HomeMy WebLinkAboutMemo - Mail Packet - 02/11/2025 - Memorandum from Spencer Smith and Kaley Zeisel re January 2, 2025 Council Finance Committee Follow Up
Transfort/Dial-A-Ride
250 North Mason Street
Fort Collins, CO 80524
Engineering
281 North College Street
Fort Collins, CO 80524
WORK SESSION MEMORANDUM
Date: February 5, 2025
To: Council Finance Committee
Through: Kelly DiMartino, City Manager
Tyler Marr, Deputy City Manager
Caryn Champine, Director, Planning, Development and Transportation
Drew Brooks, Deputy Director, Planning, Development and Transportation
From: Spencer Smith, Special Project Manager, Engineering
Kaley Zeisel, Director, Transfort
Subject: January 2, 2025 Council Finance Committee Follow Up
BOTTOM LINE
The purpose of this memo is to provide follow-up to questions that were raised during the
Council Finance Committee meeting on January 2, 2025, regarding the MAX Bus Rapid Transit
(BRT) system and planned West Elizabeth BRT.
FOLLOW-UP ITEMS
1. What is our current estimate of final costs for West Elizabeth? (include all design,
construction costs). These costs are based on the 60% design plans and subject to
change as we progress through 100% design.
Capital Costs – West Elizabeth Corridor
Cost Category Cost Estimate
Capital Construction $56,845,911
Right of Way Acquisition $3,100,072
Vehicles and Vehicle Infrastructure $13,738,638
Design & Construction Management $15,704,892
Contingency $9,117,730
Total Estimated Capital Cost $98,507,243
Capital Costs – Funding Source Breakdown
Funding Source Amount Funding Source Status
MMOF (state funds) –
Design Work to date
$1,982,248 Committed
Docusign Envelope ID: F1EE5AA1-9120-401B-9371-51F6C9E0ACC0
Transfort/Dial-A-Ride
250 North Mason Street
Fort Collins, CO 80524
Engineering
281 North College Street
Fort Collins, CO 80524
City Local match –
Design work to date
$1,047,928
$1,016,600
Committed
Pending Appropriation
CSU –
Design work to date
$991,124 Committed
FTA CIG Small Starts*
(remaining capital)
$60,755,073 TBD
Remaining Local
Match**
$32,714,270 TBD
Total Estimated Funding $98,507,243
*The MAX BRT project was funded with approximately 80% federal funds under the
same Capital Investment Grant (CIG) program. However, the program has become more
oversubscribed since MAX was implemented, and FTA generally does not fund new
projects at the same high level of federal participation.
**Conversations between City executive leadership and CSU executive leadership are
ongoing as to future CSU contributions. Several scenarios have been developed for
consideration.
Operational Cost Estimate – West Elizabeth Corridor
Once the West Elizabeth BRT is implemented, other route alignment changes will go into
effect. The operational cost estimate includes all route alignment adjustments in order to
provide a comprehensive view of estimated costs in the corridor. These costs include
changes to Routes 2, 3, 31, 32, and 7.
2019 Baseline (Existing)
(2019 $)
Future BRT Service
(2019 $)
Future BRT Service
(adjusted for inflation, 2028 $)
$3,181,000 $5,000,000 $6,170,000
Capital Costs – Foothills Transit Station (RAISE project)
Cost Category Cost Estimate
Capital Construction $8,411,561
Right of Way Acquisition $1,114,616
Design & Construction Management $1,388,630
Contingency $4,720,127*
Total Estimated Capital Cost $15,634,934**
*Contingency reflects unknowns in future Foothills Transit Station design that need to be
resolved between 60% design and design completion (detention pond design, power
Docusign Envelope ID: F1EE5AA1-9120-401B-9371-51F6C9E0ACC0
Transfort/Dial-A-Ride
250 North Mason Street
Fort Collins, CO 80524
Engineering
281 North College Street
Fort Collins, CO 80524
supply source, existing utility conflicts). As these design issues are resolved, the
contingency estimate will be adjusted.
**Estimated capital cost is based on 60% design and may increase or decrease as the
design nears completion.
Capital Costs – Funding Source Breakdown
Funding Source Amount Funding Source Status
CSU – Land In-Kind Match ~$800,000 Planned (final value
unknown until appraisal is
complete)
City Local match (2050
Sales Tax)
$600,000
$400,041
Appropriated through 25/26
BFO process
Pending Appropriation
RAISE (Federal Funds) $10,700,000 Awarded/Appropriated
CDOT FASTER (State
Funds)
$400,000 Awarded/Appropriated
MMOF (State Funds) $317,669 Application Pending
Total Funding $13,217,710*
*When construction costs are more clearly defined as design is completed, additional
funding may be required, or the project will be reduced in scope to meet the current
funding availability.
Operational Cost Estimate – Foothills Transit Station
Operational costs for the transit station are still being developed and will depend on a
variety of factors:
Intergovernmental Agreement (IGA) with CSU
Estimates for fuel costs (i.e. On Route Charging) vary based on make/model of
vehicles that are deployed as well as load requirements and time-of-day demand
charges. More information will be known as design work continues.
Remaining maintenance costs include elements such as snow removal, other
electrical demand, and regular maintenance/cleaning costs associated with the
station shelters and employee restroom.
2. Was there a holistic analysis completed to determine the effectiveness of MAX?
Docusign Envelope ID: F1EE5AA1-9120-401B-9371-51F6C9E0ACC0
Transfort/Dial-A-Ride
250 North Mason Street
Fort Collins, CO 80524
Engineering
281 North College Street
Fort Collins, CO 80524
Consistent with Federal Transit Administration (FTA) Capital Investment Grant (CIG)
Small Starts funding program requirements, a comprehensive Before and After Study
was completed for the MAX BRT project. This study examined several key categories of
the project, comparing the existing conditions of the corridor prior to implementing MAX
with the final outcome. These project areas included physical scope, capital cost, transit
service, operating and maintenance costs, ridership, and economic impacts.
A summary of each area is provided below, and the full study is attached for reference.
Physical Scope
Implementation of MAX included a 5-mile long BRT Corridor with two separate sections
of fixed guideway built in reserved Right of Way, and improvements to arterial streets
where the BRT operates in mixed-traffic. Additionally, 5 Park and Ride lots were added,
new BRT stations along the corridor, a new station at the existing Downtown Transit
Station, and a new transit station was constructed at the southern end of the terminus
(South Transit Center). Prior to implementation of MAX, Howes Street and Mason Street
were both one-way streets and were converted to two-way streets.
Capital Cost
The final project cost was $83.1M in YOE dollars, with MAX service beginning in May
2014. The final project costs were $3.7M below an earlier estimated cost of $86.8M.
The final costs can be broken down by the following funding sources:
Funding Source Approximate Amounts
Federal Funds (Capital Investment Grant, Small Starts
program)
~68M
State Funds ~9M
Local Matching funds, includes in-kind contributions ~6M
Transit Services
Prior to MAX’s launch in 2014, to provide north-south service to the community in the
College Avenue corridor, Transfort operated Route 1 on College and Route 15 between
Colorado State University and Downtown. MAX replaced both of these routes to provide
seamless and frequent service between the South Transit Center and Downtown Fort
Collins. In addition to MAX, two routes were added (Route 12 and Around the Horn) and
four were modified (Routes 5, 6, 7, 16) to provide the most optimal transfer points. In all,
Docusign Envelope ID: F1EE5AA1-9120-401B-9371-51F6C9E0ACC0
Transfort/Dial-A-Ride
250 North Mason Street
Fort Collins, CO 80524
Engineering
281 North College Street
Fort Collins, CO 80524
Transfort average weekday revenue miles increased by 1,605 miles after MAX was
implemented.
Operating and Maintenance Costs
Operating and maintenance costs were somewhat underestimated during the Project
Development phase. In 2013, first year operating costs for 2015 were estimated at
$2.2M; however, the first full year of operating costs were closer to $3M. A few reasons
were provided for the discrepancy, first, snow removal and street maintenance costs
were significantly underestimated, and staffing costs for additional dispatchers were not
considered in initial estimates.
In 2019, MAX operating costs were approximately $3.4M, an increase of about 13%
from 2015, consistent with inflation rates over the time period from 2015 to 2019,
Docusign Envelope ID: F1EE5AA1-9120-401B-9371-51F6C9E0ACC0
Transfort/Dial-A-Ride
250 North Mason Street
Fort Collins, CO 80524
Engineering
281 North College Street
Fort Collins, CO 80524
according to historical Consumer Price Index (CPI) data. Based on 2019 ridership
figures and operating cost per rider, MAX was more efficient compared with the
remainder of the system, costing approximately $2.35/rider, compared with $4.06 per
rider across the rest of the Transfort system. MAX service was somewhat more
expensive to operate when looking at cost/mile ($10.83 per revenue mile) compared to
the remainder of the system ($9.39 per revenue mile) but not significantly so.
By 2023, operating at reduced service levels due to the COVID-19 pandemic and
staffing shortages, MAX operating costs fell to just below $3M total annually, with cost
per rider at approximately $6.62. The sharp decrease in ridership can be directly
attributed to the COVID-19 pandemic and reduced hours of operation and frequency of
MAX service. Transfort anticipates fully restoring MAX service levels by the end of 2025
and with increased frequencies a strong rebound in ridership on MAX is expected. For
example, ridership doubled during the Fall 2024 semester when Horn frequencies were
restored to their pre-pandemic levels (10-minute frequency) from the reduced service
that had been operating for several years (20-minute frequencies).
Ridership
The introduction of MAX to the Transfort system increased average daily boardings
along the corridor from 1666 in the Spring of 2014 to 5296 in the Fall of 2017. This
growth has been attributed as 830 new rides from the first year of service, 750 rides from
route maturation, and 2050 rides attributable to external forces that dramatically
changed rider behavior across all routes in the system, particularly for those traveling on
routes connected to CSU: changes in CSU parking policies and availability, pre-paid
fees for CSU students and faculty, and system improvements like real-time bus tracking.
See chart below.
Docusign Envelope ID: F1EE5AA1-9120-401B-9371-51F6C9E0ACC0
Transfort/Dial-A-Ride
250 North Mason Street
Fort Collins, CO 80524
Engineering
281 North College Street
Fort Collins, CO 80524
A comprehensive look at Transfort ridership over a ten year period can be found in the
graph below. Prior to implementing MAX service in 2014, annual Transfort ridership had
been hovering around 2M riders. Two years after MAX service launched, ridership
system wide doubled to over 4M riders annually and was continuing to climb until 2020
when the COVID pandemic drastically reduced ridership.
Docusign Envelope ID: F1EE5AA1-9120-401B-9371-51F6C9E0ACC0
Transfort/Dial-A-Ride
250 North Mason Street
Fort Collins, CO 80524
Engineering
281 North College Street
Fort Collins, CO 80524
Economic Impacts
A total of 845 new housing units and over 301,000sqft of new commercial space were
constructed along the 5-mile Mason Corridor between 2014 and 2018. The total
construction value of these projects was $161M. Other development activities adjacent
to the Mason Corridor influenced the Foothills mall redevelopment, extensive multi-
family development in Downtown, on North College and around CSU’s campus.
For comparison, while the boundaries of measurement are different, so not perfectly
comparable, the Midtown Corridor Market Analysis completed in 2010 projected the
potential for up to 590,000sqft of new retail establishments and up to 1,580 new medium
to high density housing units in the Midtown Corridor by 2030.
According to the MAX Before and After Study, many developers cited the construction of
MAX as a major factor in their decision to build along the Mason Corridor. The City
began promoting the idea of Transit Oriented Development (TOD) with the adoption of a
TOD zoning overlay in 2007, see figure below.
Docusign Envelope ID: F1EE5AA1-9120-401B-9371-51F6C9E0ACC0
Transfort/Dial-A-Ride
250 North Mason Street
Fort Collins, CO 80524
Engineering
281 North College Street
Fort Collins, CO 80524
Docusign Envelope ID: F1EE5AA1-9120-401B-9371-51F6C9E0ACC0
City of Fort Collins
Mason Corridor Bus Rapid Transit Project (MAX)
Before & After Study
July 31, 2019
Docusign Envelope ID: F1EE5AA1-9120-401B-9371-51F6C9E0ACC0
Docusign Envelope ID: F1EE5AA1-9120-401B-9371-51F6C9E0ACC0
CITY OF FORT COLLINS – MAX BUS RAPID TRANSIT PROJECT
BEFORE & AFTER STUDY
Page i
Table of Contents
1 Introduction .................................................................................................................................... 1
1.1 Summary.................................................................................................................................. 1
1.2 Before & After Study Purpose .................................................................................................. 2
2 Physical scope .................................................................................................................................. 3
2.1 Actual Scope of the As-Built Project ......................................................................................... 3
2.2 Accuracy of the Physical Scope Anticipated at Each Milestone ................................................. 5
2.2.1 Summary of Scope at Each Project Milestone ................................................................... 5
2.2.2 At Entry into Project Development (PD) ............................................................................ 6
2.2.3 At Award of the PCGA ....................................................................................................... 7
2.3 Lessons Learned ....................................................................................................................... 7
3 Capital cost ...................................................................................................................................... 8
3.1 Actual capital costs ................................................................................................................... 8
3.2 Accuracy of the predicted costs at each milestone ................................................................. 10
3.2.1 At Entry into Project Development (PD) .......................................................................... 13
3.2.2 At Award of the PCGA ..................................................................................................... 14
3.3 Lessons learned...................................................................................................................... 14
4 Transit Service ............................................................................................................................... 14
4.1 Actual transit services after project opening........................................................................... 14
4.2 Accuracy of the predicted service plans at each milestone ..................................................... 18
5 Operating and Maintenance Costs ................................................................................................. 20
5.1 Actual O&M costs after project opening ................................................................................. 20
5.2 Predicted Vs. Actual O&M costs after project opening ........................................................... 20
6 Ridership ....................................................................................................................................... 21
6.1 Actual Ridership Impacts ........................................................................................................ 21
6.1.1 Actual Ridership on the Project....................................................................................... 21
6.1.2 Characteristics of Trips on the Project............................................................................. 25
6.1.3 Change in Ridership ........................................................................................................ 26
6.2 Accuracy of Opening Year Ridership Predictions ..................................................................... 28
7 Economic Impacts .......................................................................................................................... 30
List of Figures
Figure 1 Project Map ......................................................................................................................... 2
Figure 2 MAX BRT Service ................................................................................................................ 16
Figure 3 Before-and-After Transit Service in the Project Corridor ..................................................... 18
Figure 4 Average Weekday Boardings for Fall and Spring, 2012 through 2017 .................................. 22
Figure 5 Districts .............................................................................................................................. 26
Figure 6 Comparison of Forecasts and Observed Boardings in the Project Corridor .......................... 28
Figure B-1. Expanded Districts – Regional .............................................................................................. 34
Figure B-2. Expanded Districts – Fort Collins .......................................................................................... 35
List of Tables
Table 1 Milestone Schedule .................................................................................................................. 1
Table 2 Comparison of Project Scope at Each Project Milestone ........................................................... 5
Table 3 Project Actual Costs ................................................................................................................. 9
Table 4 Actual and Predicted Total Capital Costs................................................................................. 10
Table 5 Actual Change in Construction Costs ...................................................................................... 11
Table 6 Actual and Predicted Expenditures by SCC Converted to Constant PCGA-Year (2010) Dollars . 12
Docusign Envelope ID: F1EE5AA1-9120-401B-9371-51F6C9E0ACC0
CITY OF FORT COLLINS – MAX BUS RAPID TRANSIT PROJECT
BEFORE & AFTER STUDY
Page ii
Table 7 Actual MAX BRT Service Headways......................................................................................... 14
Table 8 Actual MAX BRT Service Bus Connections ............................................................................... 15
Table 9 Service Changes Due to MAX BRT Implementation ................................................................. 17
Table 10 Changes in Service Revenue Miles and Revenue Hours ....................................................... 17
Table 11 Predicted versus Actual Run Times for Schedule Timepoints (in Minutes) ........................... 19
Table 12 Predicted versus Actual Speeds for Schedule Timepoints (in Miles per Hour)...................... 19
Table 13 Predicted vs. Actual O&M Costs ......................................................................................... 21
Table 14 Average Weekday Boardings for Fall and Spring, 2012 through 2017 .................................. 22
Table 15 Historical Demographic, Enrollment and Transit Service Data ............................................. 24
Table 16 Historical CSU Parking Data ................................................................................................ 24
Table 17 2017 District-to-District Project Linked Trips in P-A Format ................................................. 25
Table 18 District-to-District Corridor Linked Trips in P-A Format, Before and After ............................ 27
Table 19 Corridor Linked Trips by Trip Purpose ................................................................................. 27
Table 20 Corridor Linked Trips by Access Mode ................................................................................ 27
Table 21 Corridor Linked Trips by Auto Availability ........................................................................... 28
Table 22 Assessed Property Value Change Between 2014 - 2018 ...................................................... 31
Table A-1. Growth in Annual Transfort Ridership, 2010 to 2017 ............................................................. 33
Table B-1. District-to-District Linked Trips on the Project: Total ............................................................. 36
Table B-2. District-to-District Linked Trips on the Project by Trip Purpose: Home-based Work ............... 37
Table B-3. District-to-District Linked Trips on the Project by Trip Purpose: Home-based University ........ 37
Table B-4. District-to-District Linked Trips on the Project by Trip Purpose: Home-based Other .............. 38
Table B-5. District-to-District Linked Trips on the Project by Trip Purpose: Non-home-based ................. 38
Table B-6. District-to-District Linked Trips on the Project by Trip Purpose, for CSU Students, Faculty, and
Staff Only: Home-based Work ............................................................................................................... 39
Table B-7. District-to-District Linked Trips on the Project by Trip Purpose, for CSU Students, Faculty, and
Staff Only: Home-based University ........................................................................................................ 39
Table B-8. District-to-District Linked Trips on the Project by Trip Purpose, for CSU Students, Faculty, and
Staff Only: Home-based Other ............................................................................................................... 40
Table B-9. District-to-District Linked Trips on the Project by Trip Purpose, for CSU Students, Faculty, and
Staff Only: Non home-based .................................................................................................................. 40
Table B-10. District-to-District Linked Trips on the Project by Access Mode: Park & Ride ....................... 41
Table B-11. District-to-District Linked Trips on the Project by Access Mode: Kiss & Ride ........................ 41
Table B-12. District-to-District Linked Trips on the Project by Access Mode: Bus (Transfer) .................... 42
Table B-13. District-to-District Linked Trips on the Project by Access Mode: Bike ................................... 42
Table B-14. District-to-District Linked Trips on the Project by Access Mode: Walk .................................. 43
Table B-15. District-to-District Linked Trips on the Project by Auto Availability: 0 Autos ......................... 43
Table B-16. District-to-District Linked Trips on the Project by Auto Availability: 1 Auto .......................... 44
Table B-17. District-to-District Linked Trips on the Project by Auto Availability: 2 Autos ......................... 44
Table B-18. District-to-District Linked Trips on the Project by Auto Availability: 3 or More Autos ........... 45
Table B-19. District-to-District Linked Trips on the Project by Auto Availability, for CSU Students Only: 0
Autos..................................................................................................................................................... 45
Table B-20. District-to-District Linked Trips on the Project by Auto Availability, for CSU Faculty and Staff
Only: 0 Autos ......................................................................................................................................... 46
Table B-21. District-to-District Linked Trips on the Project by Auto Availability, for CSU Students Only: 1
Auto 46
Table B-22. District-to-District Linked Trips on the Project by Auto Availability, for CSU Faculty and Staff
Only: 1 Auto .......................................................................................................................................... 47
Docusign Envelope ID: F1EE5AA1-9120-401B-9371-51F6C9E0ACC0
CITY OF FORT COLLINS – MAX BUS RAPID TRANSIT PROJECT
BEFORE & AFTER STUDY
Page iii
Table B-23. District-to-District Linked Trips on the Project by Auto Availability, for CSU Students Only: 2
Autos..................................................................................................................................................... 47
Table B-24. District-to-District Linked Trips on the Project by Auto Availability, for CSU Faculty and Staff
Only: 2 Autos ......................................................................................................................................... 48
Table B-25. District-to-District Linked Trips on the Project by Auto Availability, for CSU Students Only: 3+
Autos..................................................................................................................................................... 48
Table B-26. District-to-District Linked Trips on the Project by Auto Availability, for CSU Faculty and Staff
Only: 3+ Autos ....................................................................................................................................... 49
Table B-27. District-to-District Linked Trips Systemwide by Trip Purpose: Total ...................................... 49
Table B-28. District-to-District Linked Trips Systemwide by Trip Purpose: Home-based Work ................ 50
Table B-29. District-to-District Linked Trips Systemwide by Trip Purpose: Home-based University ......... 50
Table B-30. District-to-District Linked Trips Systemwide by Trip Purpose: Home-based Other ................ 51
Table B-31. District-to-District Linked Trips Systemwide by Trip Purpose: Non-home-based .................. 51
Table B-32. District-to-District Linked Trips Systemwide by Access Mode: Park & Ride ........................... 52
Table B-33. District-to-District Linked Trips Systemwide by Access Mode: Kiss & Ride ............................ 52
Table B-34. District-to-District Linked Trips Systemwide by Access Mode: Bus (Transfer) ....................... 53
Table B-35. District-to-District Linked Trips Systemwide by Access Mode: Bike ...................................... 53
Table B-36. District-to-District Linked Trips Systemwide by Access Mode: Walk ..................................... 54
Table B-37. 2017 Average Fall Weekday Daily Boardings........................................................................ 54
Table C-1. District-to-District Linked Trips in the Corridor: Total ............................................................. 55
Table C-2. District-to-District Linked Trips in the Corridor by Trip Purpose: Home-based Work .............. 55
Table C-3. District-to-District Linked Trips in the Corridor by Trip Purpose: Home-based University ....... 56
Table C-4. District-to-District Linked Trips in the Corridor by Trip Purpose: Home-based Other .............. 56
Table C-5. District-to-District Linked Trips in the Corridor by Trip Purpose: Non-home-based ................ 57
Table C-6. District-to-District Linked Trips in the Corridor by Trip Purpose, for CSU Students, Faculty, and
Staff Only: Home-based Work ............................................................................................................... 57
Table C-7. District-to-District Linked Trips in the Corridor by Trip Purpose, for CSU Students, Faculty, and
Staff Only: Home-based University ........................................................................................................ 58
Table C-8. District-to-District Linked Trips in the Corridor by Trip Purpose, for CSU Students, Faculty, and
Staff Only: Home-based Other ............................................................................................................... 58
Table C-9. District-to-District Linked Trips in the Corridor by Trip Purpose, for CSU Students, Faculty, and
Staff Only: Non-home-based ................................................................................................................. 59
Table C-10. District-to-District Linked Trips in the Corridor by Access Mode: Park & Ride ....................... 59
Table C-11. District-to-District Linked Trips in the Corridor by Access Mode: Kiss & Ride ........................ 60
Table C-12. District-to-District Linked Trips in the Corridor by Access Mode: Bus (Transfer) ................... 60
Table C-13. District-to-District Linked Trips in the Corridor by Access Mode: Bike .................................. 61
Table C-14. District-to-District Linked Trips in the Corridor by Access Mode: Walk ................................. 61
Table C-15. District-to-District Linked Trips in the Corridor by Auto Availability: 0 Autos ........................ 62
Table C-16. District-to-District Linked Trips in the Corridor by Auto Availability: 1 Auto ......................... 62
Table C-17. District-to-District Linked Trips in the Corridor by Auto Availability: 2 Autos ........................ 63
Table C-18. District-to-District Linked Trips in the Corridor by Auto Availability: 3 or More Autos .......... 63
Table C-19. District-to-District Linked Trips in the Corridor by Auto Availability, for CSU Students Only: 0
Autos..................................................................................................................................................... 64
Table C-20. District-to-District Linked Trips in the Corridor by Auto Availability, for CSU Faculty and Staff
Only: 0 Autos ......................................................................................................................................... 64
Table C-21. District-to-District Linked Trips in the Corridor by Auto Availability, for CSU Students Only: 1
Auto 65
Docusign Envelope ID: F1EE5AA1-9120-401B-9371-51F6C9E0ACC0
CITY OF FORT COLLINS – MAX BUS RAPID TRANSIT PROJECT
BEFORE & AFTER STUDY
Page iv
Table C-22. District-to-District Linked Trips in the Corridor by Auto Availability, for CSU Faculty and Staff
Only: 1 Auto .......................................................................................................................................... 65
Table C-23. District-to-District Linked Trips in the Corridor by Auto Availability, for CSU Students Only: 2
Autos..................................................................................................................................................... 66
Table C-24. District-to-District Linked Trips in the Corridor by Auto Availability, for CSU Faculty and Staff
Only: 2 Autos ......................................................................................................................................... 66
Table C-25. District-to-District Linked Trips in the Corridor by Auto Availability, for CSU Students Only: 3+
Autos..................................................................................................................................................... 67
Table C-26. District-to-District Linked Trips in the Corridor by Auto Availability, for CSU Faculty and Staff
Only: 3+ Autos ....................................................................................................................................... 67
Table C-27. 2014 Average Fall Weekday Daily Boardings ........................................................................ 68
Table D-1. District-to-District Predicted Linked Trips on the Project: Total ............................................. 69
Table D-2. District-to-District Predicted Linked Trips on the Project: Home-based Work ........................ 69
Table D-3. District-to-District Predicted Linked Trips on the Project: Home-based University ................. 70
Table D-4. District-to-District Predicted Linked Trips on the Project: Home-based Other........................ 70
Table D-5. District-to-District Predicted Linked Trips on the Project: Non-home-based .......................... 71
Table D-6. District-to-District Predicted Linked Trips Systemwide: Total................................................. 71
List of Exhibits
Exhibit A Table of Acronyms .............................................................................................................. 32
Exhibit B Ridership Appendices… ...................................................................................................... 33
Appendix A. Annual System Ridership ................................................................................................ 33
Appendix B. Actual Ridership, After Project Opening .......................................................................... 34
Appendix C. Actual Ridership, Before the Project ............................................................................... 55
Appendix D. Predicted Ridership ........................................................................................................ 69
Docusign Envelope ID: F1EE5AA1-9120-401B-9371-51F6C9E0ACC0
CITY OF FORT COLLINS – MAX BUS RAPID TRANSIT PROJECT
BEFORE & AFTER STUDY
Page 1
1 Introduction
1.1 Summary
The Mason Corridor Express (MAX)1 Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) project is an $86.83 million BRT project in the
City of Fort Collins, Colorado (City). As shown in Figure 1, the MAX BRT project is a north-south BRT facility
in the central core of the City. The MAX BRT is located just west of and parallel to College Avenue (US
287), one of the busiest arterials within the City and the entire North Front Range region. The project
corridor extends from Maple Street in downtown Fort Collins south to approximately 0.25 miles south of
Harmony Road.
