1 2

3 4

56

Western San Luis Valley Transit Study

Prepared for: The Western San Luis Valley Transit Committee (Fiscal Agent: Neighbor to Neighbor/Chaffee Shuttle)

Photo Citations:

1. Downtown Monte Vista, CO. Taken by Megan McPhilimy 2. Welcome sign, Saguache, CO. Taken by Jason Miller 3. Water Tower, Center, CO. Taken by Megan McPhilimy 4. Denver & Rio Grande Caboose, Del Norte, CO. Taken by Megan McPhilimy 5. On the Eagle Line on opening day, June 5, 2018, enroute to Salida. Taken by B.H. Franks Co. 6. South of Saguache, CO on County Road R at SH 285. Taken by Megan McPhilimy

Western San Luis Valley Transit Study Final Report

Prepared for: Neighbor to Neighbor/The Chaffee Shuttle 54 Jones Street Salida, CO 81201 (719) 530‐8980

Prepared by: LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. 545 East Pikes Peak Avenue, Suite 210 Colorado Springs, CO 80903 (719) 633‐2868

LSC #184870

June 12, 2019

(This page intentionally left blank.)

-ii-

CONTENTS Chapter Title Page I Introduction Formation of the Western San Luis Valley Transit Committee ...... I‐1 Study Issues and Goals ...... I‐2 Study Approach ...... I‐3 Report Contents ...... I‐4

II Existing Services Introduction ...... II‐1 Other Transportation Providers ...... II‐12

III Travel Routes Introduction ...... III‐1 Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT) Traffic Counts ...... III‐1 Transit Demand Models ...... III‐8 Mobility Gap ...... III‐9 Greatest Transit Needs Index ...... III‐10 General Public Rural Non‐Program Demand ...... III‐12 Commuter Transit Demand ...... III‐12

IV Community Conditions Introduction ...... IV‐1 Demographic Characteristics ...... IV‐2 Community Economic Characteristics ...... IV‐8 Travel patterns ...... IV‐10

V Community Survey Analysis Introduction ...... V‐1 Survey Analysis ...... V‐1

VI Governance Options Criteria...... VI‐1 Institutional Alternatives ...... VI‐1 Summary ...... VI‐5

VII Transit Service Options Types of Transit Service ...... VII‐1

-iii-

Transit Service Options ...... VII‐4 Capital Needs ...... VII‐10 Marketing and Branding ...... VII‐11 Service Monitoring ...... VII‐13 Cooperation and Collaboration Efforts ...... VII‐14

VIII Funding Alternatives and Financial Plan Funding Alternatives ...... VIII‐1 Financial Plan ...... VIII‐9 Implementation Timeline ...... VIII‐11

Appendix A: Community Survey Questionnaire Appendix B: Community Survey Comments

LIST OF TABLES

Table Title Page II‐1 Schedule for the Bustang Outrider Service Between Alamosa and Pueblo ...... II‐2 II‐2 Ridership on the Bustang Outrider Service Between Alamosa and Pueblo ...... II‐4 II‐3 The Eagle Line Shuttle Income & Expenditures for the First Quarter 2019 (January‐March) ...... II‐8

III‐1 Comparison of AADTs and Volume for Corridors Analyzed ...... III‐8 III‐2 Mobility Gap Transit Need ...... III‐9 III‐3 Greatest Transit Need Model ...... III‐11 III‐4 Commuter Transit Demand ...... III‐13

IV‐1 Percent of Population by Race ...... IV‐2 IV‐2 Percent of Population Change ...... IV‐2 IV‐3 Estimated Population Characteristics for the Western San Luis Valley ...... IV‐6 IV‐4 Densities of Population Characteristics for the Western San Luis Valley ...... IV‐6 IV‐5 Employment Statistics in the Western San Luis Valley ...... IV‐8 IV‐6 Employment by Industry ...... IV‐9 IV‐7 Means of Transportation to Work ...... IV‐11 IV‐8 Travel Time to Work ...... IV‐12 IV‐9 Time Leaving Home to Go to Work ...... IV‐13 IV‐10 Employment Location of Center Residents ...... IV‐14 IV‐11 Residence Location of Center Workers ...... IV‐14 IV‐12 Employment Location of Del Norte Residents ...... IV‐15

