The URL can be used to link to this page

Browse Search

Home My WebLink About950778.tiffRESOLUTION RE: APPROVE WELD COUNTY TRANSIT DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR 1996 TO 2000 WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners of Weld County, Colorado, pursuant to Colorado statute and the Weld County Home Rule Charter, is vested with the authority of administering the affairs of Weld County, Colorado, and WHEREAS, the Board has been presented with the Weld County Transit Development Plan for 1996 to 2000, developed in conjunction with the City of Greeley to address both rural Weld and City of Greeley transit issues, and WHEREAS, after review, the Board deems it advisable to approve said plan, a copy of which is attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of County Commissioners of Weld County, Colorado, that the Weld County Transit Development Plan for 1996 to 2000 be, and hereby is, approved. The above and foregoing Resolution was, on motion duly made and seconded, adopted by the following vote on the 12th day of April, A.D., 1995. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS WELD COUNTY, CO 0 l ATTEST: Weld County Clerk to the Board BY. � A Deputy Cle to the Board APPROVED AS TO FORM: ounty Attorne Dal/9K. Hall, ChairmanAhatj Barba J. Kirkmeyer, P�o-Tem George Baxter FxrI ISEn Constance L. Harbert ✓4 W. H. Webster ex_ ; /t3j ,5-rxr ; 950778 HR0065 WELD COUNTY TRANSIT DEVELOPMENT PLAN 1996 - 2000 RAE Consultants, Inc. 535 16th Street Suite 390 Denver, CO 80202 (303) 893-9125 The Transit Expert TDA Colorado 950778 TABLE OF CONTENTS I. Introduction 1 II. Study Area Profile 4 III. Weld County Transportation Services 27 IV. Demand Analysis and Needs Estimate 49 V. Evaluation of Weld County Transit Services 64 VI. Analysis of Transit Services 66 VII. Operations, Management and Financial Plan 86 APPENDICES 1. Weld County TDP Advisory Committee 2. Transit Demand Analysis 3. Public Meeting Summaries 4. Regional Transit Service 950778 I. INTRODUCTION Purpose The purpose of this report is to document a five year plan for public and specialized transit service for Weld County, Colorado. The plan provides an overall framework for service changes for the 1996-2000 time period. Scope and Organization This plan was developed concurrently with the City of Greeley five year transit plan. When appropriate, components of the two studies are the same. Chapters II and IV, which present analysis based on study area characteristics, are similar in both the City and County studies; the balance of the chapters in this study are specifically oriented to County transit services. This chapter outlines the organization and processes of the Weld County study, and presents the identified transit issues and goals for the County. Chapter II presents a demographic and economic profile of the City and County, including land use and development characteristics. Chapter III is an inventory of existing transportation services, including a description of transportation operators. Detailed operating and cost information for the Mini Bus is also presented. An analysis of the need for additional transit service is presented in Chapter IV. Chapter V includes an evaluation of Mini Bus services in terms of both management and operations. The evaluation addresses structures for delivering transit services, operating data, financing, automation options and marketing. A Transportation Automation Assessment was also conducted as part of this study and has been provided to the County under separate cover. In Chapter VI, alternative service and management improvements are identified and analyzed, and a recommended alternative is presented. Chapter VII presents a detailed operations, management, and financial plan to implement the recommended alternative. Study Process Two Transit Advisory Committees were active throughout the study process, one for the County and another for the City. Weld County's Advisory Committee focused on its own issues, but met jointly as needed with the City Committee, and reviewed the final study product prior to adoption by the two governmental agencies. The Weld County Committee met four times to guide the study and to provide needed information. The Transit Advisory Committee was invaluable in assuring an effective study effort. Members of the County's Advisory Board are listed in Appendix 1. Three public meetings were held to solicit citizen views. Two meetings were held in Greeley and one meeting was held in Dacono. 1 950778 Transit Issues and Goals As a first step in the study, the Transit Advisory Committee identified major transit issues for the County. These issues are listed below. County Issues • How can the large unmet demand for transportation services be addressed? Can the County either serve more people by being more efficient or obtain additional funding, or both? • What changes are needed to address growth issues in south Weld County? • In the long term, what transportation markets should the County be involved with: transit dependent only, "choice" riders, only those who can pay, others? What "pay as you go" transportation services should the County develop? • Given projected increases in the number of frail elderly individuals in the county, will door -through -door transportation services be needed in the future? • What is the demand for services based on specific fare charges? • What regional transportation issues need to be addressed (in this study or in the follow-up study): Weld County to DIA, Weld County to Denver, Weld County to Fort Collins, others? Based on these issues, the following five year goals were identified to guide the creation of the five year Transit Development Plan for Weld County. Study Goals Goal #1: Provide enhanced transportation services to better meet the needs of existing riders. Goal #2: Identify additional funding sources to support transportation services, including increased fare revenue from riders. Goal #3: Expand services to other individuals and user groups based on need and the availability of additional fare and other revenue. Goal #4: Evaluate transportation options which address growth issues in south Weld County. 2 950778 Goal #5: Identify County -wide and regional transportation issues that need to be addressed. This study evaluates service and management options in each of the above areas and presents a five year plan for the County in achieving its goals. 3. 950778 II. STUDY AREA PROFILE Overview This chapter provides background information on Greeley and Weld County. It presents the context in which public and specialized transportation services are provided. In order to accurately assess current and needed transportation services, the area's overall social and economic condition was examined. This chapter presents demographic and economic information. Land use and traffic patterns are also discussed. This study area profile provides information on community characteristics important to the development of public and specialized transportation over the next five years. Socioeconomic Profile Weld County is located on the eastern plains of Colorado, north and east of Denver. Greeley is located in the east central portion of the county, approximately 60 miles northeast of Denver and 50 miles south of Cheyenne, Wyoming. Historically, Weld County has been a heavily agricultural county. Irrigated crops, dryland farming and ranching have contributed to the strong agricultural base. Oil and gas production have also contributed significantly to the economy of the area. Recently, major manufacturing and service companies have been established in the county, diversifying the economy. The 1970s were "boom" years, but the 1980s saw a drop in agricultural and oil prices. However, recent improvements in agricultural markets suggest that the county can expect moderate economic growth through the 1990s. The County's population grew from over 123,000 in 1980 to almost 132,000 in 1990, a 6.8% increase. Primary north -south highways for Weld County are Interstate 25 and U.S. Highway 85, both serving the western portion of the county. State Highway 71 is the major north -south corridor in the eastern portion of the county. Primary east -west corridors include Interstate 76, U.S. Highway 34, and State Highways 14 and 52. A map of Weld County is presented in Figure 1. The City of Greeley is located in a river valley bordered by the Cache La Poudre River on the north and the South Platte River on the south. The City is surrounded by some of the most productive agricultural land in the United States. Greeley serves as a regional hub for medical, educational, employment and retail needs. Greeley's population grew from just over 53,000 in 1980 to over 60,500 in 1990, a 14.2% increase which closely matches the overall state's rate of growth. The City's primary access from the north and south is U.S. Highway 85, which enters the east side of the City from Denver. From the east and west, primary access is U.S. Highway 34. 4 950778 Loveland Longmont EOULDER Figure 1 I`1 G;,EELEY J.,.7es: 9 Weld County Study Area FT. MORGAN 356773 Economy Employment in Weld County and the City of Greeley foc,z, on retail tradeand educational services. Table 1 shows the number and pem, of jobs by sector for Greeley and«:W Weld County. TABLE 1 y »? 1990E9 ment by Industry Aiiriculture. Forestry. Fisheries ©< y. y }Construction \«?\ Manufacturing NondurableyQ• Duregoods . . Transportation Communication. oiher Dub mils. Wholesale Tra2e Retail 2e ance. ins:>«« real estate Sep/ices Business L. e2 osez Entertainment and <crdw2 Educational c ."—r ««222x« Pcblic adininistratiDn w SOLRCE «« rww 2v>Census. Greeley �W County NumberPercentd»?Number Percent 790 ?:Z% 145 0.5% 2 ±j/ 1.626 5.6% «; :z? 1.41(1 4.8% 5,631 y. -S« 1.874 6»% \\\ 14« *"),%- 13.1("c \\\ :/ 92J 100.0°11, 5,524 8.8% 529 0.8% 3,941 6.7% 4.919 7.8% 5,308 8.4% 7.73 % \/1 2.6% '1,927 4.6% 10,736 326 5.3% 3,130 5.0% 70‘I. -7c s- 770 12% 3,928 62% 6475 10.3% 3.316 5.3% iy! 3.6% «J» 100.0% » Wedc «222«.»2 «« and educational ac ry ices accounted for aver a quarter of all >: « r e :»:« « «ys «:c » 22 meat. «S; z«: was the « _ .\w.:hod«: < or «:» the emolo\ed ixorkc . Educatio wy 2\» «>d< «}\ 2SD/rte c«daSe� employed The City of Greeley also relies heavily on retail trade, which employed 5,931 persons, or 20.3% of its work force in 1990. Educational services employed 3,838 persons, or 13.1% of the City's employed work force. Table 2 shows the labor force status of the major cities in Weld County in 1990. Both the County and the City of Greeley had an unemployment rate of 5.7%, which closely matches the state unemployment average of 5.7%. Only Evans and Fort Lupton had higher unemployment rates than the state, 5.9% and 8.3% respectively; other areas of Weld County had slightly lower unemployment rates. The communities of Greeley and Evans are grouped in this and other tables, because together they closely approximate the Urbanized Area of the County. The Urbanized Area is the area for which Section 9 public transportation funds are allocated by the federal government. TABLE 2 1990 Labor Force Status Are', Greeley Evans Subtotal Fort Lupton Windsor Rural Weld County Subtotal eld County Total(1) State of Colorado Civilian Labor Total Unemployment Force Employment Rate! 31.044 29.287 2,953 2,778 33.997 32,060 5.7% 5,9% 5.7% 2.369 2,172 8.3% 2,600 2,505 3.7% 25,330 23,906 5.6% 30,299 28.583 5.7% 66.893 63,113 5.7% 1,732,719 1,633,281 5.7% (1) 1990 Census data for County. Sum of data for Greeley and other areas does match data for total County. SOURCE: 1990 United States Census. not Table 3 presents a list of the largest employers in the study area, based on data from the City of Greeley. The largest employers include ConAgra/Monfort, Eastman Kodak, the North Colorado 7 950773 Medical Center and Hensel Phelps, a general contractor. Only two of the employers with 500 or more employees are outside the City of Greeley. TABLE 3 Major Employers EmpIover ConAgra/Monfort Eastman Kodak North Cob. Med. r Hensel Phelps School District #6 Aims Community College Univ- of Northern Colo, Weld County Hewlett Packard State Fatin Insurance WalMart City of Greeley McLane Western Ct SOURCE: City of Greeley` Locatio Greeley Windsor Greeley Greeley Greeley Greeley Greeley Greeley Greeley Greeley Greeley Greeley Longmont Number of Product/Service Employees Food processing Photo products Health Care General contrac Education Education Education Government Electronic components' Regional office Retail Government Food Distribution :o 3A98 2,400 1,891 1,600 1.500 1,367 1,347 1,016 880 810 1. 550 521 500 Local Government Financing Local government financing has recently been impacted by the combined effects of Amendment 1 and the Gallagher Amendment. Amendment 1, passed in 1992, is a governmental tax and spending limitation amendment. The Gallagher Amendment pre -dates Amendment 1 and was passed to relieve the property tax burden on residential property owners. This was done by limiting the proportion of total property tax revenues collected from residential properties to 45% of total property tax revenues. Since residential property values tend to increase faster than commercial property values, this had the effect of shifting the property tax burden from residential to commercial property. Over time this has resulted in residential property owners paying less and less and commercial property owners paying more and more. Prior to the passage of Amendment 1, governmental entities could adjust the property tax mill levy to compensate for this phenomenon. With the passage of Amendment 1, however, any increase in mill levy now must go to a vote of the people. Typically this is expected to result in reduced property tax receipts by local government. This will effect the ability of local S 950773 governments in Colorado to provide traditional services, including local government support for public transit. In order to determine the impact of these two amendments on the City of Greeley and Weld County, interviews were held with the City Manager and the County Financial Officer. Based on these two interviews, it appears that the impact of these amendments will not be strongly felt in the near future. The City of Greeley is not heavily dependent on property tax revenues for funding City services. The City has a relatively diverse revenue base. In addition, residential property values grew significantly in 1993 which has compensated for the 45% residential/ commercial revenue limitation of the Gallagher Amendment. In summary, according to the City Manager, the City's financial position should be better over the next five years than it was during the last ten years. In terms of public transit funding, however, the City has other budget pressures which have priority, with which transit must compete. This includes an anticipated increase in the number of City police officers. Capital financing also continues to be an issue. Funding for transit vehicle replacement must compete with capital replacement needs for storm sewers, street repairs and City parks which have been deferred in the past. For Weld County, the impact of Amendment 1 and the Gallagher Amendment is expected to be more severe. The County relies more heavily on property tax revenues than does the City. Fortunately, however, there has been a recent increase in oil and gas development in the County. The added revenue from this development is expected to offset the negative impacts on the two amendments, at least in the short term. According to the County Financial Officer, the negative impacts of the two amendments aren't expected to be strongly felt during the next five years. 9 956779 Population Table 4 presents population trends for Greeley, Evans, for other major cities in the County, for rural areas, for the County as a whole, and for the state of Colorado. TABLE 4 Study Area Area Greeley' Evans Subtotal Eon Lupto Windsor Rural 'Weld County Subtotal Weld S County Total (1) matchdata for total County. 4,251 4,277 it\i/A 8.528 23,43S 889,735 1990 Census data for County. SOURCE 1990 United States Census. 60,536 !d 14,2% 5,877 16.1% 66,413 14,4% 5,159 21,4% !' 5,062 18.4% 50,005 N/A 60,226 N/A 131,821 : 6.8% 3.294,394 14,0% for Greeley and oh I" areas does no Between 1980 and 1990 Weld County's population grew from 123,438 to 131,821, a 6.8% increase. During that time, the City of Greeley's population grew from 53,006 to 60,536, a 14.2% increase. This compares with the increase of 14.0% in the state's population. Evans, Fort Lupton, and Windsor experienced population increases above the county and state averages, with 16.1%, 21.4% and 18.4% respectively. Table 5 presents population projections for five-year periods through the year 2000. These projections, based on information provided by the Colorado Department of Local Affairs, are only available at the county level. Between 1990 and 1996, Weld County is expected to experience a population increase of 10.4%-. Between 1996 and 2000, the increase is expected to be 4.8%. Population projections for cities within Weld County were estimated by calculating the annual rate of change between 1980 and 1990, and applying that rate to 1990 actual data. In 10 950778 order to provide these generalized projections it is assumed that this rate will remain constant at least through the year 2000. TABLE 5 Population Projections. Greeley Evans Subtotal Change ---- 1990-2000 --- 1990(11 1996(21 2000(21 ! % 60,536 65,558 69,136 8,600 5,877 6,427 6,822 945 66,413 71,985 75,958 9.545 Fort Lupton 5,159 5,794 6,261 ! 1,102 Windsor 5.062 5,601 5,991 929 Rural WeldCounty 50,005 62,205 64,409 14,404 Subtotal 60,226 73,600 76,661 16,435 Weld County Total 131.821 145,585 152.619 ! 20,798 State of Colorado 3,294,394 3.735.068 3,911,557 600,550 (1) 1990 Census data for Colin total County. 14.2% 16.1% 14.4% 21.4% 18.4% 28.8% 27.3% 5.8% 8.1% Sum of data for Greeley and other areas does not match data (2) Projection data is available at county level only; annual rate of change between 1980 and 1990 by citytown was applied to 1990 actual data and assumed to be constant through 2000.', Weld' County data is actual for each year; Rural Weld County is the differencebetween actual county data and projected city town data. SOURCE: Division of Local Governments and Colorado Department of Local Affairs projections.' According to the State Demographer, Greeley's population is projected to increase to 65,558 in 1996 and to 69,136 by the year 2000. Including the Town of Evans, these two communities make up just over 50% of the total county population. The other areas in the county are expected to increase by over 16,000 persons from 60,226 in 1990 to 76,661 by the year 2000. Local estimates suggest an even higher rate of growth. Between 1980 and 1990 the overall population of Weld County increased by 7%, while the 60+ age group increased by 22% and the 75+ age group increased by 37%. These trends are projected to continue in the future. 11 9507'78 Socioeconomic Characteristics The need for public and specialized transportation service typically varies with certain characteristics of the population. These characteristics include the proportion and numbers of senior citizens, youth not old enough to drive, disabled persons and low-income individuals. These groups are likely to have a greater need for public or specialized transportation services than the population as a whole. Data regarding each of these groups is presented on the following pages. The percentage of senior citizens in Weld County in 1990 was just above the state average, 10.2% for the County compared to 10.0% for the state as a whole. However, the proportion of children and adolescents under the age of 18 in the County, 28.1%, was above the State's average of 26.1%. Within the County, the City of Greeley had the highest percentage, 11.2%, of senior citizens. Windsor also had a higher than average percentage of seniors, 10.7%. The proportion of children and adolescents in Greeley is significantly lower than in other areas of the County; 24.7% of Greeley's population is under the age of 18, while over 30% of the population in all other areas in the County is under 15. Table 6 presents summary information on the age distribution in the study area. TABLE 6 Population by .kge (1990) 0-17 Area Number Pereen Greeley Evans Subtotal Fort Lupton Windsor Rural Weld County Subtotal County. Weld County Total (1) State of Colorado (1) 1990 Census data tor County. 14,953 24.7% 1,895 32 2% 16,848 25_4% 1,842 35.7% 1,618 32 0% 15,140 30.3% 18.600 30.9% SOURCE: 18 64 65+ !' Number Percent Number Pereeni 38.818 64.1% 3.521 59.9% 42,339 63.8% 2.855 55.9 2.901 57.3% 30,102 60.2% 35.888 59.6% 6,765 461 7,226 1.2%4 7 8% 432 8.4% 543 10.7% 4,763 95% 5,738 9.5% 60,536 5,877 66,413 `. 5,159 5,062 50,005 60,226 131,821 37,013 28.1% 81.354 61.7% 13,454 0.2% 861.266 26.14° 2.103.685 63.9% 329,443 10.0% Sum of data for Greeley and other areas does not match data for total 990 United States Cens 3,294,394 12 950'779 Disability Information regarding persons with disabilities was obtained from 1990 census data on "Disability of Civilian Non -institutionalized Persons". This category includes all non -institutionalized persons 16 years old or older. Table 7 presents data on non -institutionalized persons with a mobility limitation for both the 16-64 and 65 plus age groups. TABLE 7 Persons with a Mobility Census Divisions Greeley Evans Subtotal Fort Lupton Windsor Rural Weld County: Subtotal Weld County Total (1 State of Colorado Limitation (1990) Age lrumber 16.64 Percent! 530 1.3% 71 2.0%0 601 1.4% 114 3.7% 27 0.9% 485 1.5% 626 1.7% ,273 1.5% 34,6)1 1.6% Age 65+ Number Percent Total Number Percen 836 13.6% 1366 75 17.0% 146 911 13.8% 1512 87 20.6% 57 132% 477 10.2% 621 11.3%! 3.0% 3:5% 3.0% 201 5.8% 84 2.4% 962 2.7% 1;24 7 2.9% 1.579 12.5% 2,852 42,196 13.5% 76847 3. 2,9 (1) 1990 Census data for County. Sum of data for Greeley and other areas does not match data for total County due to sampling methodology used. Both Weld County and the City of Greeley had similar overall mobility limitation rates. compared to the state of Colorado; the rates were 2.9%, 3.0% and 3.1% respectively. In Weld County, fewer seniors experienced mobility limitations (12.5%) than did seniors statewide (13.5%). The proportion of mobility limited in the 16-64 age range for both Weld County and the state were virtually identical (1.5% and 1.6% respectively). Within the County, both Fort Lupton and Evans had a higher than average proportion of seniors with mobility limitations, with 20.6% and 17.0%. The City of Greeley had the third highest 13 proportion of mobility limited seniors (13.6%); this is higher than the average for the County. Persons with mobility limitations may tend to select residential locations where urban services are available. The proportions of the non -elderly with mobility limitations within Weld County do not vary as widely. Again, Fort Lupton and Evans experienced the largest percentage of non -elderly persons with a mobility limitation, 3.7% and 2.0% respectively. Greeley's proportion, 1.3%, is below that of both the County and the state. Windsor's non -elderly population had the smallest rate of mobility limitation, with 0.9%. Race The population for the study area is categorized by racial status in Table 8. This table indicates that minority populations make up 11.1% of the County and 11.8% of the state as a whole. Within the County, Greeley's minority population accounts for 10.9% of the total population. Of note are the relatively high minority populations in Fort Lupton (26.6%) and Evans (17.8%). Conversely, Windsor and the balance of rural Weld County had smaller than average minority populations, with 7.5% and 8.7% respectively. The majority of the minority population in the area is classified as "Other" race, as collected by the U.S. Census. This may include people of mixed race. According to the U.S. Census, persons of Hispanic origin are not a separate racial group and are therefore not included in the columns of racial groups identified in Table 8. The last column, however, shows data regarding persons of Hispanic origin. Hispanics, of any race, made up over 20% of the population for both Weld County and the City of Greeley. This percentage is greater than the state average of 12.9%. 