Along the entire length of the corridor, the BRT runs adjacent to existing BNSF Railway Company (BNSF)
tracks. There is still active freight service on this track At varying locations, the BRT guideway is located
on properties owned by the BNSF, the City, Colorado State University (CSU), and private landowners.
Table 1 provides a brief chronology of the development of the project. In 2000, the City adopted the
Mason Street Transportation Corridor Plan, which recommended implementing BRT service as the
preferred alternative. There were several follow-up studies culminating in the preparation of an
Environmental Assessment (EA) and Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) in 2008. As desig n of the
BRT progressed a Value Engineering (VE) study identified changes to the alignment not approved in the
2008 FONSI. To address the changes to the project scope due to the VE effort, an Environmental
Reevaluation was prepared in 2010.
The City’s Engineering Department led final design and in 2012 the City hired three major contractors, one
to construct the BRT guideway and stations, including the related street improvements; a second to
construct the expansion of the Transfort Maintenance Facility (TMF); and the third to construct the South
Transit Center (STC). In addition, the City’s Transfort, Light & Power, Water, and Traffic departments had
significant roles on the project. Railroad coordination with the BNSF occurred at two levels: (1) BNSF’s
replacement of 1.5 miles of in street running freight track, which defined significant aspects of the scope
of roadway reconfiguration along Mason Street where the BRT operates in-street, and (2) the more typical
coordination of BRT guideway construction in and adjacent to the BNSF property.
Table 1 Milestone Schedule
October 2000 Mason Street Transportation Corridor Plan Adopted
July 20, 2004 Mason Transportation Corridor Alternatives Analysis Report Complete
November 20, 2007 Entry into Project Development (PD)
May 31, 2008 Environmental Assessment Complete
September 9, 2008 Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) Issued
March 2011 BNSF Railway (BNSF) Right-of-Way (ROW) Acquisition Complete
December 21, 2010 FTA Concurrence and Approval, Environmental Re-evaluation
November 2012 Design of the MAX BRT Complete
May 21, 2012 Project Construction Grant Agreement (PCGA) signed
June 2012 thru April 2014 Construction – through “Substantial Completion”
May 12, 2014 Beginning of Revenue Service
December 2017 Construction Completed
1 A list of acronyms and abbreviations is provided in Exhibit A.
Docusign Envelope ID: F1EE5AA1-9120-401B-9371-51F6C9E0ACC0
CITY OF FORT COLLINS – MAX BUS RAPID TRANSIT PROJECT
BEFORE & AFTER STUDY
Page 2
Figure 1 Project Map
1.2 Before & After Study Purpose
At the time of the award of the PCGA for this project, Federal law (49 USC 5309(k)(2)(E)) required a Before-
and-After Study (B&AS) for transit projects that received capital-grants from the Federal Transit
Administration’s “New Starts” program. In response, as project sponsor and recipient of FTA grants for
the project, Transfort has completed this study for the MAX BRT project.
Docusign Envelope ID: F1EE5AA1-9120-401B-9371-51F6C9E0ACC0
CITY OF FORT COLLINS – MAX BUS RAPID TRANSIT PROJECT
BEFORE & AFTER STUDY
Page 3
The purposes of the study are, first, to document the actual outcomes of the project and, second, to
evaluate the accuracy of, and any lessons learned from, the predictions of those outcomes made during
planning and development of the project. The study focuses on five project outcomes: physical scope,
capital costs, transit service levels, operating and maintenance costs, and ridership.
To measure the actual outcomes of the project, the study documents its as-built physical scope and capital
costs and documents actual transit services, O&M costs, and ridership before and after the opening of the
project. To examine the accuracy of the predicted outcomes for the project, the study compares the
predictions to the actual outcomes, identifies any significant differences and the causes of those
differences, and describes any lessons learned from the evaluation.
2 Physical scope
2.1 Actual Scope of the As-Built Project
The primary components of the project in the 5-mile long BRT corridor are two segments of BRT guideway
built in reserved right-of-way, improvements to arterial streets where the BRT route runs in mixed traffic,
5 Park-n-Ride lots, 7 BRT stations with pedestrian and bicycle access, 10 BRT curb-side stops, an additional
stop at the northern terminus at the existing Downtown Transit Center (DTC), a new South Transit Center
(STC) at the southern terminus of the BRT Line, and off-line upgrades to the existing Transfort
Maintenance Facility (TMF). The project included the purchase of eight 60-foot, 3-door articulated buses
to provide MAX BRT services. The BRT route operates on exclusive guideway for 2.9 miles, with the
remaining 2.1 miles intermixed with street traffic on portions of McClelland Drive and Mason Street.
Other than one short segment of a bus-only lanes at the intersection of Drake Road and McClelland Drive
and at Laurel, there are no lane restrictions where the buses travel on City streets.
10 GUIDEWAY & TRACK ELEMENTS
The BRT “Guideway” has different configurations along the alignment. Northbound from the South Transit
Center (STC) the BRT route is in a newly constructed 24-foot wide dedicated roadway for approximately
1.5 miles. It transitions to in-street mixed-traffic running on McClelland drive for approximately 0.8 miles
to the intersection with Drake Road. North of Drake, the BRT serv ice re-enters a dedicated guideway for
approximately 1.4-miles to University Avenue. At University the dedicated guideway ends and the BRT
route transitions to in-street mixed-traffic running for approximately 1.3 miles on Mason Street in the
downtown area. At University, Mason Street is a two-lane road located to the east of the BNSF track. At
Laurel Street (approximately 0.3 miles north of University) Mason transitions into a couplet configuration
with the BNSF track centered between northbound and southbound lanes of traffic. The BRT route ends
at the Downtown Transit Center. The total MAX BRT route length is 5.0 miles. Two bridge structures were
constructed. One new structure carries the BRT guideway across Mail Creek and a reconstructed bridge
structure at the Larimer Canal No. 2 (irrigation conveyance) to support the heavier loads imposed by BRT
buses operating on McClelland Drive.
Note: At the beginning of project construction, BNSF reconstructed approximately 1.5 miles of it track in
Mason Street; this was a concurrent activity not included in the PCGA scope or cost. Due to the BNSF’s
track reconstruction, Mason Street was reconfigured as part of the project to create a couplet
configuration with the BNSF track in the center of the street between northbound and southbound traffic.
20 STATIONS, STOPS, TERMINALS, INTERMODAL
Construction included platforms, station structures, conduit installation, platform finishes, station
canopies, required ramps and railings, signage, and other elements for the BRT stations and stops.
Docusign Envelope ID: F1EE5AA1-9120-401B-9371-51F6C9E0ACC0
CITY OF FORT COLLINS – MAX BUS RAPID TRANSIT PROJECT
BEFORE & AFTER STUDY
Page 4
(Passenger communication devices at the stations are included in SCC 50.) BRT “stations” were
constructed on the dedicated guideway segments. BRT “stops” were constructed along McClelland Drive
and Mason Street. Station platforms were offset from the guideway centerline to address BNSF’s
requirement that station platforms be outside the RR property. The BRT stops consisted of curb-side
platforms on portions of the alignment along McClelland and Mason. The project reconstructed limited
segments of existing sidewalk, and all the curb ramps along Mason Street to provide access to the BRT
stops consistent with requirements of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). Stations/stops are as
follows:
• 7 BRT stations with pedestrian and bicycle access, on the BRT guideway.
• 5 BRT curbside stops, (each stop has NB & SB platforms on opposite sides of the street, 10 platforms
total) on the in-street running portions of the guideway
• 1 stop at the existing Downtown Transit Center (DTC) and remodeling the passenger service desk to
allow safe and secure processing of bus passes and passenger assistance.
• 1 new transit center at the southern terminus (STC) of the BRT route with 11 bus bays (3 BRT bays, 8
city-bus bays).
30 SUPPORT FACILITIES: YARDS, SHOPS, ADMIN. BLDGS
A 16,240 square-foot expansion of the existing Transfort Maintenance Facility (TMF) was constructed to
provide parking for up to 24 35-foot and 40-foot buses from Transfort’s non-BRT fleet. This expansion
allowed parked buses to be moved out of the bus maintenance areas in the existing TMF thus creating
space for maneuvering, maintaining, and parking the new 60-foot articulated BRT buses. The
improvements at the TMF also included site improvements to improve circulation and for a BRT bus
operator training area, and expansion of the methane detection system needed because Transfort
operates compressed natural gas (CNG) buses.
40 SITEWORK & SPECIAL CONDITIONS
Roadway work on the in-street portions of the guideway consisted of new curb and gutter on both sides
of the BNSF track on Mason street from Maple to Laurel as part of the conversion of Mason from a one-
way street with the BNSF track in the center, to the two-way couplet configuration and paving repairs,
curb/gutter/sidewalk improvements and striping along corridor. Additionally, five Park-n-Ride lots with
409 spaces were developed. The Park-n-Ride lot at the South Transit Center was built as part of the
project, while the remainder were created by agreement with property owners to designate some spaces
for transit in existing parking facilities. A new right-turn lane was constructed from northbound
McClelland onto eastbound Drake to separate BRT operations right turn traffic movements.
50 SYSTEMS
The project included construction/installation of the following:
• Traffic and RR crossing signal improvements throughout the corridor.
• Off bus fare collection systems consisting of one on-platform ticket vending machine (TVM) and ticket
validators at every platform except at the STC where two TVMs are installed.
• Operations Center /Bus Technology Upgrades
• Passenger Communications
60 ROW, LAND, EXISTING IMPROVEMENTS
The project included full and partial property acquisition, plus easement acquisition for constructing the
BRT dedicated guideway on BNSF property and for shared parking at some park-n-rides.
Docusign Envelope ID: F1EE5AA1-9120-401B-9371-51F6C9E0ACC0
CITY OF FORT COLLINS – MAX BUS RAPID TRANSIT PROJECT
BEFORE & AFTER STUDY
Page 5
70 VEHICLES
The project included purchase of six articulated, three-door, low-floor, CNG powered BRT buses. The
buses have leveling capability to match the height of the BRT station and stop platforms as the passenger
load changes. Transfort purchased 2 additional articulated BRT buses to allow the operational schedule
to be met. These two additional buses were not included in the FFGA scope or costs.
2.2 Accuracy of the Physical Scope Anticipated at Each Milestone
2.2.1 Summary of Scope at Each Project Milestone
Table 2 is organized by SCC. It summarizes the as-constructed project scope and the anticipated scope at
entry into PD, and award of the PCGA, respectively. Section 2.1 above provides details on the As-
constructed scope; Section 2.2 below provides details on the differences between the anticipated scope
at each milestone.
Table 2 Comparison of Project Scope at Each Project Milestone
SCC Category As Constructed
Differences from the As-constructed
Scope
Entry into PD Award of
PCGA
10 GUIDEWAY &
TRACK
ELEMENTS
(5 route miles)
Total route length 5 miles, from Cherry
Street to the north, to approximately
0.75 mile south of Harmony Road.
• 2.9 miles exclusive BRT guideway
• 2.1 miles intermixed with street
traffic
Total route length was
the same, but
• 3.4 miles exclusive
BRT guideway,
• 1.6 miles intermixed
with street traffic.
None
20 STATIONS,
STOPS,
TERMINALS,
INTERMODAL
(21 stations)
Constructed 7 dedicated BRT stations in
the dedicated guideway.
Constructed BRT 10 cub-side platforms
(Stops) at on-street running BRT
portions of the alignment on McClelland
and Mason
Constructed one 2-bay stop at the
existing Downtown Transit Center (DTC),
Constructed new transit center at the
southern terminus (STC) of the BRT
System (3 BRT bays, 8 city-bus bays)
Minor differences in
station locations. None
30 SUPPORT
FACILITIES:
YARDS, SHOPS,
ADMIN. BLDGS
A 16,240 square-foot enclosed addition
to the TMF for parking of non-BRT buses
and development of a paved area for
bus driver training
An 8,000 sq ft open
canopy addition to the
TMF
None
40 SITEWORK &
SPECIAL
CONDITIONS
• Intersection improvements at BRT
dedicated guideway crossings
• 2.1 miles of roadway/curb/gutter/
sidewalk improvements.
• 5 Park-n-Ride lots
• 1.6 miles of roadway
improvements.
• 7 Park-n-Ride lots
None
Docusign Envelope ID: F1EE5AA1-9120-401B-9371-51F6C9E0ACC0
CITY OF FORT COLLINS – MAX BUS RAPID TRANSIT PROJECT
BEFORE & AFTER STUDY
Page 6
Table 2 Comparison of Project Scope at Each Project Milestone
SCC Category As Constructed
Differences from the As-constructed
Scope
Entry into PD Award of
PCGA
50 SYSTEMS
• Traffic and RR crossing signal
improvements throughout the
corridor
• Off bus fare collection systems
• Operations Center/Bus Technology
• Passenger Communications at
stations and on buses
Scope not defined.
Functional criteria for
off-bus Fare Collection
System and Passenger
Communication Systems
match the functionality of
the as-built scope.
None
60 ROW, LAND,
EXISTING
IMPROVEMENTS
Full and partial property acquisition plus
easement acquisition for constructing
the BRT dedicated guideway on BNSF
property and for shared parking at some
park-n-rides,
None None
70 VEHICLES (6
buses)
6 articulated, low-floor, CNG powered
buses. The buses chosen met the design
criteria defined at entry into PD.
2 additional articulated buses bought by
Transfort to allow operational schedule
to be met; these buses are not included
in the PCGA project cost
Did not include additional
buses
Did not
include
additional
buses
2.2.2 At Entry into Project Development (PD)
10 GUIDEWAY & TRACK ELEMENTS
At the entry into PD, the total route length was 5 miles, with the same northern and southern termini.
However, the split of dedicated guideway to on-street operations was different than as constructed.
• 3.4 miles of dedicated BRT guideway, gated at street intersections, from the South Transit Center to
a point on McClelland 0.5 miles south of Drake Road and from Drake Road to University Avenue
• 1.6 miles intermixed with street traffic on portions of McClelland Drive and Mason Street.
The change in length of dedicated guideway occurred as result of a Value Engineering (VE) exercise. In
order to mitigate the cost and maintenance issues associated with piping/bridging 0.5 miles of the Larimer
Canal, the City relocated the BRT dedicated guideway tie-in location on McClelland approximately 0.25 of
a mile to the south, resulting in the BRT corridor utilizing approximately 0.75 of a mile of McClelland Drive
and avoiding the Larimer Canal altogether. The use of VE to identify capital cost savings in design after
entry into PD is typical for many projects.
20 STATIONS, STOPS, TERMINALS, INTERMODAL
The number of BRT stations, curbside stops, and the transit centers scoped at entry into PD were the same
as the configuration at award of the PCGA. The only differences from the as-built project were that the
Harmony station moved from the south side of the intersecting arterial roadway to the north side , the
Horsetooth station relocated approximately 400 feet south (both changes occurred because of the
Docusign Envelope ID: F1EE5AA1-9120-401B-9371-51F6C9E0ACC0
CITY OF FORT COLLINS – MAX BUS RAPID TRANSIT PROJECT
BEFORE & AFTER STUDY
Page 7
availability of parcels better suited for the project) and the Spring Creek station was reconfigured from a
center platform configuration to a split-platform configuration due to ROW constraints.
30 SUPPORT FACILITIES: YARDS, SHOPS, ADMIN. BLDGS
At Entry into PD the TMF expansion was to be a new 8,000 square foot canopy constructed on the north
side of facility to accommodate Transfort’s existing (non-BRT) bus fleet. During design the scope grew to
include a 16,240 square-foot enclosed building addition and development of a paved area for bus driver
training on the north side of the TMF. The larger building was needed to accommodate storage of the 24
35-foot and 40-foot buses from Transfort’s non-BRT fleet.
40 SITEWORK & SPECIAL CONDITIONS
The project’s scope for roadway improvements, intersection modifications, and the configuration of the
dedicated guideway at Entry into PD was essentially the same as constructed. The exception being there
was 0.25 miles more dedicated guideway and 0.25 miles less on-street running segments of the system
on McClelland (modified as part of a VE exercise, as described in SCC 10 above). The project assumed that
there would be Park-N-Ride lots along the corridor; however, no documentation could be located on their
assumed number, sizes and locations at the entry into PD milestone.
50 SYSTEMS
At entry into PD, communications design was a set of functional criteria. The criteria were largely
implemented in both the design at award of the PCGA and in the as-constructed project.
60 ROW, LAND, EXISTING IMPROVEMENTS
At entry into PD, the northern and southern termini of the MAX corridor were defined. There were minor
differences in the limits of property acquisition anticipated due to the lower level of design development.
70 VEHICLES
At PD-entry, the scope included the purchase of six 60-foot, 3-door, articulated buses for BRT service.
During pre-revenue service testing it was determined that the end-to-end run time for BRT service was
slightly longer than anticipated during planning, and that it was not feasible to use smaller from Transfort’s
existing fleet to supplement the spare ratio. To ensure reliable BRT service, Transfort purchased 2
additional articulated BRT buses. Due to FTA grant management practices, these two additional buses
were not included in either the FFGA project scope or costs.
2.2.3 At Award of the PCGA
SCC’s 10-60
The project scope at the award of the PCGA was the same as the “as constructed” scope for SCC’s 10-60.
70 VEHICLES
Six articulated 3-door buses were still assumed to be needed for BRT operations, two fewer than were
purchased for BRT service.
2.3 Lessons Learned
The anticipated scope of the constructed project stayed relatively unchanged throughout the planning,
design and construction process. The planned scope was different from the as-designed/as-constructed
project with the relocation of the transition from dedicated guideway to on-street operations on
McClelland and minor changes to station locations and lane configurations. These types of changes
typically occur through value engineering and design optimization processes as a design matures.