-iv-

IV‐13 Residence Location of Del Norte Workers ...... IV‐15 IV‐14 Employment Location of Monte Vista Residents ...... IV‐15 IV‐15 Residence Location of Monte Vista Workers ...... IV‐15 IV‐16 Employment Location of Saguache Residents ...... IV‐16 IV‐17 Residence Location of Saguache Workers ...... IV‐16

V‐1 Transportation Modes Currently Used ...... V‐2 V‐2 Employment Status ...... V‐4 V‐3 Desired Destinations Using Public Transportation Within the Western San Luis Valley ...... V‐9 V‐4 Desired Travel Patterns Using Public Transportation Within the Western San Luis Valley ...... V‐10 V‐5 Purpose for Using Public Transportation Within the Western San Luis Valley ...... V‐11 V‐6 Importance of Characteristics in Influencing Potential Ridership Within the Western San Luis Valley ...... V‐12 V‐7 Desired Destinations Using Public Transportation Outside the Western San Luis Valley ...... V‐13 V‐8 Purpose for Using Public Transportation Outside the Western San Luis Valley ..... V‐13 V‐9 Importance of Characteristics in Influencing Potential Ridership Outside the Western San Luis Valley ...... V‐14

VI‐1 Importance of Characteristics in Influencing Potential Ridership Outside the Western San Luis Valley ...... VI‐5

VII‐1 Transit Service Options ...... VII‐5‐6

VIII‐1 Eagle Line Shuttle Passenger Fares ...... VIII‐6 VIII‐2 Potential Five‐Year Transit Financial Plan (assumed 3% inflation) ...... VIII‐10

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure Title Page II‐1 Current Bustang Routes ...... II‐1 II‐2 Ridership on the Bustang Outrider Service Between Alamosa and Pueblo ...... II‐2 II‐3 Ridership on the Alamosa‐Salida Segment Compared to the Entire Route ...... II‐3 II‐4 Ridership on the Alamosa‐Salida Segment of the Bustang Outrider Service Between Alamosa and Pueblo ...... II‐3 II‐5 Potential Bustang Outrider Services ...... II‐5 II‐6 Potential Bustang Outrider Routes by TPR Region ...... II‐5 II‐7 Eagle Line Shuttle Flyer ...... II‐7 II‐8 Eagle Line Shuttle Ridership ...... II‐8

-v-

III‐1 US Hwy. 285 Segment Analyzed using CDOT OTIS ...... III‐2 III‐2 US Hwy. 285 Current (2017) vs. Projected (2025) AADT ...... III‐2 III‐3 US Hwy. 285 Current (2017) vs. Projected (2025) Truck AADT ...... III‐3 III‐4 US Hwy.160/ 285 Segment Analyzed using CDOT OTIS ...... III‐3 III‐5 US Hwy. 160/285 Current (2017) vs. Projected (2025) AADT ...... III‐4 III‐6 US Hwy. 160/285 Current (2017) vs. Projected (2025) Truck AADT ...... III‐4 III‐7 State Hwy. 112 Segment Analyzed using CDOT OTIS ...... III‐5 III‐8 State Hwy. 112 Current (2017) vs. Projected (2025) AADT ...... III‐5 III‐9 State Hwy. 112 Current (2017) vs. Projected (2025) Truck AADT ...... III‐6 III‐10 State Hwy. 17 Segment Analyzed using CDOT OTIS ...... III‐6 III‐11 State Hwy. 17 Current (2017) vs. Projected (2025) AADT ...... III‐7 III‐12 State Hwy. 17 Current (2017) vs. Projected (2025) Truck AADT ...... III‐7

IV‐1 Study Area ...... IV‐1 IV‐2 Center Population Trends ...... IV‐3 IV‐3 Del Norte Population Trends ...... IV‐3 IV‐4 Monte Vista Population Trends ...... IV‐4 IV‐5 Saguache Population Trends ...... IV‐4 IV‐6 Population Density ...... IV‐5 IV‐7 Activity Centers ...... IV‐10 IV‐8 Means of Transportation to Work ...... IV‐11 IV‐9 Travel Time to Work ...... IV‐12 IV‐10 Time Leaving Home to go to Work ...... IV‐13

