HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOUNCIL - AGENDA ITEM - 06/05/2007 - NEW DIRECTIONS FOR REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION FUNDING DATE: June 5, 2007 WORK SESSION ITEM
PRESENTERS: Representatives of FORT COLLINS CITY COUNCIL
the Principles Committee
SUBJECT FOR DISCUSSION
New Directions for Regional Transportation Funding North Front Range - RTA Proposal for
Larimer County. (Minority Report)
GENERAL DIRECTION SOUGHT AND SPECIFIC QUESTIONS TO BE ANSWERED
We ask the Council to pursue regional cooperation for transportation in Larimer County using this
"New Directions" proposal as a guide wirh the goal of an RTA ballot issue in the 2008-09
timeframe. We propose that Fort Collins initiates active communication between the cities and
Larimer County to achieve this end.
BACKGROUND
The Steering Committee had worked to find a consensus proposal for development of a Rural
Transportation Authority (RTA) for northern Colorado. The inability of the Steering Committee
to reach a consensus on a number of issues, which we believe are critical to "doing the right thing
right,"necessitated this separate proposal.
A set of"Guiding Principles"was crafted and adopted by a Principles Committee which preceded
the RTA Steering Committee. This report and proposal carefully follows and is based upon those
Guiding Principles (see Attachment 2). It was the failure of those supporting the other proposal to
apply those Principles which led to the need for this proposal.
Key contributors to the crafting of this proposal were Roger Hoffmann,Tim Johnson, Scott Mason,
and Earl Stevens. Additionally, Bob Heath's ideas helped provide the initial direction, though Bob
was out of state and unavailable to review the final proposal.
SUMMARY OF THE PROPOSAL
This RTA revenue proposal consists of a 0.5 cent sales tax, a 0.5 cent use tax, and a$10 dollar per
vehicle registration fee. This proposal also recommends the creation of a separate, but paired
funding mechanism to fund road capacity improvements(a Road Capacity Growth Fund). This fund
would be established in principle via intergovernmental agreements (IGAs), and implemented by
various revenue mechanisms that the entities already have available. Since the RTA ballot question
itself requires the adoption of IGAs, the agreement to set up the "RCGF"mechanism(s) would be
part of those IGAs.
June 5, 2007 Page 2
Revenues from RTA
Sales Tax
Of the sales tax, 0.35 % is for Transit, Bicycle and Pedestrian projects, and a little less than half of
this is returned in the form of"Shareback" for local use; 0.15 % is for Road Safety and correction
of existing deficiencies. New transit projects are often eligible for federal matching funds. Local
money matches of 20-50% are required to get leveraging money.
Use Tax and Vehicle Registration Fee
The 0.5 %Use Tax and $10 Vehicle Registration fee are targeted largely for maintenance of local
"off-system" (i.e. non federal/state)roads. Since 98%+of the vehicle registration fees are paid by
current residents from year to year; these "user" fees are appropriate for uses like maintenance or
fixing existing deficiencies.
Balanced funding split
Roughly 1/2 of the combined RTA revenues (50.9%) would be allocated to the combination of
transit and bike/ped modes; while a bit under 1/2 (49.1%) would be allocated for roads,primarily
for maintenance and the correction of existing safety deficiencies. This balance allows for a steady
movement toward the goals of reducing automotive VMT (provision of alternative modes) and
improving air quality,while at the same time addressing a nearly consensus priority established at
the June,2006"N.Colorado Regional Summit on Transportation"-maintenance,or"fixing what we
already have".
HIGHLIGHTS OF THIS PROPOSAL
The following highlights illustrate how the Guiding Principles are upheld.
• In compliance with Principle #5, no sales tax dollars are allocated for "on-system" road
improvements that are federal and state responsibilities. We believe that it is not only
inequitable to tax local residents for this purpose,but that it also sets a dangerous precedent.
• This proposal better fulfills the requirement of the last Principle, "Development will pay its
share for the cost of the regional transportation infrastructure based on its impacts. "It does
this by setting up,via intergovernmental agreement,a"Road Capacity Growth Fund"which
would better match revenue sources to the "drivers" of need for capacity-related
expenditures. We have built in proportionate responsibility for existing residents and new
development, using the formula that Fort Collins currently uses for determining
responsibility for capacity consumption.