Docusign Envelope ID: F1EE5AA1-9120-401B-9371-51F6C9E0ACC0
CITY OF FORT COLLINS – MAX BUS RAPID TRANSIT PROJECT
BEFORE & AFTER STUDY
Page 8
The need for two additional buses to provide service is the most significant scope difference between the
anticipated project scope and the as-constructed outcome. The original project Fleet Management Plan
identified a 20% spare ratio for Transfort’s BRT service with the ability to utilize other fleet-wide vehicles
to increase the spare ratio to 36%. This was assuming a 20-minute travel time with five peak vehicles and
one dedicated spare. Once revenue service began, flaws in the Fleet Management Plan became apparent,
as described below:
• In mid-April 2014 (while MAX was in pre-revenue service) Transfort needed to finalize schedules for
the summer bid period (May 10 – August 23), and many of the drivers were still averaging 30-minute
travel times. Due to the slower than anticipated travel times seen in pre-revenue operations Transfort
was forced to establish a 30-minute northbound and southbound travel time for the first published
schedule to provide consistent service.
• The slower than anticipated travel times can be attributed to two primary factors. The first is driver -
related - initially drivers were slow to maneuver buses through stations and other constricted areas
like the CSU campus. The second complication was related to a series of intersection issues that
include signal priority at guideway/intersection interfaces and signal progression in mixed traffic
settings. The intersection issues were estimated to cause approximately 3-4 minutes of additional
travel time.
• These issues have since been partially addressed so that one-way travel times now average 25
minutes, versus the 20-minute original projection and the 30-minute start of operations run-times.
Through additional training and increased experience, drivers have improved their skills operating in
the guideway and docking at stations. In addition, adjustments have been made to signal timing and
new bus lane infrastructure has been added.
• Supplementing MAX service with standard buses to increase the spare ratio to 36% turned out not to
be realistic. Transfort believed that a spare ratio higher than 20% could be achieved using standard
30- to 40-foot Transfort buses. Smaller non-BRT vehicles were not adequate in meeting MAX service
needs due to equipment not being designed for guideway use, the inability to accommodate the large
passenger loads seen on MAX and the inability to accommodate bicycles on-board the bus. Thus, two
additional 60’ buses were needed to sufficiently accommodate loads, provide efficient service and
maintain an adequate spare ratio.
3 Capital cost
This section documents the actual capital costs of the as-built project. It then evaluates the accuracy of
the costs predicted at each milestone and identifies the causes of any differences between the predictions
and the actual outcome.
3.1 Actual capital costs
The project cost $82.37 million in YOE dollars spent over a two-year schedule with a mid-point of
construction in June 2013. Table 3 documents the actual capital costs of the project in year-of-
expenditure (YOE) dollars by Standard Cost Category (SCC) and computes average unit costs wher e
possible.
Docusign Envelope ID: F1EE5AA1-9120-401B-9371-51F6C9E0ACC0
CITY OF FORT COLLINS – MAX BUS RAPID TRANSIT PROJECT
BEFORE & AFTER STUDY
Page 9
Table 3 Project Actual Costs
City of Fort Collins
Mason Corridor (MAX), BRT Project
Amount
Expended
($1,000,000)
Quantity
10 GUIDEWAY & TRACK ELEMENTS (5 route miles) 6.97 5.00 Miles
10.01 Guideway: At-grade exclusive right-of-way 1.64 2.44 Miles
10.02 Guideway: At-grade semi-exclusive (allows cross-traffic) 3.72 2.10 Miles 10.03 Guideway: At-grade in mixed traffic .38
10.04 Guideway: Aerial structure .7 0.03 Miles
10.08 Guideway: Retained cut or fill .52 0.43 Miles
20 STATIONS, STOPS, TERMINALS, INTERMODAL 11.82
20.01 At-grade station, stop, shelter, mall, terminal, platform 6.75 19 Platforms
with shelters
20.04 Other stations, landings, terminals: Intermodal, ferry, trolley, etc. 5.07 Transit
Center
30 SUPPORT FACILITIES: YARDS, SHOPS, ADMIN. BLDGS 2.85
30.02 Light Maintenance Facility 2.85 16,240 SF
40 SITEWORK & SPECIAL CONDITIONS 16.82
40.01 Demolition, Clearing, Earthwork 1.51
40.02 Site Utilities, Utility Relocation 4.21
40.03 Haz. mat'l, contam'd soil removal/mitigation, ground water
treatments .01 1178 SY
40.04 Environmental mitigation, e.g. wetlands, historic/archeologic, parks .005
40.05 Site structures including retaining walls, sound walls 1.76 2,250 LF
40.06 Pedestrian / bike access and accommodation, landscaping 1.88
40.07 Automobile, bus, van accessways including roads, parking lots 1.17
40.08 Temporary Facilities and other indirect costs during construction 6.28
50 SYSTEMS 13.21
50.01 Train control and signals 3.68
50.02 Traffic signals and crossing protection 2.26
50.05 Communications 5.53
50.06 Fare collection system and equipment 1.74
Construction Subtotal (10 - 50) 51.67
60 ROW, LAND, EXISTING IMPROVEMENTS 11.53
60.01 Purchase or lease of real estate 11.47
60.02 Relocation of existing households and businesses .06
70 VEHICLES (6) 4.37
70.04 Bus 4.37 6
80 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES (applies to Cats. 10-50) 15.51
80.02 Final Design 5.4
80.03 Project Management for Design and Construction 4.11
80.04 Construction Administration & Management 3.89
80.05 Professional Liability and other Non-Construction Insurance 0.0
80.06 Legal; Permits; Review Fees by other agencies, cities, etc. .59
80.07 Surveys, Testing, Investigation, Inspection .98
80.08 Start up .53
Subtotal (10 - 80) 83.08
90 UNALLOCATED CONTINGENCY
Subtotal (10 - 90) 83.08
100 FINANCE CHARGES
Total Project Cost (10 - 100) 83.08
Docusign Envelope ID: F1EE5AA1-9120-401B-9371-51F6C9E0ACC0
CITY OF FORT COLLINS – MAX BUS RAPID TRANSIT PROJECT
BEFORE & AFTER STUDY
Page 10
3.2 Accuracy of the predicted costs at each milestone
Predicted costs may be different from actual costs because of differences in the predicted versus actual
(1) scope of the project, (2) unit costs and allowances used to prepare the base-year cost estimate, (3) the
schedule for project construction and opening to service, and (4) the annual rates of inflation over the
schedule. This section compares the predicted capital cost at each milestone against the actual cost of
the as-built project and identifies the sources of any significant differences.
The City developed predictions of capital costs for two milestones – entry into PD, and award of the PCGA.
Table 4 summarizes the actual capital cost of the project and the predictions at the PD milestone. The
table presents the costs in two different dollar valuations. First, values in “constant” dollars rely on the
value of a dollar in a specific year, essentially assuming the project is built entirely within that year and
ignoring the effects of inflation. Second, values in “year-of-expenditure” (YOE) dollars specifically
recognize the schedule for project construction, the annual cost-inflation that erodes the value of the
dollar over time, and the real-world cash flow for the project. The City followed standard practice in the
prediction of capital costs for the MAX BRT project, first developing a cost prediction in constant dollars
and then inflating that prediction to year-of-expenditure (YOE) dollars based on the anticipated project-
construction schedule and annual rates of construction-cost inflation.
PREDICTIONS OF TOTAL PROJECT COST
Table 4 examines the accuracy of the City’s predictions of total project cost in both constant and YOE
dollars.
Table 4 Actual and Predicted Total Capital Costs
Line No. Cost Measure Actual1
Prediction ($ year)
Entry
into PD
(2007)
PCGA
(2010)
Constant Dollars (millions)
1 Total capital cost in 2007 constant dollars $70.5 $69.4 ---
2 Total capital cost in 2010 constant dollars $77.9 --- $81.0
Inflation
3 Dollar-weighted mid-point of project expenditures Aug ‘12 Feb ‘09 Nov ‘11
4 Opening year 2014 2010 2014
5 Inflation effects compared to 2007 constant dollars 17.9% 6.9% ---
6 Inflation effects compared to 2010 constant dollars 6.7% --- 7.2%
Year-of-Expenditure (YOE) Dollars (millions)
7 Total capital cost in YOE dollars $83.1 $74.2 $86.8
8 Predicted minus actual total capital cost in YOE dollars --- -$8.9 $3.8
9 -- component attributable to scope/unit-cost differences --- -$1.1 $3.4
10 -- component attributable to inflation-rate differences --- -$0.5 $1.6
11 -- component attributable to schedule differences --- -$7.2 -$1.3
Line 1 of Table 4 shows that the City predicted a constant-2007-dollar project cost $69.4 million at
PD-entry in 2007. Line 1 also presents the actual cost of the project, translated from YOE dollars into
constant 2007 dollars ($70.5 million). Comparison of the predicted and actual cost indicates that the City’s
prediction was quite accurate – an underestimate of $1.1 million (-1.5 percent).
Similarly, Line 2 compares the predicted constant-2010-dollar project cost of the PCGA ($81.0 million) to
the actual project cost translated into constant 2010 dollars ($77.9 million). Again, the City’s prediction
was quite accurate – an overestimate of $3.1 million (+4.0 percent). Overall, then, the City was spot-on
Docusign Envelope ID: F1EE5AA1-9120-401B-9371-51F6C9E0ACC0
CITY OF FORT COLLINS – MAX BUS RAPID TRANSIT PROJECT
BEFORE & AFTER STUDY
Page 11
at both PD-entry and the PCGA in predictions of the total cost of the project in constant-dollar terms –
that is, without the effects of inflation over the period of project construction.
Lines 3 through 6 describe actual and predicted conditions related to inflation effects on MAX BRT project
costs.
• Line 3 presents the mid-points of expenditures on the project computed from the actual and
predicted schedules of annual expenditures.
• Line 4 documents the actual and predicted year of project opening.
• Lines 5 and 6 summarize the actual and predicted impacts of construction-cost inflation on project
costs in 2007 and 2010 constant dollars respectively.
Referring to lines 3 and 4 – at PD-entry in 2007, the City anticipated a project schedule with a mid-point
in February 2009 and project opening in 2010. At the award of the PCGA in 2010, the City anticipated a
mid-point of November 2011 and project opening in May 2014 – largely the consequence of a delay in
execution of the PCGA. During actual construction, the City was able to reach substantial completion, and
start revenue service in early May 2014 slightly prior to the date cited in the PCGA; however, completion
of punch-list items, construction of additional operational safety features, passenger amenities, and
adjustments of components along the guideway to enhance bus operations, extended roughly 2.5 years
through the end of 2017, leading to an actual midpoint of construction in August 2012.
Referring to Table 4 lines 5 and 6 – At PD-entry, the City predicted that inflation would add 6.9 percent to
the 2007 constant-dollar cost estimate based on the anticipated project schedule and an assumption of
3.25 percent annual increases in construction costs over the construction period. At the PCGA, the City
predicted that inflation would add 7.2 percent to the 2010 constant-dollar cost estimate based on the
revised construction schedule and the assumption of 3.78 percent annual inflation. (Table 5 summarizes
the annual increase in construction costs as measured by the Engineering News Record’s national-average
index of construction costs. The annual increase averaged 3.0 percent from 2007 to 2014.)
Table 5 Actual Change in Construction Costs
Year Index*
Effective
Rate Year Index*
Effective
Rate
2000 6221 --- 2009 8570 3.1%
2001 6343 2.0% 2010 8802 2.7%
2002 6538 3.1% 2011 9080 3.2%
2003 6694 2.4% 2012 9308 2.5%
2004 7115 6.3% 2013 9547 2.6%
2005 7446 4.7% 2014 9821 2.9%
2006 7751 4.1% 2015 10035 2.7%
2007 7966 2.8% 2016 10338 2.7%
2008 8310 4.3% 2017 10617 2.7%
* Taken from the index of construction costs maintained by the Engineering News
Record (nationwide values)
Referring again to Table 4 lines 5 and 6 – The actual effect of inflation on the constant-dollar cost estimates
was 17.9 percent added to the PD-entry estimate and 6.9 percent added to the PCGA estimate. The
reason for the significant difference in actual inflation effects between the PD-entry estimate and the
PCGA estimate is mostly attributable to the underestimated inflation add-on at PD-entry due to the delay
in awarding the PCGA. The impact of inflation forecast at Entry into PD to the midpoint of construction
was 6.9% versus 17.9% actual.
Although the “midpoint” of construction for the actual project changed due to the punch-list construction
items that extended 2 ½ years past the start of revenue operations, the predicted inflation was a bit LESS
Docusign Envelope ID: F1EE5AA1-9120-401B-9371-51F6C9E0ACC0
CITY OF FORT COLLINS – MAX BUS RAPID TRANSIT PROJECT
BEFORE & AFTER STUDY
Page 12
than the actual. Thus, the extended period of construction did not have much of an impact; which is not
surprising given that total expenditures in 2015-2017 were only $2.7 million out of a project total of $83
million.
Table 4 lines 7 through 11 document actual and predicted costs in YOE dollars and identify the sources of
cost differences in terms of contributions by differences in project scope and unit costs, annual inflation
rates, and construction schedule.
• At PD-entry the predicted cost was $8.9 million less than the actual costs in YOE dollars. Referring
to lines 9-11 indicates that $7.2 million (80.9 percent) of that underestimate is associated with
the delay in the award of the PCGA, $1.1 million (12.4 percent) is due to adjustments to scope,
and $0.5 million (6.7 percent) is due to inaccurate inflation assumptions.
• At PCGA award the predicted cost is $3.8 million higher than the actual cost in YOE dollars. On
the surface that amount corresponds to the unused unallocated contingency of $ 3.76 million in
YOE dollars. However, evaluating lines 9-11 of the table reveals that the PCGA overestimated unit
costs by $3.4 million and inflation rates by $1.6 million but underestimated the length of the
construction schedule ($1.3 million) due to the 2.5-year extension of construction activities
through the end of 2017.
Overall, the conclusions drawn from the above analyses are (1) that the overall cost estimate at PD-entry
would have been reasonably accurate if period needed for PD had not extended longer than planned, and
(2) that the overall cost estimate at award of the PCGA was accurate.
COST PREDICTIONS FOR INDIVIDUAL PROJECT COMPONENTS
Table 6 examines the accuracy of predicted costs for individual components of the project grouped into
FTA’s Standard Cost Categories (SCCs). All predicted costs in the table are in constant 2010 dollars to
remove inflation effects from any differences between the predicted and actual costs. Consequently, the
causes of any cost differences are limited to differences in project scope, estimating accuracy, and/or
differences in the base-year unit costs at each milestone.
Table 6 Actual and Predicted Expenditures by SCC Converted to Constant PCGA-Year (2010) Dollars
Predictions and Differences from Actual Costs
(millions of $2010)
Actual Entry into PD PCGA
Original dollar
year of the actual
or predicted costs
2010 2007 2010
Standard Cost
Category
Actual
Costs
Predicted
Costs
Absolute
Difference
Relative
Difference
(percent)
Predicted
Costs
Absolute
Difference
Relative
Difference
(percent)
10 Guideway $6.4 $20.8 $14.3 223% $11.8 $5.4 84%
20 Stations,
Stops, Terminals $10.8 $9.7 -$1.2 -11% $8.2 -$2.7 -25%
30 Support
Facilities $2.6 $2.0 -$0.6 -25% $3.0 $0.3 13%
40 Sitework &
Special Conditions $15.5 $8.4 -$7.1 -46% $13.8 -$1.7 -11%
50 Systems $12.2 $7.9 -$4.3 -35% $10.7 -$1.5 -12%
60 Row, Land, $10.0 $8.2 -$1.8 -18% $13.9 $3.9 40%
70 Vehicles $4.0 $6.1 $2.1 51% $4.8 $0.8 19%
Docusign Envelope ID: F1EE5AA1-9120-401B-9371-51F6C9E0ACC0
CITY OF FORT COLLINS – MAX BUS RAPID TRANSIT PROJECT
BEFORE & AFTER STUDY
Page 13
Table 6 Actual and Predicted Expenditures by SCC Converted to Constant PCGA-Year (2010) Dollars
Predictions and Differences from Actual Costs
(millions of $2010)
Actual Entry into PD PCGA
Original dollar
year of the actual
or predicted costs
2010 2007 2010
Standard Cost
Category
Actual
Costs
Predicted
Costs
Absolute
Difference
Relative
Difference
(percent)
Predicted
Costs
Absolute
Difference
Relative
Difference
(percent)
80 Professional
Services $14.7 $10.0 -$4.6 -31% $11.4 -$3.3 -23%
90 Unallocated
Contingency N/A $3.7 N/A N/A $3.5 N/A N/A
100 Finance
Charges $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 --- $0.0 $0.0 ---
Total $76.3 $76.7 $0.4 1% $81.0 $4.7 6%
Note: None of the $3.5 million budgeted in the PCGA for unallocated contingencies was spent.
The first observation is that although the City’s overall project estimates of total project costs, both at the
entry into PD and PCGA milestones, turned out to be reasonably accurate, the estimates for each SCC
category all exhibit noticeable variance.
From a macro perspective the analysis presented in Table 6 suggests that the project costs were not
accurately allocated by SCC at each project milestone. The accuracy of the overall project budget is
because the designers prepared a reasonably accurate estimate for the project based on quantity takeoffs
from the design. However, the SCCs appear to have been inaccurately applied to the overall project
estimate by the designers (see the cost predictions by SCC discussion below).
COST PREDICTIONS BY SCC
The City’s Construction Management (CM) consultant was assigned responsibility to prepare and maintain
the project cost reporting for the MAX BRT project in accordance with FTA’s grant reporting guidelines
during the construction phase of the project. As discussed in section 3.1 above, the CM tracked actual
construction costs for the major construction contracts by using SCCs assigned to each unit-price pay item
in the contractor’s bid tab. When the CM was setting up the cost reporting tools it determined that there
were inaccuracies in the assignment of SCC numbers by the City’s design consultant when the bid tab was
prepared. The CM addressed numerous issues with costs being assigned to SCC 40 (Sitework) vs. SCC 10
(Guideway), or SCC 20 (Stations) vs. SCC 50 (Communications), etc., as well as costs being assigned to the
incorrect detailed SCC sub category (e.g., SCC10.08 vs. 10.04 for structures along the guideway). The CM
was confident that it had corrected the major discrepancies in assignment of SCCs to pay items in the
actual costs but acknowledged to the City that there are likely discrepancies it did not catch.
The issues noted in the preceding paragraph contribute to the noticeable variances in the predicted vs.
actual costs by SCC. The effort that the CM made is also indicative that the City’s design consultants were
generally accurate in estimating the overall project costs but were not meticulous in assigning those costs
to the appropriate SCCs.
3.2.1 At Entry into Project Development (PD)
As seen in Table 6, the most significant SCC level cost variance from actual costs at entry into PD is in
SCC 10 (223% variance). A large portion of that variance was created during design through a VE exercise,
Docusign Envelope ID: F1EE5AA1-9120-401B-9371-51F6C9E0ACC0
CITY OF FORT COLLINS – MAX BUS RAPID TRANSIT PROJECT
BEFORE & AFTER STUDY
Page 14
to mitigate the cost and maintenance issues associated with piping/bridging 0.5 miles of the Larimer
Canal, by reducing the amount of dedicated guideway (see the discussi on in section 2.2.2 above). There
were no other major scope changes that can be identified that address the other significant cost variances
by SCC. Based on the problems with costs being assigned to the appropriate SCCs addressed by the CM,
the City concludes that the design consultants were prone to assigning costs to SCC 10 (Guideway) rather
than being more precise in assigning costs to the appropriate SCCs.
3.2.2 At Award of the PCGA
As seen in Table 6, the most significant SCC level cost variance from actual costs at award of the PCGA is
in SCC 10 (84% variance). There were no major scope changes that can be identified to explain the
significant cost variances by SCC. Based on the problems with costs being assigned to the appropriate
SCCs addressed by the CM, the City concludes that the design consultants were prone to assigning costs
to SCC 10 (Guideway) rather than being more precise in assigning costs to the appropriate SCCs.
3.3 Lessons learned
The primary lesson learned by the City is that it needs to be more diligent in verifying that its design
consultants are not only accurate in estimating the overall project costs but are also meticulous in
assigning those costs to the appropriate SCCs.
4 Transit Service
This section discusses the actual services provided on the MAX BRT and the impacts on Transfort’s transit
network made to integrate MAX service into the transit system. The section then evaluates the accuracy
of the transit plans developed at each prediction milestone and identifies the causes of any dif ferences
between the anticipated service plans and the services provided after the project opened.
4.1 Actual transit services after project opening
MAX BRT service operates on a BRT facility that has both dedicated and mixed traffic segments. The
dedicated portions of the BRT facility feature signal priority for BRT buses. The mixed traffic segments are
on streets that have low traffic volumes and thus do not contribute to bus delays. MAX BRT vehicles do
not operate on any arterial streets outside of the BRT f acility. No other bus routes operated on the BRT at
project opening. Regional bus service connecting Fort Collins to the nearby communities of Loveland and
Longmont has since been added and uses the guideway facility. Connections with other bus routes occur
at the two transit centers that serve as the northern and southern termini of the BRT line. Connections
also occur at BRT stations and stops located along the guideway segments, where local bus routes cross
the BRT line on east-west arterials.
Table 7 provides the MAX BRT service headways by time-period.
Table 7 Actual MAX BRT Service Headways
Period and Headway Weekdays Hours Saturday Hours
Early Morning - 15 Minutes 5:30 a.m. – 6:30 a.m. 6:00 a.m. – 11:00 a.m.
Core - 10 Minutes 6:30 a.m. – 7:00 p.m. 11:00 a.m. – 6:30 p.m.
Evening - 15 Minutes 7:00 p.m. – 9:00 p.m. 6:30 p.m. – 9:00 p.m.
Late Night - 30 Minutes 9:00 p.m. – 12:00 a.m. 9:00 p.m. – 12:00 a.m.
Note: In August 2017, Sunday and Holiday service from 8:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. (30-minute headway) was added.