V‐1 Residence Location ...... V‐3 V‐2 Age of Respondents ...... V‐3 V‐3 Annual Household Income ...... V‐4 V‐4 Number of Household Members ...... V‐5 V‐5 Number of Household Vehicles ...... V‐6 V‐6 Number of Household Members with a Valid Driver’s License ...... V‐6 V‐7 Do you or a household member who needs transportation have a disability, health concern, or other issue that makes travel difficult? ...... V‐7 V‐8 In the last 2 years, have you or a member of your household been unable to access medical care due to lack of transportation? ...... V‐7 V‐9 In the last 2 years, have you or a member of your household lost a job, dropped out of school, or had problems finding work due to lack of transportation? ...... V‐8 V‐10 Would you or a member of your household use public transportation, such as a local bus or shuttle, if available and going where and when you need to go? ...... V‐8 V‐11 Trip Frequency Using Public Transportation Within the Western San Luis Valley...... V‐11

-vi-

V‐12 Trip Frequency Using Public Transportation Outside the Western San Luis Valley...... V‐14 V‐13 Additional Comments ...... V‐15

VII‐1 Bustang Outrider Service ...... VII‐4 VII‐2 Fixed‐Route and Demand Response Hybrid Service ...... VII‐7 VII‐3 Checkpoint Service ...... VII‐8 VII‐4 Demand‐Response Service ...... VII‐9

VIII‐1 Timeline of Implementation Steps ...... VIII‐11

-vii-

(This page intentionally left blank.) Chapter I (This page intentionally left blank.) Chapter I: Introduction

Through its issuance of a Request for Information (RFI), issued on April 26, 2018, and a Request for Quote (RFQ), issued on August 1, 2018, the Western San Luis Valley Transit Committee sought qualified firms to conduct a transit study in the Western San Luis Valley, Colorado. LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. (LSC) was selected by the Western San Luis Valley Transit Committee to complete this work and started this study with a kick‐off meeting and community familiarization tour on March 27, 2019. The entire project is scheduled to take approximately 12 weeks, with delivery of the final report in mid‐June 2019. This study has a short time‐frame in order for (1) the Western San Luis Valley Transit Committee to quickly move forward with transit service in the Western San Luis Valley and (2) for LSC to provide the Western San Luis Valley Transit Committee with the necessary data they need to supply to the Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT) in their decision‐making and planning for new Bustang Outrider routes for 2019‐2020.

FORMATION OF THE WESTERN SAN LUIS VALLEY TRANSIT COMMITTEE In 2017, CDOT asked the non‐profit organization, Transit Alliance, to research transit issues in the San Luis Valley. Their findings were presented in a report and at a workshop on October 26, 2017 held by Transit Alliance. The agreed upon “next step” was for the two communities of Saguache and San Luis to gather community input and return their findings at a later meeting. The Saguache town and county governments, along with non‐profit organizations representing senior care services, the economically disadvantaged, education, and economic development, worked together to identify the stakeholders most affected by transit needs and examine transportation’s connection to economic development, health, changing demographics, and preservation of communities. When CDOT expressed interest in adding additional stakeholders along the Highway 285 “gunbarrel” corridor, the municipalities of Center, Monte Vista, and Del Norte became included in the

study. The results of this meeting included:

 An agreement to pursue grant funding from CDOT to study the “gunbarrel” travel corridor (which is the purpose of the study we are presently conducting).

 An agreement to pursue an MOU between Saguache County, the Town of Saguache, the Town of Del Norte, City of Monte Vista, the Town of Center, the Saguache Chamber of Commerce, and Rio Grande County to pay the 20 percent match for the planning grant.  Establishment of the “Western SLV Transit Committee” (through the MOU) to lead ongoing efforts to establish transit services on the Western side of the San Luis Valley.