14 950778 -^y .r+ V: iv- — '4 7 N 7S N N N r V a� ..1 G -3 c^. v i+' N— M N •: N N N 1 J C) 950'773 Income Income statistics are indicative of both a person's relative need for transit service and his/her ability to pay for it. Table 9 shows the median household income and the number of persons below poverty level for the study area in 1989. The median household income in Weld County was $25,642 in 1989. This compares to $30,140 for the state as a whole. Within the County, median household incomes ranged from $28,597 in Windsor to S23,462 in Greeley. The state's average for percentage of persons below poverty was 11.7% in 1989. The County's percentage of 15.4% was higher, due to the high unemployment rates in several cities in the County. Particularly high were Greeley and Fort Lupton, with 19.5% and 18.6% respectively. Only 9.2% of Windsor's population, on the other hand, was below poverty. Evans and the balance of rural Weld County had proportions similar or just above the state average. TABLE 9 Median Family Income and Poverty Status (1989) Median Household ea Income Greeley Evans Subtotal Fort Lupton Windsor Rural \Veld Subtotal County $23,462 $24,767 N/A 52_6,017 $28.597 $28366 N/A Weld County Total(1) $25,642 State of Colorado $30,140 Persons Below Poverty Level Number % of Total (2) 11,044 755 11.799 957 448 646 2,051 9.5% 3.0/0 8.9% 8.6% 9.2% 1.4% 3.1% 19594 " 15 4% 375,214 11.7% other areas does not Sum of data for Greeley and of persons for whom poverty status has been (1) 1990 ` Census data for County. match data for total County. (2) Percentage is based on number determined, not on total population. SOURCE: 1990 United States Census. Automobile Ownership 16 956773 Table 10 shows automobile ownership statistics for the study area in 1990. The proportion of households without an automobile for the state as a whole was 6.9%. In Weld County overall, 5.9% of the households had no automobiles. TABLE 10 Automobile Availability, Census< Greeley! Evans Subtotal', Fort Lupto Windsor Rural Weld Co' Subtotal (1) 1990 Census data for County, Sum of data for Greeley and o match data for total County. her areas does not eld County Total {1)' ate of Colorado SOURCE: 1990 United States Census. Occupied! Housing Units with Zero Autos Available 670 of Total 8.3% 3.8% 7.9% Within the County, both Greeley and Fort Lupton had significantly higher than average proportions of households without automobiles, 8.3% and 10.1% respectively. All other areas of the County were well below the state average of 6.9`;"0. Rural Weld County and Evans had the smallest proportion of households with no automobiles, with 2.9% and 3.8% respectively. Socioeconomic Summary 17 Especially significant to the development of a transit plan for a region are the socioeconomic characteristics of age, disability, income, racial status, and automobile ownership. High relative percentages in these categories may indicate a high potential for transit use. The County, overall, has markedly higher percentages of low income individuals when compared to the State. The City of Greeley had higher relative percentages in three categories: seniors, low income and zero automobile households. Within the rest of the County, only Fort Lupton had population characteristics significantly higher than County or State averages; Fort Lupton had higher percentages in four of the categories (disabled, low income, minority and zero automobile households). This indicates a higher than average need for transit services for these areas. Several areas of the County conversely, had characteristics that may indicate a lesser need for public transit service. Fort Lupton and Evans had lower than average proportion of senior residents. Evans also had a low number of zero automobile households. Windsor had lower relative percentages in three categories (disabled, low income and minority), and rural Weld County had lower percentages in two categories, minority and zero automobile households. Table 11 presents a summary of these socioeconomic characteristics for the study area. 18 950778 ............... . TABLE 11' Summary Characteristics': Greeley Evans Subtotal; Fort Lupto, Windsor Rural Weld County Subtotal Weld County To ate of Colorado Seniors Low Age 65+ Disabled Income Minority 11`.2% 3.070 19.5% 109% 7.8% 3.6% 13.0% 17.8% 10.9% 3.0% 18.9% 11.5% 8.4% 5.8`'0 18.6% 26.6% 10.7% 2.4% 9.2% 7.5% 9;5% 2.7% 11,4% 8.7% 9.5% 2.9% 13.1% 10.1% No Autos 3.8%© 7.9%a 10.2% 2.9% 15.4% 11.1% 5.9%'. (1) 1990 Census data for County. S match data for total County. fig%.,.`' of data for Greeley and other areas does;'not SOURCE: 1990 United States Census: 19 95(1773 Activity Centers and Development Patterns Activity Centers There are numerous activity centers distributed throughout Weld County; most notable are the cities and towns within the county. These communities are the locations of important services for County's residents, including employment sites, senior centers and nutritional sites, and other social service and medical functions. Locations of senior centers and nutrition programs are listed below. Ault Dacono, Frederick, Firestone Eaton Erie Evans Fort Lupton Grover Hill N Park Hudson Johnstown Keenesburg Kersey LaSalle Lochbuie Mead Milliken Nunn Pierce Platteville Wattenburg Windsor Ault Senior Citizens Center Tri Town Senior Center Eaton Senior Center Erie Senior Center Evans Senior Center Fort Lupton Senior Center Grover Senior Center Hill N Park Senior Center Prairie View Senior Center Johnstown Senior Center Timberwood Senior Center Kersey Senior Center LaSalle Recreation Center Lochbuie Senior Center Mead Senior Nutrition Site Milliken Senior Nutrition Site Nunn Senior Center Pierce Senior Center Platteville Senior Center Wattenburg Senior Nutrition Site Windsor Senior Center There are also numerous tourist/recreational attractions, including the Pawnee National Grassland, the Fort Vasquez State Museum and several reservoirs. The single largest activity center in Weld County is the City of Greeley area, where many programs and facilities are located. Activity centers in Greeley are located throughout the metropolitan area. They include: the University of Northern Colorado, Aims Community College, the North Colorado Medical Center, social service agency offices, various shopping centers including the Greeley Mall, local parks and golf courses, and the Greeley -Weld County Municipal Airport. Another important center is the Island Grove Regional Park, which is home to the annual Greeley Independence Stampede and the Weld County Fair. On Greeley's north side a variety of County social service offices are located, making this a high activity area for transit dependent populations. 20 950779 I Development Patterns According to a representative of the Economic Development Action Program (EDAP), Weld County is currently the "hottest" area for development in Colorado. Several areas in the City and County have developments planned or already under construction. One project is the completion of construction of a Wal-Mart and a K -Mart just east of the Greeley Mall. The completion of these projects will reinforce the Greeley Mall area as a major activity center in town. The move of County governmental offices to the Weld County Business Park north of downtown and the addition of several new businesses has prompted continued growth on the north side of the city. At least 500 new jobs are expected to be created in this area this year. Additional growth is expected in the next one to two years in the Boomerang and Greeley Tech Center/EFTC area northwest of town, near the existing Hewlett Packard facility. There are 300 acres in this area available for development. West of 35th Avenue in Greeley, growth is expected to be strong in the next one to five years. This area should see continued residential expansion; since 1990, 80% of the housing growth in Greeley has been in this area according to City planning staff. Commercial growth is also expected to be substantial. The Golden Triangle area, with over 600 acres for development, should draw numerous new businesses in the future. There are long range plans to construct a highway that will run from the east side of Fort Collins through the western part of Greeley. The proposed highway will branch off from I-25 and head east from Fort Collins, pass north and east of Windsor and bisect Greeley close to the Golden Triangle area. This additional access, if completed, will aid in the development of the western part of Greeley and Weld County. The opening of Denver's new airport, Denver International Airport, is expected to strengthen on- going development in the southwest portion of the County. New services and businesses will grow up around the airport and most likely spread north towards the US 85 and US 76 corridors. According to the EDAP representative, the areas that will require transit services most urgently to support this growth are the Weld County Business Park north of town, the Greeley Mall area, and the EFTC area west of Greeley. Figure 2 presents a map of activity centers and growth areas in and around the City of Greeley. Figure 3 shows the location of senior centers and nutrition sites in Weld County. 21 950778 3AY Hu 3AY 'J• 3AYIS1' 3AY KM: 3AY IS IL 3AYL41 3AYHL1 x y t0 0. O U ¢ U O d U y _8 2 C a y C5 K7 10 1-- m N d U g c N g 2 N OEe E 0 8 E a y N U U 8 0N E C7 E Z N c'f 'C Cl CD c Growth Areas 950778 ................ Peckham Gamest ;g;'• Figure 3 Weld County Activity Centers and Growth Areas m Senior Centers or Nutrition Sites % Growth Area 950778 Traffic Patterns Based on a review of area traffic volummes and discussions with City traffic engineers and transportation planners, the following traffic information should be considered in developing future transit plans. • Given the relatively wide streets and well -developed grid street network, there are currently no pervasive periods of traffic congestion anywhere in the City of Greeley. • Future, year 2015, traffic projections suggest some deterioration in peak hour Level of Service, but all locations except US 34 Business Route west of the downtown (west of 71st Avenue) will remain operating below capacity. • The North Front Range Vision Plan has a goal of a 10% shift in travel mode from single occupant vehicles (SOVs), through a combination of increased carpooling, greater use of transit, bicycling and walking. By the year 2015 the plan would have transit carrying 2.9% of all trips in the region. Currently transit carries 0.2% of all trips. • Examination of 1992 AM and PM peak hour traffic volummes, by direction, at four "gateway" intersections (see Figure 4) shows a net in -migration of people form the west and north, and a virtual balance of in -migration and out -migration using US 85 south of the City. 24 950778 anuand gig • Lb£ —► �--- tO9 Business Loop 4 co ID Csi w J W W CD • _ k@k 98L 836 —► •4 - LL6 L O OD O ci)w S O C•'- O a� �a U Qa 950778 III. WELD COUNTY TRANSPORTATION SERVICES There are a variety of transportation services in Weld County. These include: intercity air, rail and bus; public transit; specialized human service transportation; taxi and commuter services; and school bus transportation. Each of these is discussed in this section, with special emphasis on the human service transportation program operated by Weld County. A detailed description of the City of Greeley public transit system is provided in the City of Greeley Transit Development Plan. 1996-2000. Intercity Air, Rail and Bus Air Service The Weld County Airport serves general aviation activities in the Greeley/Weld County area and is located three miles east of Greeley and US 85. It is the third busiest general aviation airport in the state with 182,000 annual operations in 1993. The recently completed Airport Master Plan recommends a new 10,000 foot runway for the airport. The Colorado Division of Aeronautics and the FAA have designated this project as a top priority in the state. There is currently no commercial air service in the county. Rail Service The Amtrak National Rail Passenger System uses the Union Pacific trackage between Denver and Cheyenne for its "Pioneer" service, operating between Chicago and Seattle. Southbound service from Cheyenne to Denver is provided Tuesday, Thursday and Sunday, with a stop in Greeley at 3:25 pm. Northbound service from Denver to Cheyenne is operated Monday, Wednesday and Saturday, with a stop in Greeley at 10:50 am. An abbreviated schedule is shown below. (Read down) City (Read up) Mon/Wed/Sat Tue/Thur/Sun 9:45 a.m. Denver 5:45 p.m. 10:50 a.m. Greeley 3:25 p.m. 11:50 a.m. Cheyenne 2:25 p.m. The one-way fare from Greeley to Denver in $14.00. Round trip fares are available for $16.00 to $28.00, on a first come, first served basis. The one-way fare from Greeley to Cheyenne is $22.00 with round trip fares ranging from $24.00 to $44.00. Rail freight service is provided to Greeley and Weld County by the Burlington Northern Railroad, the Union Pacific Railroad and the Great Western Railway. 27 950778 Intercity Bus Greyhound, located at 107 18th Street in Greeley, operates intercity service along the I-25 corridor. Service between Cheyenne and Denver provides two trips daily, but this service is restricted against carrying any passenger whose entire trip is between Denver and Cheyenne. Approximately 400 bus tickets are sold each month. An intercity bus schedule is shown below. Greyhound Bus Service (Read down) (Read up) 6:30 11:00 R 3:40 Lv Cheyenne Ar 5:15 9:05 R 1:25 7:25 11:55 R 4:35 Ar Fort Collins Lv 4:20 8:10 R 12:30 7:30 12:01 R 4:35 Lv Fort Collins Ar 4:15 8:05 R 12:30 f R f Ault --- f R f f R f Eaton --- f R f 8:15 12:35 R 5:15 Greeley 3:40 7:25 R 11:50 --- 1:10 --- Loveland 3:05 --- --- 1:40 Longmont 2:35 --- f R f LaSalle --- f R 11:40 f R f Gilcrest --- f R f f --- R f Platteville f R f 8:50 --- R 5:50 Fort Lupton --- 6:50 R 11:15 9:05 --- R 6:05 Brighton --- 6:35 --- 9:40 2:30 R 6:40 Ar Denver Lv 1:45 6:00 R 10:30 Ault, Eaton, Gilcrest and Platteville are served through flag stops. La Salle is also served through flag stops except for one stop on the restricted powder River Transportation service on the northbound bus. Selected fares from Greeley are: To Fort Collins $5.75 Denver $8.00 Cheyenne $12.25 Fort Lupton $7.00 Loveland, $4.25 Longmont $7.00 The Fort Collins and Denver fares are special rates. The regular rates are $7.00 and $11.00, respectively. These "special" fares have been available for some time and the local agent thinks they will remain in effect. 28 950778 Public Transit The City of Greeley operates fixed route and demand response transit services, known as The Bus. The service is oriented towards serving persons who are unable to drive, such as the elderly, persons with disabilities, youth, and persons who do not own cars. While the service is critical to those individuals who depend on it to get around, it is a fairly minor part of the total transportation picture in Greeley. As in most communities of this size, approximately 98% of the trips are made by automobile. Only about one percent of the trips are made using public transit. The fixed route service operates out of the downtown transfer center located at 9th Ave. at 7th Street. The routes have been gradually modified over the years , however the basic radial structure has been the same since services began in 1981. The paratransit service began as a service for the elderly and disabled, and all persons over the age of 60 or with disabilities were eligible. With the enactment of the Americans with Disabilities Act, the eligibility requirements for this service were changed. Although existing clients were "grandfathered" in, new clients must meet the requirements of the ADA and be unable to use fixed route service for the trip. The paratransit service conforms to the American's with Disabilities Act requirements for accessible public transportation service. Both the fixed route and paratransit systems serve a large number of persons with disabilities. The community has been very supportive of persons with disabilities living and working independently. As a result, Greeley carries a large number of persons who use wheelchairs on both the fixed route and paratransit systems. The fixed route service had its highest ridership in 1988. In 1989, service was reduced 9% because of the high cost of operation. Ridership declined nearly 17%. Service hours have been gradually restored, and now more service is operated than in 1988. Ridership has increased however, the productivity which the system had in 1988 has not been regained. The service is funded through a combination of federal funds allocated to the Urbanized Area, local funds, fares and miscellaneous revenues. The City of Greeley funds the local share of services operated within the Greeley City limits. The City of Evans funds the local share of services operated within Evans. A detailed analysis of the City of Greeley's bus services is presented in the City of Greeley Transit Development Plan, 1996-2000. Weld County also provides limited public transit through its Human Services Department (HRD). This service is described in the next section. 29 950778 Commuter Pool Commuter Pool provides rideshare matching services and information on alternative travel modes for residents of north central Colorado. Its offices are located in Fort Collins and has outreach efforts in Fort Collins, Greeley and Loveland. Matching services are provided for both carpooling and vanpooling. Commuter Pool's primary market is major employers. In Fort Collins this is defined as 100 or more employees, In Greeley it includes employers with 50 or more employees. Commuter Pool's secondary marketing is the general public. The Commuter Pool ridesharing effort began in 1989 with a one person staff. In mid -1994 there were three employees with a new Rideshare Coordinator scheduled to begin work in November. In 1991 Commuter Pool entered 1,428 individuals into their database and were able to match 58%. In 1992, 3,031 names were entered and nearly 87% were matched. In 1993, 3,344 names were entered and nearly 89% were matched. Through the second quarter of 1994, 3,482 names were entered and 95% were matched. Of the total 3,482 individuals entered through the second quarter of 1994, 78% were "local commuters," 5% were "regional commuters" and the remainder were deleted through the semi-annual update process. It is estimated that in 1994 rideshare matches will save 96,500 vehicle miles of travel equating to 5,693.4 pounds of carbon monoxide, 5,361.1 gallons of gasoline saved and transportation user cost savings of $9,457. To date Commuter Pool's efforts have been oriented to ridesharing promotion activities associated with Earth Day each April. A major focus has been a friendly competition among the cities of Fort Collins, Greeley and Loveland, Larimer County and Colorado State University (CSU) for employee participation. This year's challenge was "Don't Dive One in Five." As a result of the promotion effort over 357 CSU employees, 253 employees of the City of Fort Collins and 78 employees from Larimer County registered. First-time employer campaigns were initiated with the City of Greeley and the City of Loveland. Programs were also initiated with the Northern Colorado Medical Center and the Weld County Health Department in Greeley. Ten vans for the vanpool program were delivered in June, 1994. Three vanpools were initiated: Fort Collins to downtown Denver, Fort Collins to Boulder and Fort Collins to Lakewood. Another ten vans will be arriving in January, 1995. 30 950778 Specialized Human Service Transportation The Weld County Human Services Department operates an extensive transportation service for Weld County residents. Nearly all of the service is for specific transit dependent user groups, including Head Start children, developmentally disabled consumers of Centennial Developmental Service, Inc. (CDSI), seniors and others. Other nonprofit agencies in the county also provide a variety of transportation services for their particular client groups. Detailed information on the Weld County Human Services Department transportation program is provided below. Following that is further information on the various transportation services provided by individual social service agencies. Weld County Human Services Department System Management & Personnel The Transportation Program is a branch of Weld County's Human Services Department. As indicated in Figure 1, this organization is responsible for a wide range of public assistance programs. Many of these programs require transportation services for clients, foodstuffs, and supplies; the Transportation Program has evolved as a cost-effective way to meet these mobility needs. The Transportation Program is headed up by the Director of the Area Agency on Aging, located at the Department of Human Resources building, north of downtown Greeley. Day-to- day operations are managed by the Transportation Coordinator located at the Weld County Engineering Office at North 11th Avenue, Greeley. The Transportation Coordinator is assisted by two Dispatchers. In mid -1994, in order to improve its operating efficiency, the Human Services Department procured a computer system for passenger information, scheduling/dispatch, and billing. As part of this Transit Development Plan process a transportation automation assessment was conducted to provide direction for the County in implementing this new computer capability. A copy of the Transportation Automation Assessment is provided under separate cover. 31 950778 i 4) am U > E E U roar >1•riwH C H 0 040 U EU) r-1 N H •e1 0 11 C N C taw O C) N U • a) N )) a N C >1N NH E k•ri rt H ro 0 iwo 4 N Uwa i m 950778 Program Services The Weld County Human Services Department Transportation Program serves a wide variety of federally funded programs. Contract transportation service is also provided for Centennial Developmental Services, Inc. (CDSI). Brief descriptions of each of these programs are provided below. HRD Programs • Fmployment Services of Weld County provides placement services at no cost to either the employee or the employer. Some clients on subsidized programs are provided with transportation to job sites for periods lasting up to 60 days. Client residences are widely scattered across the county, making these trips relatively difficult to provide. In addition, transportation needs often do not fall within normal business hours, i.e., evenings and weekends. • Head Start is a Federally -funded pre-school education program for children ages 4 and 5. Transportation is provided to both morning and afternoon sessions, to special events, and for special services such as testing and health screening. In addition, transportation is provided to the members of the Head Start Parent Policy Board. Program sites are located in Greeley, Pierce, Johnstown and Frederick. • The Senior Nutrition program delivers hot meals to 19 congregate sites throughout the county for the elderly (60 and above). Lunches are prepared on the University of Northern Colorado campus in Greeley. Most rural sites provide meals one day a week; several sites in Greeley, however, provide meals up to 3 days a week. • The Migrant Headstart Program consists of an educational program for the children of migrant farm workers during the summer months. The need for transportation for these children is substantial, as they must be transported from widely scattered farms to program sites in either Greeley or the Tri-town area. Children from less than 6 months to 5 years in age are transported. Providing this service requires a large number of baby carrier seats for the very young, as well as monitors on all vehicles. • Summer Youth provides six to eight weeks of classes for school -age children each summer. Clients are picked up at centralized sites in communities throughout the county and transported to classrooms in Greeley and Fort Lupton. Funds for this program are provided by the Job Training Partnership Act. • As part of HRD's Supplemental Foods program, the transportation program uses their trucks to carry foodstuffs to Greeley from warehouses in the Denver area. These trips are made one or two times per week. This food can then be picked up by the recipients in Greeley or Fort Lupton. There is also a small pilot project to deliver food to agencies serving the homebound, low-income elderly. 