Docusign Envelope ID: F1EE5AA1-9120-401B-9371-51F6C9E0ACC0
CITY OF FORT COLLINS – MAX BUS RAPID TRANSIT PROJECT
BEFORE & AFTER STUDY
Page 15
At the start of revenue service, in May 2014, the average end-to-end one-way run time was roughly
30 minutes, but by September 2014 the average end-to-end one-way run time was 22.7 minutes. Current
average end-to-end one-way run time is 20.2 minutes. The reductions in run time are due to improved
driver handling of operations at stations (which involve navigating cross-overs2 in the dedicated portion
and docking with the station platforms) and post-opening adjustments to the line (such as the addition of
traffic signals at Lake and Pitkin Streets to replace a stop sign for BRT buses).
The current average speed of the MAX BRT service is 14.3 miles per hour. This average holds for both the
mixed traffic segments (which are generally single-lane facilities that are lightly traveled by non-BRT
vehicles and have an adjacent bike lane) and the dedicated right of way segments (which feature
entry/exit gates, no shoulders, 20 mph speed limits, and somewhat more complicated station operations).
The guideway segments for this BRT project were designed primarily to deliver more reliable operations
by moving bus operations off of the heavily congested College Avenue corridor, and convenient customer
experiences at the stations rather than produce faster operating speeds.
Figure 2 shows the MAX BRT service in the context of the connecting services and network.
Table 8 Actual MAX BRT Service Bus Connections
Transit Center/Station Transfer Route
Downtown Transit Center 5, 8, 9, 10, 14, 18, 81, 92
University Station HORN
Drake Station 7
Swallow Stop 5, 6
Harmony Station 12, 19
South Transit Center 6, 12, 16, 19, FLEX
The project replaced the Route 1 mixed-traffic north-south service on College Avenue and the Route 15
north-south service between Colorado State University and Downtown (which utilized Meldrum St. and
the one-way couplet of Howes St. and Mason St.) with a BRT service employing as much exclusive
guideway as possible in the Mason Street railroad corridor. The one-way couplet of Howes St. and Mason
St. was converted to a pair of two-way streets. Comparison maps are available as Figure 3.
The project was built at a time when Fort Collins was expanding its bus system into a more complete grid.
The MAX BRT project provides improved transit service to the south corridor where development is the
densest and transit ridership is the highest. A few routes were added (two) or modified (four) to best
connect and work with the MAX BRT service.
2 For the island stations on the busway, the use of right-side boarding buses requires operators to navigate a yield-
sign controlled cross-over in advance of and subsequent to docking with the station platform.
Docusign Envelope ID: F1EE5AA1-9120-401B-9371-51F6C9E0ACC0
CITY OF FORT COLLINS – MAX BUS RAPID TRANSIT PROJECT
BEFORE & AFTER STUDY
Page 16
Figure 2 MAX BRT Service
Table 8 provides a key to bus connections at BRT stations. While the connections noted are available, few
transfers are actually made, suggesting that the connections may not be attractive to riders. Potential
riders from areas beyond walking distance are invited to bicycle, use kiss-and-ride, or to park-and-ride at
new parking provided at the stations.
Docusign Envelope ID: F1EE5AA1-9120-401B-9371-51F6C9E0ACC0
CITY OF FORT COLLINS – MAX BUS RAPID TRANSIT PROJECT
BEFORE & AFTER STUDY
Page 17
Table 9 summarizes the changes to the existing transit services because of the project, and Table 10
summarizes the associated changes in service revenue miles and revenue hours.
Table 9 Service Changes Due to MAX BRT Implementation
Route Notes
New Routes
MAX BRT Replace service on parallel routes (Routes 1 & 15) with BRT service on Mason/McClelland.
12 Added route to provide connection along Horsetooth Road to MAX Horsetooth Station.
(Potion of the area served by Routes 5 & 6 prior to MAX.)
HORN Campus Shuttle Added on-campus shuttle providing a transfer point at the MAX University Station.
Deleted Routes
1 Service on College Avenue replace with MAX BRT.
15 Service between CSU and Downtown replaced with MAX BRT.
Modified Routes
5 After opening, modified to operate on Swallow to serve MAX Swallow Station.
6 After opening, modified to operate from Taft Hill to Drake and Meadowlark to serve MAX
Swallow Station, and extended to operate on Stanford and JFK Parkway.
7 Modified to operate on Drake Road to Timberline (from Stover) and to operate on Shields to
Prospect, rather than Shields to Centre. Increased frequency from every 60 to every 30
minutes.
16 Modified to serve South Transit Center and increased frequency from every 60 to every 30
minutes.
Table 10 Changes in Service Revenue Miles and Revenue Hours
Service Dimension
Average Weekday Revenue Miles Average Weekday Revenue Hours
Before After Change Before After Change
Project Corridor 660 965 305 64 94 30
Project Connecting Routes 2,202 2,906 704 154 218 63
Remaining System 1,006 1,164 158 74 97 23
Total 3,553 5,158 1,605 271 417 145
Notes: “Before” values are for April 2014; “After” values are for September 2014.
“Project Corridor” includes Mason (Route 15), College (Route 1), and MAX
Docusign Envelope ID: F1EE5AA1-9120-401B-9371-51F6C9E0ACC0
CITY OF FORT COLLINS – MAX BUS RAPID TRANSIT PROJECT
BEFORE & AFTER STUDY
Page 18
Before After
Figure 3 Before-and-After Transit Service in the Project Corridor
4.2 Accuracy of the predicted service plans at each milestone
The anticipated service plan for the project and its connecting bus routes closely matched the actual
service after project opening.
The operating hours assumed for the MAX BRT at the Entry into PD and PCGA milestones matched the
actual outcome: the MAX BRT service opened using these same operating hours.
Docusign Envelope ID: F1EE5AA1-9120-401B-9371-51F6C9E0ACC0
CITY OF FORT COLLINS – MAX BUS RAPID TRANSIT PROJECT
BEFORE & AFTER STUDY
Page 19
The headway assumptions for the MAX BRT at the Entr y into PD and PCGA milestones were different from
the actual outcome only in that they assumed 10-minute early morning weekday headways (5:30-6:30
a.m.) versus the 15-minute headways in the actual operation.
Some minor differences are observable between the predicted and actual run times/speeds as shown in
Table 11 and Table 12. The differences in the intermediate point values primarily relate to refinements
made in the project through the stages of development (e.g., adjustments to station locations; shortening
the dedicated guideway section). The differences in the end-to-end times primarily relate to improved
operator performance with the precision docking procedure, the installation of additional traffic signals,
and refined signal timing (done after the project opening).
Table 11 Predicted versus Actual Run Times for Schedule Timepoints (in Minutes)
STC to
Horsetooth
Horsetooth
to Drake
Drake to
University
University to
DTC Total
Difference
from Current
Service
Current (Fall 2017) 4.3 4.5 5.6 5.9 20.2 --
Post-MAX Opening
(Summer 2014)
5.1 4.1 6.4 7.2 22.7 2.4
PCGA 4.2 4.9 4.8 7.0 20.4 0.2
Entry to PD 4.3 3.8 4.8 6.6 19.5 -0.7
Note: Times include dwell times/schedule pad
Table 12 Predicted versus Actual Speeds for Schedule Timepoints (in Miles per Hour)
STC to
Horsetooth
Horsetooth
to Drake
Drake to
University
University to
DTC Total
Difference
from Current
Service
Current (Fall 2017) 13.8 16.4 13.4 11.4 14.3 - -
Post-MAX Opening
(Summer 2014)
16.3 15.1 15.3 7.2 12.8 -1.5
PCGA 16.9 13.7 17.7 10.3 14.2 -0.1
Entry to PD 17.5 16.3 17.7 7.3 13.9 -0.4
Note: Speeds include dwell times/schedule pad
Differences from the actual outcomes in the predicted bus connection points resulted from additional
service planning completed after the project was committed. Overall, the differences in the planned
versus actual supporting routes (identified in Table 9 above) were very small:
At the Entry to PD and PCGA Award milestones, only the MAX BRT service was planned as a new service
as part of the project. In the actual outcome, Route 12 and HORN Campus Shuttle were implemented as
new connecting routes.
Connecting Routes 5, 6, and 7 were unmodified at the Entry into PD milestone but were modified by the
time of the PCGA Award - in ways that matched the actual outcomes for these routes.
Planned modifications to connecting Route 16 at the E ntry to PD and PCGA Award milestones matched
exactly the changes that were implemented.
Docusign Envelope ID: F1EE5AA1-9120-401B-9371-51F6C9E0ACC0
CITY OF FORT COLLINS – MAX BUS RAPID TRANSIT PROJECT
BEFORE & AFTER STUDY
Page 20
Finally, new Routes 13 and 17 were planned as additions to connect to the BRT at the En try to PD
milestone but were dropped during Project Development and not implemented in the actual outcome.
The markets they would have served were addressed through other transit service adjustments.
5 Operating and Maintenance Costs
This section documents the change in actual operating and maintenance (O&M) costs associated with the
project. The section then evaluates the accuracy of the estimates of O&M costs at each prediction
milestone and identifies the causes of any differences between those predicti ons and actual costs after
the project opened.
5.1 Actual O&M costs after project opening
Transfort does not track MAX O&M costs separately from the rest of its operations. Transfort knows that
MAX O&M costs are higher because of the cost of guideway maintenance.
For BRT dispatching, there are the salaries of additional dispatch staff and bus operators needed for the
BRT that apply to MAX to but not to other routes. The unit costs for BRT operations are the same as
Transfort incurs for the rest of its operations (e.g., operator salaries on a per hour/mile basis, bus
fuel/maintenance per mile, etc. are the same).
For the guideway, there is snow removal on the dedicated guideway and BRT stations/stops (a high cost
item), maintenance of the passenger communications/security systems at the BRT Stations/Stops.
For this report Transfort used the average hourly costs per operator and per mile for bus
fuel/maintenance from the existing system to estimate MAX costs for operations and vehicle
maintenance. The other MAX guideway maintenance costs were identified in Transfort’s records.
5.2 Predicted Vs. Actual O&M costs after project opening
For the predicted costs, only one projection of O&M costs was prepared in 2007 to support the entry to
PD milestone. That projection and the actual incurred costs for MAX’s first full year of operation are
depicted in Table 13, broken down by cost center. In 2007, the projected start of revenue service was
2012, with the first full year of revenue service projected as 2013. The total O&M costs forecasts
increased with each grant submittal between 2007 – 2011, however no documentation exists showing
either cost center assumptions or other adjustments.
The actual first full year of operations was 2015. The projected costs in 2013 O&M dollars were escalated
to 2015 dollars assuming an annual inflation rate of 2% per year in Table 13.
Cost center comparisons in Table 13 are rough at best due to uncertainties around the lack of specifics in
the projected figures. Operations costs include salaries and benefits of operators. It is assumed that the
2013 projections did not contained salaries of other support staff. The 2015 actual costs include salaries
of additional dispatch staff needed for the BRT. Support services includes admin and overhead, and is an
estimated amount based on the percentage of the overall operations costs.
Docusign Envelope ID: F1EE5AA1-9120-401B-9371-51F6C9E0ACC0
CITY OF FORT COLLINS – MAX BUS RAPID TRANSIT PROJECT
BEFORE & AFTER STUDY
Page 21
Table 13 Predicted vs. Actual O&M Costs
Breakdown of MAX O&M
Expenses
Actual First
Full Year of
Operation
($,000)
Entry to PD Predicted Differenc
e
Predicted
– Actual -
in 2015
Dollars
($,000)
Percent
Difference
from
Predicted
First Full
Year of
Operation
Assumed as
2013
($,000)
First Full Year
of Operation
Inflation
Adjusted @
2% per year
($,000)
2015 2013 2015
Operations $1,217 $1,271 $ 1,323 $ 106 8.0%
Fleet Maintenance $ 367 $ 507 $527 $ 160 30.4%
Fuel $ 197 $ 289 $301 $ 104 34.6%
Street Sweeping, Pothole
Repair & Snow Removal $ 243 $40 $ 42 ($ 201) - 477.5%
Support Services (admin,
TSOs, dispatch, road
supervisors, insurance)
$ 943 Not
Estimated
Not
Estimated ($ 943) N/A
Total $2,969 $2,067 $ 2,193 ($ 774) - 35.3%
Guideway maintenance includes snow removal and street maintenance costs. Snow removal costs
($243K) were significantly underestimated. The fleet maintenance, fuel and guideway maintenance costs
categories have significant discrepancies and the operations costs were underestimated because of, it
appears, the omission of the cost of additional dispatch staff. The reason for this omission is unknown;
supposition is that it was inadvertently forgotten.
6 Ridership
This chapter first highlights the actual impacts of the project on ridership. It then evaluates the accuracy
of ridership forecasts for the project prepared during project development. Appendix A includes
additional annual ridership growth information; and appendices B, C, and D provide more detailed
tabulations of the data highlighted in the chapter itself.
6.1 Actual Ridership Impacts
An onboard survey was conducted in October of 2017 to quantify actual ridership on the entire Transfort
bus system after the opening of the MAX project. An onboard survey was also conducted in April 2014
before the project opening. However, the before survey included only the bus routes then serving the
project corridor – Routes 1 and 15. Consequently, detailed comparisons of ridership patterns and rider
characteristics before and after project opening are limited to the riders on routes in the project corridor:
Routes 1 and 15 before project opening and MAX after project opening. The comparisons exclude riders
on all other routes in the system.
6.1.1 Actual Ridership on the Project
Determination of the actual ridership outcome of the project is challenging because of the substantial
growth in systemwide ridership that occurred during the period in which the project opened. Figure and
Error! Reference source not found. document growth in average weekday transit ridership over the
period for routes in the project corridor, other CSU-connected routes, and all other routes in the system.
Docusign Envelope ID: F1EE5AA1-9120-401B-9371-51F6C9E0ACC0
CITY OF FORT COLLINS – MAX BUS RAPID TRANSIT PROJECT
BEFORE & AFTER STUDY
Page 22
Figure 4 Average Weekday Boardings for Fall and Spring, 2012 through 2017
Table 14 Average Weekday Boardings for Fall and Spring, 2012 through 2017
Spring
2012
Fall
2012
Spring
2013
Fall
2013
Spring
2014
Fall
2014
Spring
2015
Fall
2015
Spring
2016
Fall
2016
Spring
2017
Fall
2017
Corridor 1,583 1,584 1,669 1,645 1,660 2,497 2,482 5,005 4,588 5,300 4,910 5,296
CSU Non-
Corridor Routes
4,996 5,503 5,483 5,290 5,467 5,451 6,536 8,626 8,228 9,292 8,899 9,937
Non-CSU Routes 2,970 2,828 2,943 2,804 2,836 2,229 2,604 3,259 3,368 3,468 3,423 3,412
Systemwide 9,549 9,915 10,096 9,739 9,962 10,177 11,622 16,890 16,184 18,060 17,233 18,645
Corridor ridership on routes 1 and 15 averaged 1,660 boardings in the spring of 2014, largely unchanged
from its average over the previous four years. After the project opened in May 2014 and MAX replaced
these two local routes, MAX ridership averaged 2,497 boardings throughout the fall and remained at that
level through the spring of 2015. In September of 2015 – 16 months after project opening – MAX ridership
jumped to 5,005 boardings and remained at this higher level throughout the fall. MAX ridership has since
grown modestly, increasing to 5,296 by the fall of 2017 with small increases each fall and smaller drop-
offs each spring.
Meanwhile, ridership on other routes providing service to CSU had averaged 5,365 school season weekday
boardings from spring of 2012 through spring of 2014. Ridership on these routes remained similar in the
0
2,000
4,000
6,000
8,000
10,000
12,000
Sp
r
i
n
g
2
0
1
2
Fa
l
l
2
0
1
2
Sp
r
i
n
g
2
0
1
3
Fa
l
l
2
0
1
3
Sp
r
i
n
g
2
0
1
4
Fa
l
l
2
0
1
4
Sp
r
i
n
g
2
0
1
5
Fa
l
l
2
0
1
5
Sp
r
i
n
g
2
0
1
6
Fa
l
l
2
0
1
6
Sp
r
i
n
g
2
0
1
7
Fa
l
l
2
0
1
7
Av
e
r
a
g
e
W
e
e
k
d
a
y
B
o
a
r
d
i
n
g
s
Corridor CSU Non-Corridor Routes Non-CSU Routes
MA
X
O
p
e
n
s
Docusign Envelope ID: F1EE5AA1-9120-401B-9371-51F6C9E0ACC0
CITY OF FORT COLLINS – MAX BUS RAPID TRANSIT PROJECT
BEFORE & AFTER STUDY
Page 23
fall of 2014 but increased significantly in the spring of 2015 and again in the fall, reaching an average of
9,937 weekday boardings by fall of 2017.
Ridership on all other routes in the Transfort system also increased over this interval but much less rapidly.
Ridership on these routes averaged 2,229 boardings in fall 2014, a modest decline from previous years.
Ridership increased to 3,259 by the fall of 2015 and remained at approximately that level thro ugh fall
2017.
This history of Transfort ridership indicates different growth rates in three separate intervals:
1. Up to and including spring 2014 – when ridership was more-or-less stable in all three route groups;
2. fall 2014 up to and including fall 2015 – when ridership grew substantially in all three groups; and
3. after fall 2015, when ridership grew modestly in all three groups.
Because MAX opened at the beginning of the second interval when ridership boomed both on MAX and
also elsewhere in the system, the challenge is to determine how much of the increase in corridor ridership
was attributable to MAX itself and how much was attributable to other changes occurring in that period.
The immediate increase in ridership in the project corridor – to 2,497 boardings in fall 2014 – seems
entirely attributable to the opening of MAX. Ridership on other CSU -connected routes remained steady
and ridership on all other routes dropped marginally.
The subsequent increase in MAX ridership in this period is not nearly so clear. Ridership increased
dramatically both on MAX and on other CSU routes, and moderately on all other routes in the system.
The question is whether MAX ridership increased because it somehow resumed maturing (after a pause
during the spring of 2015) or MAX ridership increased because it was responding to the same external
influences that were driving increases (particularly for other CSU-connected routes) elsewhere in the
system.
Some insights can be derived by assuming that MAX’s opening year ridership grew at the same pace as
ridership on other CSU-connected routes (82 percent from 5,451 in fall 2014 to 9,937 in fall 2017). If MAX
ridership had grown at the same pace, it would have increased from 2,497 boardings in fall 2014 to 4,552
boardings in fall 2017 – some 745 fewer trips than the actual MAX ridership in fall 2017. This result
suggests that, without the external influences that were increasing ridership on other CSU-connected
routes, MAX ridership in fall 2017 would have been 3,242 boardings – the sum of the 2,497 boardings it
reached in fall 2015 plus 745 additional boardings as it continued to mature. The remainder of the
increase to 5,296 boardings appears to be attributable to external influences that were causing parallel
increases in other CSU-connected routes.
External factors contributed to growth in ridership on both MAX and on other routes serving CSU. Table
15 documents the changes in several external factors that are likely to have contributed to increasing
ridership in the project corridor and on other routes serving CSU.
Several other external factors may have also contributed to growth in MAX ridership be tween opening
day and 2017. These include:
• Free rides on Transfort for CSU faculty and staff starting in fall of 2015;
• Increases in parking costs at CSU, as documented in Error! Reference source not found.;
• Major construction at CSU that closed two significant parking lots during the 2015-2016 academic
year, reducing available parking spaces as shown in Error! Reference source not found.;
Docusign Envelope ID: F1EE5AA1-9120-401B-9371-51F6C9E0ACC0
CITY OF FORT COLLINS – MAX BUS RAPID TRANSIT PROJECT
BEFORE & AFTER STUDY
Page 24
Table 15 Historical Demographic, Enrollment and Transit Service Data
Metric 2010 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017
Population 144,888 152,205 154,570 160,935 162,919 167,500
Employment 134,400 145,400 150,400 155,500 162,700 166,500
CSU enrollment 29,932 31,514 31,725 32,236 33,198 33,413
Number of students living
on campus
6,477 6,652 6,649 7,060 7,868 7,955
Number of students living
off campus
23,455 24,862 25,076 25,176 25,330 25,458
Revenue hours of service 75,564 78,742 103,232 118,846 126,192 129,438
Revenue miles of service 913,682 1,033,967 1,297,622 1,496,165 1,610,699 1,612,941
• A new transportation demand management (TDM) program implemented at CSU in fall of 2014, with
fall of 2015 starting the second year of this program;
• Introduction of park and ride access to MAX, allowing CSU students and employees to park for free
and ride MAX to campus; and
• Introduction of the Advanced Traveler Information System (ATIS) in fall of 2014, providing riders with
real time arrival information.
Table 16 Historical CSU Parking Data
Metric
Academic Year
2010-2011 2013-2014 2014-2015 2015-2016 2016-2017 2017-2018
CSU parking costs for
faculty/staff (annual)
$210 $261 $317 $442 $565 $582
CSU parking costs for
students (annual)
$188 $234 $292 $407 $520 $536
CSU parking costs at
resident halls (annual)
$243 $303 $354 $476 $476 $628
CSU short-term parking
costs (hourly)
$1.00 $1.00 $1.25 $1.50 $1.75 $1.75
CSU remote lot1 parking
costs (annual)
n/a n/a n/a $250 $250 $250
Parking permits issued 15,953 14,123 13,691 12,524 13,482 14,398
Note: 1 The CSU remote parking lot, opened for the 2015-2016 academic year, is accessed by a campus feeder bus and is
not directly connected to MAX.
The best available evidence makes a plausible case for a conclusion that the introduction of the MAX
facility and service attracted an average of 2,500 boardings in its first year, attracted another 750 trips
during its second year as its ridership matured, and also enjoyed additional ridership increases through
fall 2017 caused by the external factors described above.
Docusign Envelope ID: F1EE5AA1-9120-401B-9371-51F6C9E0ACC0
CITY OF FORT COLLINS – MAX BUS RAPID TRANSIT PROJECT
BEFORE & AFTER STUDY
Page 25
6.1.2 Characteristics of Trips on the Project
This section tabulates the detailed data from the 2017 rider survey and therefore provides a snapshot of
Transfort ridership in the fall months when system ridership is higher than the annual average.