Western San Luis Valley Transit Study: Final Report ‐ I‐1 ‐ STUDY ISSUES AND GOALS An initial kick‐off meeting was held with the Western San Luis Valley Transit Committee at the Saguache County Road & Bridge Building in Saguache on March 27, 2019. This group met to discuss the scope of work and tasks, review project goals and objectives, finalize the project schedule and establish deliverable dates, review the draft survey questionnaire, and identify transit needs and issues in the Western San Luis Valley. Issues and goals for the study were discussed during the initial meeting, including:  The importance of public transportation for economic development, health, adjusting to changing demographics, and preservation of small, rural communities  The challenge of mountainous terrain and long distances between populated areas  Higher rates of zero‐vehicle households, persons with disabilities, older adults, etc. within the study area  The challenge of low population densities throughout the study area  The need for regional/long distance public transportation (like Bustang Outrider), as well as more local service between communities in the Western San Luis Valley  The Highway 285 “gunbarrel” as a primary travel corridor from southwestern Colorado to Denver for commerce/trucking, tourism, and essential services  The importance of staying in touch with the CDOT Outrider planning process and setting up a good partnership  Identification of existing conditions (travel patterns, demographics, etc.) and all existing transportation providers in the study area  Creation of a transit system that: o Is sustainable and has longevity o Is open to all o Provides connectivity between each of the valley communities, as well as connects the valley communities more broadly to the surrounding region o Moves people between towns to essential services, employment, shopping, etc.  Identification of potential transit service options, as well as providing guidance on governance and funding opportunities

Western San Luis Valley Transit Study: Final Report ‐ I‐2 ‐ On Tuesday, May 7, 2019, LSC presented an Interim Report to the Western San Luis Valley Transit Committee. The report:

 Provided an overview of the existing transportation services within the study area  Contained an analysis of travel routes in the study area using traffic count data from the Colorado Department of Transportation and several transit demand models to determine potential public transportation ridership  Presented the demographics of the study area, including descriptions of population density and population groups typically considered more likely to be dependent on public transit for mobility, local travel patterns, and economic data  Provided the analysis of the results of a community transportation survey. LSC held a conference call with the Western San Luis Valley Transit Committee on Thursday, May 9, 2019 to further discuss the findings of the Interim Report and begin discussing potential transit service options. Based on the discussion, LSC developed a variety of transit service options focused on the Western San Luis Valley, specifically on the communities that are members of the Western San Luis Valley Transit Committee. The initial evaluation of transit service options were presented to the Western San Luis Valley Transit Committee in a progress report submitted on Wednesday, May 29, 2019.

STUDY APPROACH The approach for the study closely matches the four tasks and deliverables outlined in the Western San Luis Valley Transit Committee’s RFQ.

 Task 1: Project Kick‐Off  Task 2: Conduct the West SLV Transit Study, including: investigating all existing transportation services, researching traffic counts, researching demographics, and conducting a targeted survey.  Task 3: Evaluate Results and Develop Viable Options for Transit Services in the Study Area, making sure to include a variety of transit service options like demand‐response service, fixed‐ route service, flexible service (checkpoint or deviation), and hybrid service options.  Task 4: Project Conclusion Meeting and Presentation As LSC moved through this study, each step of the process was informed by the previous steps and associated deliverables in a way that has built towards the final report and its recommendations. The intent is to create a process that is clear and incremental. The Western San Luis Valley Transit Committee has served in an advisory role and has provided input and feedback as the study progressed, including reviewing progress reports and the Interim Report, as well as providing direction for the

development of the final report.

Western San Luis Valley Transit Study: Final Report ‐ I‐3 ‐ REPORT CONTENTS This Report includes eight chapters in total.  Chapter II provides an overview of the existing transportation services within the study area.  Chapter III contains an analysis of travel routes in the study area using traffic count data from the Colorado Department of Transportation and several transit demand models to determine potential public transportation ridership.  Chapter IV presents the demographics of the study area, including descriptions of population density and population groups typically considered more likely to be dependent on public transit for mobility, local travel patterns, and economic data.  Chapter V provides the analysis of the results of a community transportation survey.  Chapter VI presents a summary of institutional structures that can be used to set up a new transit service in the Western San Luis Valley. Choosing the correct type of governance is important because it allows the transit system to operate more effectively.  Chapter VII presents the various transit service options with an evaluation of each option using performance measures, such as the annual operating cost, number of vehicles required, passengers per hour of service, and cost per passenger‐trip. In addition, Chapter VII identifies and describes capital needs, marketing and branding, service monitoring, and cooperation and collaboration efforts.  Chapter VIII provides an overview of potential federal, state, and local transit funding sources, as well as a five‐year transit financial plan and implementation timeline.

Western San Luis Valley Transit Study: Final Report ‐ I‐4 ‐ Chapter II (This page intentionally left blank.) Chapter II: Existing Services

INTRODUCTION This chapter provides an overview of existing transportation services in the Western San Luis Valley area, most of which are only available to specific population groups, like seniors, veterans or those on Medicaid.