33 950773 • "Inter -office Cargo and Overhead" trips include those made for office and administrative purposes for the Department of Human Resources. • The Mini Bus service provides transportation service to the elderly (age 60 and above) and handicapped residents of Weld County outside of the Greeley City Limits. As this is a true "demand responsive" system, there are no set schedules or routes; efficient dispatching of this service is therefore more complex and difficult than for the other programs.. Funds for the Mini -Bus service are provided by the Community Services Block Grant. • The Volunteer Program provides a subsidy for persons providing trips to the elderly and disabled using personal vehicles. Volunteer drivers using private vehicles are reimbursed at the rate of 25 cents per mile for approved trips. In 1994, there was a total of $10,000 available for reimbursement. The bulk of this money was provided to volunteers in the eastern portion of the county. Non -Profit Agencies • Centennial Development Services. Inc. contracts with the Transportation Department for the mobility needs of its developmentally disabled clients. Transportation Service Trends The Weld County Human Services Department Transportation Program began in 1973 with three mini buses used primarily for county -wide transportation for the elderly and disabled. Since that time its fleet has expanded to 39 vehicles carrying nearly 200,000 annual passenger trips. Program growth in terms of ridership and service miles is presented in Table 12. 34 950778 TABLE 12 Service Trends Year 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 Ridership Service Miles Amount Change Amount Chang - 92,802 - 105,358 13.5% 121,982 15.8% 166,203 36.3% 187,058 12.5% 180,529 -3.5% 195,310 8.2% 188,977 -3.2% 195,094 3.2% 190,615 -2.3% 199,167 4.5% 261,083 353,591 35.4% 460,092 30.1% 593,517 29.0% 697,201 17.5% 684,352 -1.8% 760,541 11.1% 810,730 6.6% 744,437 -8.2% 689,037 -7.4% 731,247 6.1% As the table shows. annual ridership has more than doubled in the last ten years and service miles have nearly tripled. Most of the increase in both riders and miles took place between 1983 and 1987. Since 1988 both ridership and service miles have been relatively stable. In 1988 the County began tracking service hours provided by the transportation program. Over the last five years, annual service hours have averaged 38,000 to 40.000 hours per year. In terms of service allocation among the various programs, the largest portion of Transportation Program vehicle miles are expended in the provision of contract service for CDSI. followed by the Headstart and Migrant Headstart programs. These three programs, taken together. constituted roughly 77% of the total program mileage in 1993. When the Mini Bus service is included, the four program total constitutes 87% of the miles operated. In terms of service hours, the top four programs utilize 79% of the service and carry 81% of the riders. Table 13 shows the 1993 allocation of Transportation Program resources and ridership among the various social service functions. 35 TABLE 13 1993 Transportation Service by CDSI Head Start Migrant Head Start Mini -Bus Senior Nutrition Jump Start Preschool 32,263 4% THE Bus Contract Interoffice Cargo Overhead Summer Youth Job Placement Supplemental Food Program Service Miles # 313,004 43% 151,889 21% 92,646 13% 71,596 10% 33,151 5% 11,675 2% 10,418 1% 5,212 1% 8,416 1% 818 0% 159 0% Total 731,247 100% Service Hours # 1Q 16,803 " 42% 7,898 20% 3,715 9% 3,093 8% 2,177 5% 2,005 5% 1,010 3% 1,257 3% 1,999 5% 303 1% 56 0% 26 0% 40,342 100% Ridership 74,058 37% 61,696 31% 17,623 9% 8,045 4% 7,382 4% 13,282 7% 6,249 3% 8,539 4% 1,477 1% 727 0% 60 0% 29 0% 199,167 100% Since 1988 the amount of transportation provided has been relatively stable for CDSI, the Nutrition Program and for overhead trips. Service increases have occurred for Head Start, Mini Bus, interoffice cargo (especially in 1993), Summer Youth and the City of Greeley contract. Although the amount of miles utilized for the Mini Bus program has increased significantly, the number of trips provided has been relatively stable, indicating a longer travel distance per trip. During the last five years, reductions in service have occurred for Job Placement, Migrant Head Start, Supplemental Food and the Jump Start program. Table 14 shows the change in service miles and hours and ridership by program since 1988. 36 950776 O 2 .- fi ro 0 T 4 U U H 00 a 0 0 an iL 0 e CO 0 1 v m 0 0 t n N0 G N E F d 0 6 0 V z 0 .0 0 Cl 00 U N en en M VY N < O N X00 N 2 V 000 '0 00 N '0 N 0co on O 0' -. N t 0 0 o 0 en t0 0 en h' M on O b a :b M M 0 N -- P O N in to < M en M • 0 N 0 b P N it in C Na b P 0' ▪ V' N � N N M..^N . t N • h. ▪ 06 V: vi O aL m '0 00 N 0 b CO ccr co •- — N 0 M en co co a co a M Q N V: v:on en C:.N 00 In P O'n P 07 '0 vr' m in - . N P 0 0 b n 00 m N 0 00 t CO n CO. VI 00 O. CO. . N v'. 0oM P CO '0 i 00 n N h M M N N en en en M �M '0 00 '0 a . M P. P.00 a a.: m NbN O 0 \ONO, P. P 00 r:N r O Cr 00. CO N .00 . M. A `; 0 0 00 't in .er 00 Tr N N M M M d.. V; :: v. Vi . M n o it 00 N 00 00 Cl en M a 0 co_ a 00 0 P M .m - P en in en 0' N M M M N M N M P 0' P P- -P- : et in '0 00 00 n N 41. en N rn. a ..P M O P O: en M it M M it O...N M O P O b b N Mtn N N P M: O 00 O it; b O N Cr; N. "�..N. M P In r b 0 ..,. O in N 00 I '0 N' it in e N 0 r- O ▪ • 00 en -.. N.. 0.. N -t- �. O N .r N - en CO 00 CO. N P.VI N A 0 N N M ? m co,„ cr M t t en in a a en0 00 �': r o. n M r • - en en N M C N t b en 00 P n M 0 Ni V t. Q t •- 0' NI ..t P N. N 'CO. 00 N P 0� :.nr.. - — ..- +.N 00 O N '0 (N en P O N N n P' g".. n N MN'en n� -- M O N CO n t it in 0 el' 00 b v' N. 00 b.. . Q v: N N. n o b Nn en N. N M '0 In in m M N N '0 N 00 b. N O P it Cl 0 b 00 i- Crr In t- .tyi 0 =0000'0'0'0' u 0' 0' 0' 0' P 0' O a a 'D In en a O '0')^ O : In 00 v: O P CO P CO ON 0' 4,4 0' 0' 0 ' t O P N 0 0 N Inv:. M c0. N .: O b P n N OO N: '0 N: tn V; .1 C -N+ In CI, In 0 N M IN b NO v N JI :N r. N en a en In en N in en N '0 V P N N P inO M.' M N N r in t b 0. O' en N:M 0 00 in N N M OP n r. b -- O 0 N 0 n M>N NN N. o i. in O: 00 t O M :00 N P. nib M ::00 P i 0 P N '0 0 ii04 let n it N N it n. O. N• t it 07 00 0'J t N 0 to O O en 00. M a N N M N 00 N h O b• 00 N ti en 0 in .1.:'. n.' in it n 0�. In p: ...r 00 00 e -- r. N 0. h N 00 N 0' b 0' O' P CO, 'G h ' '0 in 0 In rM O-.. 0? el. N N N. •-i. M CO P el it 0.00 b' in n..M: N a 00 M b N 00 Q n n.. N. n.'0 N 0.00 A 00 0, U Oo co a 0'• ' a a 930778 Transportation Costs and Revenues Reflecting the increase in service and ridership over the last ten years, the annual operating budget for the Transportation Program has also increased significantly. Between 1983 and 1993 the annual operating cost increased from approximately S470,000 to over $800,000. Changes in annual operating costs compared to changes in other operating data since 1988 are shown in Table 15. TABLE 15 Cost and Operating Trends fear 1988 1990 : 1997. 1992 1993 Service Miles Amount Change 684,352 -1.8% 760,541 11.1% 810,730 6.6% 744,437 -8.2% 689.037 -7.4% 731,247 6.1% Growth Rate 13% Sen ice Roars Ridership Amount Change Amount Change 34345 N/A 39,215 14:" 40,367 2.9% ig8,977 -3.2% $691.229 42.5% 38,406 4.9`"� 195,094 3.2% 5687,387 41.6% 38,935 1.4% 190,615 -2.3% 5697,688 1.5%a 40,342 3.6% 199.167 4.5% 3803,289 15.1% 180.529 -3.5% 195,310 8.2 Operating Cost Amount d Change X468,428 499% $485,195 3-6%v .3`i 2.0 1.4% As the table shows, operating costs have increased considerably faster than service miles, hours or program ridership. While service miles, service hours and ridership have increased between 1% and 4%, annual operating costs have increased by an annual rate of over 11% between 1988 and 1993. These cost increases were the result of a deliberate policy on the part of the County to increase the number of staff and staff pay to be more commensurate with service demands. Funding to meet these costs comes from a wide variety of sources, as shown in Table 16. The greatest single source is CDSI, which provides roughly 33% of the total funds. This is followed by Head Start at 21% and Migrant Head Start at 13%. The remaining 33% of funds are provided by other programs administered by the Human Services Department and by County donated funds. Funding for the demand responsive "Mini Bus" service is provided primarily through the FIFA Section 18 and Community Services Block Grant (CSBG) programs. Beyond the annual budget, an important factor in the financial picture of the transportation system is the Transportation Fund. This is a capital replacement fund "hick has grown to over $400,000 in recent years. This fund is used for capital expenditures and to cover any shortfall in revenues. 38 950773 TABLE 16 Transportation Program Revenue Data (1992) Funding Source Rider donations Fares FTA Section 16 FTA Section 18 City of Greeley CDSI WELDCOS Head Start Migrant Head Start CSBG AAA Senior Nutrition JPTA Preschool Weld County Donated License Plates Office Space Parking Lot Gas Discount Utilities Total Amount $10,300 $8,312 $242,108 $8,000 $153,479 $93,072 $62,844 $37,647 $6,123 $31,546 $9,288 $17,640 $12,000. $28,480 $3,228 % of Total` $724,067 100% Source: Transportation Consolidation Feasibility Study Existing Cost Model A useful tool in analysis of various operational alternatives is a "cost allocation model" of the current Weld County services. These models provide a formula for each of the four segments of Mini Bus service: costs that vary by the number of vehicle -hours (driver salaries and benefits), costs that vary by the number of vehicle -miles (supplies, fuel and oil), costs that vary by the peak number of vehicles in service at any one time (maintenance), and fixed costs. The cost allocation model for the Weld County Transportation Program, developed through the Transportation Consolidation Study is presented below using 1992 cost and performance data. 39 950778 System Total Cost = Performance Indicators $9.79 x # of Vehicle -Hours+ $0.07 x # of Vehicle -Miles + $2,574 x # of Peak Vehicles+ $14,064 as a fixed cost An important consideration in the review of any organization is an evaluation of operating efficiency and effectiveness. Table 17 presents historical data for a series of "performance indicators," including riders carried per mile of service, riders carried per hour of service, cost per rider, cost per mile and cost per hour. The data for Mini Bus operation is compares favorably to other rural specialized transportation operations. Given the relatively long distance trips often required, the number of riders per mile is low compared to urban transit operations. The number of riders per hour compares favorably with other rural and specialized systems and reflects the number of group trips Mini Bus is able to provide through its CDSI and Head Start programs. The cost factors are also within expected ranges for the type of service provided. TABLE 17 Performance Indicators Riders/ Riders/ Cost/ Cost/ Cost/ Year Mid Hour Rider Mile Hour 1988 0.3 5.3 $2.59 $0.68 $13.64 1989 0.3 5.0 $2.48 $0.64 $12.37 1990 0.2 4.7 $3.66 $0.85 $17.12 1991 0.3 5.1 $3.52 $0.92 $17.90 1992 0.3 4.9 $3.66 $1.01 $17.92 1993 0.3 4.9 $4.03 $1.10 $19.91. As the data shows, the number of riders per mile and riders per hour has remained relatively consistent since 1988. The cost factors have increased significantly, however. 40 950773 Vehicles The system has a total of thirty-nine vehicles, of which thirty-seven are vans and two are trucks. Only three of the vans are equipped with wheelchair lifts and tie -downs. All vehicles are equipped with Motorola radios, which are coordinated through a base station in the vehicle yard. The system is also monitored at the Centennial Center. Vans are not individually assigned to specific programs. The number of vehicles on the road peaks markedly three times daily, in the early morning hours, around noon, and in mid -afternoon. A vehicle roster is presented at the end of this chapter. As the vehicle roster shows, eighteen of the vehicles, 46%, are model year 1990 or older. Seventeen of the vehicles. 44%, have accumulated between 100,000 and 200,000 miles of service. Given the high amount of service provided on a daily basis, vehicle maintenance is critical as well as a sound vehicle replacement program. Vehicle maintenance is performed on a contract basis by Te-Com Systems located at 1399 N. 17th Avenue. The HSD vehicles are included in a single contract to maintain all of the County's vehicles. Work on the transit vehicles is managed by a Te-Com Systems Supervisor, who is provided with an office at the HSD location. Mechanics are assigned to service the vehicles out of the pool, though there are several mechanics that provide most of the service on the transit vehicles. Jnsurance Weld County government as a whole is self -insured. Moneys are set aside annually from the General Fund to build up a self-administered contingency account to cover any potential future claims. Facilities Operations are performed out of the engineering yard located on the northern fringe of Greeley. In addition to HSD vehicles, the bulk of this yard is devoted to the Weld County Engineering Department vehicles. Facilities at the yard available to HSD are minimal, consisting of but two office rooms in one structure, and a storeroom and restrooms available only in a separate building. 41 950 778 Other Specialized Transportation Services Specialized transportation for the elderly and disabled citizens of Weld County is provided and/or funded by a variety of organizations. Bonnell Good Samaritan Center is a non-profit nursing home which has a range of facilities ranging from skilled nursing care to apartments for approximately 500 clients. They have six vans, four of which are lift -equipped. These vehicles are used primarily for medical appointments. Residents are encouraged to use The BUS fixed route or paratransit services for other trips, such as to the senior center or the Eldergarten program. Centennial Health Care Center has 117 beds and provides long-term institutional care for the elderly and disabled. They operate one lift -equipped van, primarily for medical appointments. Centennial patients use The BUS fixed route and paratransit service and Medi-Cab. Kenton Manor has 155 beds and eight independent living apartments. One van with a wheelchair lift is operated, primarily for medical appointments. Residents also use Medi-Cab. The Villa at Greeley. Inc, operates a nursing• home, a residential treatment center, and a restitution center. Altogether approximately 220 clients are served. Three vehicles are operated; a large van, a mini -van, and a station wagon. Clients also use Medi-Cab and The BUS paratransit and fixed route services. Windsor Health Care Center serves 120 clients. The facility specializes in the care of alzheimer disease. They operate two wheelchair accessible vans and have one person on staff which is a driver. They routinely transport residents to Greeley, Loveland, and Fort Collins for services. Fair Acres Nursing Home no longer operates transportation services. Residents use Medi-Cab and The BUS paratransit services as needed. Kinder -Care Learning Center is a private for-profit corporation which provides transportation within Greeley, meal -site, some outreach, and daycare services for children 4 to 12 years old. They have one van which contains 19 seats and averages 90 miles per day. La Petit Academy provides meals, daycare and transportation to and from school for children in grades kindergarten through grade 12. The Academy has two vans with 15 seats each, and average a total of 300 to 500 miles/week. My Friends and Me Learning Center provides transportation, meals and daycare to children 2-1/2 to 13 years old. They currently own one, 12 -passenger van which averages 10,000 miles per year. They hold two fundraisers per year; the rest of their revenue is provided by the parents. All employees are paid except for classroom and field -trip helpers. North Colorado Medical Center is a non-profit major medical complex that provides physical therapy, meal -site, and transportation for the outpatients. They have two vans; one provides space for seven passengers and the other for twelve passengers. These two vans average 10,000 42 950778 miles per year for patients. N.C.M.C. obtains its revenue through donations. The drivers and office help are paid an hourly wage. N.L.C. is a non-profit organization with the exception of Medicaid patients. They provide on -site physical therapy as well as meal -site and transportation to mentally and physically impaired individuals ranging from 18-68 years old. They have three 15 -passenger vans. Parent Child Center is a non-profit program, providing physical therapy, meals, outreach and transportation, all on a short-term basis. They cater to young children, from four weeks to twelve years old. They have five vehicles: four 19 -passenger vans and one 36 -passenger bus. All vehicles total an average of 100 miles per day. They receive donations for United Way and charge a fare of $1.00 per day per child. Pencil Fence Preschool and Day Care is a private for-profit program which provides transportation, meals and daycare for both long- and short-term users. They have one 15 - passenger Dodge van that averages fifty miles per day. Though they do not receive fares, they do receive tuition and $1.50 per day if the child'is school age. Small Wonder Child Development Center is a private for-profit program providing transportation, meals, outreach, and daycare to children. They have one vehicle that provides room for nine individuals and it averages about 10 miles per day. Star Line Preschool Day Care Center is a non-profit program which provides transportation to an from school as well as meals, referred outreach and daycare all on a short-term basis. They provide their services to children ages 2-1/2 to 12 years old. They have one 15 -passenger van that averages 600-700 miles per month. The cost is $4.00 to $5.00 per week depending on whether the child takes one school trip or two. The daycare center is provided with donations from Food Service Program as well as other sources. Sunny -View Church of The Nazarene is a non-profit program that provides meals, outreach and daycare all on a short-term basis to children ages 2-1/2 to 12 years old. They have one 15 - passenger van that averages about 125 miles per week. The cost is $5.50 per day. Sunshine Lane Christian Child Care Center is a non-profit program that provides transportation, meals, outreach and daycare on a short-term basis to children ages 2-1/2 to 12 years old. They have one 13 -passenger van that averages twenty•miles per day. The cost is $1.00 per trip and the childcare center also receives donations. Trinity Lutheran Day School is a private for-profit organization which provides transportation for children in Greeley as well as in Denver. They have two buses (one contains 66 seats and the other 48) that average about fifty miles per day. Funds come from fundraisers as well as donations. Centennial Developmental Services. Inc. (CDSI), serving persons with developmental disabilities, contracts with the Minibus for direct transportation needs. CDSI also encourages clients to use The BUS fixed route or paratransit services, buying approximately 150 bus passes for clients each 43 930778 month. The majority of these are for the fixed route service, with only four clients routinely receiving paratransit passes. CDSI has actively encouraged independent living for clients. Two remaining residential centers, Country View in Weld County and New Life Center in Greeley will most likely be closed in the next four years and clients integrated into independent facilities. Taxi and Commuter Service Taxi Service Two firms operate taxi, limousine and airport shuttle service from Greeley, airport Express and Shamrock Yellow Cab. Airport Express... Shamrock Yellow Cab is based in Windsor and serves Fort Collins, Greeley and Loveland. They operate a fleet of 20 to 25 vehicles, including sedans, station wagons, minivans and limousines. An average of two vehicles are stationed in Greeley, with more in the peak periods. Additional vehicles are available in Windsor, approximately 15 minutes away. For taxi service, the fare is $3.10 for the first mile and $1.40 for each additional mile. Shamrock does not have a permit to operate shuttle service to Stapleton, but has obtained a permit for Denver International Airport. Limousine and cab service, however, are offered to Stapleton. The cost is about $75.00 to $80.00. Shamrock also provides shuttle service to sports events, especially the Rockies games. Parcel service is provided. The cost if a delivery in Greeley is $4.50. Airport Commuter Service Airport Express, based in Greeley, operates an airport limousine and charter bus service. Services include a scheduled route to Stapleton International Airport and an employee shuttle between Greeley and the Kodak Plant in Windsor. The current fleet includes eight vans, a 27 - passenger bus and two wheelchair accessible vans. School District Transportation Services District 6 serves Greeley, Evans and some of the surrounding area. The District boundaries in many areas cover areas outside the city limits of these communities. However, Greeley has annexed land to the north and to the west which extends past the school district boundaries. Students living in these areas will attend the Eaton District (RE -II) to the north or the Windsor District (RE -IV) to the west. District 6 has approximately 12,500 students and transports 3,500 of these on a daily basis. School transportation is provided for students who live farther than a specified walk distance from their school or who require transportation due to disabilities. The walking distance varies by age group, as listed below: Elementary Schools 1.25 miles Middle Schools 1.5 miles 44 950773 Junior High Schools 2.0 miles Senior High Schools 2.0 miles Of the total students, approximately 500 have disabilities. "Special Needs" vehicles transport 200 of these students. The remainder may use regular school buses, walk, or have other means of going to and from school. District 6 has an annual transportation budget of $1.4 million and carries 1.4 million passenger trips annually. A fleet of 57 vehicles are operated. Approximately 600,000 miles are operated annually. District 6 transportation costs are down somewhat from prior years. The change is the result of the District enforcing walk distance policies. In prior years, some students living within the specified walk distances were transported due to safety issues. Intersections have been improved with signals and crossing guards have been added to address the safety problems, so now all students living within the specified walk distances are required to walk to school. 45 956778 As of 3/1/94 >- cc O I- z w z_ w J U_ 2 w J W p O 7 CI T Z 7 Z [D CO LL OR REPLACE WIC tt CD rn rn t rn 1 N WW IL O 7 W m i 7 Z m 2 Q Z 0 Z [C 2 a CD 0) CO I CONDITION LL A h LL ❑ O O W a W J_ i N ' N N a) m T 03 O 07 0 (D ≤ N a) m N 7 7 U - 03 CD m r W Q 0) 7 CC D 7 D H Q H in I- 0 01.; kw O. z. 0 z fD CO CD m 0 a 0 m U) H a_ z H w 0 O Z O z N- CO N O a) as m 0 0 0, 0 U i S a CO CO 950778 0 m a a >- CC O I- z w z w J 0 w As of 3-1-94 O w 0zm ( LL w U Q. 0 O CC z' 0 x O I - w Z F- w a W I— C) Q OQ z W Q ¢ N Q W U- 0 EC m z In U) 0) Cr) co 2 O z V Co 0) rn O 7 OY O 00 V a V U, V v V a z O 0 z O U cc 2 LL w a Q w J_ 0) CO w O a n O N 2 cc U- V O (0 O N O 0 O O qI— z W J W 0 w; a O O O O O O O 0 O O D O O CD V O O a c In ;::Ul e V (0 O W W Q V) 0 CC CC CC CC CC N CO CO C) O Q C) C) O O CC (0 N Cr) Q CC Q CC O O O O CC CC 0 O O ti. cc Q 0 I- I- m F- 0 I — a I— C. I — a O H C7 W O z. O z O z O z W Q 0 W O • w co Co Co Co W G w ELI O O W z • Q c > m 0 O C co a 9 0 O L LL Li Ii. Li LL a: Li U) W O z O z O O z O co co C) Co 07 0) CO C m > 0) a 0 O It > C m > rn 0 0 O c > m 0 0 m ,y W ... W O Z c as > m m V 0 C, C) 950778 I VEHICLE INVENTORY W 0 O W CC a ›- z (n y m HUMAN RESOURCES a • e c 0 I - w Z I— < f LU w U ¢ 0 Z W a¢ 0 W Ca LL O W CO D z 07 07 07 co rn rn C, m 0) 0) 0) • 0r m rn 03 z O z mr m . .t J...:: O CONDITION 0 O O a O O a O O O a GOOD/FAIR 0 O O a a O O a EXCELLENT EXCELLENT F z w J J X w 0 O O a W a W w J M ui CO N In CO In CO CV N 0 7 v N m a0 (n CO CO 01 Q V' Co m 07 CO 0) v v EXCELLENT EXCELLENT Q W 0 0 C CC CC CC CL Q CC CC Q CC CC Q h - d LL F 0 LL F L LL a O z. O z O z O z O z. O z O z. O z O O z O' O z W CC OW O _ Of 07 C, 0) 07 a, 01 M 07 Co 07 CO C, CO' M 07 > 0' 0 O C l0 c m m 0 O a O z CO CO > m CO 0 C ea m 0 0 0 Revised 3-16-94 956778 IV. DEMAND ANALYSIS AND NEEDS ESTIMATE This chapter presents an assessment of public transit and specialized transportation needs in Greeley and Weld County. Three sections are included in the assessment, a quantitative transit demand analysis, a qualitative or perceptual assessment, and a summary section which presents an overall evaluation of unmet transit needs. Quantitative Transit Demand Analysis Transit demand estimation is an analytical procedure for estimating the potential number of general transit and specialized transportation riders an area may anticipate, given a high level of transit service. Although a variety of models are 'available to estimate transit demand, none provides the level of detail needed to answer specific questions with respect to market segment, service type, area coverage, trip purpose and days and hours of service. The models do, however, provide an order -of -magnitude estimate of the potential service demand compared to existing service levels. Demand estimates were developed for the Greeley Urbanized Area and for the Non -Urbanized Area of Weld County. They are aggregated to produce a total county demand estimate. As stated in a previous chapter, federal transit funding is allocated based on Urbanized Area population. The Urbanized Area transit demand estimate was prepared using comparative data from other similar sized western communities. Demand estimates were developed for both fixed route and paratransit service, as well as a total demand estimate. The specific methodology utilized is presented in Appendix 2. For the Non -Urbanized Area of the county the transit demand estimate was developed using four separate models. These apply multiple regression modeling methods based on transit ridership factors experienced in small urban and rural areas elsewhere in the United States. Detailed information on the models used and the results generated is presented in Appendix 2. Table 18 presents the results of the transit demand analysis for 1993. The estimated demand for the Greeley Urbanized Area was computed using 1993 population estimates and trips per capita estimates based on transit ridership levels in other similar sized western communities for both fixed route and paratransit services. The Urbanized Area demand estimate for fixed route service in 1993 is 587,716 one-way passenger trips per year. The demand estimate for paratransit trips is 55,314 trips per year. The combined transit demand estimate for the Urbanized Area for 1993 is 643,030 annual trips. This equates to roughly 2,500 trips per day for a 260 day service year. For the Non -Urbanized Area the annual demand estimate is 124,895. Of this amount approximately 30,300 annual trips are estimated for Fort Lupton, 24,200 for Windsor and 70,400 for other rural areas of the county. 