Error! Reference source not found. provides the linked project trips3 for district-to-district interchanges,
corresponding to the districts presented in Figure , as well as the share of those trips made by CSU
students, faculty, and staff.
The largest market comprises the 1,826 trips to CSU from residences throughout the corridor and
elsewhere in the metro area. Of these trips, 84 percent were made by CSU students, faculty, and staff.
Students traveling to school at CSU made 899 of these trips, just under one half.
The second largest market is the 1,363 trips attracted to downtown, again from residences throughout
the corridor and the metro area. Only 287 of these trips were made by commuters traveling between
home and work. Most were made by riders traveling between home and some non -work activity (616
trips) or between two non-home activities (460 trips).
The approximately 2,000 remaining trips on the project are attracted to activities throughout Fort Collins
or elsewhere in the North Front Range, reflecting the central location of the BRT corridor within the
Transfort transit system.
Table 17 2017 District-to-District Project Linked Trips in P-A4 Format
Prod.
District
Home-Based Work HBU Home-Based Other Non-Home-Based
(1
)
C
B
D
(2
)
C
S
U
(3
)
M
i
d
(4
)
S
o
u
(5
)
S
E
(6
)
S
W
(7
)
O
t
h
(2
)
C
S
U
(1
)
C
B
D
(2
)
C
S
U
(3
)
M
i
d
(4
)
S
o
u
(5
)
S
E
(6
)
S
W
(7
)
O
t
h
(1
)
C
B
D
(2
)
C
S
U
(3
)
M
i
d
(4
)
S
o
u
(5
)
S
E
(6
)
S
W
(7
)
O
t
h
(1) CBD 0 23 54 74 0 23 8 144 54 47 70 54 0 62 27 69 190 96 78 4 23 47
(2) CSU 31 0 31 47 0 8 0 10 39 0 23 39 0 18 8 136 16 186 62 0 54 16
(3) Mid 93 62 31 35 0 16 0 279 151 47 27 66 0 8 8 97 124 66 66 8 8 0
(4) Sou 85 62 16 0 0 8 19 225 171 35 97 0 0 16 8 97 50 31 0 0 0 0
(5) SE 0 23 16 8 0 0 8 47 27 0 31 8 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0
(6) SW 39 54 23 0 0 0 16 109 92 39 39 0 0 0 8 39 58 62 16 0 0 19
(7) Oth 39 78 43 16 0 8 27 85 81 12 16 12 0 8 0 19 8 16 19 0 0 4
Total 287 303 213 178 0 62 78 899 616 178 303 178 0 111 58 460 446 457 241 12 85 85
HBU=Home-Based University trips are made by students; commute trips to the university made by faculty and staff are counted among
the Home-Based Work trips to District 2.
3 A linked trip is defined as a trip from an origin (such as home) to a destination (such as work), regardless of the
number of bus boardings needed to make the trip. A linked trip that requires a transfer along the way therefore
represents one linked trip and two boardings – one on each of the two bus routes involved. A linked project trip is
defined as a linked trip that uses MAX at some point on its origin-to-destination transit path.
4 P-A format indicates production to attraction format, meaning that trips are summarized from the home end of
the trip to the non-home end of the trip. For example, a round trip between a home in mid-Mason and a restaurant
in downtown would consist of two trips from mid-Mason to downtown when summarized in P-A format. For non-
home-based trips, productions are defined as the trip origin and attractions are defined as the trip destination.
Docusign Envelope ID: F1EE5AA1-9120-401B-9371-51F6C9E0ACC0
CITY OF FORT COLLINS – MAX BUS RAPID TRANSIT PROJECT
BEFORE & AFTER STUDY
Page 26
Figure 5 Districts
Note: The “Other” district covers the remainder of the North Front Range, including the communities of Loveland, Greeley,
and several other small cities and towns.
6.1.3 Change in Ridership
Trips on transit services within the project corridor have increased significantly since the opening of the
project in 2014. (Transit travel also increased significantly throughout the metro area, but this analysis is
confined to the MAX corridor because the 2014 covered only the two routes (1 and 15) that served the
corridor before the project opened.) Table 18 summarizes the change in corridor trips by district. The
biggest increase in the corridor occurred for trips attracted to the university, representing 46% of all
growth. CSU students, faculty, and staff accounted for 64% of this increase (trip tables for CSU students,
faculty, and staff are included in appendices B, C, and D).
Docusign Envelope ID: F1EE5AA1-9120-401B-9371-51F6C9E0ACC0
CITY OF FORT COLLINS – MAX BUS RAPID TRANSIT PROJECT
BEFORE & AFTER STUDY
Page 27
Table 18 District-to-District Corridor Linked Trips in P-A Format, Before and After
Production
District
Corridor Trips after Project Opening Change (After - Before) in Corridor Trips
(1
)
C
B
D
(2
)
C
S
U
(3
)
M
i
d
(4
)
S
o
u
(5
)
S
E
(6
)
S
W
(7
)
O
t
h
To
t
a
l
(1
)
C
B
D
(2
)
C
S
U
(3
)
M
i
d
(4
)
S
o
u
(5
)
S
E
(6
)
S
W
(7
)
O
t
h
To
t
a
l
(1) CBD 123 404 220 206 4 109 81 1,146 70 349 155 134 -12 88 -30 753
(2) CSU 206 26 241 147 0 80 23 723 169 24 236 147 0 80 -6 651
(3) Mid 341 512 124 167 8 31 8 1,191 242 487 103 131 7 11 -49 931
(4) Sou 353 372 144 0 0 23 27 920 302 357 133 0 0 18 -29 782
(5) SE 31 70 47 16 0 0 8 171 26 60 41 16 -5 -5 -20 112
(6) SW 169 260 124 16 0 0 43 612 152 260 119 16 0 -5 27 569
(7) Oth 140 182 74 47 0 16 31 489 17 143 -6 0 -5 -7 -294 -152
Total 1,363 1,826 973 598 12 259 221 5,251 978 1,679 781 443 -15 180 -400 3,646
Note: Corridor trips before project opening are defined as trips using Routes 1 and 15; corridor trips after project opening are
defined as trips using the project. Linked trips are summarized from the before and after surveys.
Error! Reference source not found. presents the change in trips by purpose. Even with the large increase in
CSU-focused travel, the distribution across trip purposes remained constant because student riders make
large numbers of transit trips for other purposes in addition to trips to/from school, and because a significant
portion of the increase in corridor ridership represents work trips by CSU faculty and staff.
Error! Reference source not found. presents the change in trips by access mode at the home end of the
transit trip. In the 2017 survey, 60% of MAX riders accessed the BRT by walking, followed by Par k-and-Ride
(25%), and bike (10%). Section B.6 of the appendix tabulates district-to-district trips on the project for all
access modes. Park-and-Ride access was essentially non-existent before the introduction of MAX and the five
new park-and-ride lots at its stations. Bike access increased in response to the new bicycle parking facilities
at MAX stations. Transfers from other bus routes represent a small percentage of trips (3%) due to the low
frequency (30-60-minute headways) and schedule uncertainty of connecting routes.
Table 19 Corridor Linked Trips by Trip Purpose Table 20 Corridor Linked Trips by Access Mode
Trip Purpose After
Change
(After –
Before)
Share of
Growth
Access Mode After
Change
(After -
Before)
Share of
Growth
Home-based Work 1,121 765 21% Park-and-Ride 1,273 1,253 35%
Home-based University 899 644 18% Kiss-and-Ride 140 111 3%
Home-based Other 1,445 1,004 28% Bus (transfer) 153 104 3%
Non-home-based 1,786 1,233 34% Bike 504 407 11%
Total 5,251 3,646 Walk 3,073 1,699 48%
Error! Reference source not found. presents the change in trips by auto availability, which shows the bigger
increases in trips occurring for riders from car-owning households. It should be noted that 71% of project
Docusign Envelope ID: F1EE5AA1-9120-401B-9371-51F6C9E0ACC0
CITY OF FORT COLLINS – MAX BUS RAPID TRANSIT PROJECT
BEFORE & AFTER STUDY
Page 28
trips with 3 or more vehicles in the household were made by CSU students. These students likely live further
from campus with their families or live in multi-student households.
Table 21 Corridor Linked Trips by Auto Availability
Number of
Vehicles Available
in the Household After
Change
(After –
Before)
Change in
Share of
Total Trips
Share of Trips
by CSU Students
(Before)
Share of Trips
by CSU Students
(After)
0 1,255 486 -26% 19% 30%
1 1,407 1,029 4% 27% 46%
2 1,238 1,051 16% 43% 46%
3 or more 799 704 5% 27% 71%
6.2 Accuracy of Opening Year Ridership Predictions
The discussion of actual ridership in section 6.1.1 concluded that the actual ridership outcome of the project
was 2,500 boardings throughout its first year plus another 750 boardings in its second year, for a total
matured ridership level of 3,250 boardings on an average weekday during the time when CSU is in session.
Concurrent ridership gains that brought MAX ridership to 5,300 boardings per weekday were caused by
external influences described previously.
The ridership forecast prepared during project
development for the opening year anticipated
4,054 BRT boardings on an average weekday
with CSU in session. The forecast was prepared
in 2011 and, because it was for an opening year
only 3 years away (and because FTA project
rating criteria at the time considered only the
horizon-year rather than the opening year),
simply assumed that conditions would remain
the same as they were in 2011. This means that
the forecasting model knew only about the
introduction of MAX and was uniformed of the
changes that occurred at CSU and throughout
the Transfort system by 2017.
From that perspective, the forecast of 4,054
boardings was an overestimate of the direct
MAX ridership outcome of 3,250 boardings.
And, because the forecasting model was
entirely unaware of other influences at CSU and
systemwide, it was an inevitable underestimate
of the eventual MAX ridership outcome by the fall of 2017. Figure compares the MAX ridership forecasts to
the various components of the actual MAX ridership outcome.
As noted, the forecasts were prepared based on an assumption that nothing would change for a short-term
horizon other than the introduction of the BRT project whereas, in the actual outcome, substantia l changes
occurred in a number of external factors that have influenced ridership growth. The following section
Figure 6 Comparison of Forecasts and Observed Boardings
in the Project Corridor
Docusign Envelope ID: F1EE5AA1-9120-401B-9371-51F6C9E0ACC0
CITY OF FORT COLLINS – MAX BUS RAPID TRANSIT PROJECT
BEFORE & AFTER STUDY
Page 29
provides highlights of the important ways that the forecasts missed the actual outcome, for the purposes of
providing information that could be helpful in future model updates.
The largest market (1,800 trips) of MAX riders in 2017 comprised trips to CSU. While the model over-
predicted home-based university trips to CSU by students and visitors, the model under-predicted other
types of trips to CSU, including a prediction of only 25% of the 300 actual home-based work trips and just
under 3% of the nearly 450 non-home-based trips. Furthermore, trips from CSU were also under-predicted.
Only 27 trips were predicted to be produced at CSU of the 723 actual trips; CSU trip productions were under-
predicted for all trip purposes.
Three other major MAX ridership markets were 1) non-CSU trips to the CBD, 2) trips entirely outside of CSU
and the CBD, and trips from the CBD to non-CSU areas.
• Non-CSU trips to the CBD (1,160 trips): This market was primarily commute trips with a small number of
short trips between CBD stations. The forecast reasonably estimated commute travel (within 40 trips)
but underestimated non-commute trips to the CBD by approximately 680 trips.
• Trips entirely outside CSU and the CBD (950 trips): The forecast underestimated commute trips in this
market by 43% and estimated non-commute trips reasonably well (within 10%) but the distribution of
those non-commute trips by purpose were off by overestimation of home-based other and
underestimation of non-home-based trips.
• Trips from the CBD to non-CSU areas (620 trips): The forecast underestimated commute trips in this
market by about half and underestimated non-commute trips by a factor of 4.
Aggregating all MAX travel markets, the forecast underestimated home -based work and overestimated
home-based university trips. Both home-based other and non-home-based trips were underestimated for
CSU and non-CSU related travel. Appendix D provides detailed comparisons between actual and estimated
trips on the project, by district and by trip purposes.
While it’s difficult to compare actual ridership with a forecast that excluded external factors, some valuable
insights can be gained from this analysis.
• The forecast underestimated MAX trips by on -campus residents from classroom areas to other areas
such as the CBD. The model included two zones to represent CSU: one zone representing on-campus
residents (productions) and one zone representing the classrooms (attractions). In reviewing the
modeled results, it was determined that the transit stops were closer to the classrooms and further away
from the residents. This resulted in few trips being produced in that CSU zone. As shown by the on-board
survey data, on-campus students were making non-home-based trips from the classrooms to other areas
such as the CBD, but the model was not capturing those trips.
• The mode choice model was too sensitive to home -based university travel for transit. Travel to and
from CSU is a major component of the transit system in Fort Collins. Even before the introduction of MAX,
CSU transit trips made up a large share of total ridership. This may have led to an alternative specific
constant for transit that increased the propensity of home-based trips to the university to use transit.
• The model under-predicted use of MAX by non-CSU markets, particularly for non-commute travel. It is
unclear exactly why the forecasts underpredicted non -university travel. Possible reasons include faster
growth in the region than assumed in the forecast and a higher propensity for non-university trips to be
made on BRT as opposed to local bus.
Docusign Envelope ID: F1EE5AA1-9120-401B-9371-51F6C9E0ACC0
CITY OF FORT COLLINS – MAX BUS RAPID TRANSIT PROJECT
BEFORE & AFTER STUDY
Page 30
7 Economic Impacts
Over the past several years, Fort Collins has been experiencing a high rate of growth supported by commercial
and residential development throughout the community. Much of this development has been concentrated
on redevelopment or infill sites within a quarter mile of the MAX corridor. A total of 845 new housing units
and over 301K square feet of new commercial space has been constructed along the 5-mile long Mason
Corridor between 2014 (start of MAX operations) and 2018. The total construction value of these projects
was $161 million. City-wide, 5,500 housing units were constructed, and the value of construction was $2.3
billion from 2014 - 2018. Without the large public transportation investment in MAX, the level of private
investment along the Mason Corridor would likely have been lower, and development projects may have
been built elsewhere, may not have been built, may have been smaller scale or may have featured fewer
transit supportive elements such as lower housing densities, more parking, less robust pedestrian features
and other unique elements.
The private housing market began to respond to the MAX project immediately after opening with the
construction of several projects including State, a large private student housing development (676 bedrooms)
near the Prospect Station, MAX Flats (100 bedrooms) with an integrated MAX station, and Pros pect Station
(49 bedrooms) near the Prospect Station. While most projects are concentrated on the north end of the
corridor including in Downtown, several including the Redtail Ponds Supportive Housing project (66
bedrooms) have been built south of Drake Road. Some, but not all, of these projects are exclusively geared
towards the student market.
The City of Fort Collins began the effort to promote transit-oriented development in the Corridor by adopting
the Transit Oriented Development zoning overlay in 2007. The zoning overlay includes regulations and
incentives to “encourage land uses, densities and design that enhance and support transit along the Mason
Corridor”. Regulations govern design elements such as building orientation, outdoor spaces, streetscape and
pedestrian connections, and character and image. The overlay also provides an incentive in the form of
reduced parking requirements. In addition, City identified the Corridor as a “Targeted Redevelopment Area”
and adopted an Urban Renewal Plan that provides Tax Increment Financing to private sector projects in the
Corridor.
Many developers have cited the construction of MAX as a major factor in the decision to build along the
Mason Corridor. The Fort Collins’ Coloradoan reported in 2013 the f ollowing statement regarding a press
release by the developer of Prospect Station (not to be confused with the MAX station of the same name), a
transit oriented development: “… [Prospect Station] helps encourage walkability in the Midtown area and
fits with city goals to allow higher development density along the Mason Corridor where the MAX bus rapid
transit system will begin service in May.” New developments in the corridor continue to market MAX as an
amenity, as evidenced by their webpage descriptions:
• Prospect Station is proud to be joined together by MAX, the city’s rapid transit system. MAX makes
living in and enjoying the best Fort Collins has to offer, from Old Town to Harmony, without the use
of a personal vehicle. (Prospect Station)
• Located between two MAX transit stations. (State)
• There is a bus station right outside our door. (MAX Flats)
Other recent development activity in or adjacent to the Mason Corridor has included the Foothills Mall
redevelopment, extensive multi-family development in Downtown, North College and around the CSU
Campus on both greenfield and redevelopment sites, and mixed-use greenfield development on East
Harmony Road.
Transit-supportive development along the Mason Corridor is expected to continue, particularly south of
Drake, and a local developer recently proposed a large transit-oriented development near the Drake Station.
Docusign Envelope ID: F1EE5AA1-9120-401B-9371-51F6C9E0ACC0
CITY OF FORT COLLINS – MAX BUS RAPID TRANSIT PROJECT
BEFORE & AFTER STUDY
Page 31
Since 2014, Fort Collins has been tracking property values in ¼ mile radius around MAX for different corridor
segments. As shown in Table 22 assessed property values in the ¼ mile radius grew 28% between 2014 and
2018. Between ¼ mile and 1-mile radius around the Corridor, property values increased by 32%. In the same
period, overall assessed property values in Fort Collins increased by 33%.
Table 22 Assessed Property Value Change Between 2014 - 2018
Mason Corridor Segment
1/4 Mile Corridor
Radius
1/4 Mile – 1 Mile
Corridor Radius
Fort Collins
Downtown 30% 55% N/A
Upper Midtown 28% 32% N/A
CSU Area 7% 16% N/A
Central Midtown 43% 34% N/A
Lower Midtown 31% 23% N/A
Average 28% 32% 33%
To put these figures in context, the Mason Corridor is an aging retail strip corridor that until recently had
been experiencing disinvestment between Prospect and Horsetooth Road, resulting in underutilized and
vacant properties. Some key large retailers had abandoned the high traffic volume corridor and moved south
to Harmony Road or other greenfield locations. Under these conditions, property values would be expected
to continue to decline. However, the C orridor is now experiencing a revival and has recently seen
considerable new investment through business growth and redevelopment, reversing the property value
decline. While it is too early to fully conclude the extent of the impact the MAX project, it has certainly played
a role in leveraging new investment near several MAX stations like Mulberry, Prospect, and Spring Creek.
Docusign Envelope ID: F1EE5AA1-9120-401B-9371-51F6C9E0ACC0
CITY OF FORT COLLINS – MAX BUS RAPID TRANSIT PROJECT
BEFORE & AFTER STUDY
Page 32
EXHIBIT A TABLE OF ACRONYMS
AA Alternatives Analysis
ATIS Advanced Traveler Information System
BNSF BNSF Railway Company
BRT Bus Rapid Transit
CAGR Compound Annual Growth Rate
City City of Fort Collins
CM Construction Manager
CSU Colorado State University
CTC CSU Transit Center
DTC Downtown Transit Center
EA Environmental Assessment
FMP Financial Management Plan
FONSI Finding of No Significant Impact
FTA Federal Transit Administration
MAX Mason Corridor Express
MTP Mall Transfer Point
NFRMPO North Front Range Metropolitan Planning Organization
NRRC Natural Resources Research Center
O&M operations and maintenance
PCGA Project Construction Grant Agreement
ROW right-of-way
SCC Standard Cost Category
STC South Transit Center
TMF Transfort Maintenance Facility
YOE Year of Expenditure
Docusign Envelope ID: F1EE5AA1-9120-401B-9371-51F6C9E0ACC0
CITY OF FORT COLLINS – MAX BUS RAPID TRANSIT PROJECT
BEFORE & AFTER STUDY
Page 33
EXHIBIT B RIDERSHIP APPENDICES…
APPENDIX A. ANNUAL SYSTEM RIDERSHIP
Table A-1. Growth in Annual Transfort Ridership, 2010 to 2017
Metric
2010 2013 20141 2015 2016 2017
CAGR2
(2010
- 2013)
CAGR
(2014
- 2017)
(3a) Annual systemwide
boardings
2,034,195 2,296,511 2,611,642 3,266,194 4,083,459 4,340,929 4.1% 18.5%
(4a) Annual boardings
for corridor routes
432,409 453,754 743,345 991,159 1,400,726 1,471,288 1.6% 25.6%
(5a) Annual boardings
for CSU routes
(non-corridor)
897,295 1,018,010 1,106,613 1,429,217 1,690,827 1,854,363 4.3% 18.8%
(6a) Annual boardings
for non-CSU routes
(non-corridor)
700,863 797,556 735,936 814,616 982,596 968,583 4.4% 9.6%
Note: 1 Annual boardings in 2014 include all boardings on any route operating during 2014, including the time period
when MAX was offering free rides.
2 CAGR indicates the Compound Annual Growth Rate.
Docusign Envelope ID: F1EE5AA1-9120-401B-9371-51F6C9E0ACC0
CITY OF FORT COLLINS – MAX BUS RAPID TRANSIT PROJECT
BEFORE & AFTER STUDY
Page 34
APPENDIX B. ACTUAL RIDERSHIP, AFTER PROJECT OPENING
B.1. Expanded Districts
Figure 2-1. Expanded Districts – Regional
Docusign Envelope ID: F1EE5AA1-9120-401B-9371-51F6C9E0ACC0
CITY OF FORT COLLINS – MAX BUS RAPID TRANSIT PROJECT
BEFORE & AFTER STUDY
Page 35
Figure 3-2. Expanded Districts – Fort Collins
Docusign Envelope ID: F1EE5AA1-9120-401B-9371-51F6C9E0ACC0
CITY OF FORT COLLINS – MAX BUS RAPID TRANSIT PROJECT
BEFORE & AFTER STUDY
Page 36
B.2. District-to-District Linked Trips on the Project: Total
Trips reported in this section reflect average weekday daily linked trips on the project, based on a 2017 on-
board survey.
