer in the winter, and you can get into the city a lot quicker. RFTA Cash Fare (per mile) Ratio of RFTA Cost to Automobile Cost SH % I % These cost savings translate to improved access for all, but particularly for the transportation disadvantaged and particularly for Ladders of Opportunity trip purposes. It is critical to note that RFTA s transportation is not a last choice for the transportation disadvantaged, but 20

25 increasingly a premium transportation choice, with frequent headways and competitive travel times. Renovation and expansion of the GMF will improve long-term efficiency and reliability of the movement of workers. RFTA also provides superior accessibility to major education and employment opportunities in the region, which embodies the Ladders of Opportunity priority for TIGER grant-funded projects. i.c. Quality of Life RFTA s transit services are undoubtedly linked to quality of life of people living in the region. RFTA s robust transportation system reduces the demand for roads and parking in this landconstrained area, and it creates affordable and convenient transportation choices, of which many residents avail themselves, and mostly for Ladders of Opportunity purposes, such as Table 9: Quality of Life Benefits employment, medical, and education. Calendar Year Phase 2 Value of Transit Project Year Population Value Estimates $ , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,217-1,030,954 TOTAL -14,457, RFTA's transit system provides value not just to the residents who ride the buses, but also to other drivers by reducing the number of cars on the road. It improves the value of housing options located near the many different modes of the transit system, reduces overall pollution, increases safety on the road, and provides access to schools, government agencies, community services and outreach, and medical facilities. It is difficult to quantify the value of a maintenance facility to the population and to the transit system as a whole; however, the transit system would fail without proper maintenance facilities. Two sources help to build a framework for putting a dollar value to the quality of the life that the maintenance facility provides: (1) the Victoria Transport Policy Institute's "Raise My Taxes, Please!" and (2) Economic Benefits of Transit Systems: Colorado Case Studies, which profiled RFTA, among others. Both approaches estimate similar numbers. For simplicity of the benefitcost analysis, RFTA is using $1,040 benefit of transit per capita, based on Victoria Transportation Policy Institute s estimation of transit benefits, including vehicle, parking and road cost savings, congestion reductions, increased

26 traffic safety, pollution reductions, improved mobility for non-drivers, and improved fitness and health. 5 RFTA is attributing 0.6% of this value specifically to the GMF. These benefits are shown in Table 9. Increased Service According to the Southwest Energy Efficiency Project (SWEEP), an estimated 4,307 employees use RFTA to arrive at their job in the City of Aspen alone each day, and RFTA s ability to provide easy access to these destinations reduces parking demand in Aspen by more than 1,000 spaces. Surface area parking of this magnitude, an estimated eight acres or more, would encompass a substantial part of the commercial core areas of Aspen and Snowmass, and building structured parking (at an estimated $25,000 per space) excluding significant land costs 6 would be infeasible. As an aside, the 2011 SWEEP study estimated that RFTA s services provided an estimated $39 - $50 million net benefit to the region, not including RFTA s annual expenditures for capital projects, personnel, goods, and services. In Phase 3, RFTA will increase service by purchasing and immediately deploying two new 57-passenger coaches. Despite the existing demand for increased service, it is most cost effective to wait to purchase the buses until they can be stored inside, increasing their effective life. The increased service will preserve income and expand opportunity for those who cannot (or choose not to) access their jobs by private automobile. Table 10 describes these benefits. Table 10: Benefits from Increased Service (2 Expansion Buses) Calendar Phase 3 Increased Service Project Bus Op Bus Op Costs/Mi Costs ($) Preserved Income ($) Value $ Year Year ,120-1,079, , ,800-1,081, , ,800-1,083, , ,800-1,085, , ,800-1,087, , ,800-1,089, , ,800-1,092, , ,800-1,094, , ,800-1,097, , ,800-1,099, , ,800-1,102, , ,800-1,105, , ,800-1,107, , ,800-1,110, , ,800-1,113, , ,800-1,116, , ,800-1,119, ,107 TOTAL 4,309,920-18,667,314-14,357,394 5 Todd Litman, Victoria Transport Policy Institute, Raise My Taxes Please! - Evaluating Household Savings from High Quality Public Transit Service, A survey of commercial real estate listings in downtown Aspen shows that the average price per square foot of Land is $1,348 which translates to approximately $58.7 million per acre. 22