49 950778 The total Weld County transit demand estimate is 767,925 annual trips, including both the Urbanized and Non -Urbanized Areas. TABLE 18 Transit Demand Estimates for Greeley and Weld County {tine -Way Passenger Trips Per Year}' rea Urbanized Area Fixed Route • Paratransit Subtotal • onurbanized.- Area Fort Lupton Windsor' Other Rural Subtotal 1993 Population Estimate 69;143 69,143 69,143 5,467.. 5324 60.022. 70.814 139,957: Estimated Demand (1) (Trips/Ca it 1993 Demand Estimate <. 6 55,314 643,030 30,301 2€,188 70,406 124,895 Fixed route and paratransit trips per capita estimate for the Urbanized Area based on data from FTA 1992 Section 15 reports. Estimates for the Non -Urbanized Area based on trip projections from rural transit demand models. Trips per capita rates are rounded here to the nearest tenth, but the full calculated rate was used to calculate- demand estimates.. The transit demand analysis indicates that elderly and disabled individuals account for approximately 39% of the transit demand in the Urbanized Area of the county and for roughly 43% in the Non -Urbanized Area. Overall, for the county, the elderly and disabled are estimated to make up 41% of the demand. Areas of the Greeley Urbanized Area with particularly high transit demand based on socioeconomic characteristics are shown in Figure 5. The multiple regression models discussed previously were applied to the Weld County census tracts to estimate transit demand by census tract. As Figure 5 shows, Census Tracts 1.00, 4.01, 5.00, 6.00, 7.01, 8.00 and 10.00 have relatively high demand according to the demand models used. The Tracts with the highest projected demand based on socioeconomic characteristic of the residents were Tracts 1.00, 6.00, 50 95O773 7.01 and 8.00; all of these border 8th Avenue on the east side of Greeley. Census Tracts in the Non -Urbanized Area of the County with a high relative demand, in terms of trips per capita are shown in Figure 6. The highest demand per capita, based on the socioeconomic characteristics of the residents, is in Tracts 7.02, 19.01, 23.00, 24.00, 25.01 and 25.02. The Tracts with the highest projected demand per capita are 7.02, 23.00 and 25.01. Table 5 in Appendix 2 lists the Census Tracts categorized by Urbanized and Non -Urbanized areas of Weld County. Table 6 in Appendix 2 shows the total demand calculated by census tract, and the resulting per capita demand derived from these models. 51 956778 950773 FT. COLLINSD easvatissisearrael Mead Longmont 0 BOULDER Figure 6 Windsor Eaton Q nGaleton Lucerne GREELEY ° Evans ans ° Kersey Milliken° La Salle Peckham ° Glicrest -- Q Platteville Firestone °Evanston °Frederick Keenesburg S; ID.._._ 0 Hudson Hereford eld Coun c Barnsvllle Bugg ale Roggen Prospect Valley Lochbule/Lochwood <Maslers Grover Keota Buckingham Orchard Raymer Stoneham 0 FT. MORGAN Note: Shaded areas indicate high estimated demand per capita. based on the socioeconomic characteristics of area residents. It does no necessarily indicate high demand volume. County Census Tracts with High Per Capita Transit Demand Table 19 shows how the existing transit service levels compare to the estimated demand. The fixed route service operated by the City of Greeley provided 400,368 one way passenger trips in 1993 according to City records. The Elderly and Disabled (E&D) paratransit service provided 26,512 trips, for a combined total of 426,880 trips. Based on this analysis the fixed route service met approximately 68% of the demand in 1993 while the paratransit service met roughly 48% of the demand. Overall the City operated service was meeting 66% of the demand, based on this analysis. TABLE 19 Estimates of Unmet Transit Need ((311e -Way Passenger Trips Per Year) Urbanized'r area Fixed Route Paratransit Subtotal 1993 1943Existing Service Demand Estimate (1) Estimate Number Percen 587,716 55.314 643,030 1993 Estimate o€ Unmet Need Number Percent 400,368 68% 187,348 26,512 48% 28,802 426,880 66% 2-16,150 Total 767,925 495,632 65% 272293 f 35% 32% 52% 34% 45%© 1) Existing services for the Urbanized Area based on THE Bus service data. Existing services for the Non -Urbanized Area are taken from Mini -Bus service reports and exclude "institutionalized" trips. In the Non -Urbanized Area of the county, the Mini Bus service is providing approximately 68,800 transit trips per year. These "general transit" trips represent 35% of the total trips provided by the Mini Bus service in 1993. The remaining 65% are assumed to be "institutional trips" for which the demand models don't apply. The term "general transit" trips, as used here, refers to trips for a variety of trip purposes, not associated with a particular institutional or program setting such as school bus transportation, Head Start or sheltered workshop activities. "Institutional trips" are those more associated with an institutional setting. The assumptions used regarding "general transit" versus "institutional trips" are provided in Table 20. 54 TABLE 2(1 Bus Ridership, by Mini Bus Nutrition Job Service" Summer• Youth City Contract • CDSI f?argo Head Start Overhead Migrant HS Supp. Food Jump Start Meal Delivery" Total Service Category 1993 ; "General 'Transit" Total Trips (1) Ridership ` Percent Number 8,045 100% 8,045 7,382 100% 7,382 60 100% 60 727 100% 727 6,249 100% 6,249 74,058 50% 37,029 8,539 0% 0 61,6% 10% 6,170 1,477 0% 0 17,623 10% 1,762 29 0% ` 0 13.282 10% 1,328 0 0% 0 199,167 .'. 35% 68,752 "Institutional" Trips (1) Percent Number 0 0 0% 0% 0% 0%a 0 0% 0 50% 37,029 100%a 8,539 90% 55,526 100% 1,477 90% 15,861 100% 29 90% 11,954 100% 0 65% 1) Percentage estimates by RAE Consultants, Inc. with, input from County staff. 130,415 Based on this analysis, Mini Bus was meeting roughly 55% of the transit demand in the Non - Urbanized area. Virtually all of these trips were provided to address the service demand by persons who are elderly and/or disabled. Only a small fraction were general public transit trips. Overall public and specialized transit operators were meeting 65% of the estimated transit demand in Weld County in 1993, according to this analysis. Demand projections for future years are presented in Table 21. As the table shows, the estimated demand for Greeley and Weld County is expected to increase from the 1993 estimate of over 643,000 trips per year for the Urbanized Area to over 669,000 in 1996 and to over 706,000 trips by the year 2000, based on projected population increases. For the Non -Urbanized Area of the county the trip demand is expected to increase from 124,900 in 1993 to 130,500 in 1996 and to 137,500 in the year 2000. 55 95.07,3 TABLE 21 Transit Demand Estimates for Greeley and Weld County (One -Way Passenger T ps Per Year) )rbanized Area Population Transit Demand`. Non -Urbanized Area Fort Lupton Population. Transit Demand 1?indsor Population Transit Demand Other Rural Population Transit Demand Subtotal Population Transit Demand 69,143 643;939 5.467 30,301 5,324 '24,188 60,922 70,406 70,514 124,895 139,957. 767,925 (1) Fixed route and paratransit trips per capita estimate for the Urbanized Area based on data from PTA Section 15 reports. Nonarbanized Area estimates are based on trip projections from rural transit demand models_ (2) Urbanized Area is defined to include the cities of Greeleyand. Evans. Trip rate is assumed to be relatively constant, and is applied to population projections to calculate transit demand. SOURCE: RAE Consultants, Inc: It must be stated that the quantitative demand analysis presented above represents a "reasonable range of transit ridership potential given experience in other small urban and rural areas. It does not represent a maximum ridership level. Given the recently identified regional goal of a loco shift in travel mode from single occupant vehicles to other alternatives, major efforts to increase transit ridership will be required and new, even higher, levels of transit ridership may be obtained. 56 950773 Qualitative Needs Estimates This section presents an assessment of public and specialized transportation needs based on the perception of a broad variety of interest groups and the public at large. Included is summary information from several sources: individual interviews with the Greeley City Council persons and other community leaders, an on -board riders survey of The Bus, senior citizen surveys and public meetings. Each of these is summarized below. City Council and Business Leader Interviews Generally members of the Greeley City Council were very supportive of the City's transit system. Their concerns related primarily to the need to obtain more riders and to make the service as cost effective as possible. They also indicated that they received many comments from the public regarding "empty buses" on the streets. In terms of need, there was support for a continuation of the current focus on those Greeley residents without transportation alternatives. Additional potential needs expressed included: evening and weekend service, more service to UNC riders, the need to reassess routes as growth occurs, integration of public transit with school bus service, service to interconnect the tri-city area, service to residents working outside the county, as well as more service for commuters within Greeley. Business leaders also expressed support for the service and felt that it needs to carry more riders. Interest was expressed in expanding City service to new development areas, including "O" Street and 11th Avenue, near the Greeley Mall, and the developing area near EFTC on the east side of town. One person was particularly interested in developing intercity service between Greeley, Fort Collins and Loveland as well as service to the Denver metro area. It was not assumed, however, that service outside of the City/County would be provided by The Bus. Private sector options were suggested. University of Northern Colorado Based on an interview with staff and student representatives at UNC, the following input was received: • The main campus is facing serious parking problems as the new stadium and other smaller projects will be consuming large areas of surface parking. • A long range parking plan is being developed. Consideration is being given to limiting parking to specific lots. This would discourage the current practice of driving short distances between campus parking lots. • Gunter Hall is being renovated to a class and administration building which will serve 2,000 students. 57 950778 • A number of off -campus locations are being considered for upperclass and graduate student housing as there is a severe shortage and real estate values are high near the main campus. Because of the worsening campus parking situation UNC will need good shuttle connections from the growing off -campus housing concentrations. • Over 500 families are on the list for affordable housing. Single family and graduate student housing shortages are the most pronounced. • Public transit is not well marketed to students. • The University of Arkansas' Razorback Transit system is an example of a good system for connecting housing and on -campus attractions. • Student Representative Council (Kami) would be willing to conduct student surveys to learn more about unmet transit needs, with administrative assistance from The Bus. • The University is prohibited from using tax dollars to build or maintain parking lots. AIMS Community College AIMS has three campuses (Greeley, Fort Lupton, Loveland) with approximately 20,000 students. Of these roughly 70% are part-time students and 30% are full time. There are approximately 4,000 full -time -equivalent students. About half the students are more traditional college students and half are from the working world. Approximately 80% of the enrollment is at the Greeley campus, 10% at Fort Lupton and 10% at Loveland. There are no residential facilities at any of the campuses. Roughly 80% of enrollment at each campus is for the local community with the remaining 20% dispersed from the outlying areas. There is little inter -campus travel. Enrollment is growing at about the same rate as the overall rate of growth in Weld County, around 2% per year. There is significant growth potential at the Fort Lupton campus, which is tied more closely to the Denver metro area. It is difficult to determine how much and how fast growth will be. AIMS is assessing growth every two years for planning purposes. The 25-55 age group makes up a large percentage of the enrollment. The 55+ group is also large. The average student age is around 30. AIMS is trying to increase the 18-22 age group enrollment as they are more likely to be full time students, paying full tuition. There were no complaints regarding the bus system. Students use it quite a bit and it is an important service. Because many students fall in the "nontraditional" category, the college offers a number of night classes. These students are not served well by the transit service. 58 950778 Public Meetings Two public meetings were held in August and September 1994 to obtain input regarding perceived needs for additional transit service. One meeting was held in Greeley and another meeting was held in Dacono. A brief summary of the input obtained from these meetings is presented below. Second and third public meetings were held in Greeley to obtain input regarding proposed service changes. Input from the November public meeting is summarized in Chapter VI; Analysis of Transit Alternatives. city of Greeley Public Meeting Major points from the public meeting in Greeley, held August 23, 1994, are presented below: -More opportunities are needed for transfers between routes on the City system -Routes need to be more direct. -More frequent service is needed -Route changes are needed to better connect activity centers - a modified grid system should be examined -Major employers should be involved in the development of the transit system -There is a need for transit service to and from other communities in the region - An increase in evening operating hours and service on Sunday is needed -Better marketing and a change in public attitudes regarding the benefits of transit is needed - More paratransit service is needed - A variety of funding options are needed. Riders should help pay for service increases but they should not be expected to pay all the cost -Bus passes should be made more easily recognizable by drivers Dacono Public Meeting Major points from the public meeting held in Dacono September 22, 1994, are presented below: - There is a need for additional transit service from small communities in the county to larger cities for medical, shopping and personal business trips -Riders should pay for transit service, especially for expanded service - A round trip fare of $2.50 would be reasonable between Dacono and Longmont for example. -Additional wheelchair accessible service is needed. There are individuals in small communities who don't participate in Mini Bus services because they can't count on a wheelchair accessible vehicle always being available. -There is a need for easier access to vehicles by persons who don't require a wheelchair but can't negotiate the high entry step onto vehicles In addition to the public meetings, copies of Technical Memoranda were sent to senior centers and public libraries for review. Copies of proposed route changes for The Bus were sent to major employers for review. 59 950778 Senior Citizen Surveys Several senior citizen surveys were conducted in 1994. Virtually all of these indicated that transportation is a significant issue to this segment of the population. An Assessment of the Services and the Problems and Needs of Older Adults - for the Weld tom Area Agency on Aging. April, 1994. • Poverty, transportation, medical care and home health care were the top four issues that respondents rated as a major problem. • Over 70% of the respondents rated the following as either a moderate or major problem: Transportation Accidental injury in the home Crime against older adults Elder abuse Poverty Mental health issues Home health care • Those issues seen as either somewhat serious or very serious by the majority of respondents were: Reluctance to ask for help Eligibility restrictions Cost of services Lack of information about services Lack of transportation to services Perception of cost as excessive Reluctance to rely on non -family for services • Transportation Services - Unmet need: No service on Sunday's and evenings • RSVP/Senior Companion - Unmet need: Transportation for clients, • Respite Care/Home Care - Unmet needs: Transportation, cost too high 60 950778 Tri-Town Senior Survey - fall, 1993 • Transportation - Most responding drive their own car (75% of women, 88% of men, 80% overall). Approximately 66% of the 20% who don't drive rely on family members (spouse, children, etc.). About one in ten of these tj on the Mini Bus for Senior Citizens, although more than a quarter had used the Mini Bus. People who had used the Mini Bus were mostly very satisfied with the service. Friends and neighbors are also relied upon for transportation. About one in eight people surveyed reported they face some sort of difficulty leaving home (about 1/2 of those who report they do not drive). Most of these difficulties involve problems with ambulation or using a wheel chair. Implications • Although most older adults drive their own cars, a significant number do not (more women than men). • A significant number of older adults face difficulties leaving home. • If family members are unavailable to provide transportation, for those who do not drive, transportation could be a challenge. • The Mini Bus for Senior Citizens may be an under-utilized resource for those who do not drive. Recommendations • Explore setting up a carpooling network. • Look for ways to better utilize the Mini Bus on the days it serves this community. • Explore accessibility issues in the community. 1994 Survey of Senior Center Coordinators • The community services that coordinators most frequently referred their members for were: transportation• hearing aid testing; and public or volunteer programs. In order to reach seniors in the community who were isolated, frail, or home bound, that might be in need of services, most coordinators reported that they made phone contacts. • What service do you feel is most needed in your community for seniors? *Meal site program *Transportation *Senior housing Adult Clinic *Intergenerational programs *Education 61 950778 *Exercise *Crafts *Accessible bus *Snow removal *Odd jobs *Meals on Wheels *Peer counseling *Blood pressure clinic (BOLD means answers given repeatedly) Focus Groups Summary - Area Agency on Aging, 1994 • Eaton Focus Group, April 6, 1994 - One younger senior strongly favored a regularly scheduled public transportation system for all ages on a daily basis. - This group unanimously agreed that transportation is a big problem for seniors. Pointed out that there is a big information gap about the Mini Bus, most just don't know how to get the service. Also, said they believe many have reservations about riding a "Weld County" bus - think it is welfare. Believed seniors would pay a nominal fee for this service. • Fort Lupton Focus Group, April 7, 1994 - See need for wheelchair vans because the van through the Fort Lupton Housing Authority is not wheelchair accessible. Most seniors are not aware of where to call for transportation. Believe that family is called on most of the time to provide transportation, but would like not to impose on families too much. - Services most needed: Support group for caregivers Respite care Transportation for wheelchair bound Congregate meal program • Greeley Focus Group, April 8, 1994 - See this as a problem for the disabled. Some expressed concern that there are home bound seniors who would like to go to church. Some feel that community volunteers could be more helpful here, but had concerns about insurance. - Apparently some churches assist with this, but others don't. Most seemed to be content with the service already in place. Others feel many people are too proud to ask for help. Were complimentary of the Greeley door to door service, had friends who have used it. • Evans Focus Group, April 11, 1994 - Nearly all the men use their own private transportation and very few had any idea of how to get in touch with public transportation or even what was available. It was unclear whether the Mini Bus for wheelchair transport was available for Evans. One gentleman pointed out that he had come from a town of 1,200 people, fifty miles from Topeka, KS. These folks on their own had provided two vans to get people from the small community into Topeka for 62 950778 doctor services. There was a general consensus that if transportation was provided to smaller communities than it should be done for the whole county or don't do it at all. The Weld County Vision Together group identified concerns regarding the lack of transportation choices in the City and County. Overall Assessment of Unmet Need Based on the analysis conducted in this chapter it appears there are significant unmet transit needs in Greeley and Weld County. • The quantitative analysis estimates that existing transit services operated by the City meet approximately 65% of the demand. Interviews with community leaders, including the Greeley City Council, and public meetings, indicated the following potential needs: - Expanded evening and weekend service - Expanded use by UNC students - More direct routes Potential commuter trips both within Greeley and to other intra-regional and inter -regional destinations - Transit connections among Greeley, Fort Collins & Loveland and to the Denver metro area. • The quantitative demand analysis for the County indicated a relatively high unmet need. Existing services were projected to be meeting roughly 55% of the estimated demand. Given the demographics of the area, this may include a significant demand by general public, as well as elderly and disabled, riders. The unmet demand likely includes additional trips by seniors and others for recreation, personal business and nutrition; commuter trips especially to Greeley and to other intra-regional locations and to the Denver metro area or other specialized medical facilities. The demands will be fine tuned in August, based on an analysis of estimated ridership by fare level. • It is also important to note that the recently completed North Front Range Regional Transportation Plan identifies a goal of a 10% shift in travel mode from single occupant vehicles through a combination of increased carpooling, greater transit use, bicycling and walking. To achieve this goal, a dramatic increase in transit ridership must occur. Expanded service for work trips and additional UNC riders may offer the best potential. 