Table Error! No text of specified style in document.-1. District-to-District Linked Trips on the Project: Total
PRODUCTION DISTRICT
ATTRACTION DISTRICT
Total (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) Other
(1) Downtown 123 404 220 206 23 4 109 16 43 1,146
(2) CSU 206 26 241 147 8 - 80 - 16 723
(3) Mid Mason 341 512 124 167 4 8 31 - 4 1,191
(4) South Mason 353 372 144 - 8 - 23 - 19 920
(5) East Fort Collins 58 39 4 8 12 - 16 - - 136
(6) Southeast Fort Collins 31 70 47 16 8 - - - - 171
(7) Southwest Fort Collins 169 260 124 16 19 - - 8 16 612
(8) Northwest Fort Collins - 23 16 12 - - - - - 50
All Other 81 120 54 27 - - - 12 8 303
Total 1,363 1,826 973 598 81 12 259 35 105 5,251
Docusign Envelope ID: F1EE5AA1-9120-401B-9371-51F6C9E0ACC0
CITY OF FORT COLLINS – MAX BUS RAPID TRANSIT PROJECT
BEFORE & AFTER STUDY
Page 37
B.3. District-to-District Linked Trips on the Project: by Trip Purpose
Trips reported in this section reflect average weekday daily linked trips on the project, based on a 2017 on-
board survey.
Table B-2. District-to-District Linked Trips on the Project by Trip Purpose: Home-based Work
PRODUCTION DISTRICT
ATTRACTION DISTRICT
Total (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) Other
(1) Downtown - 23 54 74 - - 23 - 8 182
(2) CSU 31 - 31 47 - - 8 - - 116
(3) Mid Mason 93 62 31 35 - - 16 - - 237
(4) South Mason 85 62 16 - 8 - 8 - 12 190
(5) East Fort Collins 16 23 4 - 12 - 8 - - 62
(6) Southeast Fort Collins - 23 16 8 8 - - - - 54
(7) Southwest Fort Collins 39 54 23 - 8 - - 8 - 132
(8) Northwest Fort Collins - 16 8 8 - - - - - 31
All Other 23 39 31 8 - - - 8 8 116
Total 287 303 213 178 35 - 62 16 27 1,121
Table B-3. District-to-District Linked Trips on the Project by Trip Purpose: Home-based University
PRODUCTION DISTRICT
ATTRACTION DISTRICT
Total
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) Other
(1) Downtown - 144 - - - - - - - 144
(2) CSU - 10 - - - - - - - 10
(3) Mid Mason - 279 - - - - - - - 279
(4) South Mason - 225 - - - - - - - 225
(5) East Fort Collins - 16 - - - - - - - 16
(6) Southeast Fort Collins - 47 - - - - - - - 47
(7) Southwest Fort Collins - 109 - - - - - - - 109
(8) Northwest Fort Collins - - - - - - - - - -
All Other - 70 - - - - - - - 70
Total - 899 - - - - - - - 899
Docusign Envelope ID: F1EE5AA1-9120-401B-9371-51F6C9E0ACC0
CITY OF FORT COLLINS – MAX BUS RAPID TRANSIT PROJECT
BEFORE & AFTER STUDY
Page 38
Table B-4. District-to-District Linked Trips on the Project by Trip Purpose: Home-based Other
PRODUCTION DISTRICT
ATTRACTION DISTRICT
Total (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) Other
(1) Downtown 54 47 70 54 8 - 62 8 12 314
(2) CSU 39 - 23 39 - - 18 - 8 127
(3) Mid Mason 151 47 27 66 4 - 8 - 4 307
(4) South Mason 171 35 97 - - - 16 - 8 326
(5) East Fort Collins 27 - - 8 - - 8 - - 43
(6) Southeast Fort Collins 27 - 31 8 - - - - - 66
(7) Southwest Fort Collins 92 39 39 - - - - - 8 177
(8) Northwest Fort Collins - 8 - 4 - - - - - 12
All Other 54 4 16 - - - - - 0 74
Total 616 178 303 178 12 - 111 8 39 1,445
Table B-5. District-to-District Linked Trips on the Project by Trip Purpose: Non-home-based
PRODUCTION DISTRICT
ATTRACTION DISTRICT
Total (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) Other
(1) Downtown 69 190 96 78 16 4 23 8 23 506
(2) CSU 136 16 186 62 8 - 54 - 8 469
(3) Mid Mason 97 124 66 66 - 8 8 - - 369
(4) South Mason 97 50 31 - - - - - - 178
(5) East Fort Collins 16 - - - - - - - - 16
(6) Southeast Fort Collins 4 - - - - - - - - 4
(7) Southwest Fort Collins 39 58 62 16 12 - - - 8 194
(8) Northwest Fort Collins - - 8 - - - - - - 8
All Other 4 8 8 19 - - - 4 0 43
Total 460 446 457 241 35 12 85 12 39 1,786
Docusign Envelope ID: F1EE5AA1-9120-401B-9371-51F6C9E0ACC0
CITY OF FORT COLLINS – MAX BUS RAPID TRANSIT PROJECT
BEFORE & AFTER STUDY
Page 39
B.4. District-to-District Linked Trips on the Project: by Trip Purpose
for CSU Students, Faculty, and Staff Only
Trips reported in this section reflect average weekday daily linked trips on the project made by C SU
students, faulty, or staff, based on a 2017 on-board survey.
Table B-6. District-to-District Linked Trips on the Project by Trip Purpose, for CSU Students, Faculty, and Staff Only:
Home-based Work
PRODUCTION DISTRICT
ATTRACTION DISTRICT
Total (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) Other
(1) Downtown - 16 8 4 - - - - - 27
(2) CSU 8 - 16 31 - - - - - 54
(3) Mid Mason 23 47 16 8 - - - - - 93
(4) South Mason 8 54 8 - - - - - - 70
(5) East Fort Collins 8 23 - - - - - - - 31
(6) Southeast Fort Collins - 23 16 - - - - - - 39
(7) Southwest Fort Collins 16 54 8 - 8 - - 8 - 93
(8) Northwest Fort Collins - 16 - - - - - - - 16
All Other 8 31 - - - - - - - 39
Total 70 264 70 43 8 - - 8 - 462
Table B-7. District-to-District Linked Trips on the Project by Trip Purpose, for CSU Students, Faculty, and Staff Only:
Home-based University
PRODUCTION DISTRICT
ATTRACTION DISTRICT
Total (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) Other
(1) Downtown - 144 - - - - - - - 144
(2) CSU - 10 - - - - - - - 10
(3) Mid Mason - 279 - - - - - - - 279
(4) South Mason - 225 - - - - - - - 225
(5) East Fort Collins - 16 - - - - - - - 16
(6) Southeast Fort Collins - 47 - - - - - - - 47
(7) Southwest Fort Collins - 109 - - - - - - - 109
(8) Northwest Fort Collins - - - - - - - - - -
All Other - 70 - - - - - - - 70
Total - 899 - - - - - - - 899
Docusign Envelope ID: F1EE5AA1-9120-401B-9371-51F6C9E0ACC0
CITY OF FORT COLLINS – MAX BUS RAPID TRANSIT PROJECT
BEFORE & AFTER STUDY
Page 40
Table B-8. District-to-District Linked Trips on the Project by Trip Purpose, for CSU Students, Faculty, and Staff Only:
Home-based Other
PRODUCTION DISTRICT
ATTRACTION DISTRICT
Total (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) Other
(1) Downtown 16 8 23 8 - - 8 - - 62
(2) CSU 16 - 23 8 - - 8 - 8 62
(3) Mid Mason 54 - 8 39 - - - - - 101
(4) South Mason 39 - 58 - - - - - - 97
(5) East Fort Collins 8 - - - - - - - - 8
(6) Southeast Fort Collins 23 - 16 - - - - - - 39
(7) Southwest Fort Collins 27 16 23 - - - - - - 66
(8) Northwest Fort Collins - - - - - - - - - -
All Other 8 - 8 - - - - - (0) 16
Total 190 23 159 54 - - 16 - 8 450
Table B-9. District-to-District Linked Trips on the Project by Trip Purpose, for CSU Students, Faculty, and Staff Only:
Non home-based
PRODUCTION DISTRICT
ATTRACTION DISTRICT
Total
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) Other
(1) Downtown 8 136 31 16 - - 8 8 8 213
(2) CSU 78 8 116 43 8 - 31 - 8 291
(3) Mid Mason 31 109 39 23 - - 8 - - 210
(4) South Mason 47 39 8 - - - - - - 93
(5) East Fort Collins - - - - - - - - - -
(6) Southeast Fort Collins - - - - - - - - - -
(7) Southwest Fort Collins - 43 35 8 - - - - - 85
(8) Northwest Fort Collins - - 8 - - - - - - 8
All Other - 8 - - - - - - 0 8
Total 163 341 237 89 8 - 47 8 16 908
Docusign Envelope ID: F1EE5AA1-9120-401B-9371-51F6C9E0ACC0
CITY OF FORT COLLINS – MAX BUS RAPID TRANSIT PROJECT
BEFORE & AFTER STUDY
Page 41
B.5. District-to-District Linked Trips on the Project: by Access Mode
Trips reported in this section reflect average weekday daily linked trips on the project, based on a 2017 on-
board survey.
Table B-10. District-to-District Linked Trips on the Project by Access Mode: Park & Ride
PRODUCTION DISTRICT
ATTRACTION DISTRICT
Total (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) Other
(1) Downtown 8 39 8 - - - - - - 54
(2) CSU - - 23 - - - 8 - - 31
(3) Mid Mason 101 210 16 - - - - - - 326
(4) South Mason 78 132 39 - - - - - - 248
(5) East Fort Collins 16 31 - - - - - - - 47
(6) Southeast Fort Collins 23 54 47 - - - - - - 124
(7) Southwest Fort Collins 54 178 78 - - - - 8 - 318
(8) Northwest Fort Collins - - 8 - - - - - - 8
All Other 8 93 16 - - - - - (0) 116
Total 287 737 233 - - - 8 8 - 1,273
Table B-11. District-to-District Linked Trips on the Project by Access Mode: Kiss & Ride
PRODUCTION DISTRICT
ATTRACTION DISTRICT
Total
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) Other
(1) Downtown 8 16 - - - - - - 8 31
(2) CSU - - - - - - 8 - - 8
(3) Mid Mason - 16 - 8 - - - - 4 27
(4) South Mason 16 - - - - - - - - 16
(5) East Fort Collins - - - - - - - - - -
(6) Southeast Fort Collins - - - - - - - - - -
(7) Southwest Fort Collins 23 31 - - 4 - - - - 58
(8) Northwest Fort Collins - - - - - - - - - -
All Other - - - - - - - - - -
Total 47 62 - 8 4 - 8 - 12 140
Docusign Envelope ID: F1EE5AA1-9120-401B-9371-51F6C9E0ACC0
CITY OF FORT COLLINS – MAX BUS RAPID TRANSIT PROJECT
BEFORE & AFTER STUDY
Page 42
Table B-12. District-to-District Linked Trips on the Project by Access Mode: Bus (Transfer)
PRODUCTION DISTRICT
ATTRACTION DISTRICT
Total (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) Other
(1) Downtown 6 8 3 8 - - 8 - - 32
(2) CSU 4 3 4 8 - - 3 - - 21
(3) Mid Mason 4 4 - 4 - - - - - 12
(4) South Mason - 4 4 - - - - - - 8
(5) East Fort Collins - - 4 - - - - - - 4
(6) Southeast Fort Collins 4 8 - - - - - - - 12
(7) Southwest Fort Collins 14 4 8 - - - - - - 26
(8) Northwest Fort Collins - - - 4 - - - - - 4
All Other 16 12 8 - - - - - - 35
Total 48 41 30 23 - - 10 - - 153
Table B-13. District-to-District Linked Trips on the Project by Access Mode: Bike
PRODUCTION DISTRICT
ATTRACTION DISTRICT
Total (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) Other
(1) Downtown - 16 31 39 - - 31 - - 116
(2) CSU 23 16 39 31 - - 23 - - 132
(3) Mid Mason 23 39 - 31 - - - - - 93
(4) South Mason 23 23 16 - - - 16 - 8 85
(5) East Fort Collins 16 - - - - - - - - 16
(6) Southeast Fort Collins - 8 - 8 - - - - - 16
(7) Southwest Fort Collins - - 8 - 8 - - - 8 23
(8) Northwest Fort Collins - - 8 - - - - - - 8
All Other 8 - - - - - - - 8 16
Total 93 101 101 109 8 - 70 - 23 504
Docusign Envelope ID: F1EE5AA1-9120-401B-9371-51F6C9E0ACC0
CITY OF FORT COLLINS – MAX BUS RAPID TRANSIT PROJECT
BEFORE & AFTER STUDY
Page 43
Table B-14. District-to-District Linked Trips on the Project by Access Mode: Walk
PRODUCTION DISTRICT
ATTRACTION DISTRICT
Total (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) Other
(1) Downtown 101 303 178 151 23 4 70 16 35 881
(2) CSU 178 8 175 109 8 - 39 - 16 532
(3) Mid Mason 198 213 109 116 4 8 31 - - 679
(4) South Mason 229 206 85 - 8 - 8 - 12 547
(5) East Fort Collins 27 8 - 8 12 - 16 - - 70
(6) Southeast Fort Collins 4 - - 8 8 - - - - 19
(7) Southwest Fort Collins 78 47 31 8 8 - - - 8 178
(8) Northwest Fort Collins - 23 - 8 - - - - - 31
All Other 50 16 31 27 - - - 12 0 136
Total 865 823 609 435 70 12 163 27 70 3,073
B.6. District-to-District Linked Trips on the Project: by Auto
Availability
Trips reported in this section reflect average weekday daily linked trips on the project, based on a 2017 on-
board survey.
Table B-15. District-to-District Linked Trips on the Project by Auto Availability: 0 Autos
PRODUCTION DISTRICT
ATTRACTION DISTRICT
Total (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) Other
(1) Downtown 50 101 85 97 16 4 62 16 4 435
(2) CSU 39 10 54 43 - - 16 - - 162
(3) Mid Mason 81 74 23 70 4 - 8 - 4 264
(4) South Mason 81 43 35 - - - 16 - 4 178
(5) East Fort Collins 16 8 4 8 8 - - - - 43
(6) Southeast Fort Collins 4 - - 8 - - - - - 12
(6) Southwest Fort Collins 38 19 8 - 8 - - - 8 80
(8) Northwest Fort Collins - 8 8 - - - - - - 16
All Other 35 - 27 - - - - 4 0 66
Total 344 263 244 225 35 4 101 19 19 1,255
Docusign Envelope ID: F1EE5AA1-9120-401B-9371-51F6C9E0ACC0
CITY OF FORT COLLINS – MAX BUS RAPID TRANSIT PROJECT
BEFORE & AFTER STUDY
Page 44
Table B-16. District-to-District Linked Trips on the Project by Auto Availability: 1 Auto
PRODUCTION DISTRICT
ATTRACTION DISTRICT
Total (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) Other
(1) Downtown 26 105 54 66 - - 23 - 39 313
(2) CSU 54 - 70 43 - - 8 - 16 190
(3) Mid Mason 85 175 47 50 - - - - - 357
(4) South Mason 97 116 23 - 8 - 8 - - 252
(5) East Fort Collins 12 8 - - 4 - - - - 23
(6) Southeast Fort Collins 8 31 16 8 - - - - - 62
(6) Southwest Fort Collins 54 39 16 16 - - - - 8 132
(8) Northwest Fort Collins - - - 8 - - - - - 8
All Other 19 35 - 8 - - - - 8 70
Total 356 508 225 198 12 - 39 - 70 1,407
Table B-17. District-to-District Linked Trips on the Project by Auto Availability: 2 Autos
PRODUCTION DISTRICT
ATTRACTION DISTRICT
Total (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) Other
(1) Downtown 16 89 54 16 - - 8 - - 182
(2) CSU 31 8 66 23 8 - 16 - - 151
(3) Mid Mason 109 109 23 8 - - 16 - - 264
(4) South Mason 120 109 47 - - - - - 8 283
(5) East Fort Collins 16 8 - - - - - - - 23
(6) Southeast Fort Collins 4 12 16 - 8 - - - - 39
(6) Southwest Fort Collins 47 85 39 - 12 - - 8 - 190
(8) Northwest Fort Collins - 16 8 - - - - - - 23
All Other 23 35 8 8 - - - 8 - 81
Total 365 469 260 54 27 - 39 16 8 1,238
Docusign Envelope ID: F1EE5AA1-9120-401B-9371-51F6C9E0ACC0
CITY OF FORT COLLINS – MAX BUS RAPID TRANSIT PROJECT
BEFORE & AFTER STUDY
Page 45
Table B-18. District-to-District Linked Trips on the Project by Auto Availability: 3 or More Autos
PRODUCTION DISTRICT
ATTRACTION DISTRICT
Total (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) Other
(1) Downtown 8 54 16 - - - 8 - - 85
(2) CSU 27 - 16 16 - - 23 - - 81
(3) Mid Mason 54 109 16 16 - - - - - 194
(4) South Mason 39 70 23 - - - - - - 132
(5) East Fort Collins 16 16 - - - - - - - 31
(6) Southeast Fort Collins 16 27 8 - - - - - - 50
(6) Southwest Fort Collins 16 109 39 - - - - - - 163
(8) Northwest Fort Collins - - - - - - - - - -
All Other 4 50 8 - - - - - - 62
Total 178 435 124 31 - - 31 - - 799
B.7. District-to-District Linked Trips on the Project: by Auto
Availability for CSU Students, Faculty, and Staff Only
Trips reported in this section reflect average weekday daily linked trips on the project made by CSU
students, faulty, or staff, based on a 2017 on-board survey.
Table B-19. District-to-District Linked Trips on the Project by Auto Availability, for CSU Students Only: 0 Autos
PRODUCTION DISTRICT
ATTRACTION DISTRICT Total
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) Other
(1) Downtown 16 78 16 16 - - - 8 - 132
(2) CSU 12 10 39 16 - - - - - 76
(3) Mid Mason 8 62 8 31 - - - - - 109
(4) South Mason 16 23 4 - - - - - - 43
(5) East Fort Collins 8 - - - - - - - - 8
(6) Southeast Fort Collins - - - - - - - - - -
(6) Southwest Fort Collins 4 - 8 - - - - - - 12
(8) Northwest Fort Collins - - - - - - - - - -
All Other - - - - - - - - - -
Total 62 173 74 62 - - - 8 - 379
Docusign Envelope ID: F1EE5AA1-9120-401B-9371-51F6C9E0ACC0
CITY OF FORT COLLINS – MAX BUS RAPID TRANSIT PROJECT
BEFORE & AFTER STUDY
Page 46
Table B-20. District-to-District Linked Trips on the Project by Auto Availability, for CSU Faculty and Staff Only: 0
Autos
PRODUCTION DISTRICT
ATTRACTION DISTRICT
Total (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) Other
(1) Downtown - - - - - - - - - -
(2) CSU 8 - - 8 - - - - - 16
(3) Mid Mason 8 4 - 8 - - - - - 19
(4) South Mason - 8 8 - - - - - - 16
(5) East Fort Collins - 8 - - - - - - - 8
(6) Southeast Fort Collins - - - - - - - - - -
(6) Southwest Fort Collins - 12 - - - - - - - 12
(8) Northwest Fort Collins - - - - - - - - - -
All Other - - - - - - - - - -
Total 16 31 8 16 - - - - - 70
Table B-21. District-to-District Linked Trips on the Project by Auto Availability, for CSU Students Only: 1 Auto
PRODUCTION DISTRICT
ATTRACTION DISTRICT
Total (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) Other
(1) Downtown 8 74 16 12 - - - - 8 116
(2) CSU 47 - 23 27 - - 8 - 16 120
(3) Mid Mason 23 147 31 23 - - - - - 225
(4) South Mason 23 78 8 - - - - - - 109
(5) East Fort Collins - 8 - - - - - - - 8
(6) Southeast Fort Collins 8 23 8 - - - - - - 39
(6) Southwest Fort Collins 8 8 - 8 - - - - - 23
(8) Northwest Fort Collins - - - - - - - - - -
All Other - 12 - - - - - - - 12
Total 116 349 85 70 - - 8 - 23 652
Docusign Envelope ID: F1EE5AA1-9120-401B-9371-51F6C9E0ACC0
CITY OF FORT COLLINS – MAX BUS RAPID TRANSIT PROJECT
BEFORE & AFTER STUDY
Page 47
Table B-22. District-to-District Linked Trips on the Project by Auto Availability, for CSU Faculty and Staff Only: 1 Auto
PRODUCTION DISTRICT
ATTRACTION DISTRICT
Total (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) Other
(1) Downtown - 8 - - - - 16 - - 23
(2) CSU - - 31 - - - - - - 31
(3) Mid Mason 8 12 8 - - - - - - 27
(4) South Mason - 23 8 - - - - - - 31
(5) East Fort Collins - - - - - - - - - -
(6) Southeast Fort Collins - 8 - - - - - - - 8
(6) Southwest Fort Collins - 16 - - - - - - - 16
(8) Northwest Fort Collins - - - - - - - - - -
All Other - 16 - - - - - - - 16
Total 8 81 47 - - - 16 - - 151
Table B-23. District-to-District Linked Trips on the Project by Auto Availability, for CSU Students Only: 2 Autos
PRODUCTION DISTRICT
ATTRACTION DISTRICT
Total (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) Other
(1) Downtown - 89 16 - - - - - - 105
(2) CSU 8 - 31 16 8 - 16 - - 78
(3) Mid Mason 31 70 8 - - - 8 - - 116
(4) South Mason 16 85 23 - - - - - - 124
(5) East Fort Collins - - - - - - - - - -
(6) Southeast Fort Collins - 4 8 - - - - - - 12
(6) Southwest Fort Collins 8 62 19 - 8 - - - - 97
(8) Northwest Fort Collins - - 8 - - - - - - 8
All Other 8 23 - - - - - - - 31
Total 70 334 113 16 16 - 23 - - 570
Docusign Envelope ID: F1EE5AA1-9120-401B-9371-51F6C9E0ACC0
CITY OF FORT COLLINS – MAX BUS RAPID TRANSIT PROJECT
BEFORE & AFTER STUDY
Page 48
Table B-24. District-to-District Linked Trips on the Project by Auto Availability, for CSU Faculty and Staff Only: 2
Autos
PRODUCTION DISTRICT
ATTRACTION DISTRICT
Total (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) Other
(1) Downtown - - 8 - - - - - - 8
(2) CSU 16 8 16 - - - - - - 39
(3) Mid Mason 8 31 - - - - - - - 39
(4) South Mason 23 23 8 - - - - - - 54
(5) East Fort Collins - 8 - - - - - - - 8
(6) Southeast Fort Collins - 8 8 - - - - - - 16
(6) Southwest Fort Collins 16 16 8 - - - - 8 - 47
(8) Northwest Fort Collins - 16 - - - - - - - 16
All Other 8 8 - - - - - - (0) 16
Total 70 116 47 - - - - 8 - 241
Table B-25. District-to-District Linked Trips on the Project by Auto Availability, for CSU Students Only: 3+ Autos
PRODUCTION DISTRICT
ATTRACTION DISTRICT
Total (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) Other
(1) Downtown - 47 8 - - - - - - 54
(2) CSU 12 - 8 16 - - 8 - - 43
(3) Mid Mason 16 109 8 8 - - - - - 140
(4) South Mason 16 62 16 - - - - - - 93
(5) East Fort Collins 8 8 - - - - - - - 16
(6) Southeast Fort Collins 16 27 8 - - - - - - 50
(6) Southwest Fort Collins 8 85 31 - - - - - - 124
(8) Northwest Fort Collins - - - - - - - - - -
All Other - 43 8 - - - - - (0) 50
Total 74 380 85 23 - - 8 - - 570
Docusign Envelope ID: F1EE5AA1-9120-401B-9371-51F6C9E0ACC0
CITY OF FORT COLLINS – MAX BUS RAPID TRANSIT PROJECT
BEFORE & AFTER STUDY
Page 49
Table B-26. District-to-District Linked Trips on the Project by Auto Availability, for CSU Faculty and Staff Only: 3+
Autos
PRODUCTION DISTRICT
ATTRACTION DISTRICT
Total (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) Other
(1) Downtown - - - - - - - - - -
(2) CSU - - 8 - - - 8 - - 16
(3) Mid Mason 8 - - - - - - - - 8
(4) South Mason - - - - - - - - - -
(5) East Fort Collins - 8 - - - - - - - 8
(6) Southeast Fort Collins - - - - - - - - - -
(6) Southwest Fort Collins - 23 - - - - - - - 23
(8) Northwest Fort Collins - - - - - - - - - -
All Other - 8 - - - - - - - 8
Total 8 39 8 - - - 8 - - 62
B.8. District-to-District Linked Trips Systemwide: Total
Trips reported in this section reflect average weekday daily linked trips systemwide, based on a 2017 on-
board survey.