• This proposal addresses the Principle that the regional transportation system "will ...
enhance the environment by promoting energy conservation, improving air quality... " .
While it protects our existing investment in roads,it begins to shift to more energy-efficient
and less-polluting transportation modes. In recognizes both the need to address looming air
quality non-compliance threats and the economic threat posed by"Peak Oil".
June 5, 2007 Page 3
• This proposal includes a healthy percentage for bicycle and pedestrian modes, recognizing
that"multi-modal"must do more than provide lip service to these modes.
• In recognition of the significant difference of community interests and of the relative
proportions of their likely contribution to the revenue stream, this proposal includes a
requirement for"weighted voting"...wherein votes are proportionate to revenue generated.
• 100% of the "Road Capacity Growth Fund" is controlled by the communities where
revenues are generated. This allows the professional and elected leaders of these
communities to establish funding priorities. It also allows great flexibility in partnering on
"shared" (multi-entity) concerns.
ATTACHMENTS
1. New Directions for Regional Transportation Funding-North Front Range RTA Proposal for
Larimer County in the MPO.
2. Appendix A - RTA Principles
3. Regional Transit Service chart.
ATTACHMENT 1
New Directions for Regional Transportation Funding
North Front Range RTA Proposal for Larimer County in the MPO
Future solutions for transportation to serve all of our citizens and the economic
sustainability of our region require new paradigms for developing infrastructure and for paying
for it. A Rural Transportation Authority could create and sustain better connections between our
individual cities and between our cities and the Denver-Boulder metro area. But we must
recognize that the state authorized RTA is limited in scope by state statute. Consequently, it is
essential not to overreach. We must be careful not to assume the huge responsibilities and
corresponding financial burdens that belong to the state.
This process began in June 2006 with a regional Summit in Windsor, continued with the
development of RTA Principles in the fall of 2006 and with the proposal development process
undertaken by the steering committee in the spring of 2007. We have developed this New
Directions proposal based upon the findings of the Summit and upon the RTA Principles.
Elsewhere, a larger minority of the steering committee(14 of 35 members) have made a different
proposal. The two proposals illustrate vastly different approaches to regional transportation
funding.
This New Directions proposal limits its scope to intercity transit connections and to local
roads that are not on the state and federal highway system. Nevertheless, these needs are large
and lack funding. We make our proposal with the awareness of: 1) the rapidly growing
international competition for oil based fuels and their rapidly rising cost, 2) the need for
maintaining or improving our regional air quality, 3) the need for creating alternatives to travel
by car, 4) the importance of protecting our road assets through maintenance, 5) the need to fix
road safety problems, and 6) the need to fund road capacity expansion from sources that are
closely linked to activities that drive this expansion.
We propose a sales and use tax of 0.5% and a vehicle registration fee of$10 to address
these transportation issues. We propose these with no sunset. We also propose the creation of a
Road Capacity Growth Fund for road capacity expansion. The RCGF is envisioned as a revenue
"basket"that will come from user fees and revenues from growth and development that add new
trips to the current system and hence creates the need for road capacity expansion.
Governor Ritter has authorized a statewide transportation funding study to develop an
initiative for funding. Our RTA can make better decisions with our limited resources when we
know what the state initiative will do here. There are two rail studies in progress, the I-25 EIS
study and Bob Brigg's Front Range Rail Study. These studies will define appropriate first steps
for this region to undertake for intercity transit. With this important information forthcoming,
we recommend that the RTA timetable is more appropriate for the 2008-2009 timeframe. Thus,
we propose a period of active communication between the cities and the county to focus on how
to cooperate on a new future. We offer this proposal as a"guide" for that purpose.
We acknowledge the contributions of Bob Heath, Fort Collins who left for Alaska as
May began. Bob's main goals and contributions to this proposal were that intercity connections
be established through transit, eventually rail, and that the road projects and local transit
decisions be left to the local professional transportation staffs. We agree.