63 950778 V. EVALUATION OF WELD COUNTY TRANSPORTATION SERVICES This chapter presents an evaluation of the existing Weld County transportation service, operated by the Human Resources Department. The evaluation is based on the information presented in the previous two chapters which describe existing transportation services and the analysis of transit demand and assessment of need. The evaluation addresses five service elements: attainment of goals, service delivery and structure, marketing, ability to finance and servcie contracting. Each of these is discussed below. Attainment of Goals The following points summarize the program's status in terms of attaining its goals: • Service appears to be well liked by those who use it • Serves a broad variety of social programs and related user groups. There are relatively few other agencies operating separate transportation services. • Limited service availability to non -sponsored riders. Due to capacity constraints, the service is relatively unavailable for spontaneous trips. • Accessibility issues related to the limited number of wheelchair accessible vehicles and difficulties by others in negotiating the high vehicle entry step. Although wheelchair trips are given priority there appear to be significant unmet needs by persons in wheelchairs. Many existing riders, not using wheelchairs, have difficulty accessing vehicles due to the high entry step. • Expanded computerization should produce long term management/operating efficiencies. The resulting improvement in vehicle scheduling and dispatch should expand service capacity without adding vehicles. • Service and management consolidation activates being pursued with the City of Greeley and School District 6. • Good political support for the service. • No local County funds required for operating the existing service level. • Transit service goals may be too limited. There is a strong commitment to making transportation services self-supporting, thereby, not requiring County general fund 64 950778 obligations for service operation. This focus severely limits the ability of the service to respond to service needs. Service Delivery and Structure The following points summarize the program's status in terms of service delivery and structure: • Tightly structured, highly efficient management and operations team. There is good use of part time employees and the Transportation Coordinator is highly productive. There is little slack time available, however, to conduct needed training associated with the new computer capability. • High number of hours worked by Transportation Coordinator may be counter -productive in achieving long term goals. There is a potential for job "burn out" by the Transportation Coordinator. The high number of hours worked by the Coordinator distorts the perception of long term, on -going, management needs to effectively operate the transportation program. • Good operational management. Service is kept on the street and service commitments are met. • Good manual dispatching given high number of vehicles utilized and trips served. • Expanded wheelchair capability needed. • Good vehicle maintenance overall - generally able to keep vehicles in service even given high mileage. Marketing • Virtually no marketing done due to limited additional capacity. • Need for a community information program so riders, potential riders and the general public are aware that the service exists and know how it can be accessed. Ability to Finance • Broad funding base by serving multiple programs. The large number of funding sources provides relatively high stability in the transportation program. • Good allocation of costs among programs. 65 950778 • Level of demand responsive transit service limited. Due to the nearly exclusive focus on contracted services, there is very limited use of the service by individuals not associated with a specific funding source. The absence of County General Fund, or other, general purpose funding severely limits the amount generalized public transit service. • Limited farebox revenues and/or donations. • Excellent use of Transportation Fund for vehicle replacement. • County -wide tax and other local government funding have some, though limited, potential. • Amendment 1 and Gallagher Amendment anticipated to have no major impact over next 5 years. Service Contracting • Potential need for better reporting of work done under current maintenance contract. • No significant savings anticipated through contracting management or operations. • Scale of system isn't large enough to contract out only a portion of service. • FTA no longer has service contracting as a priority. • Major benefit of contracting is providing well -trained managers. This is not needed for County as management is good and system operates efficiently. The next chapter presents service and management alternatives to address the issues identified above. 66 950778 VI. ANALYSIS OF TRANSIT ALTERNATIVES This technical memorandum presents an analysis of transit service and management alternatives for the Weld County Mini Bus operation. The first section identifies the alternatives which will be evaluated. This is followed by an analysis of each alternative and suggested components of a recommended alternative. Identification of Alternatives Several transit service and management alternatives are evaluated in this chapter. The alternatives respond to the transit service evaluation and needs assessment presented in previous chapters and input from Weld County Transit Advisory Committee and public meetings. Each of the alternatives is listed below, followed by a summary description. 1. Status Quo This alternative assumes a continuation of the current level of transit service and existing management arrangements. No substantive changes are made under this alternative. 2. Existing System - Modifications Under this alternative options are presented to strengthen transit program management within the county. These include: computerized dispatch, organizational and staffing changes, increased wheelchair capability, consolidation of selected services with the City and School District 6, and developer/employer incentives. 3. Transit Service Expansion This alternative presents options for expanding transit services in the county, focusing on expanded general public demand responsive service. The next section presents an analysis of each of the identified alternatives. Analysis of Alternatives Each of the alternatives is reviewed in this section. The intent of the alternatives analysis is to present the best comparison of options possible given available data. 1. Status Quo Alternative This alternative assumes 1993 service levels and management arrangements. Summary data for the Status Quo alternative regarding annual ridership, service hours, service miles and operating costs are shown in Table 22. Under the Status Quo Alternative (1993 Mini Bus data) annual ridership is 199,167, annual service hours total 40,342 and annual service miles total 731,247. Annual 67 950776 operating costs, including a contribution to the vehicle replacement fund, total $830,530. TABLE 22 Status Quo Alternative woke evel 1993 Service Level (1) Incremental Changes (2) Capital (3) Total Annual Annual Annual Annual Bidets Hours Miles Cost 199,167 40,342 731,247 $830,530 99,167 40,342 731,247 $830,530 1) Data provided by Weld County HAD. Annual cost includes indirect cost replacement costs associated with service miles operated. 2) No changes assumed under this alternative. 3) Assumes capital purchases are covered through the current vehicle replacement fund. A total of 39 vehicles are used in the service including four spares for the Status Quo Alternative. The current anticipated vehicle replacement schedule is shown in Table 23. Under the Status Quo Alternative it is assumed that nine vehicles will be replaced annually. Given the current intent of increasing wheelchair capability, this alternative includes the gradual addition of accessible vehicles, increasing the fleet size to 45 by the year 2000. It is assumed that several standard vans are kept rather than retired in order to maintain existing capacity levels, given the reduced capacity of wheelchair accessible vehicles. Based on this policy, the number of wheelchair accessible vehicles would increase from three to nine and the number of standard vans would remain at 36 over the five year planning period. Estimated capital costs are shown at the bottom of Table 23. Advantages and disadvantages of the Status Quo Alternative are listed below. Advantages: - No changes to existing services or management. - Little, if any, additional resources are required. - Additional wheelchair capability. Disadvantages: - Inability to respond to increased service requests. - Inability to respond to other service and management issues. 68 950778 TABLE 23 Vehicle Replacement Schedule Organization, Vehicle Purchase Regular (1) Wheelchair (1) Total Status Quo Alternative 1996 1222 122$ 1999 Cumulative Total - Regular Previous Year 36 Replacement Vehicles (2) 6 Added Vehicles (2) 0 Retired Vehicles (2) Current Year 6 6 7 7 3 3 2 2 6 36 Cumulative Total Wheelchair Previous Year 3 Replacement Vehicles (2) 1 Added Vehicles (2) 2 Retired Vehicles (2) Current Year Cumulative Total Total Previous Year 39 Replacement Vehicles (2) 7 `. Added Vehicles (2) 2 Retired Vehicles (2) 7 Current Year 41 1 Vehicle Purchase Cost Standard Van (3) $135,000 $140,400 $170,352 $177,166 Wheelchair Van (3) $79,500 $82,680 $57,325 $59,618 Total $214,500 $223,080 $227,677 $236,784 1) Assumes 9 vehicles purchased annually: 1996 and 1997 3 are wheelchair accessible and 6 are standard vans; 1998 thru 2000 7 are standard vans and 2 are wheelchair accessible. 2) Assumes several standard vans are kept to maintain overall capacity. 3) Assumes standards cost $22,500 and wheelchair vans cost $26,500 in 1996, then 4% annual inflation. 34 32 30 6 7 7 0 6 36 0 0 7 7 36 36 2000 Total 7' < 33, 2 12 9 45 28 36 7 33 0 0 7 33 36 36 5 6 7 8 9 2 1 1 1 6 1 1 1 1 6 2 1 1 1 6 6 7 8 9 15 41 42 43 8 8 8 1 1 1 8 8 8 42 43 44 44 8 1 8 45 45 39 6 39 51 $184,253 $807,171 $62,003 $341,125 $246,255 $1,148,296 69 950778 2. Existing System - Modifications Several service and management refinements are included under this alternative. These include: increased office automation, organizational and staffing changes, increased vehicle accessibility, consolidation of selected service elements with the City of Greeley and School District 6, and developer/employer initiatives. Each of these is discussed below. Increased Office Automation In 1994 the Weld County Human Resources Department procured a computer system to improve efficiencies in terms of passenger information, scheduling/dispatch, and billing. Given time for staff training and data entry, it is anticipated that this system will be operational in mid -1995. Based on the Transportation Automation Assessment completed as part of this study, the following suggestions are made regarding implementation of this option: - Allow time at the end of each service day for dispatchers to optimize routes for the next day. This will likely require scheduling calls to be cut-off daily at 5:00 or 5:30 pm. - Maintain the current number of dispatch staff, but assume automation will enable additional demand responsive rides to be scheduled, compared to previously. - Consider ergonomic design which promotes comfort during extended periods at computer work stations. - Anticipate increases in costs over time for hardware, software, training and computer supplies. Enter into an on -going maintenance and support agreement for hardware and software. -Clearly define all output report specifications and request technical assistance from Automated Business Services (ABS) early in the implementation process. In addition, HRD staff should incorporate the following targets into Mini Bus operation and management: - Develop a computerized dispatch system that provides comprehensive management information necessary to the program while reducing clerical time required to compile the data by 30%. - Improve scheduling efficiencies that result in an increase in trips per hour of 10% during the first year of operation. - Provide same -day scheduling when necessary. - Consider consolidation of dispatch for the County, the City's ADA paratransit service and the School District's special needs transportation. Estimated impacts of implementing the increased office automation option are listed below: Cost: +$1,000/year - After first year, for maintenance and software agreement. Riders: +20,000/year - 10% increase due to improved scheduling. Miles: No estimated change. Hours: No estimated change. 70 950778 Organization and Staffinw The review and evaluation of the existing Mini Bus operation identified organizational and staffing issues which should be addressed during the five year TDP time frame. These issues relate to: 1) staff working hours, 2) the interface between program and financial management, and 3) where "Transportation" is located within Weld County government. Each of these is discussed below followed by suggested changes and estimated impacts. Staff Working Hours The primary issue regarding staff hours relates to the extensive number of hours currently being worked by the Transportation Director. The current Transportation Director voluntarily works an estimated 70-80 hours per week. This is problematic for two reasons. First, there is potential for job "burn out" and/or a reduction in productivity over the long term. Although the current Director states that she enjoys her work and has been working long hours for several years, conventional wisdom indicates that a 40-50 hour work week would be more appropriate. The second reason relates to the fact that, if this number of hours is required to effectively manage the program, the current management budget underestimates the true cost of the program, since the Transportation Director isn't paid for the extra hours worked. Otherwise staff hours appear to be appropriate although the number of dispatchers is the minimal number suggested given the current trip volume and number of vehicles operated. Program -Financial Management Although, overall, program management is a strength of the Mini Bus operation, several improvements are suggested. First, there is currently a lack of systematic monthly and annual evaluation of service in terms of performance. Productivity measures such as riders per hour, riders per mile, cost per hour and cost per mile should be monitored on a monthly basis. Collecting an analyzing these data could provide additional insight into program operations. Second, there is a need for a more direct interface between program and financial management. Financial information, budgeting and budget monitoring are handled largely through the fiscal office of the Human Resources Department. Most questions related to financial aspects of the service must be referred to this office. Maintenance reports do not provide sufficient detail to enable management to make sound decisions which effect program costs and operation. There is no single person with a detailed knowledge of both operations and financial management for the transportation program. Organization of "Transportation" within County Government Industry -wide there is a broad variety of experience in terms of where transportation functions are located within City and County governments. Given the past and current 71 950778 focus of the Mini Bus operation on social service programs, the Human Resources Department appears to be a logical "organizational home" in Weld County. Given the size of the transportation function in Weld County and the potential expansion of service to the general public, however, consideration should be given to separating the transportation function from the Aging Services Program. This could provide an organizational unit which focuses on transportation and strengthens overall program management. In order to address organizational and staffing issues of the Mini Bus operation the Human Resources Department shall consider separating the transportation function from Aging Services, conducting a job audit of the Transportation Director position, and acquiring additional management staff. Estimated impacts associated with these suggestions are listed below. Riders: No estimated change. Miles: No estimated change. Hours: No estimated change. Cost: +$30,000 for a new management position or other staff Increased Vehicle Accessibility There are two vehicle accessibility issues which need to be addressed during the five year planning period. The first relates to the need for additional wheelchair lift -equipped vehicles. The second relates to physical access to vehicles by persons who don't use wheelchairs but who have difficulty with the high entry step. Each of these is discussed below. Wheelchair Accessibility Currently three of the thirty-nine vehicles operated by Mini Bus are wheelchair accessible. The Status Quo Alternative expands this to nine by the year 2000. The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) does not require that all vehicles be wheelchair accessible. It does require, however, that equivalent service be provided to persons in wheelchairs as to other persons. A person in a wheelchair must be able to access the overall Mini Bus service just as well as a person not in a wheelchair, including equal response time to service requests. Currently approximately 6% of Mini Bus trips are made by wheelchair users. Virtually all wheelchair trip requests are honored. Wheelchair trip requests are denied or rescheduled less frequently than non -wheelchair trips, according to Mini Bus staff. At the public meeting held in Dacono in September, 1994, however, several individuals stated that there are people who don't use the existing transportation service because wheelchair accessible vehicles aren't available on a regular basis. 72 950778 The appropriate level of wheelchair accessibility is difficult to determine. For both pre - scheduled trips and demand responsive trips, the ADA requires that equal availability and access be provided. The ADA also stipulates that persons with disabilities be provided transportation in an integrated, as opposed to a segregated, manner. The County could be sued under Civil Rights law, by individuals who claim that persons with disabilities are not given the same level of access to transportation service as non -disabled persons. Given there are no specific guidelines or standards, a prudent response may be to provide wheelchair accessibility on all demand responsive service and on a significant portion of pre -arranged or subscription service. Based on an analysis of 1993 Mini Bus service data, demand responsive service makes up 10% of total service miles, 8% of total service hours and 4% of total ridership. In order to assure full accessibility on demand responsive service, therefore, it could be argued that 5-10% of all vehicles should be wheelchair accessible, i.e. 3-5 vehicles. If demand responsive service is expanded, more wheelchair accessible vehicles should be provided. In addition, some of the vehicles used for pre -scheduled or subscription service should be wheelchair accessible in order to respond to potential service requests and to more fully integrate the service. The Status Quo Alternative provides for a total of nine wheelchair accessible vehicles by the year 2000. Given the current services, it appears that this number of wheelchair accessible vehicles will be adequate. However, service requested for both demand responsive and subscription services should be monitored on an annual basis to assure that adequate accessible service is provided. It is important to note that expanding wheelchair capability could equate to reduced vehicle capacity due to the fact that one wheelchair space on the type of vehicles currently operated by Mini Bus, reduces the overall seating capacity from 15 passengers to one wheelchair space and eight seats for ambulatory passengers. If larger vehicles are acquired to maintain capacity levels, the vehicle size would require drivers to have Commercial Drivers Licenses (CDLs). This would increase training requirements and most likely a higher wage scale for drivers. These trade-offs should be considered by the HRD in planning vehicle accessibility levels over the five year planning period. Entry Step Modifications The second vehicle accessibility issue relates to physical access to vehicles by persons who do not use wheelchairs but who have difficulty entering the vehicle due to the high entry step. At the public meeting held in September, 1994, many seniors indicated a need for some modification of the entry step. Given concerns for safety, the best option may be to acquire wheelchairs to be placed on vehicles to use for vehicle entry and exit for persons who have difficulty with the entry step. One portable wheelchair per demand responsive vehicle should be sufficient. Mother option would be to use a broad -based stool to reduce the height of the first step, although there are safety issues associated with this option. 73 950778 Estimated impacts of improving wheelchair accessibility are listed below: Riders: No net increase in riders. Miles: No estimated change. Hours: No estimated change. Cost: +$1,000/year for low entry step modification and provision of portable wheelchairs on accessible vehicles. Transportation Consolidation The recently completed Transportation Consolidation Feasibility Study, sponsored by the City of Greeley in association with Weld County and School District 6, called for joint efforts by the three entities in three target areas - vehicle maintenance, personnel recruiting and training, and dispatching and scheduling. Identified steps in each of these areas are presented below. Vehicle Maintenance -Continue City/County joint vehicle fueling program in which most City vehicles are fueled at the County facility -Pursue joint fueling agreement between School District 6 for both school buses and general purpose vehicles -Continue City/County joint vehicle maintenance for general purpose vehicles -Evaluate potential of including School district 6 general purpose vehicles in this arrangement -Explore options for a consolidated maintenance facility Personnel Recruiting and Training -Establish common requirements and selection criteria -Observation of other agency training -Establish joint library of reference materials -Coordinate joint Emergency Preparedness training -Evaluate options for a joint drug and alcohol testing program -Pursue creation of a pool of drivers qualified to drive different agencies' vehicles -Evaluate possibility of creating a single staff position to coordinate recruiting and training for all three agencies Dispatching and Scheduling -In 1995 establish a single telephone number for all transportation calls -Determine the best option for handling in -coming calls -Advertise the phone number throughout the county 74 950773 The Consolidation Feasibility Study does not identify specific costs associated with these steps. On -going staff efforts by each of the participating entities will determine specifics regarding when and how implementation will take place. No specific impacts were, therefore, identified in this TDP effort for this option. Developer/Employer Initiatives This option, under the Existing Service - Modifications Alternative, would initiate steps with developers and large employers to address issues associated with alternative modes to the single - occupant auto. The following would be included: -Development and implementation of roadway design and development standards which facilitate use of ridesharing and public transit. These could include such items as density standards, provision for bus pull-out lanes, bus pads, bus shelters, sidewalks and pedestrian links through developments, crosswalks and pedestrian crossing lights, bus turning radii, etc. -Employer transportation programs to encourage transit and ridesharing, etc. -Dialogue with the Private Industry Council to access opportunities for funding participation in expanded Mini Bus transportation services. Given the general nature of this option, no specific impacts have been estimated. A more detailed description of these options will be presented in the implementation program or in an appendix to the final study report. Table 24 presents estimated operating characteristics for Alternative 2. 