Table B-27. District-to-District Linked Trips Systemwide by Trip Purpose: Total
PRODUCTION DISTRICT
ATTRACTION DISTRICT
Total (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) Other
(1) Downtown 188 465 225 212 97 10 122 28 226 1,574
(2) CSU 235 837 410 147 14 10 100 231 135 2,119
(3) Mid Mason 381 1,617 234 173 99 20 54 58 119 2,756
(4) South Mason 353 472 157 12 37 7 55 6 70 1,169
(5) East Fort Collins 187 200 122 55 69 6 35 26 146 845
(6) Southeast Fort Collins 31 76 47 25 14 6 34 16 - 249
(7) Southwest Fort Collins 183 283 157 19 48 28 10 14 99 840
(8) Northwest Fort Collins 87 5,298 62 37 30 6 27 226 146 5,921
All Other 447 715 128 77 68 61 89 115 900 2,602
Total 2,093 9,963 1,542 758 477 155 526 722 1,841 18,076
Docusign Envelope ID: F1EE5AA1-9120-401B-9371-51F6C9E0ACC0
CITY OF FORT COLLINS – MAX BUS RAPID TRANSIT PROJECT
BEFORE & AFTER STUDY
Page 50
B.9. District-to-District Linked Trips Systemwide: By Purpose
Trips reported in this section reflect average weekday daily linked trips systemwide, based on a 2017 on-
board survey.
Table B-28. District-to-District Linked Trips Systemwide by Trip Purpose: Home-based Work
PRODUCTION DISTRICT
ATTRACTION DISTRICT
Total (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) Other
(1) Downtown 4 28 54 74 27 6 23 - 41 258
(2) CSU 34 42 38 47 - 3 14 5 6 189
(3) Mid Mason 100 96 52 35 47 - 16 17 48 411
(4) South Mason 85 69 16 6 25 7 20 - 26 253
(5) East Fort Collins 66 37 42 25 18 - 20 7 65 281
(6) Southeast Fort Collins - 23 16 8 8 6 6 - - 67
(7) Southwest Fort Collins 45 54 23 3 27 6 - 8 17 183
(8) Northwest Fort Collins 17 206 24 24 12 6 7 6 12 314
All Other 102 70 50 26 23 42 6 14 216 549
Total 453 626 314 248 186 76 113 57 430 2,504
Table B-29. District-to-District Linked Trips Systemwide by Trip Purpose: Home-based University
PRODUCTION DISTRICT
ATTRACTION DISTRICT
Total
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) Other
(1) Downtown - 183 - - - - - - - 183
(2) CSU - 274 - - - - - - - 274
(3) Mid Mason - 922 - - - - - - - 922
(4) South Mason - 298 - - - - - - - 298
(5) East Fort Collins - 115 - - - - - - - 115
(6) Southeast Fort Collins - 53 - - - - - - - 53
(7) Southwest Fort Collins - 119 - - - - - - - 119
(8) Northwest Fort Collins - 4,226 - - - - - - - 4,226
All Other - 427 - - - - - - - 427
Total - 6,616 - - - - - - - 6,616
Docusign Envelope ID: F1EE5AA1-9120-401B-9371-51F6C9E0ACC0
CITY OF FORT COLLINS – MAX BUS RAPID TRANSIT PROJECT
BEFORE & AFTER STUDY
Page 51
Table B-30. District-to-District Linked Trips Systemwide by Trip Purpose: Home-based Other
PRODUCTION DISTRICT
ATTRACTION DISTRICT
Total (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) Other
(1) Downtown 71 51 75 54 25 - 69 14 74 434
(2) CSU 61 107 52 39 - - 25 117 49 449
(3) Mid Mason 184 182 88 66 45 - 24 34 47 670
(4) South Mason 171 48 107 6 12 - 35 6 36 421
(5) East Fort Collins 62 28 70 23 38 6 8 16 39 290
(6) Southeast Fort Collins 27 - 31 17 6 - 15 9 - 106
(7) Southwest Fort Collins 92 45 58 - 6 9 10 6 32 259
(8) Northwest Fort Collins 53 569 24 11 18 - 20 151 98 944
All Other 214 82 64 13 32 16 73 84 433 1,011
Total 934 1,112 568 229 183 32 278 439 808 4,584
Table B-31. District-to-District Linked Trips Systemwide by Trip Purpose: Non-home-based
PRODUCTION DISTRICT
ATTRACTION DISTRICT
Total (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) Other
(1) Downtown 114 202 96 84 45 4 30 14 112 700
(2) CSU 141 413 320 62 14 6 61 109 80 1,207
(3) Mid Mason 97 417 94 73 7 20 15 7 24 754
(4) South Mason 97 57 35 - - - - - 8 197
(5) East Fort Collins 59 20 10 6 13 - 7 3 42 160
(6) Southeast Fort Collins 4 - - - - - 12 7 - 23
(7) Southwest Fort Collins 46 65 75 16 15 13 - - 51 280
(8) Northwest Fort Collins 18 298 15 2 - - - 70 36 438
All Other 131 136 15 38 14 3 10 16 251 615
Total 706 1,608 659 281 108 46 135 226 603 4,372
Docusign Envelope ID: F1EE5AA1-9120-401B-9371-51F6C9E0ACC0
CITY OF FORT COLLINS – MAX BUS RAPID TRANSIT PROJECT
BEFORE & AFTER STUDY
Page 52
B.10. District-to-District Linked Trips Systemwide: By Access Mode
Trips reported in this section reflect average weekday daily linked trips systemwide, based on a 2017 on-
board survey.
Table B-32. District-to-District Linked Trips Systemwide by Access Mode: Park & Ride
PRODUCTION DISTRICT
ATTRACTION DISTRICT
Total (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) Other
(1) Downtown 11 39 8 - - - - - 3 61
(2) CSU - 7 23 - - - 8 - - 38
(3) Mid Mason 101 380 37 - - - - 7 7 532
(4) South Mason 78 139 39 - - - - - 7 262
(5) East Fort Collins 23 31 - - - - - - - 54
(6) Southeast Fort Collins 23 54 47 - - - - - - 124
(7) Southwest Fort Collins 54 178 78 - - - - 8 3 321
(8) Northwest Fort Collins 5 118 8 - - - - 5 - 135
All Other 14 148 22 - - - - - 52 236
Total 309 1,094 261 - - - 8 20 73 1,764
Table B-33. District-to-District Linked Trips Systemwide by Access Mode: Kiss & Ride
PRODUCTION DISTRICT
ATTRACTION DISTRICT
Total
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) Other
(1) Downtown 8 16 - - - - - - 8 31
(2) CSU - 7 - - - - 8 - 6 20
(3) Mid Mason - 19 - 8 - - - 7 4 38
(4) South Mason 16 - 6 - - - - - - 22
(5) East Fort Collins - - - - - - - - - -
(6) Southeast Fort Collins - - - - - - - - - -
(7) Southwest Fort Collins 23 31 7 - 4 - - - 7 71
(8) Northwest Fort Collins 6 5 - - - - - - - 12
All Other 3 7 6 3 - - - - 25 45
Total 56 85 19 11 4 - 8 7 49 239
Docusign Envelope ID: F1EE5AA1-9120-401B-9371-51F6C9E0ACC0
CITY OF FORT COLLINS – MAX BUS RAPID TRANSIT PROJECT
BEFORE & AFTER STUDY
Page 53
Table B-34. District-to-District Linked Trips Systemwide by Access Mode: Bus (Transfer)
PRODUCTION DISTRICT
ATTRACTION DISTRICT
Total (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) Other
(1) Downtown 14 8 3 14 - - 8 - 12 59
(2) CSU 7 17 4 8 - - 3 3 3 43
(3) Mid Mason 4 14 - 4 3 - - - 9 35
(4) South Mason - 4 4 - 3 - - - 2 13
(5) East Fort Collins - - 7 - - - - - 5 12
(6) Southeast Fort Collins 4 8 - 3 6 - 3 3 - 27
(7) Southwest Fort Collins 14 11 11 3 9 9 - - 12 69
(8) Northwest Fort Collins - 25 - 6 2 - - 2 5 41
All Other 21 14 12 3 13 3 6 3 25 99
Total 63 99 41 41 37 13 19 11 74 398
Table B-35. District-to-District Linked Trips Systemwide by Access Mode: Bike
PRODUCTION DISTRICT
ATTRACTION DISTRICT
Total (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) Other
(1) Downtown 7 16 31 39 20 - 31 - 20 163
(2) CSU 28 28 53 31 - - 30 5 6 182
(3) Mid Mason 23 60 7 31 6 - - 12 - 139
(4) South Mason 23 37 16 - 13 - 16 - 14 118
(5) East Fort Collins 56 14 42 6 13 6 - - 25 164
(6) Southeast Fort Collins - 8 - 8 - - 6 - - 22
(7) Southwest Fort Collins 7 - 8 - 8 - - - 21 43
(8) Northwest Fort Collins - 127 8 6 - - - - 7 148
All Other 46 6 - - - - 19 - 130 202
Total 190 295 165 121 61 6 102 17 223 1,180
Docusign Envelope ID: F1EE5AA1-9120-401B-9371-51F6C9E0ACC0
CITY OF FORT COLLINS – MAX BUS RAPID TRANSIT PROJECT
BEFORE & AFTER STUDY
Page 54
Table B-36. District-to-District Linked Trips Systemwide by Access Mode: Walk
PRODUCTION DISTRICT
ATTRACTION DISTRICT
Total (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) Other
(1) Downtown 149 364 184 151 77 10 83 28 169 1,216
(2) CSU 200 764 330 109 14 10 52 223 103 1,804
(3) Mid Mason 238 1,086 183 123 90 20 54 32 99 1,925
(4) South Mason 229 265 92 12 21 7 39 6 48 719
(5) East Fort Collins 108 155 66 48 55 - 35 26 101 594
(6) Southeast Fort Collins 4 - - 14 8 6 25 13 - 69
(7) Southwest Fort Collins 85 63 54 8 27 19 10 6 57 327
(8) Northwest Fort Collins 76 4,988 40 25 28 6 27 219 129 5,537
All Other 344 440 88 72 56 52 58 101 609 1,818
Total 1,433 8,124 1,036 562 375 129 383 656 1,314 14,011
B.11. Daily Boardings by Route
Boardings reported in this section reflect average weekday daily boardings by route for fall 2017.
Table B-37. 2017 Average Fall Weekday Daily Boardings
Route Average Weekday Daily Boardings
2 957
3 2,025
5 311
6 446
7 756
8 620
9 125
10 122
12 243
14 238
16 399
18 327
19 504
31 2,535
32 915
33 61
81 326
92 28
FLEX 801
GOLD 87
HORN 1,849
MAX 5,547
Total 19,222
Docusign Envelope ID: F1EE5AA1-9120-401B-9371-51F6C9E0ACC0
CITY OF FORT COLLINS – MAX BUS RAPID TRANSIT PROJECT
BEFORE & AFTER STUDY
Page 55
APPENDIX C. ACTUAL RIDERSHIP, BEFORE THE PROJECT
C.1. District-to-District Linked Trips in the Corridor, Before: Total
Trips reported in this section reflect average weekday daily linked trips in the corridor, before the project,
based on a 2013 on-board survey.
Table C-1. District-to-District Linked Trips in the Corridor: Total
PRODUCTION DISTRICT
ATTRACTION DISTRICT
Total (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) Other
(1) Downtown 53 55 65 72 10 15 21 17 84 392
(2) CSU 36 2 5 - 4 - - 1 24 72
(3) Mid Mason 100 25 21 36 - 1 21 1 56 261
(4) South Mason 51 15 10 - 13 - 5 10 33 138
(5) East Fort Collins 30 2 26 15 4 - - 2 19 98
(6) Southeast Fort Collins 5 10 5 - - 5 5 3 26 59
(7) Southwest Fort Collins 17 - 5 - 10 - 5 5 - 43
(8) Northwest Fort Collins 37 2 12 7 18 - 2 13 46 136
All Other 56 36 42 24 12 5 21 8 203 406
Total 385 147 192 154 71 27 79 60 491 1,605
C.2. District-to-District Linked Trips in the Corridor, Before: by Trip
Purpose
Trips reported in this section reflect average weekday daily linked trips in the corridor, before the project,
based on a 2013 on-board survey.
Table C-2. District-to-District Linked Trips in the Corridor by Trip Purpose: Home-based Work
PRODUCTION DISTRICT
ATTRACTION DISTRICT
Total (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) Other
(1) Downtown - 5 15 21 - 5 5 9 10 71
(2) CSU - - - - 2 - - - 2 4
(3) Mid Mason 22 5 10 5 - 1 - - 1 45
(4) South Mason 15 - 5 - 5 - - 5 5 36
(5) East Fort Collins 10 - 21 10 2 - - - 10 53
(6) Southeast Fort Collins - - 5 - - - - - 5 10
(7) Southwest Fort Collins 5 - - - - - - - - 5
(8) Northwest Fort Collins 16 - - - 2 - - 6 18 42
All Other 24 - 12 8 5 - - 2 40 91
Total 94 10 69 44 16 6 5 22 91 356
Docusign Envelope ID: F1EE5AA1-9120-401B-9371-51F6C9E0ACC0
CITY OF FORT COLLINS – MAX BUS RAPID TRANSIT PROJECT
BEFORE & AFTER STUDY
Page 56
Table C-3. District-to-District Linked Trips in the Corridor by Trip Purpose: Home-based University
PRODUCTION DISTRICT
ATTRACTION DISTRICT
Total (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) Other
(1) Downtown 12 24 - - - - 5 2 4 47
(2) CSU 2 2 - - - - - - - 4
(3) Mid Mason 26 8 5 5 - - 10 1 10 65
(4) South Mason 15 15 - - - - - - - 31
(5) East Fort Collins 5 2 - - - - - - 2 9
(6) Southeast Fort Collins - 10 - - - - 5 - - 15
(7) Southwest Fort Collins - - - - - - 5 - - 5
(8) Northwest Fort Collins - 2 - - - - - 1 - 3
All Other 5 15 - 5 - - 21 - 31 77
Total 65 77 5 10 - - 46 4 48 255
Table C-4. District-to-District Linked Trips in the Corridor by Trip Purpose: Home-based Other
PRODUCTION DISTRICT
ATTRACTION DISTRICT
Total (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) Other
(1) Downtown 7 - 14 15 5 5 5 - 32 84
(2) CSU 2 - 1 - - - - - 2 5
(3) Mid Mason 29 - 6 15 - - 10 - 29 91
(4) South Mason 5 - 5 - 8 - - - 10 28
(5) East Fort Collins 2 - 5 5 - - - - - 12
(6) Southeast Fort Collins - - - - - - - 3 15 18
(7) Southwest Fort Collins 2 - - - 10 - - 5 - 17
(8) Northwest Fort Collins 18 - 12 7 16 - 2 5 25 85
All Other 19 - 18 11 2 - - 2 50 101
Total 85 - 61 54 41 5 17 14 164 441
Docusign Envelope ID: F1EE5AA1-9120-401B-9371-51F6C9E0ACC0
CITY OF FORT COLLINS – MAX BUS RAPID TRANSIT PROJECT
BEFORE & AFTER STUDY
Page 57
Table C-5. District-to-District Linked Trips in the Corridor by Trip Purpose: Non-home-based
PRODUCTION DISTRICT
ATTRACTION DISTRICT
Total (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) Other
(1) Downtown 35 26 36 36 5 5 5 5 38 192
(2) CSU 32 - 4 - 2 - - 1 21 60
(3) Mid Mason 22 12 - 10 - - - - 15 60
(4) South Mason 15 - - - - - 5 5 17 43
(5) East Fort Collins 13 - - - 2 - - 2 7 24
(6) Southeast Fort Collins 5 - - - - 5 - - 5 15
(7) Southwest Fort Collins 10 - 5 - - - - - - 15
(8) Northwest Fort Collins 2 - - - - - - 2 3 7
All Other 7 22 12 - 5 5 - 4 82 138
Total 142 60 57 46 14 15 10 20 189 553
C.3. District-to-District Linked Trips in the Corridor, Before: by Trip
Purpose for CSU Students, Faculty, and Staff Only
Trips reported in this section reflect average weekday daily linked trips made by CSU students, faulty, or
staff only in the corridor, before the project, based on a 2013 on-board survey.
Table C-6. District-to-District Linked Trips in the Corridor by Trip Purpose, for CSU Students, Faculty, and Staff Only:
Home-based Work
PRODUCTION DISTRICT
ATTRACTION DISTRICT
Total
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) Other
(1) Downtown - 5 - - - - - - - 5
(2) CSU - - - - - - - - - -
(3) Mid Mason 5 5 - - - - - - - 10
(4) South Mason - - - - - - - - - -
(5) East Fort Collins - - - - - - - - - -
(6) Southeast Fort Collins - - - - - - - - - -
(7) Southwest Fort Collins - - - - - - - - - -
(8) Northwest Fort Collins - - - - - - - - - -
All Other 2 - - - - - - - - 2
Total 7 10 - - - - - - - 17
Docusign Envelope ID: F1EE5AA1-9120-401B-9371-51F6C9E0ACC0
CITY OF FORT COLLINS – MAX BUS RAPID TRANSIT PROJECT
BEFORE & AFTER STUDY
Page 58
Table C-7. District-to-District Linked Trips in the Corridor by Trip Purpose, for CSU Students, Faculty, and Sta ff Only:
Home-based University
PRODUCTION DISTRICT
ATTRACTION DISTRICT Total
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) Other
(1) Downtown 4 16 - - - - - - - 20
(2) CSU 2 - - - - - - - - 2
(3) Mid Mason 21 8 5 5 - - - - 5 44
(4) South Mason 10 10 - - - - - - - 21
(5) East Fort Collins - - - - - - - - - -
(6) Southeast Fort Collins - 10 - - - - 5 - - 15
(7) Southwest Fort Collins - - - - - - - - - -
(8) Northwest Fort Collins - - - - - - - 1 - 1
All Other 5 6 - - - - 15 - 15 42
Total 42 50 5 5 - - 21 1 21 144
Table C-8. District-to-District Linked Trips in the Corridor by Trip Purpose, for CSU Students, Faculty, and Staff Only:
Home-based Other
PRODUCTION DISTRICT
ATTRACTION DISTRICT Total
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) Other
(1) Downtown 5 - 5 5 - - - - 6 21
(2) CSU 2 - 1 - - - - - 2 5
(3) Mid Mason 5 - - - - - 5 - 5 15
(4) South Mason - - - - - - - - - -
(5) East Fort Collins - - - - - - - - - -
(6) Southeast Fort Collins - - - - - - - - 5 5
(7) Southwest Fort Collins - - - - - - - - - -
(8) Northwest Fort Collins 6 - - - 2 - 2 1 2 12
All Other 7 - - - - - - - 13 20
Total 25 - 6 5 2 - 7 1 33 79
Docusign Envelope ID: F1EE5AA1-9120-401B-9371-51F6C9E0ACC0
CITY OF FORT COLLINS – MAX BUS RAPID TRANSIT PROJECT
BEFORE & AFTER STUDY
Page 59
Table C-9. District-to-District Linked Trips in the Corridor by Trip Purpose, for CSU Students, Faculty, and Staff Only:
Non-home-based
PRODUCTION DISTRICT
ATTRACTION DISTRICT Total
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) Other
(1) Downtown - 13 10 15 - - - - 12 51
(2) CSU 27 - 4 - - - - 1 17 48
(3) Mid Mason 12 - - 5 - - - - - 17
(4) South Mason - - - - - - - - - -
(5) East Fort Collins 5 - - - - - - - - 5
(6) Southeast Fort Collins - - - - - - - - - -
(7) Southwest Fort Collins 5 - - - - - - - - 5
(8) Northwest Fort Collins 2 - - - - - - 2 1 5
All Other 2 4 5 - - - - - 22 32
Total 53 17 19 21 - - - 3 52 164
C.4. District-to-District Linked Trips in the Corridor , Before: by
Access Mode
Trips reported in this section reflect average weekday daily linked trips in the corridor, before the project,
based on a 2013 on-board survey.