27 i.d. Environmental Sustainability The benefit-cost calculations focused on the social benefits of reduced emissions from reduced vehicle idling, deadheading, and reduced utility consumption. Benefits amount to an estimated $35 million over a 20-year period. The benefits from reduced deadheading are shown in Table 11 below. Table 11: Social Benefits from Deadhead Reduction Project Year 3% SCC in 2013$ (per metric ton) SCC Phase 1 Phase 2 Phase , ,799-9, ,138-13,655-57, ,807-13, , ,807-13, , ,146-14, , ,815-14, , ,485-14, , ,154-15, , ,823-15, , ,162-16, , ,832-16, , ,501-16, , ,170-16, , ,170-16, , ,509-17, , ,178-17, , ,848-17, , ,517-18, ,172 TOTALS -716, ,265-2,753,441 Net Benefits Less SCC ($) Phase 1 Phase 2 Phase 3-58, ,926-54, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,489-4,269,148-4,036,156-14,922,051 Facility Energy Efficiency As adopted by the RFTA Board of Directors in 2011, the RFTA Environmental Sustainability Planning goal states: RFTA will research and implement innovative, environmentally sustainable practices in all areas of transit and trails management. RFTA is fully committed to environmental sustainability in its transit operations and its capital improvements program. RFTA has constructed geo-exchange systems at the AMF and recently purchased 507 kw of solar power in a solar farm in Garfield County to offset approximately 50% of RFTA s entire electric utility consumption. 23

28 The renovated and expanded facility and site design will satisfy both USDOT s environmental criteria as well as RFTA s integrated financial and environmental sustainability goals. Foremost, the new state-of-the-art facility will reduce gas and electric utility consumption by an estimated 40% per square foot. Proposed project design elements that will reduce energy consumption and provide environmental benefits include: Renovating and expanding RFTA s most expensive capital asset, versus a complete rebuild Enhanced energy efficiency upgrades in the existing facility Energy monitoring systems and smart controls for asset management Improved onsite efficiencies for safety, maintenance and operations Energy efficient building envelope Waste oil boiler for onsite heating Heat recovery ventilation for onsite heating Geo-exchange system consisting of geothermal ground source pumps operated by photovoltaic (PV) roof panels for onsite heating/cooling and onsite electricity usage Solar thermal panels for onsite domestic hot water production Interior and exterior LED site lighting Reduced Diesel Fuel Consumption Onsite parking capacity will be doubled from 30 buses to 60 buses (parked indoors). This will eliminate 90 miles of deadheading per bus per day and four hours of bus idling in winter, per bus per day. These costs and environmental benefits are outlined in the State of Good Repair section and in the BCA spreadsheets. Stormwater Management Stormwater management will be superior to the existing site and will be addressed by incorporating a stormwater detention pond located on the adjacent 5.03-acre parcel. A formal storm sewer system will be designed within the developed 2.53-acre parcel and piped to the proposed detention pond. The stormwater detention pond will be sized to store the 100-year storm event for the proposed development. An outlet control structure will be designed to detain and release stormwater flows at the historic (pre-development) hydrologic release rates. Similarly, the stormwater detention facility will be sized in order to provide the required quality capture volume for containing sediment and other potential contaminants. In addition to the above improvements, other on-site water quantity and quality control measures will be considered in the design of the new facility on the 2.53-acre parcel. This will be achieved through the use of the following potential green infrastructure/low impact development (GI/LID) elements: Bio-retention and infiltration planters Vegetated swales Re-vegetation using native plants and seeding Stormceptors and sand/oil water separators 24