75 950778 TABLE 24 Existing System - Modifications Service Level 1993 Service Level (1) Incremental Changes Office automation (2) Organization and staffing (3) 'Wheelchair accessibility (4) Consolidation options (5) Developer initiatives (5) Subtotal Capital Total Annual Annual Annual Trips Hours Miles 199,167 Annual Cost 40,342 731,247 $830,530 20,000 Q u 0 0 0 0 0 0 20,000 219,167 40,342 731,247 1) Same as Status Quo Alternative. 2) Riders: Assumes a 10% increase due to computerized scheduling. Hours and miles: Assumes no change. Costs: Assumes an additional $1,000/year for computer service contract. 3) Riders, hours and miles: Assumes no change. Hours and miles: Assumes no change. Costs: Assumes an additional $30,000 for a Transportation Program 4) Riders, hours and miles: Assumes no change. Costs: Assumes an additional $1,000/year for expanded vehicle accessibility. 5) No estimated impacts. $1,000 $20,000 $1,000 $0 $0 $22,000 $0 $852,530 Manager. If the above mentioned system modifications were implemented, the following advantages and disadvantages would be anticipated: Advantages: - Improved transportation service management. - Expanded wheelchair capability and other vehicle accessibility improvements. - Better vehicle scheduling and improved productivity through automated dispatch. Improved guidelines for developers and employers which include transit and ridesharing considerations. 76 950773 Disadvantages: - Increased costs associated with strengthened transit management - Increased cost to acquire wheelchair and other accessibility improvements. - Potential negative response to developer/employer initiatives. 3. Transit Service Expansion This alternative includes the expansion of transportation service in Weld County. The expansion effort would focus on additional demand responsive service for the general public. Other expansion options include additional specialized transportation service and expanded service outside the county for work and other trips. General Public Demand Responsive Service Based on the demand analysis and input at Advisory Committee and public meetings, there is considerable interest in expanding demand responsive service for the general public in rural Weld County. There seems to be a consensus that fares should be charged for new service and even for existing service. The best options to expand demand responsive service appear to be: 1) additional service provided directly through the centralized Mini Bus operation, 2) decentralized vehicle deployment, and 3) volunteer mileage reimbursement. Each of these is discussed below. Expanded Centralized Mini Bus Service Under this option, additional service would be provided directly through Mini Bus, as it is currently operated. Depending on the level of expansion service provided, additional vehicles would be obtained and additional drivers hired. The cost of expanded service would depend on the level of service provided. Table 25 presents estimated data for three expansion scenarios. Level A assumes one additional bus is provided and operated forty hours a week. Level B assumes two additional vehicles are provided and operated forty hours per week. Level C would provide three additional vehicles each operating forty hours per week. Similar to current demand responsive service operation, the vehicles could provide service to different towns on different days of the week. Typically service would be from small towns to larger cities (Greeley, Boulder, Longmont, Loveland, Fort Collins) for medical, shopping or personal business trips, although local intra-community service could also be provided. 77 950778 TABLE 25 Direct Mini Bus Service Expansion Options Added Added Service Annual Annual Level Vehicles Service Service Options R. quircQ Hours (11 Miles (2) Level A? Level Level C 2,080 4,160 6,240 Estimated Estimated Estimated Annual Annual Annual Passenger Fare Cost (3) Trips (4) Revenue (5) 27,040 $25,113 -: 54,080 $50,226 81,120 $75,339 1) Assumes an additional 40 hours of service is provided per week. 2) Assumes an average speed of 13 miles per hour. 3) Assumes 1992 cost allocation model, adjusted for cost increases. Excludes administrative or fixed costs. 4) Assumes 12 riders per vehicle per day and two trips each. 5) Assumes a fare of $1.50 per one-way trip is charged ($3.00 per round trip). 6,240 $9,360 12,480 $18,720 18,720 $28,080 Estimated Annual Operating Deficit $15,753 $31,506 $47,259 As the Table 25 shows, Level A service (1 bus operating 40 hours/week) would equate to 2,080 additional hours of service per year. Assuming an average vehicle speed of 13 mph, total annual miles of service would be 27,040. Based on the cost allocation model for Mini Bus, the annual cost of this service would be $25,113. This assumes no additional overhead would be required to operate this level of expanded service. If an average of twelve riders used the service daily, annual ridership would total 6,240 assuming each rider made two trips. At a fare of $1.50 each way, total annual farebox revenues would be $9,360 and a net operating deficit of $15,753 would result. The other two service level options shown (Level. B and Level C) would result in annual net operating deficits of $31,506 and $47,259 respectively, given similar assumptions. If riders were willing to pay an average of $2.50 per one-way trip, the operating deficits would be reduced to $9,513 for Level A, $19,026 for Level B, and $28,539 for Level C. Decentralized Vehicle Deployment Mother option would be to decentralize vehicle operation. Instead of vehicles being deployed from the Mini Bus offices in Greeley, vehicles would be based more locally. This could save on deadhead miles between Greeley and each local community. Under this scenario the vehicles used for expanded service could be based in different quadrants of the county and serve the small communities in those areas. Vehicles could remain 78 950773 under Mini Bus management but simply not be based in Greeley. Benefits of having the vehicles remain under Mini Bus management, rather than owned and operated by individual communities, include the following: 1) vehicle dispatch and scheduling capability already in place, 2) an established mechanism to acquire vehicles is in place, and 3) a willingness and the ability to use vehicles in different communities during different days, rather than having vehicles sit idle on some days. If an identified toll -free phone number was used for transportation service throughout the county, as suggested in the Consolidation Feasibility Study, individuals interested in service would simply call the Mini Bus office in Greeley to schedule a trip. Otherwise an expanded Senior Coordinator, or other, system would need to be developed in order for individuals to request rides. It is suggested that at least eight people be required to sign up for services prior to a vehicle being dispatched. According to US West a toll -free number would cost $15/month plus $.20 per minute of use. Table 26 presents cost estimates for the Decentralized Deployment option. Direct operating costs should be somewhat lower given reduced deadhead miles for vehicles traveling to and from Greeley. To estimate these costs a vehicle service day of six hours (rather than eight hours) was assumed for this option. The cost of either a toll -free line or expanded local management time (Senior Coordinator or other staff) should also be considered however. 79 950778 Decentralized Deployment Option Added Service Annual Level Vehicles Service Options Required Hours (11 Level A Level B Level 1,560 3,120 4,680 Added Estimated Estimated Annual `: Estimated Annual Annual Service Annual Passenger Fare Miles (21 Cost (31 Trips (41 Revenue 20,280 40,560 60,840 $19,549 6,240 $9,360 $39,098 12,480 $18,720 $58,647 18,720 $28,080 1) Assumes an additional 30 hours of service is provided per week. 2) Assumes an average speed of 13 miles per hour. 3) Assumes 1992 cost allocation model, adjusted for cost increases. Excludes 4) Assumes 12 riders per vehicle per day and two trips each. 5) Assumes a fare of $1.50 per one-way trip is charged ($3.00 per round trip). Estimated Annual Operating Ii�lis'dI $10,189 $20,378? $30,567 administrative or fixed costs As the Table 26 shows, Level A service (1 bus operating 30 hour/week) would equate to 1,560 additional hours of service per year. Assuming an average vehicle speed of 13 mph, total annual miles of service would be 20,280. Based on the cost allocation model for Mini Bus, the annual cost of this option would be $19,549. This assumes no additional overhead would be required to operate this level of expanded service. If an average of twelve riders used the service daily, annual ridership would total 6,240 assuming each rider made two trips. At a fare of $1.50 each way, total annual farebox revenues would be $9,360 resulting in a net operating deficit of $10,189. This nearly $5,600 less than the previous alternative. The other two service level options shown would result in annual net operating deficits of $20,375 and $30,567 respectively given similar assumptions. These are both less than the previous alternative given the lower number of hours vehicles would be in operation. If riders were willing to pay an average fare of $2.50 per one-way trip, the annual operating deficits could be reduced to $3,949 for Level A, $7,898 for Level B and $11,847 for Level C. Mileage Reimbursement Another service expansion option would be to provide the additional service through a mileage reimbursement program, similar to and/or incorporated with, the existing mileage 80 950778 reimbursement program operated through the Senior Coordinators. The mileage reimbursement program utilizes a pool of volunteer drivers and their private automobiles. When individuals call in to request rides the Senior Coordinator attempts to arrange the trip through the volunteer driver pool. While this alternative is cost effective for low volume trips, it becomes quite expensive when groups of individuals must be transported. Mother problem is that, currently, less than half the Senior Coordinators make use of this system. Concerns regarding this program include: - Difficulty in finding volunteers - Insurance issues for volunteers - Little screening of volunteers or their vehicle safety - Insufficient time and/or priority among program work It is assumed that to make the volunteer mileage reimbursement option feasible for increased general public demand responsive service, a significant expansion of the Senior Coordinator role, or other local resource, would be required. In addition to this added expense, the estimated direct transportation costs of this option are shown in Table 27. The costs shown assume the same ridership levels are served as in the previous service expansion options. 81 vehicles with respect to driving ability and some Senior Coordinators to really make the 950778 As the Table shows, given the use of automobiles in this option, rather than vans as in the previous options, a much higher number of miles must be operated under each service level scenario compared to the previous options. As a result, even though the operating cost per vehicle is less, the overall service costs are greater under this option as no fare revenue is assumed. If riders were asked to reimburse drivers for mileage expenses, each rider's average cost would be $3.81 per one-way trip or $7.62 per round trip. Other Intra-County and Regional Trips Given recent growth in the county and the goal of reducing single -occupant vehicle trips, as stated in the North Front Range Regional Transportation Plan other service expansion options TABLE 27 Mileage Reimbursement Program Service Estimated Estimated Level Annual Daily Options Trips (11 Riders (21 Level A 6,240 Level B Level C 12 12,480 24 18,720 36 Estimated Riders Per Vehicle (3) Estimated Estimated Daily Miles Estimated Mileage Daily Per Annual Reimb. Vehicles (41 Vehicle_(51 Miles (61 Batt Estimated Annual Cost (71 4 104 108,160 $0.22 $23,795 8 104 216,320 $0.22 $47,590 12 104 324,480 $0.22 $71,386 1) Assumes same ridership levels as previous alternatives. 2) Assumes same number of individuals served as in previous alternatives 3) Assumes carpools carry an average of 3 passengers at a time. 4) Assumes 12 riders per day and 3 riders per carpool. 5) Assumes the same mileage per vehicle trip as in first service expansion option (i.e. 104 miles). 6) Daily mileage per vehicle, times number of vehicles, times 52 weeks, times 5 days. 7) Mileage traveled times reimbursement rate per mile. i.e 12 per day). should be considered. One option would be to expand the current practice of periodic Mini Bus trips outside of the county for medical and other trips. Mother option, primarily focusing on work trips, is the Ridefinders program based in Fort Collins. Through this program employers and individuals can develop carpools or vanpools to provide alternatives to the single -occupant auto. A final option is the use of private sector services to and from the Denver Metro Area, including Stapleton/DIA and/or to Cheyenne or Fort Collins via the I-25 corridor. 82 950773 Appendix 4, "Regional Transit Service" addresses the potential magnitude of the need for this type of service in more detail. Table 28 presents a summary of the Service Expansion Alternative. 83 950778 TABLE 28 Service Expansion Components 1993 Service Level (1) Incremental Changes? Centralized Mini Bus Level A (2) Level B (2) Level C (2) Decentralized Mini Bus Level A (3) Level B (3) Level C (3) Mileage Reimbursement .+ Level A (4) Level B (4) Level C (4) Other Specialized (5) Intra-County/Regional (6) Subtotal (7) Capital (8) Total Annual Annual Annual Trips Hours Miles 199,167 40,342 731,247 4,160 2,080 27,040 8,320 4,160 54,080 12,480 6,240 81,120 4,160 1,560 20,280 8,320 3,120 40,560 12,480 4,680 60,840 4,160 8,320 12,480 N/A 81,120 N/A 162,240 '< N/A 297,440 `< Annual Cost $830,530 $15,753, $31,506' $47,259 $10,189 $20,378 $30,567 $23,795 $47,590 $71,386 p 0 0 $0 0 0 0' $0 207,487 43,462 771,807 $850,908 $10,600 207,487 " 43,462 771,807 $861,508 1) Same as Status Quo Alternative. 2) See Table 25. 3) See Table 26. 4) See Table 27. 5) Assumes increases in service are self -funded. 6) No estimates provided. 7) Assumes Level B of Decentralized Mini Bus option. 84 950778 Selection of a Recommended Alternative Based on a review of the transit service and management alternatives, the following elements were selected for the recommended alternative: • Implementation of all elements of Alternative 2, Existing Service - Modifications. This would include the following: computerized dispatch, a more detailed assessment of organizational and staffing changes, increased vehicle accessibility, anincremental approach to consolidation and pursuit of developer/employer initiatives. • Implementation of a service expansion option, based on the identification of additional funding. One or more pilot studies will be conducted to determine specific costs and benefits on the decentralized versus centralized service expansion options. Initiation of a dialogue with the City of Greeley regarding service options for regional trips. The next chapter presents a detailed operations, management and financial plan for implementing the recommended alternative. 85 950778 VII. OPERATIONS, MANAGEMENT AND FINANCIAL PLAN This chapter presents a five year plan for implementing the recommended alternative. The implementation plan is for the years 1996-2000 and addresses operations, management and financing for public and specialized transportation services in rural Weld County. Operations Plan The Operations Plan calls for the continuation of existing program -specific transportation and a gradual expansion of services to the general public, assuming the availability of additional funding. Below is a description of the various components of the operations plan, including: expanded computer capability, the continuation of program -specific transportation, expansion of general public demand responsive service, and associated vehicle and other equipment needs. Computerized Dispatch and Scheduling In 1994 the County Human Services Department (HSD) acquired new computerized dispatch and scheduling hardware and software. The purpose was to improve efficiencies in terms of passenger information, scheduling/dispatching and billing. In 1995 and 1996, as this computer effort is implemented, significant improvements are anticipated in both service operation and management. From an operational perspective an overall increase in service productivity of 10% or more should be expected. In 1995 Mini Bus staff will become proficient in using the new hardware and software with increased service efficiencies occurring in late 1995 and 1996. Improved service efficiency will allow the County to expand service for the general public. Based on the Transportation Automation Assessment completed as part of this study, the following suggestions are included in the recommended alternative: - Allow time at the end of each service day for dispatchers to optimize routes for the next day. This will likely require scheduling calls for demand response trips to be cut-off daily at 5:00 or 5:30 pm. - Maintain the current number of dispatch staff, but assume automation will enable additional demand responsive rides to be scheduled, compared to previously. - Consider ergonomic design which promotes comfort during extended periods at computer work stations. - Anticipate increases in costs over time for hardware, software, training and computer supplies. Enter into an on -going maintenance and support agreement for hardware and software. (This task has been completed.) -Clearly define all output report specifications and request technical assistance from Automated Business Services (ABS) early in the implementation process. (This task has 86 .4507 i' been completed.) In addition, HSD staff should incorporate specific goals into Mini Bus operation and management. These goals should be reviewed after six months to determine their appropriateness and what progress has been made. - Develop a computerized dispatch system that provides comprehensive management information necessary to the program while reducing clerical time required to compile the data by 30%. - Improve scheduling efficiencies that result in an increase in riders per hour of 10% during the first year of operation. - Provide same -day scheduling when necessary. - Consider consolidation of dispatch for the County, the City's ADA paratransit service and the School District's special needs transportation. Existing Program -Specific Transportation The current well developed HSD program -specific transportation function will continue throughout the five year TDP time frame. Based on budget availability, the Human Services Department (HSD) will provide transportation services to support identified human services programs. Existing services to CDSI, Head Start, Senior Nutrition, Jump Start. etc. will continue and will increase or decrease based on program needs and available funding. Expanded General Public Service During the five year TDP time frame, 1996-2000, a effort will be made to expand general public 87 950778 During 1995, an assessment will be made as to which communities will be served and whether vehicles will be based in Greeley at Mini Bus offices or in decentralized locations. The decision regard lig specific service areas will depend on: identified demand, local ability to market the service and schedule paying passengers, and the ability to obtain other additional needed funding. In 1996 one additional vehicle is projected for additional general public demand responsive service. Only one additional vehicle is included given anticipated improvements in efficiency associated with the new computerized scheduling and dispatch system. For planning purposes, additional vehicles are also included in 1998 and 2000 to expand general public demand responsive service. These could be used to expand service in currently served communities and/or to communities currently without service. Ridership and Farebox Revenue Projections Ridership and farebox revenue projections are presented in Table 29 for both contracted and general public demand responsive service. Ridership projections assume a 1-2 % annual increase in contracted service trips. Given this assumption, ridership for contracted service would increase from an estimated 197,000 trips in 1995 to 212,225 trips in the year 2000. For general public demand response service the projections assume the equivalent of two full time vehicles are added in 1996 and the equivalent of one full time vehicle is added in 1998 and the year 2000. Ridership on general public demand responsive service would increase from an estimated 8,300 in 1995 to 30,767 in the year 2000. Farebox revenue projections are shown below the ridership projections. Given the assumption that no fares are charged directly to riders for contracted service, no fare revenue is shown in this category. For general public service, a gradual but significant increase in fare revenue is shown. In 1995, the fare revenue projection is $4,150. This assumes implementation of a fare or donations for existing services which are currently free to riders. A specific fare structure should be established based on distance traveled. For revenue estimating purposes, generalized estimates were made regarding average fares by year. The following assumptions were made regarding average fare: 1995 - $ .50; 1996 - $1.00; 1997 - 2000 $1.50. At the public meeting in Dacono, a one-way fare to Longmont of $1.25 was considered reasonable. As the fare policy is implemented, specific fares will be identified for each specific service provided, based on distance traveled and the length of time a vehicle is used. 88 950778 TABLE 29 Annual Ridership and Fare Revenue Projections $ervice Type Ridership Contract Service ( General Public Service (2) Fare Revenue Contract Service (3) General Public Service (4) Total 1245 197,000 199,955 202,954 205,999 8,300 17,660 17,925 24,165 205,300 217,615 220,879 230,164 209,089 24,527 233,616 242,992 212,225 30,767 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $4,150 $17,660 $26,887 $36,247 536,791 $46,151 $4,150 $17,660 $26,887 $36,247 $36,791 $46,151 1) Assumes increase in ridership of 1-2% per year based on 1993 actual data. 2) Assumes 1-2%/year increase plus 60 hours/week of added service in 1996 and an additional 40 hours/week of service in both 1998 and the year 2000. 3) Assumes no fare charged to riders for contracted service. 4) Assumes an avenge fare of 5.50 for each general public trip in 1995, an average fare of $1.00 per trip in 1996 and $1.50 per trip from 1997 through 2000. Specific fares will be identified for specific services as the fare policy is implemented. Vehicle Procurement In order to support the continuation and expansion of existing program -specific and general public services the vehicle procurement schedule presented in Table 30 is anticipated. This table assumes the same replacement schedule as the Status Quo Alternative, presented in the previous chapter, except for the addition of one wheelchair ar.rrssible vehicle in 1996, 1998 and the year 2000 to support a moderate expansion of general public demand responsive service. As previously stated, additional vehicles could be added based on demand and available revenue. 89 950778 TABLE 30 ' Vehicle Replacement Schedule Vehicle Purchase Regular (1). Wheelchair (1) cumulative Total - Regular Previous Year Replacement Vehicles(2) Added Vehicles (2) • Retired Vehicles (2) Current Year Cttiulative'Total - Previous Year Replacement Vehicles (2) Added Vehicles (2) Retired Vehicles (2) Current Year Cumulative Total - Total Previous Year Replacement Vehicies;(2) Added Vehicles (2) Retired Vehicles (2) Current Year Veh'iolc`Rurehase Cost - Standard Van. (3) VT} eelchair Van (3) Total Total 33f 15 48 36 33. 0. 33 12 6 9 6' 2 48 39 5135,000 5.140.400 5170,352 5177,156 5184.253 5807,171 5106,000 582,680 S85,987 -=559,618 593,004:5427,289 5241,000 5223.080 5256,339 5236,784 $277,25-6 S1,234.460 1) Assumes ten 'Vehicles purchased M1996, and 2000 and nine in 4997 and 1999. 2) ,Assumes several standard vans kept to maintain overall service capacity.. 3) Assumes standards cost $22,500 and wheelchair vans cost 526,500 in 1996, then 4% annual inflation. 