Table C-10. District-to-District Linked Trips in the Corridor by Access Mode: Park & Ride
PRODUCTION DISTRICT
ATTRACTION DISTRICT
Total
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) Other
(1) Downtown - 2 - - - 5 - - - 7
(2) CSU - - - - - - - - - -
(3) Mid Mason - - - - - - - - - -
(4) South Mason - - - - - - - - - -
(5) East Fort Collins - - - - - - - - - -
(6) Southeast Fort Collins - - - - - - - - - -
(7) Southwest Fort Collins - - - - - - - - - -
(8) Northwest Fort Collins - - - - - - - - - -
All Other 5 2 - - - - - - 5 12
Total 5 4 - - - 5 - - 5 19
Docusign Envelope ID: F1EE5AA1-9120-401B-9371-51F6C9E0ACC0
CITY OF FORT COLLINS – MAX BUS RAPID TRANSIT PROJECT
BEFORE & AFTER STUDY
Page 60
Table C-11. District-to-District Linked Trips in the Corridor by Access Mode: Kiss & Ride
PRODUCTION DISTRICT
ATTRACTION DISTRICT
Total (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) Other
(1) Downtown - - - - - - - 2 3 4
(2) CSU - - - - - - - - - -
(3) Mid Mason 2 - - - - - - - - 2
(4) South Mason - - - - - - - - - -
(5) East Fort Collins - - - - - - - - - -
(6) Southeast Fort Collins - - - - - - - - - -
(7) Southwest Fort Collins 5 - - - - - - - - 5
(8) Northwest Fort Collins - - - - - - - - - -
All Other - - 5 - 5 - - - 7 17
Total 7 - 5 - 5 - - 2 10 29
Table C-12. District-to-District Linked Trips in the Corridor by Access Mode: Bus (Transfer)
PRODUCTION DISTRICT
ATTRACTION DISTRICT
Total (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) Other
(1) Downtown - - - - - - - - 7 7
(2) CSU - - - - - - - - - -
(3) Mid Mason - - - - - - - - 5 5
(4) South Mason 5 - - - - - - - - 5
(5) East Fort Collins - - - - - - - - - -
(6) Southeast Fort Collins - - - - - - - - - -
(7) Southwest Fort Collins - - - - - - - - - -
(8) Northwest Fort Collins - - - - - - - - 2 2
All Other 5 2 5 - - - - - 17 29
Total 10 2 5 - - - - - 31 49
Docusign Envelope ID: F1EE5AA1-9120-401B-9371-51F6C9E0ACC0
CITY OF FORT COLLINS – MAX BUS RAPID TRANSIT PROJECT
BEFORE & AFTER STUDY
Page 61
Table C-13. District-to-District Linked Trips in the Corridor by Access Mode: Bike
PRODUCTION DISTRICT
ATTRACTION DISTRICT
Total (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) Other
(1) Downtown 5 - - 5 - - - - 7 17
(2) CSU 4 2 - - 2 - - - 2 9
(3) Mid Mason - 5 - - - - 5 - 5 15
(4) South Mason 5 - - - - - - - - 5
(5) East Fort Collins 5 - - - - - - - - 5
(6) Southeast Fort Collins - 10 - - - - - - 10 21
(7) Southwest Fort Collins - - - - - - - - - -
(8) Northwest Fort Collins - - - - 2 - - - - 2
All Other 5 7 - 5 - - - - 5 22
Total 24 24 - 10 4 - 5 - 29 97
Table C-14. District-to-District Linked Trips in the Corridor by Access Mode: Walk
PRODUCTION DISTRICT
ATTRACTION DISTRICT
Total (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) Other
(1) Downtown 48 53 65 62 10 10 21 15 68 352
(2) CSU 31 - 5 - 2 - - 1 23 61
(3) Mid Mason 96 15 21 36 - 1 15 1 46 231
(4) South Mason 41 15 10 - 13 - 5 10 33 128
(5) East Fort Collins 25 2 26 15 4 - - 2 19 93
(6) Southeast Fort Collins 5 - 5 - - 5 5 3 15 38
(7) Southwest Fort Collins 12 - 5 - 10 - 5 5 - 38
(8) Northwest Fort Collins 37 2 12 7 16 - 2 13 44 133
All Other 40 20 30 19 7 5 21 8 151 301
Total 335 107 179 139 62 21 74 58 399 1,374
Docusign Envelope ID: F1EE5AA1-9120-401B-9371-51F6C9E0ACC0
CITY OF FORT COLLINS – MAX BUS RAPID TRANSIT PROJECT
BEFORE & AFTER STUDY
Page 62
C.5. District-to-District Linked Trips in the Corridor, Before: by Auto
Availability
Trips reported in this section reflect average weekday daily linked trips in the corridor, before the project,
based on a 2013 on-board survey.
Table C-15. District-to-District Linked Trips in the Corridor by Auto Availability: 0 Autos
PRODUCTION DISTRICT
ATTRACTION DISTRICT
Total (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) Other
(1) Downtown 25 23 38 46 5 10 5 8 35 195
(2) CSU 25 2 4 - 2 - - - 15 47
(3) Mid Mason 22 4 5 15 - - 5 - 38 90
(4) South Mason 10 - 10 - 8 - - 5 22 56
(5) East Fort Collins 15 2 15 10 2 - - - 9 54
(6) Southeast Fort Collins 5 - - - - 5 - 3 10 23
(6) Southwest Fort Collins - - - - 10 - 5 5 - 21
(8) Northwest Fort Collins 20 - 7 7 12 - 2 6 25 78
All Other 24 8 31 16 5 5 5 2 107 204
Total 147 38 111 95 44 21 22 29 261 768
Table C-16. District-to-District Linked Trips in the Corridor by Auto Availability: 1 Auto
PRODUCTION DISTRICT
ATTRACTION DISTRICT
Total
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) Other
(1) Downtown 7 15 26 15 - - 10 4 25 102
(2) CSU 4 - 1 - - - - - 1 6
(3) Mid Mason 22 10 11 5 - - 5 - 3 57
(4) South Mason 21 15 - - - - 5 - - 41
(5) East Fort Collins 10 - 5 5 - - - 2 - 22
(6) Southeast Fort Collins - - 5 - - - - - 10 15
(6) Southwest Fort Collins 17 - 5 - - - - - - 22
(8) Northwest Fort Collins 4 - 5 - 6 - - 2 18 35
All Other 5 14 11 5 5 - 5 2 30 77
Total 90 55 69 31 11 - 26 9 87 378
Docusign Envelope ID: F1EE5AA1-9120-401B-9371-51F6C9E0ACC0
CITY OF FORT COLLINS – MAX BUS RAPID TRANSIT PROJECT
BEFORE & AFTER STUDY
Page 63
Table C-17. District-to-District Linked Trips in the Corridor by Auto Availability: 2 Autos
PRODUCTION DISTRICT
ATTRACTION DISTRICT
Total (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) Other
(1) Downtown 9 15 2 5 - - 5 - 2 38
(2) CSU 2 - - - - - - - 4 6
(3) Mid Mason 15 5 - 15 - 1 - 1 - 38
(4) South Mason 15 - - - 5 - - - 5 26
(5) East Fort Collins 2 - - - - - - - 5 7
(6) Southeast Fort Collins - 10 - - - - - - - 10
(6) Southwest Fort Collins - - - - - - - - - -
(8) Northwest Fort Collins 6 - - - - - - 2 2 9
All Other 15 4 - - - - 10 4 19 53
Total 64 34 2 21 5 1 15 7 37 187
Table C-18. District-to-District Linked Trips in the Corridor by Auto Availability: 3 or More Aut os
PRODUCTION DISTRICT
ATTRACTION DISTRICT
Total (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) Other
(1) Downtown 6 - - - 5 - - 3 10 24
(2) CSU 2 - - - - - - 1 1 4
(3) Mid Mason 28 - - - - - 5 - - 33
(4) South Mason - - - - - - - - - -
(5) East Fort Collins 3 - - - - - - - - 3
(6) Southeast Fort Collins - - - - - - - - 5 5
(6) Southwest Fort Collins - - - - - - - - - -
(8) Northwest Fort Collins 6 2 - - - - - 2 - 9
All Other 7 6 - - - - - - 5 17
Total 51 8 - - 5 - 5 5 21 95
Docusign Envelope ID: F1EE5AA1-9120-401B-9371-51F6C9E0ACC0
CITY OF FORT COLLINS – MAX BUS RAPID TRANSIT PROJECT
BEFORE & AFTER STUDY
Page 64
C.6. District-to-District Linked Trips in the Corridor, Before: by Auto
Availability for CSU Students, Faculty, and Staff Only
Trips reported in this section reflect average weekday daily linked trips made by CSU students, faulty, or
staff only in the corridor, before the project, based on a 2013 on-board survey.
Table C-19. District-to-District Linked Trips in the Corridor by Auto Availability, for CSU Students Only: 0 Autos
PRODUCTION DISTRICT
ATTRACTION DISTRICT
Total (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) Other
(1) Downtown - 9 5 15 - - - - 5 35
(2) CSU 21 - 4 - - - - - 13 38
(3) Mid Mason 5 3 - 5 - - - - 10 23
(4) South Mason - - - - - - - - - -
(5) East Fort Collins - - - - - - - - - -
(6) Southeast Fort Collins - - - - - - - - 5 5
(6) Southwest Fort Collins - - - - - - - - - -
(8) Northwest Fort Collins 2 - - - - - 2 2 2 8
All Other 5 2 5 - - - 5 - 23 40
Total 33 14 14 21 - - 7 2 58 149
Table C-20. District-to-District Linked Trips in the Corridor by Auto Availability, for CSU Faculty and Staff Only: 0
Autos
PRODUCTION DISTRICT
ATTRACTION DISTRICT
Total (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) Other
(1) Downtown - - - - - - - - - -
(2) CSU - - - - - - - - - -
(3) Mid Mason - - - - - - - - - -
(4) South Mason - - - - - - - - - -
(5) East Fort Collins - - - - - - - - - -
(6) Southeast Fort Collins - - - - - - - - - -
(6) Southwest Fort Collins - - - - - - - - - -
(8) Northwest Fort Collins - - - - - - - - - -
All Other - - - - - - - - - -
Total - - - - - - - - - -
Docusign Envelope ID: F1EE5AA1-9120-401B-9371-51F6C9E0ACC0
CITY OF FORT COLLINS – MAX BUS RAPID TRANSIT PROJECT
BEFORE & AFTER STUDY
Page 65
Table C-21. District-to-District Linked Trips in the Corridor by Auto Availability, for CSU Students Only: 1 Auto
PRODUCTION DISTRICT
ATTRACTION DISTRICT
Total (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) Other
(1) Downtown 2 7 10 5 - - - - 8 32
(2) CSU 4 - 1 - - - - - 1 6
(3) Mid Mason 10 - 5 - - - - - - 15
(4) South Mason 5 10 - - - - - - - 15
(5) East Fort Collins 5 - - - - - - - - 5
(6) Southeast Fort Collins - - - - - - - - - -
(6) Southwest Fort Collins 5 - - - - - - - - 5
(8) Northwest Fort Collins 2 - - - 2 - - - - 4
All Other - 2 - - - - - - 18 20
Total 33 19 16 5 2 - - - 27 102
Table C-22. District-to-District Linked Trips in the Corridor by Auto Availability, for CSU Faculty and Staff Only: 1
Auto
PRODUCTION DISTRICT
ATTRACTION DISTRICT
Total (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) Other
(1) Downtown - 5 - - - - - - - 5
(2) CSU - - - - - - - - - -
(3) Mid Mason - 5 - - - - - - - 5
(4) South Mason - - - - - - - - - -
(5) East Fort Collins - - - - - - - - - -
(6) Southeast Fort Collins - - - - - - - - - -
(6) Southwest Fort Collins - - - - - - - - - -
(8) Northwest Fort Collins - - - - - - - - - -
All Other - - - - - - - - - -
Total - 10 - - - - - - - 10
Docusign Envelope ID: F1EE5AA1-9120-401B-9371-51F6C9E0ACC0
CITY OF FORT COLLINS – MAX BUS RAPID TRANSIT PROJECT
BEFORE & AFTER STUDY
Page 66
Table C-23. District-to-District Linked Trips in the Corridor by Auto Availability, for CSU Students Only: 2 Autos
PRODUCTION DISTRICT
ATTRACTION DISTRICT
Total (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) Other
(1) Downtown 2 11 - - - - - - - 13
(2) CSU - - - - - - - - 4 4
(3) Mid Mason 10 5 - 5 - - - - - 21
(4) South Mason 5 - - - - - - - - 5
(5) East Fort Collins - - - - - - - - - -
(6) Southeast Fort Collins - 10 - - - - - - - 10
(6) Southwest Fort Collins - - - - - - - - - -
(8) Northwest Fort Collins 2 - - - - - - 2 - 4
All Other 5 2 - - - - 10 - 7 24
Total 24 29 - 5 - - 10 2 11 81
Table C-24. District-to-District Linked Trips in the Corridor by Auto Availability, for CSU Faculty and Staff Only: 2
Autos
PRODUCTION DISTRICT
ATTRACTION DISTRICT
Total (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) Other
(1) Downtown - - - - - - - - - -
(2) CSU - - - - - - - - - -
(3) Mid Mason - - - - - - - - - -
(4) South Mason - - - - - - - - - -
(5) East Fort Collins - - - - - - - - - -
(6) Southeast Fort Collins - - - - - - - - - -
(6) Southwest Fort Collins - - - - - - - - - -
(8) Northwest Fort Collins - - - - - - - - - -
All Other - - - - - - - - - -
Total - - - - - - - - - -
Docusign Envelope ID: F1EE5AA1-9120-401B-9371-51F6C9E0ACC0
CITY OF FORT COLLINS – MAX BUS RAPID TRANSIT PROJECT
BEFORE & AFTER STUDY
Page 67
Table C-25. District-to-District Linked Trips in the Corridor by Auto Availability, for CSU Students Only: 3+ Autos
PRODUCTION DISTRICT
ATTRACTION DISTRICT Total
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) Other
(1) Downtown - - - - - - - - 5 5
(2) CSU 2 - - - - - - 1 1 4
(3) Mid Mason 17 - - - - - - - - 17
(4) South Mason - - - - - - - - - -
(5) East Fort Collins - - - - - - - - - -
(6) Southeast Fort Collins - - - - - - - - - -
(6) Southwest Fort Collins - - - - - - - - - -
(8) Northwest Fort Collins 2 - - - - - - - - 2
All Other 2 4 - - - - - - 2 8
Total 23 4 - - - - - 1 8 36
Table C-26. District-to-District Linked Trips in the Corridor by Auto Availability, for CSU Faculty and Staff Only: 3+
Autos
PRODUCTION DISTRICT
ATTRACTION DISTRICT Total
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) Other
(1) Downtown - - - - - - - - - -
(2) CSU - - - - - - - - - -
(3) Mid Mason - - - - - - - - - -
(4) South Mason - - - - - - - - - -
(5) East Fort Collins - - - - - - - - - -
(6) Southeast Fort Collins - - - - - - - - - -
(6) Southwest Fort Collins - - - - - - - - - -
(8) Northwest Fort Collins - - - - - - - - - -
All Other - - - - - - - - - -
Total - - - - - - - - - -
Docusign Envelope ID: F1EE5AA1-9120-401B-9371-51F6C9E0ACC0
CITY OF FORT COLLINS – MAX BUS RAPID TRANSIT PROJECT
BEFORE & AFTER STUDY
Page 68
C.7. Daily Boardings by Route
Boardings reported in this section reflect average weekday daily boardings by route for fall 2014.
Table C-27. 2014 Average Fall Weekday Daily Boardings
Route
Average Weekday
Daily Boardings
1 1,252
2 912
3 1,345
5 347
6 509
7 393
8 383
81 261
9 193
91 10
92 31
11 1,803
14 228
15 408
16 281
17 166
18 342
19 504
FLEX 593
Total Routes 9,962
Docusign Envelope ID: F1EE5AA1-9120-401B-9371-51F6C9E0ACC0
CITY OF FORT COLLINS – MAX BUS RAPID TRANSIT PROJECT
BEFORE & AFTER STUDY
Page 69
APPENDIX D. PREDICTED RIDERSHIP
D.1. District-to-District Predicted Linked Trips on the Project:
Total
Trips reported in this section reflect the predicted average weekday daily linked trips on the project.
Table D-1. District-to-District Predicted Linked Trips on the Project: Total
PRODUCTION DISTRICT ATTRACTION DISTRICT
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) Other Total
(1) Downtown 164 966 80 26 25 19 8 6 21 1,315
(2) CSU 11 0 6 3 1 2 1 0 2 27
(3) Mid Mason 124 795 129 55 42 39 17 4 31 1,236
(4) South Mason 39 121 51 31 19 19 12 2 13 308
(5) East Fort Collins 32 20 36 13 12 11 4 1 14 144
(6) Southeast Fort Collins 35 40 41 15 10 5 5 2 14 167
(6) Southwest Fort Collins 18 25 25 19 9 11 5 2 8 121
(8) Northwest Fort Collins 38 34 40 22 15 17 8 1 27 201
All Other 68 172 90 48 57 43 14 8 34 535
Total 529 2,173 497 231 190 168 74 27 165 4,054
D.2. District-to-District Predicted Linked Trips on the Project: by
Trip Purpose
Table D-2. District-to-District Predicted Linked Trips on the Project: Home-based Work
PRODUCTION DISTRICT ATTRACTION DISTRICT
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) Other Total
(1) Downtown 82 9 40 11 11 10 3 1 6 173
(2) CSU 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4
(3) Mid Mason 83 23 66 22 22 20 8 0 10 254
(4) South Mason 26 8 24 8 8 7 3 0 4 90
(5) East Fort Collins 18 3 16 4 3 3 1 0 3 51
(6) Southeast Fort Collins 26 8 25 6 2 1 1 0 4 73
(6) Southwest Fort Collins 12 4 12 5 3 3 1 0 2 43
(8) Northwest Fort Collins 17 1 13 5 5 5 2 0 4 53
All Other 33 14 35 11 13 12 2 0 5 125
Total 297 71 232 73 67 61 23 2 38 864
Docusign Envelope ID: F1EE5AA1-9120-401B-9371-51F6C9E0ACC0
CITY OF FORT COLLINS – MAX BUS RAPID TRANSIT PROJECT
BEFORE & AFTER STUDY
Page 70
Table D-3. District-to-District Predicted Linked Trips on the Project: Home-based University
PRODUCTION DISTRICT ATTRACTION DISTRICT
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) Other Total
(1) Downtown 0 952 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 952
(2) CSU 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
(3) Mid Mason 0 769 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 769
(4) South Mason 0 111 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 111
(5) East Fort Collins 0 16 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 16
(6) Southeast Fort Collins 0 31 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 31
(6) Southwest Fort Collins 0 21 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 21
(8) Northwest Fort Collins 0 32 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 32
All Other 0 157 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 157
Total 0 2090 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2090
Table D-4. District-to-District Predicted Linked Trips on the Project: Home-based Other
PRODUCTION DISTRICT ATTRACTION DISTRICT
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) Other Total
(1) Downtown 24 0 15 5 9 4 2 2 9 70
(2) CSU 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 1 4
(3) Mid Mason 19 0 29 16 15 11 5 2 15 112
(4) South Mason 6 0 10 8 7 6 3 1 6 48
(5) East Fort Collins 7 0 13 6 8 7 2 1 9 52
(6) Southeast Fort Collins 7 0 12 6 7 4 3 1 8 47
(6) Southwest Fort Collins 4 0 6 5 5 4 2 1 5 32
(8) Northwest Fort Collins 19 0 24 16 9 11 5 0 23 107
All Other 32 0 48 33 41 29 10 8 28 229
Total 119 0 157 95 101 76 32 17 104 699
Docusign Envelope ID: F1EE5AA1-9120-401B-9371-51F6C9E0ACC0
CITY OF FORT COLLINS – MAX BUS RAPID TRANSIT PROJECT
BEFORE & AFTER STUDY
Page 71
Table D-5. District-to-District Predicted Linked Trips on the Project: Non-home-based
PRODUCTION DISTRICT ATTRACTION DISTRICT
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) Other Total
(1) Downtown 58 5 25 10 6 5 3 4 5 121
(2) CSU 8 0 6 2 0 1 1 0 1 19
(3) Mid Mason 22 3 33 17 6 8 5 2 6 101
(4) South Mason 7 1 17 15 4 6 6 1 3 59
(5) East Fort Collins 7 0 7 4 2 2 1 0 2 25
(6) Southeast Fort Collins 3 0 5 2 1 1 1 0 2 15
(6) Southwest Fort Collins 3 0 6 8 1 3 2 0 1 26
(8) Northwest Fort Collins 2 0 2 2 0 1 1 0 1 8
All Other 3 1 8 4 3 3 1 1 1 26
Total 113 12 108 63 23 30 20 8 23 400
D.3. District-to-District Predicted Linked Trips Systemwide: Total
Trips reported in this section reflect the predicted average weekday daily linked trips systemwide.
Table D-6. District-to-District Predicted Linked Trips Systemwide: Total
PRODUCTION DISTRICT ATTRACTION DISTRICT
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) Other Total
(1) Downtown 201 1,560 90 27 45 19 8 16 48 2,014
(2) CSU 24 0 16 4 8 2 1 8 5 68
(3) Mid Mason 141 1,274 201 79 73 42 20 18 38 1,885
(4) South Mason 41 139 73 50 24 27 18 5 17 393
(5) East Fort Collins 54 166 60 26 57 31 6 5 19 425
(6) Southeast Fort Collins 36 40 45 33 38 39 13 2 17 263
(6) Southwest Fort Collins 18 25 27 22 10 14 7 2 12 137
(8) Northwest Fort Collins 141 1,187 95 29 40 17 8 82 47 1,645
All Other 169 285 126 67 66 52 27 34 1,709 2,533
Total 824 4,676 733 336 359 243 109 173 2,796 9,364
Docusign Envelope ID: F1EE5AA1-9120-401B-9371-51F6C9E0ACC0