Tim Johnson, Fort Collins Roger Hoffmann, Loveland
Scott Mason, Fort Collins Earl Stevens, Loveland
1
New Directions for Regional Transportation Funding
North Front Range RTA Proposal for Larimer County in the MPO
Source Tax Rate Length of Tax
Sales tax 0.5% no sunset
Use tax 0.5% no sunset
Vehicle Registration Fee $10 no sunset
Considerations: The sales tax revenue is assigned to two categories: 0.35% for transit
and 0.15% for road safety problems. Since transit operations require a long-term, sustainable
source of funding, no sunset is specified.
We encourage the participating communities to discuss the sunset provision for the sales
tax proposed for road safety. We recommend no sunset because these are long term problems.
A sunset would, however, allow periodic review. At least one goal of the review would be to
find revenue sources from user fees.
The fraction of use tax, which is not from new construction, and the vehicle registration
fee are appropriate revenue sources for road maintenance, a long term need. Thus, no sunset is
recommended.
Revenue Produced
Sales Tax: 10 years $161 million
Use Tax: 10 years $ 33.3 million
Vehicle Reg. Fee 10 years $ 27.7 million
TOTAL Revenue $222 million
Proposed Allocations
Transit, Bicycle, Pedestrian 50.9% $113 million
Fixed Route 11.15% $24.8 million
Demand 2.9% $6.4 million
Future Rail 9.67% $21.5 million
Bicycle, Pedestrian 2.9% $6.4 million
Shareback 24.28% $53.9 million
Roads 49.1% $109 million
Maintenance 22.7% $50.4 million
Road Safety, Deficiencies 21.7% $48.2 million
Road Capacity 4.7 $10.4 million
Local shareback will be determined by the percentage of revenue generated in the
Transit category. The shareback for the Roads category will be determined by agreements
between the communities. New transit projects with local funding are often eligible for
federal matching funds. Local money matches of 20-50% are required to get leveraging
funds.
2
Regional Transit and Alternative Modes
Long-term vision
There will be regional connections between the communities in the RTA and also to the
Denver-Boulder metro area. For the latter, the goal is to connect to the northern ends of the
corridors served by RTD. The region will have rail connections from Fort Collins to Loveland to
Berthoud to RTD in Longmont with appropriate feeder lines. The region will begin with rubber
tire transit and transition to rail with a corresponding shift in funding to rail.
Sales Tax 0.35% with no sunset
The tax will generate: $10.5 million in year 1
$113 million in 10 years
After year 1, allocations will continue based on the percentage amount in year 1.
Table 1. Regional alternative mode allocations in the first year
Category Dollars (Millions) Fraction
Transit
Fixed Route' 2.3 21.9
Demand 0.6 5.7
Future Rail3 2.0 19.0
Regional Bicycle and
Pedestrian 0.6 5.7
Local Shareback 5.0 47.7
Total 10.5 100.0
Service changes include:
a. adding new hourly service to RTD in Longmont, 12 hours/day for 6 days/week;
b. improving Foxtrot between Fort Collins and Loveland to 30 min service, 12 hours/day for 6
days/week;
C. adding limited nightly and Sunday service to Loveland and Longmont; and
d. adding express service from Harmony Road in Fort Collins to Union Station in Denver, 18
hours/day, with 30 minute peak service and 60 minute off-peak service. The service will be
12 hours on Sundays. The service will be moved to the north end of the RTD North Metro
Corridor when that project is completed.
'Regional demand service(for example, Dial-A-Ride)would be expanded by more than 2-fold.
3 There are 2 rail studies in progress. The I-25 EIS study will report their findings by the summer of
2008. Bob Briggs' Front Range Rail study will likely begin late this year and report in 2009. Details
from these studies will allow determination of appropriate beginning steps that this region can make. The
set aside for rail allows for paying for details of planning specific to the region, for ROW acquisition, and
other first steps identified by the studies. If rail options are not forthcoming after 10 years, the RTA
board may use the Rail fund for Transit services. (Note: A tight legal definition is needed so this
provision is not abused).