90 954 l'?73 Management Plan The Management Plan calls for several changes over the next five years. These include: organizational and staffing changes, expanded program marketing and other initiatives including potential consolidation of paratransit services with the City of Greeley and School District 6, regional service and developer initiatives to support transit services. Each of these is discussed below. Organization and Staffing Changes The recommended alternative includes the organization and staffing changes presented in Alternative 2 Existing System - Modifications the previous chapter. These address: 1) staff working hours, 2) the interface between program and financial management, and 3) where "Transportation" is housed within the Weld County Department of Human Services. Although a more thorough analysis of organization and staffing may be needed, an initial recommendation would be to create a new "Transportation Manager" position within the Human Services Department. Goals would be to: -Assist in balancing the work load of the current Transportation Director position -Better integrate transportation program and financial management -Systematic analysis of transportation performance -Pursue funding for transportation through the Private Industry Council and other contacts -Develop and implement pilot projects regarding the expansion of generalize public demand responsive services, including an analysis of the decentralized versus centralized approach -Develop an effective marketing and public information program regarding the County's transportation services -Continue the dialogue with the City of Greeley and School District 6 regarding consolidation efforts -Maintain an effective liaison with broad based transportation planning efforts in the Northern Front Range Region -Interface with County planners regarding needed developer initiatives to support transit Although further analysis may be needed by Departmental staff, it is also suggested that the Transportation Services function be moved from a subgroup of the Aging Services Program to a level equal to Aging Services, reporting to the Director of the Department of Human Services. The resulting revised organization chart for the Department is shown on the following page. This option should be considered in order to strengthen transportation program management given the magnitude of the transportation program and the changing nature of the program to serve more general public demand responsive trips. 91 950778 LI 10 .C U A 0 •.I N 0 CJ1 $4 0 'd d N .r{ CD d 4) N N C11 tT N +i iMIMila 0 a) N N " )0Er1 kit a x14 a) co it H •-I a) I-, a m IJ w 0 a) N H 1-) U 4) al -i4) 04 w I 4.. S N O4) 04 N -d C 9 4 4) Sa 4) VJ rn • H • a i4 •r1 it ri n3 tT rl[z+ 0 ,0 N U w P, Marketing and Public Information The service evaluation presented in Chapter V and information from public meetings indicated the need for improved marketing and public information related to the transportation program. This poses somewhat of a dilemma as increased information and marketing will likely result in additional service requests for which capacity may not exist. Given this reality, the following marketing and public information programs are suggested. Marketing A very focused marketing approach is suggested. This would include improving information on current general public demand responsive services whose riders now are primarily seniors. Efforts could include: an outreach effort by current riders to inform and invite individuals who haven't used the service to ride, radio and newspaper public service announcements, expanded use of flyers promoting use of current services. As general public demand responsive service is expanded, an additional marketing campaign will be needed to encourage a wider spectrum of the public to use the services. This could include: asking seniors to inform and invite non -seniors to participate, radio and newspaper public service announcements, expanded flyers in new locations to encourage a broader use of the service. This marketing effort will be necessary to encourage service use, especially given the new emphasis on obtaining fare revenue from riders in order to help finance the service. Public Information/Community Relations/Fund Raising The public information program would have two major goals. One goal would be to inform/remind service clubs, local governments and social service agencies of available program -specific and general public services and the need to expand services. They would also be approached to seek financial support for service expansion. One initiative would be to obtain funding for services through major employers for transportation provided to meet employment objectives. A second information program would be oriented to existing senior riders to support the transition from free transportation services to a fare on all demand responsive public transportation service. Other Initiatives Other initiatives include on -going efforts in three areas: 1) transportation consolidation, 2) regional transportation, and 3) developer initiatives." Each of these is discussed below. Transportation Consolidation The recently completed Transportation Consolidation Feasibility Study, sponsored by the City of 93 950778 Greeley in association with Weld County and School District 6, called for joint efforts by the three entities in three target areas - vehicle maintenance, personnel recruiting/training, and dispatching/scheduling. Joint recruiting is currently being done for the three entities. In order to address the other efforts, on -going staff efforts by each of the participating entities will be pursued to determine when and how implementation will take place. Regional Service There is currently no institutional mechanism to address potential needs and options for regional transportation service. The Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) housed in Fort Collins operates a ridesharing program and is responsible for regional transportation planning but there is no identified implementing agency for service recommendations which may results from MPO planning efforts and/or more locally oriented transit development programs (TDPs). This current TDP has been innovative as a joint effort between Weld County and the City of Greeley. In Larimer County a joint TDP effort among the City of Fort Collins, the City of Loveland and Larimer is currently underway. In late 1995 these two efforts will be combined into a North Range Regional Transit Plan to address regional service needs. In the meantime and to support the upcoming Regional Service effort, it is suggested that staff from the City of Greeley and Weld County meet periodically to consider regional service issues and promote ridesharing. Developer/Employer Initiatives This effort would initiate steps with developers and large employers located in rural portions of the county to address issues associated with alternative modes to the single -occupant auto. The following would be included: -Development and implementation of roadway design and development standards which facilitate use of ride -sharing and public transit. These could include such items as density standards, provision for bus pull-out lanes, bus pads, bus shelters, sidewalks and pedestrian links through developments, crosswalks and pedestrian crossing lights, bus turning radii, etc. -Employer transportation programs to encourage transit and ride -sharing, etc. Financial Plan The Financial Plan includes both cost and revenue estimates. Each of these is discussed below. Cost Projections Projected costs for implementing the recommended alternative are shown in Table 31. Cost categories include management, operations and capital. A subtotal for management and operating costs is also shown as well as total costs. 94 950778 For 1995, the cost estimates equate to 1993 levels. This was done in order to have an actual base against which the costs for the projected service changes could be added. Total 1995 costs shown, therefore, equal $830,530 as documented for 1993 earlier in the study. In order to show the impact of increased management costs associated with the creation of a new Transportation Manager position, or other staffing/organization changes, an assumption was made that 1993/1995 management costs equate to 10% of total costs. In 1995 a management cost of $83,053 is, therefore, shown. This increases to $116,375 in 1996, assuming staffing/organizational changes at an estimated cost of $30,000 and 4% annual inflation. For future years the management cost increases by 4% per year. Operating costs represent the remaining 90% of total costs in 1995. The subtotal for operating cost is, therefore, $747,477. Based on a review of service operating data, it is assumed that contracted service costs equate to 92% of operating costs. This equals $687,679 for 1995. The costs for general public service are the remaining 8%, or $59,798 in 1995. The estimated costs for contracted service are projected to remain constant over the five year planning period, once the City of Greeley contract is discontinued in 1996. General public service costs increase substantially assuming the service increases identified in the Operations Plan described earlier in this chapter. Over the five year TDP time frame, general public demand responsive service costs increase to $157,292 assuming the identified service increases and funding is available. The combined costs for management and operations increase from an estimated $830,530 in 1995 to $972,513 in the year 2000. Capital costs include costs for standard vehicle replacement as well as costs for expanded service and for other capital. No costs are shown for the standard vehicle replacement program. This assumes that the standard vehicle replacement costs are included in the management and operating costs and the associated vehicle replacement fund. Added costs are shown for expanded service vehicles since the vehicle replacement fund has not yet been established for these vehicles. Initially, FTA Section 16 or 18 grant requests could be made to cover 70% of the cost of these vehicles. "Other capital" includes costs for computer equipment replacement and/or miscellaneous capital purchases. Given these assumptions, total costs are projected to increase from $830,530 in 1995 to $1,009,363 in the year 2000. 95 950773 TABLE 31 Cost Projections Linr ItemB Management (1) 122k 1221 1222 1221 $83,053 $116,375 $121,030 $125,871 $130,906 Operations Contracts (2) $687,679 $679,079 $679,079 General Public (3) $59,798 $88,190 $91,718 Subtotal $747,477 $767,269 $770,797 Management & Open $830,530 $883,644 $679,079 $121,386 $800,465 $891,827 $826,337 Capital Stnd Veh. Repl. (4) Exp. Veh. Repl. (5) $26,500 Other Capital (6) $5,000 $5,200 Subtotal $0 $31,500 $5,200 Total 2O $136,142 $679,079 $679,079 $126,242 $157,292 $805,321 $836,370 $936,227 $972,513 $28,662 $31,001, $5,408 $5,624 $5,849 $34,070 $5,624 $36,851 $830,530 $915,144 $897,027 $960,407 $941,851 $1,009,363 1) 1995: Assumes total costs of $830,530 (same as 1993) and management costs are 10% of total. 1996: Assumes net increase of $30,000 for Transportation Manager position and 4% inflation. 1997-2000: Assumes 4% annual inflation. 2) 1995: Assumes total costs of $830,530 (same as 1993) and operating costs are 90% of total. Assumes contract services are 92% of total based on service hour data. 1996-2000: City of Greeley service ends and other contract service dollars held constant. 3) 1995: Assumes total costs of $830,530 (same as 1993) and operating costs are 90% of total. Assumes general public services are 8% of total based on service hour data. 1996, 1998, 2000: Increase of $25,000/year (40 hours/week of expanded service), 4% inflation: 4) 1995-2000: Assumes capital costs covered in annual vehicle replacement fund included in operating costs shown above. 5) Estimated added capital costs associated with expanded service. 1996, 1998, 2000: Assumes one wheelchair van added each year at $26,500, plus 4% inflation: 6) 1996-2000: Assumes annualized computer equipment replacement fund. Revenue Projections Revenue projections are shown in Table 32. For consistency purposes, revenue projections were developed for management, operations and capital. Revenues to cover management costs assume a majority of management costs are paid for through indirect costs incurred by Weld County. In 1995, the remainder is shown to be covered by CSBG funding. In future years the added $30,000 is projected to be covered by "other" sources. This could include added charges on existing service contracts, or other funding. 96 950778 Operating revenues are segregated into those for service contracts and for general public demand responsive service. Generally, service contracts are projected to remain constant. The City of Greeley contract, however, is expected to terminate in 1996. Revenues for general public demand responsive service include fares (from Table 29), Section 18, CSBG and other funds. Revenues to support capital purchases beyond the current vehicle replacement program included FTA Section 18 (or Section 16) and "other" funding. The second page of Table 32 shows the totals. A major issue will be the identification of specific sources to cover the "other" category which increases to $91,482 in the year 2000, or reduce the level of expanded general public demand responsive service. 97 950773. TABLE 32 Revenue Projections rine Items Management Co. Indirect (1) CSBG (2) Other (3) Subtotal! Operations Contracts (4) CDSI Head Start Mig. Head Start CSBG (2) Senior Nutrition Preschool City of Greeley JPTA Suppl. Foods Subtotal General Public Fares (5) FTA Section 18 (6) CSBG (2) Other (3) Subtotal Subtotal Subtotal Mg'mt/Opers. Capital Stud Veh. Repl. (7) Exp. Veh. Repl. (8) Other Capital (8) Subtotal FTA Section 18 (8) Other (8) Subtotal Total 1424 14 Mk 1217 1228 1222 104 $72,480 $75,379 $78,394 $81,530 $84,791 $88,183 10,573 10,996 11,436 11,893 12,369 12,864 30,000 31,200 32,448 33,746 35,096 $83,053 $116,375 $121,030 $125,871 $130,906 $136,142 $235,000 $235,000 $235,000 $235,000 $235,000 $235,000 185,000 185,000 185,000 185,000 185,000 185,000 115,000 115,000 115,000 115,000 115,000 115,000 76,679 76,679 76,679 76,679 76,679 76,679 45,000 45,000 45,000 45,000 45,000 45,000 20,000 20,000 20,000 20,000 20,000 20,000 8,600 0 0 0 0 0 2,000 2,000 2,000 2,000 2,000 2,000 400 400 400 400 400 400 $687,679 $679,079 $679,079 $679,079 $679,079 $679,079 $17,660 ` $26,887 $36,247 $36,791 $46,151 32,050 32,050 32,050 32,050 32,050 32,050 27,748 28,858 30,012 31,213 32,461 33,760 9,622 2,768 21,876 24,939 45,331 $59,798 $88,190 $91,718 $121,386 $126,242 $157,292 $747,477 $767,269 $883,644 $830,530 $770,797 $800,465 $891,827 $926,337 $805,321 $836,370 $936,227 $972,513 $0 $26,500 ` $28,662 $31,001 0 5,000 - 5,200 5,408 5,624 5,849 $0 $31,500 $5,200 $34,070 $5,624 $36,851. 22,050 3,640 23,849 3,937 25,795 9,450 1,560 10,221 1,687 11,055 $31,500 $5,200 $34,070 $5,624 $36,851 $830,530 $915,144 $897,027 $960,047 $941,851 $1,009,363 98 950778 TABLE 32 Revenue Projections (Continued) j.ine Items Co. Indirect CDSI Head Start Mig. Head Start CSBG Senior Nutrition Preschool City of Greeley PTA Suppl. Foods Fares PTA Section 18 FTA Capital Other Stud Veh. Repl. Total $72,480 235,000 -` 185,000 115,000 115,000 45,000 20,000 8,600 2,000 400 124Ii 1922 124$ 1222 $75,379 $78,394 $81,530 $84,791 235,000 235,000 235,000 235,000 185,000 r 185,000 185,000 185,000 115,000 115,000 % 115,000 115,000 119,785 121,509 45,000 45,000 45,000 20,000 20,000 20,000 116,533 118,127 45,000 20,000 0 2,000 400 17,660 32,050 22,050 49,072 $830,530 $915,144 1) Indirect funding provided by Weld County HSD. 2) CSBG funds - shown as catch all, total of $115,000 in 1993/1995 Including WELDCOS funds 3) Other - higher social service contract fees, new employer contracts, County or other. 4) Typically assume 4% annual increase with inflation. 5) See Table 29. 6) Assume Section 18 funds are stable. '7) Assumes this funding included in operation and management revenues. 8) Assumes FTA Section 16/18 or other pays 70% and other funds pay 30%. 0 :0 0 2,000 2,000 2,000 400 400 400 26,887 36,247 36,791 32,050 32,050 32,050 3,640 23,849 3,937 35,528 64,546 60,373 Wito $88,183 235,000 185,000 115,000 123,302 45,000 20,000 0 2,000 400 46,151 32,050 25,795 91,482 $897,027 $960,407 $941,851 $1,009,363 99 950778 APPENDIX 1 Weld County TDP Advisory Committee Don Bennett, Evans Gladys Bolander B.J. Dean, Director, ISLAND GROVE Regional Treatment Center Ruth Gartrell, La Salle Melanie George -Hernandez, Director, Weld Information and Referral Service Constance L. Harbert, County Commissioner Georgia Kanten Maria Raseberry WELDCOS, Inc., Rural Senior Aide Coordinators 950779 APPENDIX 2 TRANSIT DEMAND ANALYSIS - GREELEY/WELD COUNTY Urbanized Area Demand Estimates The Urbanized Area transit demand estimate was prepared using comparative data from other similar -sized western communities. A comparison was conducted of actual transit ridership, using Federal Transit Administration (ETA) Section 15 data for the smallest transit agencies reporting, those operating less than 25 vehicles. Section 15 is the ETA's reporting and information system for its Urbanized Area grant recipients. To conduct the analysis, the consultant selected fourteen small western Urbanized Areas which operate FTA funded systems. The selected systems were in communities with populations in the 40,000 - 100,000 range. Table 1 shows the detailed service information for each selected city. As the data shows, there is a broad range of service and ridership levels among the fourteen selected communities. In terms of total riders per capita, the range is from a low of 2.7 to a high of 12.1. The average total riders per capita is 6.5; the average for fixed route and demand responsive is 6.1 and 0.4, respectively. These averages were then adjusted upward by one standard deviation to estimate a target trip rate. Calculated transit demand estimates are included in Chapter 4, Demand Analysis and Needs Estimate. Nonurbanized Area Demand Estimates The transit demand analysis for the nonurbanized area includes two elements, the transit demand of the elderly and disabled and the transit demand of the general public. Four models were used to estimate these two transit demand components. Two models were used to estimate the total transit demand and two models were used to estimate demand for the elderly and disabled population. The difference in the total transit demand estimate and the elderly and disabled demand is the estimated general public transit demand. A. Total Transit Demand Models 1. Peterson and Smith Regression Model n D=E di(POP) r=1 1 950778 where D = total demand for transit trips = annual trips per person in i "target group" POP; = population in the i target group n = number of "target groups" Two "target groups" were found to generate approximately 80 percent of the total transit demand based on observed experience with transit operations: the elderly (age 65+) and the non -elderly, low-income population. Further analysis indicated that the equation tends to overestimate transit -related trip making by approximately 23 percent. The following equation was developed from this information. D- [ 12 * (POPeweily)+19 * (POPnon-elde4ylow(ncome)] *0.77 0.8 Source: Estimating Demand for Rural Transportation, Proceedings of the First National Conference on Rural Public Transportation, October 27, 1976, p. 95. 2. Department of Transportation Regression Model for Zonal Demand Weekly Demand For All Trip Purposes WKDMND = (0.0493 x POP) + (0.0658 x MINORITIES) + (0.578 x ELDERS) + (0.115 x OCARF) + (0.434 x POORFM) (R = .94) Definitions WKDMND = Weekly zonal demand for all trips (one-way trips) POP = Total Zone population MINORITIES = Zone population for minorities ELDERS = Zone population of Persons Age 65+ OCARF = Zone population of zero -car families POORFM = Zone population of poverty level families Then, WKDMND times 52 weeks/year = Annual Demand Source: "Transit Service and Organizational Alternatives for Low Density Suburban - Rural Areas", USDOT, Urban Mass Transportation Administration, February', 1979. 2 950778 B. Elderly and Disabled Transit Factors 1. Elderly and Disabled National Trip Factors This model is based upon elderly and disabled trip rates. These rates were developed based on research done in rural areas regarding the frequency of transit ridership among the elderly and disabled. Based on the research, a formula was developed based upon the assumption that 5% of daily elderly trips are by transit and 35% of daily disabled trips are by transit. Elderly and Disabled Transit Demand = [(.03 trips per day * elderly pop.) + (.26 trips per day * disabled pop.)] * 260 days. Source: Peat, Marwick, Mitchell and Co., January, 1978. 2. Elderly and Disabled Mode Split by Mobility Type This model forecasts the total number of trips generated by the elderly and the non - elderly disabled, and then applies a transit modal split. Elderly and Disabled Transit Demand = {[(Elderly + Non -elderly disabled) x 0.25 x 5.2 trips/week x 52 weeks/year x 0.35 transit mode split] + [Elderly + Non -elderly disabled) x 0.05 x 1.5 x 52 weeks/year x 0.35 transit mode split]} Source: Peat, Marwick, Mitchell and Co., Description of the Transportation Disabled 1975 and the Institute of Transportation Engineers, Trip Generation for Nursing,Homes, 1974. C. Results The 1990 Census data applied to these models for the nonurbanized area of Weld County is shown in Table 2. Table 3 presents the demand estimates produced by each model using 1990 data for the nonurbanized area. Averages of Method 1 and 2 results (total demand) and of Method 3 and 4 results (elderly/disabled demand) are also shown on Table 3. Table 4 shows transit demand projections for 1993 through 2000 based on transit demand, trip ratios and population projections. 3 950778 \ 4. y vc \� /3) (rz.m$? CC a.0 22 9545773 C U C O v O C 950773 -t x » SC °;.:C N A N N N cn 350773 NI — VC. �N 0 N V, N ^,O tri N C 1/'. C 0 c. !'N N - N N N M.. V, r;-... - N _ ) ...Z N V --t. W. NN. .., c 2 - L r il x 7 - T^ 0 rod' .0 - N N J o: V--- s U... — O .C Cr,. N C N F n 7.4 0' J G c ,r C 4 y 7 CO 956'778 TABLE 5 Weld County Greeley Urbanized Area 1.00` 2.00 4.01 4.02 5.00' 6.00 7.01 7,02* 8.00 • 9.00' • 10.00 •11.00 12.01` 12.02 13.00 14.01 * 14.02 14.03 Non -T Weld Coun y 7.02* 14.01* 15.00 16.00 17.00 18.00 19.01 19.02 20.00 21.00 22.01 22.02 23.00 24.00 25.01 25.02 Weld County census tracts were. categorized in this manner to best approximate the.Greeley Urbanized Area. Two census tracts, 7.02 and 14.01, are split relatively evenly between the Urbanized and Non -Urbanized Area; therefore, the data was kept split between the two areas. 9 93071S ...... ........ ................. TABLE 6 Transit Demand Estimates by Census City of Greeley ensus Tract > Urbanize 1.00 2:00 3.00 441 4.02 5:00 6.00 7;01 7.02` 8:00 9.00 10:00 11.E 12:01 12.02 13.00 1.4.01* 14.02' - - 14:03 Subtotal Non -Urbanized 7:02 14.01* 15.00 16.00 17.00 18.00 19.01 19.02 20.00 21.00 22.01 22.02 23.00 24.00 25.01 25.02 Subtotal TOTAL SOURCE: RAE... Consultants, Inc.. Tract (199O) 18,946 21,493 0 21,087 20,220 38,582 9,152 13,150 10,900 24,495 16,318 55,164 22,117 24,284 13,176 32,767 8,030 16,187 13,222 382,291 12,865 9,345 19,3% 13,676 19,719 13,081: 46,083 11,962 39,142 33,556 6,390 24,361 19,044 4,477 11,072 17,926 _ 302,087 Total Population 2.059 4.948" fl" 3,250 3.044 5:554 1023 1,570 1,679 2.761 2,805 10.272 4.856 3.880; 3.045 5.157. 