CDOT Bustang Service The Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT) operates three Interregional Express bus services, connecting commuters along the I‐25 Front Range and I‐70 Mountain Corridors. As shown in Figure I, the routes include:  The North Line between Fort Collins and Denver  The West Line between Grand Junction and Denver  The South Line between Colorado Springs and Denver  The Denver Tech Center (DTC) route between Colorado Springs and the DTC In addition, CDOT provides four Bustang Outrider services that are designed to link rural areas of Colorado to the vital amenities and services found in larger communities in Colorado. As shown in Figure II‐1, the routes include:  Lamar – Pueblo – Colorado Springs  Alamosa – Pueblo  Durango – Grand Junction  Gunnison – Denver Figure II‐1: Current Bustang Routes (Source: CDOT)

Bustang Outrider buses have 38 seats and are handicap accessible. They are also equipped with restrooms, bike racks, free Wi‐Fi (where available), power outlets and USB ports. The current Bustang Outrider service between Alamosa and Pueblo offers one roundtrip per day and the service is operated by the Pueblo Senior Resource Development Agency (Pueblo SRDA). Table II‐1 presents the schedule for the Bustang Outrider Service between Alamosa and Pueblo.

Western San Luis Valley Transit Study: Final Report ‐ II‐1 ‐ The route has nine stops and provides passengers with the opportunity to connect with the Gunnison‐ Denver Bustang Outrider service in Salida.

Table II-1: Schedule for the Bustang Outrider Service Between Alamosa and Pueblo Departure Departure Time - NE Time - SW Stop Location Bound Bound Alamosa - Loaf N Jug - Highway 160 and Highway 17 6:00 AM 6:53 PM Moffat - Town Park - 5th & Reynolds 6:45 AM 6:08 PM Poncha Springs - Poncha Market 7:35 AM 5:18 PM Salida- Chaffee Shuttle - 52 Jones Avenue This stop provides the opportunity to connect with the Gunnison Outrider service to Denver. 7:45 AM 5:05 PM Cotopaxi - Cotopaxi Store on U.S. 50 8:15 AM 4:27 PM Canon City - Big Daddy's Diner - 420 Royal Gorge Blvd. 9:00 AM 3:45 PM Penrose - Alta Truck Stop/Exxon Station - 916 Colorado 115 9:17 AM 3:36 PM Pueblo West - CDOT Park & Ride - U.S. 50 & South McCulloch Blvd. West 9:37 AM 3:22 PM Pueblo - Pueblo Transit Center 10:10 AM 2:50 PM Source: CDOT Website: https://ridebustang.com/schedules/, 2019.

The Bustang Outrider service between Alamosa and Pueblo began service May 1, 2018 and ridership data were provided for June 2018 through January 2019. As illustrated in Figure II‐2, ridership was highest in June 2018 with a total 451 passenger‐trips and lowest in December 2018 with a total 276 passenger‐trips.

Figure II-2: Ridership on the Bustang Outrider Service Between Alamosa and Pueblo 500 450 400 350 300 250 200 150 100 50 0 June 2018 July 2018 August September October November December January 2018 2018 2018 2018 2018 2019

Figure II‐3 provides a comparison between the number of passenger boardings occurring along the segment between Alamosa and Salida with the total number of passenger boardings along the entire route. As shown, the majority of passenger boardings on the Bustang Outrider service between Alamosa and Pueblo occur along the segment between Alamosa and Salida.

Western San Luis Valley Transit Study: Final Report ‐ II‐2 ‐ Figure II-3: Ridership on the Alamosa-Salida Segment Compared to the Entire Route 500 450 400 350 300 250 200 150 100 50 0 June 2018 July 2018 August September October November December January 2018 2018 2018 2018 2018 2019 Alamosa‐Salida Segment Entire Route Table II‐2, located on the following page, provides a more detailed comparison between the number of passenger boardings occurring along the segment between Alamosa and Salida and the total number of passenger boardings along the entire route by direction. Approximately 78 percent of total northeast bound trips occur along the route segment between Alamosa and Salida and about 67 percent of total southwest bound trips occur along the route segment between Salida and Alamosa. For the entire route, approximately 73 percent of all passenger boardings on the Bustang Outrider service between Alamosa and Pueblo occur along the segment between Alamosa and Salida. Figure II‐4 illustrates the difference in northeast bound and southwest bound trips along the segment between Alamosa and Salida. Ridership is slightly higher in the northeast direction between Alamosa and Salida compared to the southwest direction between Salida and Alamosa. Between June 2018 and January 2019, a total of 1,170 passenger‐trips were provided in the northeast direction between Alamosa and Salida, compared to a total of 904 passenger‐trips which were provided in the northeast direction between Alamosa and Salida.