° Shareback is revenue generation based and for use in Transit,Bicycle and Pedestrian categories. Use
will be determined locally. Maintenance of current effort is required.
3
Shareback Funds for Local Maintenance
Long term vision
The region will protect our local assets in transportation.
Local Maintenance
Local maintenance shortfalls are estimated at $6.5 million annually or—$65 for 10 years.
This includes data from only Fort Collins ($2.5 million), Loveland ($0.5 million), and Larimer
County($3.5 million). Larimer County numbers are for the whole county, not just the MPO part
and thus might be adjusted down. The data from Berthoud, Windsor(the part in Larimer
County), and others are not available as of this writing.
If an RTA decides to do maintenance, we recommend that our local problems take
precedence over state and federal roads and that these funds be shared back to the members for
local maintenance. All shareback money for roads will apportioned according to prior agreement
between the communities. The priority for road shareback projects will be the most heavily used
P Y P J Y
roads between the communities that are not on the state highway system.
Regional Maintenance
If local decision makers were to make the monumental decision to take over
responsibility for the state and federal roads, the estimated additional needs are$6.25 million per
year or$62.5 million for a 10-year period.
There is an ongoing state initiative for statewide transportation funding. In view of this
and the huge, long term financial liability, we do not recommend taking over responsibility for
maintaining state and federal roads.
Table 2. Potential Revenue Sources for Maintenance Shareback no sunset
Source Yield $ millions
In 1 year In 10 years
Vehicle Registration Fee at $10/vehicle 2.5 27.7
Use tax at 0.5% 2.07 22.7
Total 4.57 50.4
The $50.4 million would address a significant portion of the local maintenance shortfalls
for the 10-year period.
s We recommend that this be used for maintenance. Since 98%+of the vehicle registration fees are paid
by current residents from year to year,these"user"fees are appropriate for uses like maintenance or
fixing existing deficiencies. If the state were to allow an additional $10 vehicle registration fee, all
projected local maintenance needs would be met by the additional $27.7 million generated over 10 years.
a The use tax should use exemptions like those currently used by Fort Collins. The use tax included here
also excludes the portion from new construction which from Fort Collins data(3 year average)is 31.77%
of the total use tax.
4
Shareback Funds for Local Road Safety and Deficiencies in the Region
Long-term vision
The region will fix safety and deficiency problems on its local, off system? roads.
Revenue Sources for Road Safety and Deficiencies
Sales Tax 0.15% (no sunset)
The tax will generate in millions: $ 4.4 in Year 1
$ 48.3 in 10 years
This issue, especially road safety, is closely linked to maintenance needs but clearly
means more than repair of the roadbed. The most dangerous sections of local roadbed and
intersections should be identified and addressed. We recommend that projects be chosen through
coordinated efforts of the transportation staffs. Funds are shared back as described for
maintenance.
Intergovermental Agreements for Regional Road Capacity Growth
Long term vision.
The region will fund road capacity growth from sources that drive this growth. The cure
for increasing road congestion in the future is closely linked to the causes of congestion, that is,
to increased vehicle miles traveled and to new trips from growth.
Road Capacity Growth Fund (RCGF) for the Region
First, we recommend user-generated funds to build additional road capacity. The region
will likely be affected by the statewide transportation funding initiative. To the extent that state
funding sources remain insufficient, we then recommend creating a RCGF for the RTA region as
an additional major source of funds for adding capacity to the roads since that fund will come
from new growth, which adds the great majority of new trips to the system.
We recommend the use of funding which combines sources from the state, road user fees,
and growth related fees. Additionally, some fees have nexus requirements, and are generated
close to where most need is created. All funds should be shared back to the members with
intergovernmental agreements that identify how best to achieve mutually desired regional
connections.
Consider the RCGF as a "basket' or pool of funds derived from multiple sources
which are closely linked to the growing congestion problem. The RCGF might include,but is
not limited to, sources such as: statewide transportation funding initiative, vehicle registration
fees, standard impact fees, special improvement districts (SIDs), public improvement fees (an
'"Off System"refers to road-related infrastructure that is NOT part of the federal and state highway system.