2.273 5.387 4,108 67,671 2.254 2.482 4.113 3.113 4,355 2,923 8.764 2.841 9,620 7,172 1.646 5,383 3,419 839 1,807 3,419 64,150 131,821 10 9.20 4:4 0.04 7.41 6.64 6.95 • 8.95 8.38 6.49 8.87 5.82 5.37 4:55 6.26 4:33 6.35 3.53 3.00 3.22 5.71 3.76 4.71 4:39 433 4.48 5.26 4.21 4.07 4.68 3.88 453 557 534 6.13 5.24 4.71 Sri -73 N C� r C7 T 0 CD CV 0 CP ea O Co 0 • 0 C+) Ca C' 0 0 f N C CV r 0 O $ 0 C7 i 4 U) c as W • i CV 0 T M 0 T"" City Census Tracts 950778 FT. COLLINS Longmont O BOULDER O p Rockport 24.00 Nunn O Pierce pHeretord OGrover Weld County J 23.00 oak 22.02 —.11,e \.Wlndeol 21.01 1/GREELEY Mf 21.00 O GaIeton e I •Evans (, j y Kersey 16.00 Johnstown _ Evans 0 ' Milliken O a+'1 Ala Salle Peckham /p �(' o 17.00 Irastene O Evanston OFrederick Glicrest O Platteville 18.00 20.00 dconoo OFt. Lupton 19.01 eenesburg O Hudson Brlggsdale O arnavllle 25.02 ORoggen Prospect alley Lochbule/Lochwood Masters 25.01 O Keats O Buckingham O O Rayner Stoneham _p0rchatd County Census Tracts O Ft MORGAN 950778 APPENDIX 3 Public Meeting Summaries 950778 GREELEY/WELD COUNTY TRANSIT DEVELOPMENT PLAN PUBLIC MEETING August 23, 1994 7:00 pm City of Greeley's Recreation Center The firm RAE Consultants, Inc. was hired to prepare the Greeley/Weld County Transit Development Plan. Rick Evans, from RAE Consultants, conducted this Public Meeting to collect public input for the study. This five-year plan for transportation will study both the City's and County's transit systems and both public and specialized transit. It will evaluate the existing services and define the future direction for City and County transit services. Mr. Evans opened the meeting with the following summary information: The City system is primarily oriented to the transit dependent; not many commuters or students take advantage of public transit. Ridership is good, but is a little lower per capita compared to comparable cities. The route structure doesn't follow current travel patterns, but it is difficult to change route every time travel patterns change since current riders become displaced when routes change. The system is well managed and reliable, vehicles are well maintained, employees are courteous, but the resources are stretched to the limit (i.e. routes are extended as far as they can go). You can't keep extending routes without throwing off the time schedules, so something needs to change if service is going to expand into a broader area. One of the main issues is that the City's Transit Service needs to position itself for the future: should the service continue to focus on the transit dependent, those without transit alternatives, and try to improve in that area, or should there be a change to try to get people who are now driving out of their cars to help reduce air pollution and congestion. One can't do everything with a bus system and you have to efficiently manage the resources. The County system provides a high level of transportation for the people involved in the particular program served by the Mini -Bus (County Head Start, CDSI, etc.), but there isn't much service left over for the people who need to ride to other activities. The City did an on -board survey which shows that a high percentage of riders come from 1) one person households (38% riders as compared to 27% for the city as a whole), and 2) low automobile availability (51% riders have zero automobiles as compared to 8% for the city). Riders are generally satisfied with the bus service, giving the highest marks to courtesy of drivers and the lowest marks to operating hours. Comments from this survey indicated a strong desire for increased service -- there are a lot of unmet needs. The following input from the meeting is organized by topic, not necessarily in chronological order: The need for more opportunities to transfer between routes: . Have transfers good for one hour instead of half hour 950778 • Stagger routes with some leaving the DTC (downtown transfer center) 1/4 til and 1/4 after, and some leaving on the hour and 1/2 hour • The transfer system now has no time allowed to accommodate service delays • Change the outbound A and inbound F routes - move F route over to 6 St/27 Ave and the A route over to 6 St/27 Ave, this would allow the riders in North Greeley to transfer directly to Bittersweet/Aims College without having to go downtown The need for routes to run more frequently: • All routes need to run every half hour The need to look at a modified grid system instead of the existing pulse system The need to get major employers involved • Look into corporate sponsorship of routes (i.e. the UNC route - UNC covers 50% of the operating cost of running the route) • Major businesses, not served by the existing bus service, should be approached to provide shuttles to the existing routes • Employers need to look at "flex time" for their employees • Look into employers buying bus passes for their employees • Employer -sponsored incentive programs for riding The Bus The need for service to/from other communities • The smaller towns need access to Greeley • RTD goes into Brighton, can The Bus connect with RTD there so that there is transportation into Denver and surrounding areas • Service into Windsor - people might be willing to pay up to $4.00/roundtrip • Service needed into Garden City Increase in operating hours and Sunday service • The hours are too limited for a lot of the work force, The Bus services only the "9 to 5" workers • Existing hours allow you to get to dinner, but not home; allow you to get to evening cultural events, but not home • Cultural activities, such as The Union Colony Civic Center (UCCC), The Little Theater of the Rockies, Foundation Hall, etc., would see an increase in attendance if bus service were provided • Saturday service needs to have the same hours of service and routes as Monday through Friday • Businesses would see an increase in sales with evening service • People will use the service when more is provided • Without service on Sundays and in the evenings, the transit dependent are made to feel like 2nd class citizens • Increased service will increase ridership • Increasing service for the transit dependent will make the service also more attractive to others 950778 Better marketing, change in attitudes • Better marketing is needed; The Bus seems to only attract the transit dependent, so the City Council thinks it's not an essential service • The efforts in marketing so far have not succeeded • The City doesn't have good marketing skills - the benefits of public transit need to be expounded on • Make news releases on safe driving records set by Division and by drivers • Provide training sessions every month on how to ride The Bus • Drivers need to have more information to hand out • Non -riders mentality needs to changed; someday they may need to ride The Bus and they need to believe it's ok to do so • Stress the economic benefits (can you drive your car all month for the price of an adult bus pass $16.50) • Citizens feel these public meetings have not shown good faith in considering public suggestions in the past, ideas were not taken seriously • The City Council needs to let the community know if they truly are supportive of public transit • How many members of City Council have actually traveled on The Bus Increase in Paratransit Service • Increase in evening hours and service on Sundays needed • Riders would pay for increased service • Supplemental service (3 additional hours on Monday through Friday and 4 additional hours on Saturday) have been requested in the 1995 budget • Hard to get scheduled for rides when students come back • More vans needed How to pay for these changes • City bus tax is needed • County -wide tax is needed so the smaller communities can use transit into Greeley • Riders will pay for increased services (riders upset now because fares increased in 1994 without any increase in service) • Need to look into contracting out services during the expanded hours • Use food tax money for transit Passes • Re -design the bus passes so they are easily recognized by the drivers (put each group in a different corner, i.e. upper right Adult, upper left Youth, etc.) • Lifetime pass Miscellaneous • Crossing streets in Greeley is dangerous - at particular risk are persons with disabilities. Better pedestrian signage is needed 950778 • The on -board survey was not filled out by a cross-section of the ridership; some riders weren't in the position to fill them out (i.e. don't speak English, can't fill out survey due to disability) - send surveys to Centennial Development Services (CDSI), Schaeffer Rehab, Rodarte Center for additional input • Inform City Council regarding transit benefits (i.e. the transit dependent spend their money in Greeley because they can't leave) • 8th Avenue angle parking needs to be converted to parallel parking for safety • The #1 fear of the elderly is that they will lose their ability to drive 950778 WELD COUNTY TRANSIT DEVELOPMENT PLAN PUBLIC MEEING September 22, 1994 Dacono Senior Center Rick Evans opened the meeting and distributed an agenda to the twenty-five seniors in attendance. He summarized the study progress to date and asked for input regarding three areas: unmet needs, service options and willingness and ability to pay for transportation services. The following is a summary of the comments received: Additional needed services? -Service to Boulder, Greeley and Denver are the highest priorities. There is already service one day a week to Longmont. -Currently 8-10 people ride to Longmont weekly, the service is free to users -A general complaint was that the trip to Longmont was too rushed. Once all the passengers are dropped off there isn't enough time to get done with all the things people wanted to do. Riders would like more time there. -If more transportation service was provided, the highest priority would be a trip to Boulder and a trip to Greeley. Those present liked the idea of going to Boulder one week and Greeley the next. -Also there was significant interest in going to Central City for recreation. -There was a definite willingness to pay for transportation, especially for new service and for recreational trips. Many felt seniors would/should pay more for recreational trips. Those present indicated that people should pay for current service, although it may be better to initially tie fares to new service. -Equipment was a big interest/issue: many people cannot manage the entry step. The best option may be to use a wheelchair lift and have a portable wheelchair on board for people to use to get into and out of the vehicle. Many only need the wheelchair to board and once onboard they could sit in regular seats. Also many present said they knew of people who couldn't come to the Senior Center for meals on Thursdays because they were in wheelchairs and can't access the bus. It appears there are people who may "come out of the woodwork" if wheelchair service was provided. It may take time to develop. -Patsy Drewer said the County's insurance carrier will not allow standees on the lift and will not permit three -wheel scooters on the lifts. (This violates the ADA.) -The seniors felt that the service should be open to the general public. -Better communication is needed so people will know the service is available. -One woman suggested that each town have its own vehicle or at least one to share rather than having a driver deadhead to and from Greeley. -One man 90 years old said what he could really use is some one to be a care 950778 provider in his home with a car to take him out now and then. He's isolated now. Who Pays? -Seniors are willing to pay for transportation and many feel it should not be provided free. Some thought that everyone should pay a fare if seniors pay a fare, migrant workers for example. -A round trip fare of $2.50 to Longmont would not be unreasonable. -One woamn suggested that a tax be passed so transportation could be provided. Her idea was a tax in each community. -It was stated that current riders are mostly widows. -One person questioned whether seniors could afford to pay. Based on the discussion the following was decided: -Starting Monday, September 26th, the Mini -Bus will come at the same time in the morning but will stay in Longmont an hour longer than in the past, giving riders more time to do there errands. -Wheelchair lifts and other accessible set -vices will be investigated/considered. -The idea of a fare will be investigated re expanding service to Boulder/Greeley and potentially for existing transportation services. There being no further discussion, the meeting ended at approximately 2:20 pm. 950778 Greeley -Weld Transit Development Plan Technical Memorandum Regional Transit Service A goal of carrying 2.9% of all trips on transit by the year 2015 has been established in the Regional Transportation Plan. This goal includes both regional and local service. The increases in local service within Greeley which are needed to meet this goal are discussed in a separate report covering Greeley service alternatives. The need for regional transit services impacts both the City and Weld County, and are discussed in this section. Other entities also will be involved in the provision of regional services. Larimer County, the City of Fort Collins and the City of Loveland generate trips and will need to participate in providing regional service. A percent of trips also go south towards Denver and north towards Cheyenne. Estimates in the Regional Transportation Plan are that in 1990 there were 257,000 regional trips each day in the North front Range region. By the year 2015 this will grow to 483,000 regional trips each day, as illustrated in Figure 1. The numbers presented here provide order of magnitude estimates but will need to be refined after the travel study for the region is completed. This study is programmed to be carried out in 1995 by the metropolitan planning organization. The Regional Transportation Plan goal of a 2.9% mode split for transit equates to 3,200 of the daily regional trips being carried by transit by the year 2000. By the year 2015, this would increase to 8,000 daily regional trips by transit. The Transit Development Plan focuses on the upcoming five years, but it is useful to keep the long term goals in mind. No information is available on the origins and destinations of the projected regional trips, but this information may be available in 1995-96 after the completion of the detailed travel study. For purposes of discussion, the projected regional trips have been divided on the same basis as total trips. Greeley generated just under 28% of all trips in the region in 1990, so a proportionate share of the regional trips were considered to originate in Greeley and the surrounding area. The split of regional transit trips is illustrated in Figure 2. For the year 2000, the number of trips per community is: Fort Collins: 1,700 Greeley: 1,000 Loveland: 500 TOTAL 3,200 An important question is how many of these trips will originate within the primary three cities and how many will originate in the small towns and unincorporated county areas. The population growth outside city limits may be responsible for a surprising number of the regional trips. Page 1 950778 Projected Total Trips Larimer/Weld Counties 4,000,000 w 3,000,000 a. l; 2,000,000 O 1,000,000 0 '90 '95 '00 '05 '10 '15 Year ■ Regional M Total Figure 1 Regional Transit Trips Projected Daily Trips by Community ,,16,000 0 14,000 `m 12,000 a 10,000 CL 8,000 1- 6,000 4,000 m 2,000 ~ o '00 '05 Year '10 '15 '90 '95 ■ Fort Collins Greeley IN Loveland Figure 2 Page 2 950778 Service Levels How much service would be needed to carry these regional trips? Fixed route service may carry as much as 40 passengers per hour. The longer the trip, the fewer number of passengers may be carried each hour. As a starting point, let us assume an average of 32 passengers per hour are carried, so 100 daily service hours would be needed in the North Front Range region. Approximately 31 hours per day would be needed in the Greeley area, or 8,000 hours per year based on five day per week service. Service should be considered to Fort Collins with service to employers in Windsor on the way, Loveland, and Denver. In the Greeley area, traffic counts indicate there is a high volume of trips from north of the City so service north of Greeley should also be considered. In designing regional service, additional information will be needed. This should be collected as part of the travel study which will be carried out in 1995. Decisions will need to be made on what areas will be served and what trip purposes will be targeted. Typically regional service begins by targeting commuters so peak hour service to major employment centers is offered. As service grows, additional trips are added, such as a mid -day trip. Regional service totaling 31 hours per day might include the following in the year 2000: Greeley to Fort Collins: (12 service hours) Greeley to Loveland: (3 service hours) Greeley to Denver: (15 service hours) North Weld County: (1 service hour) Six round trips daily departing Greeley at 6:30 a.m., 7:00 a.m., 7:30 a.m., and departing Fort Collins at 4:30 p.m., 5:00 p.m., and 5:30 p.m. Two round trips daily departing Greeley at 7:30 a.m. and departing Loveland at 4:30 p.m. Six round trips daily departing Greeley at 6:30 a.m., 7:00 a.m., 7:30 a.m., and departing Denver at 4:30 p.m., 5:00 p.m., and 5:30 p.m. Two trips daily, arriving in Greeley at 8:00 a.m. and departing at 5:00 p.m.. This service would only cover those trips originating in the Greeley area. Service would also be needed for trips originating in the Fort Collins and Loveland areas. An advantage of providing regional service in conjunction with Larimer County is that vehicle trips will often be able to carry passengers in both directions. For example, on the trips between Greeley and Fort Collins, passengers would be carried in both directions. Service from the north of Greeley would probably only carry passengers in one direction. If conventional fixed route bus service is operated, a cost of $35.00 per hour is realistic. The annual operating cost would be approximately $280,000 for the service described above in the Greeley Page 3 950778 region, operated five days per week. The capital costs would be high as more vehicles are needed for peak hour service than when an even level of service is operated throughout the day. The above scheme would require eight vehicles plus one spare. At $200,000 per vehicle, the initial capital cost would be $1.8 million dollars. While some of the operating costs would be covered through fares and it may be possible to obtain federal funds for a portion of the vehicle costs, it is important to recognize the total costs of such a program. This scenario provides an indication of what the costs would be for bus service only. Remember also that by the year 2015 the regional service is anticipated to quadruple so the budget would increase to over one million dollars for operating expenses alone. In addition, the Regional Transportation Plan calls for Larimer County to serve more than twice as many regional trips as in Weld County. If both counties operated service to meet the mode split goal in the year 2000, the annual operating cost would be approximately $900,000 in current dollars. Options There may be other options which Greeley and Weld County may wish to consider, such as initially placing a greater reliance on carpools and vanpools rather than conventional fixed route bus service. To meet the regional goal for 2015 (14,900 daily regional trips by transit) fixed route peak hour service will be necessary. However, in the short-term period of this plan, developing a stronger carpool and vanpool program may be the best option. Carpools and vanpools have the advantage of a lower public subsidy per trip yet the participants do adjust from a single occupancy vehicle to a shared -ride trip. The role of the private sector in operating regional services should also be considered. Although typically in the peak morning and afternoon travel periods all vehicles in the region will be in use, some carriers (such as airport shuttle services) may have vehicle capacity available. Another item to consider is connecting with Denver RTD in Brighton rather than operating service all the way to Denver. This may be appropriate on some if not all trips. This raises the issue of park - and -ride lots. An active transit/carpool/vanpool program for regional trips will require parking facilities at key points. Issues Decisions need to be made independently, yet cooperatively by both the Weld County Commissioners and City of Greeley Council in regard to regional transportation. In this analysis the goal for the transit mode split adopted in the Regional Transportation Plan has been applied to the regional trips. This provides an order of magnitude estimate of the services which will be needed in the next five years as well as through the year 2015. Does the goal of the Regional Transportation Plan still seem reasonable and is it one which both jurisdictions are committed to pursuing? Page 4 950'778 If regional service is operated, what institutional structure is appropriate to ensure that all parties have a voice in decision -making? While both Weld County and City of Greeley need to be involved, Larimer County, Fort Collins and Loveland also need to participate. How should regional transit services be funded? Considering that the cost of the service will be very high if the region meets the 2015 goal, it would appear that a new tax would be the only way to fund such services. What sort of tax would be appropriate, how would it be collected, and in what area would it be collected? Who would operate regional services? Would existing fixed route transit providers be responsible (City of Greeley and Fort Collins) for either operating or contracting out the operation of regional services? Would it be appropriate for one entity to be responsible? Would a transit district be appropriate considering the magnitude of services, institutional and funding questions? Although this document has a five year horizon, the issue of regional transit has implications far beyond the scope of the Transit Development Plan. Making decisions based on the short-term needs may not be adequate considering the magnitude of the issue. In considering institutional arrangements, funding and operating agreements, it is necessary to consider the implications in the year 2015. There is not adequate information at present to make the necessary decisions: a significant amount of planning work will be needed once the travel study is completed next year. However, it is important for both the City of Greeley and Weld County to determine the priority of regional transit service. For the current TDP to be consistent with the Regional Transportation Plan, steps need to be identified to evaluate and implement regional transit services. The following steps are recommended: The travel origin/destination study to be carried out next year should be structured to provide base information needed to identify appropriate regional transit and carpool/vanpool services. A specific plan which identifies what regional services are appropriate should be prepared. The relationship between transit and carpool/vanpool services for regional trips should be included. This plan should cover at least a ten year period and keep the 2015 goals in mind. That a regional committee (including both Larimer and Weld counties) be formed to address issues such as long-term institutional structure, funding, facilities/equipment, and operation of regional transit services. It is envisioned that this committee would begin its work in 1996 and guide the development of the above study. Develop a regional marketing plan to address both use of shared ride services and public understanding of and support for such services. Page 5 950778 A suggested time -frame for implementing regional transit services is: 1995: MPO carries out origin -destination study for region. 1995-96: Plan for providing regional transit services be developed in conjunction with jurisdictions in Larimer County. Establish a committee to identify both short and long-term solutions to funding, institutional, and operational issues. 1997-98: Expand current carpool/vanpool program. 1999: Begin operation of regional services. The initial costs would primarily be for planning and development work. However, significant costs will be associated with implementing any type of regional services. Until the specific plan is prepared it is difficult to identify hard costs for services, but the numbers identified in this report do provide an order of magnitude estimate. Page 6 950773 COLORADO mEmORAnDUm Dale K. Hall, Chairman To Board of County Commissioners Date April 6, 1995 U4 CI lter J. Speckman, Executive Director, Human Services Weld County Transit Development Plan From Subject: Enclosed for Board approval is the Weld County Transit Development Plan. The purpose of this report is to document a five year plan for public and specialized transit service for Weld County. The Plan provides an overall framework for service changes for the 1996 to 2000 time period. Completing a Transit Development Plan desiring to apply for Federal Transit applies for Section 18 Rural Transit plus. For the City of Greeley (TDP) is a requirement of local entities Administration (FTA) funds. Weld County funds annually in the amount of $32,000 first time, the Weld County TDP was conducted in conjunction with the Greeley TDP. Thus, the Plan addresses both rural Weld and City of transit issues. If you have further questions you may contact Linda Piper at extension 3320. 95077a Hello