'The region needs to assess how much road capacity expansion is required to keep our level of service at
current levels,with new trips from growth added to the system. The cost of that added capacity is then
divided by the additional trips on the system. Then the cost per new trip can be assessed. This
information is not currently available. The region also must decide if it will assume capital responsibility
for state roads. The size of the RCGF required and requisite fees etc. charged is a direct consequence of
that decision. The cost of adding capacity to I-25 is $5-10 million per land per mile. The cost of
interchanges ranges from—$25 million to$80 million for each.
5
extra sales tax from new retail which overloads local road capacity), use tax from new
construction, etc. This RCGF "basket' gives local communities flexibility as to how to raise the
money The size of the RCGF needed for road capacity expansion and the mix of revenue
sources to be used by each community will be determined by agreements between them. We
recommend an exemption for affordable housing for impact fees.
The RCGF can be a significant source of funds to begin addressing the road capacity
growth problem. An example is developed below where with matching funds, the 10 year
RCGF is $168 million (impact fees +use fees from new construction+ general source matching
money). In addition, statewide transportation initiative funds can augment this money with other
potential sources noted above.
Project selection
Each community has professional staff. We recommend that the projects be chosen by
the staff in conjunction with their boards and councils for regional road capacity expansion. A
joint working group from the communities might be desirable to coordinate projects. Ad hoc
special interest lobby groups should not choose the projects.
Example of RCGF generated for regional roads using impact fees.
This example assumes a$2500 impact fee per new household. In the RTA area, the
projection is for—27,900 homes to be added by growth in the next 10 years. Using data from
Fort Collins, new retail, commercial, and industrial development pay about 45% of the impact
fees collected; new households pay 55%. Impact fees are based upon the number of new trips
added to the system.
From RCGF in $millions, assuming 27,900 new households in the RTA area:
$ 12.68 in year 1 ($7.0 households, $5.7 retail, commercial, etc.)
$ 126.8 in 10 years
From use tax for new construction
$ 0.97 in year 1
$ 10.6 in 10 years
The 10 year sum is $138 million ($126.8 + 10.6).
In Fort Collins, the general fund contributes 18% of the total impact revenue to account
for greater use of the system by current residents. For a general revenue match in this example,
$30 million is needed if all the funds were to come from impact fees. The matching fund source
must be like general fund dollars in the city, which comes from all residents. Thus, for example,
matching funds could be taken from vehicle registration fees, a lodging tax, sales tax, from use
tax9 (less the new construction fraction), or some other general revenue source. A preferred
option, however, would be to match the impact money with user fee money such as revenue
coming from an additional$10 vehicle registration fee ($27 million over 10 years). We
recommend working with the state legislature to give the RTA authority to increase the current
limit of$10 per vehicle for registration fees.
With $30 million in added matching funds, $168 million would be available over a 10
year period.
9 Use tax that is not consumed for maintenance. See maintenance section.
6
Descriptions
Shareback
1. Shareback revenue for transit will be apportioned to the communities on the basis of
how much each generates. Each community will determine the distribution of revenue among
the categories of transit, bicycle and pedestrians.
2. Overall maintenance of effort will be required. This is defined under significant
Intergovernmental Agreements.
3. Shareback money for roads will be apportioned according to prior agreement between
the communities.
4. Shareback money for maintenance will be used for local maintenance. Overall
maintenance of effort will be required.
5. Shareback money for road safety and deficiencies will be used for identifying and
correcting the most dangerous sections of local roadbed and intersections.
6. Shareback money for road capacity will be for adding to road capacity.
Transit
Regional connections will be made between the communities in the RTA and to the
Denver-Boulder metro area. For the latter, the goal is to make connections with the northern
termini of the corridors served by RTD, that is to Longmont on the Northwest Rail Corridor, and
to the terminus of the North Metro Corridor near state highway 7. We do not recommend
duplicating service that RTD will be providing.
New transit projects are described on p. 5.
Regional demand service will be expanded by—3-fold.
Local transit efforts will become more robust with about $5 million annually in shareback
money. New efforts will be defined by members through their own decision making processes.
Capital Road Projects
Expansion of road capacity will be funded by sources that are most closely linked to
those activities that drive this growth. The increased number of vehicle miles traveled (VMT) by
our citizens creates the need for user fees; while new trips generated from growth creates the
need for funds generated from growth.
We recommend that a Road Capacity Growth Fund (RCGF) be established by
agreements between regional governments. Capital road projects will be financed from the
RCGF.
The capital projects will be chosen using our local decision making processes and not by
ad hoc special interest lobby groups.
Rail
The rail fund will pay for details of planning specific to the region, for right of way
acquisition, and other regional responsibilities and first steps identified by the ongoing rail
studies (the N. I-25 EIS Study and the Front Range Rail Study by Rocky Mountain Rail
Authority), which are in progress.
Maintenance
The maintenance fund will pay for shortfalls in local maintenance. Members of the RTA
have their own decision making mechanisms for determining maintenance priorities. This should
continue.
7
The maintenance fund will be funded by the vehicle registration fee and the portion of the
use tax that does not come from new construction. The use fee should conform to guidelines for
exemptions that Fort Collins uses. The fees and tax will not sunset.
Local maintenance shortfalls are estimated at —$65 million for the first 10 years. This
fund is a potential source for$50 million, which would pay for much of the shortfall.
Significant Intergovernmental Agreements
1. Maintenance of Effort
We recommend that RTA "shareback" funds require a "maintenance of effort" by
recipients; meaning that RTA shareback is not intended to merely replace existing funding, but
to augment it. We suggest that the last 3-5 year average of local expenditures be defined as the
baseline. Also, capital expenditures should be amortized over their expected lifetime so that
unusually high capital outlays in a particular year do not wildly skew the average.
2. A Road Capacity Growth Fund (RCGF) for the Region
We recommend that a RCGF be created to finance regional road capacity growth.
The central question is to identify and select the regional roads to be funded.
Communities must decide if they will assume financial responsibility from the state for adding
capacity to state roads. Adding lanes to the I-25 costs $5-10 million per lane per mile. The cost
of just one interchange ranges from —$25 million to —$80 million in our region. The opportunity
cost tradeoffs are enormous. The size of the RCGF will be tied to these decisions.
In Fort Collins —82% of road expansion capital is paid by growth and development in the
form of transportation impact fees, Current residents pay —18% from the general fund. This
model fairly apportions the cost of road capacity growth to the causes.
We recommend creating a RCGF fund which combines sources from the state, road user
fees, and growth related fees. Thus, the RCGF will be a basket of funds coming from many
sources. The RCGF might include, but is not limited to, sources such as: the statewide
transportation funding initiative, additional vehicle registration fees, tire tax, standard impact
fees, special improvement districts, public improvement fees (an extra sales tax from new retail
which overloads local road capacity), use tax from new construction, etc. The RCGF will give
local communities flexibility for sources of funds for road capacity expansion.
The new statewide funding initiative task force is important because the region will have
a firmer idea of the size of RCGF needed.
From the 10-year projections for population growth and the increase in number of
households, a regional transportation impact fee could raise an estimated $160-170 million over
10 years. An impact fee is based upon the number of trips generated by new households and by
new retail, commercial, and industrial entities. The estimated revenue above assumed an impact
fee of $2500 per new household and fees in proportion to the numbers of trips generated for
other new development. As noted there are many ways to build this fund.
3. Equity of Local Impact Fees
There is a large variation between communities in their local impact fees. The RCGF is
not meant to capitalize local projects that should be accomplished with local impact fees. This
would be unfair to communities that currently fund local infrastructure with impact fees.
4. Opt-In, Opt-Out
Communities can opt out if the majority of their citizens vote against the RTA.
8
5. Governing Body
One person from each governmental entity will constitute the governing body.
6. Weighted Voting
Governance or the RTA Board will incorporate weighted voting. This could be based
upon population or upon a revenue-generation basis.
7. RTA Administration
Administration costs will be limited to no more than 1% of the revenue generated. The
RTA board will not add staff or operate any facilities or transit services.
8. Amendments and New Members
New members will be allowed if all existing members agree and voters approve.
Annexations will be allowed once per year.
9. Shareback
Shareback money for roads will be apportioned according to prior agreement between the
communities. The priority for road shareback projects should be the most used roads between
the communities that are not part of the state highway system
9
ATTACHMENT 2
Appendix A
RTA Principles
Principles are high level statements of beliefs or assumptions of what should be. These
RTA Principles describe the common ground among different communities of interest on
what the region's future transportation system should be and how the RTA should
support that future. They are intended to guide the design of the RTA in the next step of
coalition-building. In its deliberations, the Committee sought to provide a set of
principles that would be meaningful in the design of the RTA but not prescriptive. The
principles lay the groundwork for how the RTA should serve the region. The RTA
Principles Committee agreed to the following principles after considerable deliberations.
1) The RTA will respect the diverse transportation needs and support the mobility of all
people within the region.
2) The RTA will promote an integrated, multi-modal approach to move people and
goods within the communities of the region.
3) The RTA will support and serve the social and economic well-being of all regional
residents regardless of income or ability.
4) The RTA will promote involvement from stakeholders and the public to arrive at
transportation decisions that are objective, coordinated, accountable and inclusive of the
region's needs.
5) RTA funds are meant to pay for critical regional transportation needs. As such these
funds do not replace funds from the federal and state governments and do not relieve
them of their obligations to Northern Colorado. Local governments and the RTA have
the flexibility to meet their priorities through shareback and other mechanisms.
6) The transportation system of the region will integrate environmental protection,
economic vitality and sustainability so that quality of life is enhanced.
7) The transportation system of the region is an essential asset that must be maintained
by allocating sufficient resources in the most effective manner to keep it in sound
operating condition.
8) The transportation system of the region will protect the environment by minimizing
impacts to environmentally sensitive areas and enhance the environment by promoting
energy conservation, improving air quality and promoting aesthetics.
9) The regional transportation system should connect the core of existing cities and
towns.
Appendix A
10) An adequate transportation system of the region will preserve and enhance the
economic vitality, economic sustainability and quality of life of the two-county region.
11) Development will pay its share for the cost of the regional transportation
infrastructure based on its impacts.
Regional Transit Service ATTACHMENT
Phase 1 Hours Per Days Per # of
Route In Service Rev Hours 2007Rev Miles Day Year Frequency Vehicles Est Annual $ Pass/Hr Ridership Total Fare Revenue
Regional Routes
1 Foxtrot Improvements Yes 3,720.0 57,332.0 12.0 310.0 30 1 $342,240 14 52,080.0 $92 $28,644
2 Express_ Loveland to RTD Yes 13,020.0 443,982.0 14.0 310.0 60 3 $1 , 197,840 14 182,280.0 $92 $455,700
3 Express_ Loveland to RTD Evenings Yes 2,790.0 95, 140.0 6.0 310.0 120 1 .5 $256,680 6 16,740.0 $92 $41 ,850
4 Express_ Loveland to RTD Sundays Yes 936.0 315917.0 14.0 52.0 120 1 .5 $869112 8 7,488.0 $92 $18,720
30/Peak
5 Express NC_Union Station Yes 22, 116.0 1 ,437,540.0 1 18.0 362.0 60/Off-Peak 6and 3 $2,034,672 10 221IJ60.0 $92 $1 ,105,800
Total 42,582.0 29065,91 7.0 $3,9170544 479,748.0 $92 $11650,714
MIN
Cost/Ride $8.17
2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017
Cost $3,920,000 $3,920,000 $3,920,000 $3,920,000 $3,92%000 $3,920,000 $3,920,000 $3,920,000 $3,920,000 $3,920,000 $39,20%000
Fare Revenue $1 ,650,000 $1,650,000 $1,650,000 $1,650,000 $1,650,000 $1 ,650,000 $1,650,000 $1 ,650,000 $1 ,650,000 $1,650,000 $169500X0
Net Cost 2,270,000.0 2,270,000.0 2,270,000.0 2,270,000.0 2,270,000.0 2,270,000.0 2,270,000.0 2,270,000.0 1 2,270,000.0 2,270,000.0 $2297005000