Figure II-4: Ridership on the Alamosa-Salida Segment of the Bustang Outrider Service Between Alamosa and Pueblo 400 350 300 250 200 150 100 50 0 June 2018 July 2018 August September October November December January 2018 2018 2018 2018 2018 2019 ALAMOSA to SALIDA (NE Bound) SALIDA to ALAMOSA (SW Bound)

Western San Luis Valley Transit Study: Final Report ‐ II‐3 ‐ 64% 75% 77% 74% 68% 76% 73% Alamosa, Alamosa, % of % Trips of Alamosa-Salida Between Salida- Between Alamosa Total Trips # of Trips Trips # of Alamosa- Pueblo, Pueblo- Pueblo, 197216238248187 310 224 287 308 336 276 293 1,923 2,637 Alamosa # of Trips Trips # of Alamosa- Salida, Salida- 67% 54% 67% 70% 61% 58% 79% lamosa and Pueblo and lamosa Between Alamosa % of Trips Trips % of Salida and Between Alamosa # of Trips Trips # of Pueblo and and Pueblo 828891 151 70 132 95 150 121 121 846 1,255 112 159 Between Alamosa # of Trips Trips # of Salida and 78% 72% 83% 85% 84% 75% 75% Salida Between % Trips of Alamosa Alamosa and Pueblo Between # of Trips Trips # of Table II-2: Ridership on theRidership Bustang BetweenII-2: A Outrider Table Service Alamosa Alamosa and 115128126157 159 117 155 129 149 186 155 172 Northeast BoundNortheast Trips Bound Southwest Trips 1,077 1,382 Salida Between # of Trips Trips # of Alamosa Alamosa and TOTAL Date June June 2018 2018July 2018 August 2018 September October 2018 November 2018 December 2018 166January 2019 139 218 188 76% 74% 180 128 233 188 77% 68% 346 267 451 376 77% 71% Source: CDOT and Chaffee Shuttle, 2019. Shuttle, Chaffee and CDOT Source:

Western San Luis Valley Transit Study: Final Report ‐ II‐4 ‐ CDOT is currently working to expand the Bustang and Bustang Outrider services. They hired the consulting firm, HDR, to identify and evaluate 21 new corridors for transit, as well as develop a route priority methodology. Figure II‐5 illustrates the existing Bustang and Bustang Outrider services against the potential new Bustang Outrider services. Of particular interest, are the proposed transit routes directly serving and expanding the transit options for the Western San Luis Valley, which include the routes:

 Between Durango and Pueblo  Between Alamosa and Salida, via Hwy. 285  Between Salida and Leadville  Between Salida and Pueblo

Figure II‐5: Potential Bustang Outrider Services (Source: HDR Presentation)

Figure II‐6 illustrates the potential Bustang Outrider routes within the San Luis Valley Transportation Planning Region (TPR), along with their implementation feasibility rating, social equity rating, and potential annual ridership.

Figure II‐6: Potential Bustang Outrider Routes by TPR Region (Source: HDR Presentation)

Western San Luis Valley Transit Study: Final Report ‐ II‐5 ‐ The potential route between Alamosa and Salida via Hwy. 285 and the potential route between Salida and Pueblo were both given a high implementation feasibility rating using the prioritization methodology. The potential route between Alamosa and Salida via Hwy. 285 also received a high score for the social equity rating and for the potential annual ridership. Overall, seven of the 18 potential Bustang Outrider services received a high implementation feasibility rating, including routes:  Between Alamosa and Salida, via Hwy. 285  Between Craig and Frisco  Between Crested Butte and Gunnison  Between Durango and Pagosa Springs  Between Fairplay and Breckenridge  Between Grand Junction and Telluride  Between Salida and Pueblo

Overall, five of the 18 potential Bustang Outrider services received a high social equity rating, including routes:

 Between Alamosa and Salida, via Hwy. 285  Between Durango and Pueblo  Between Grand Junction and Telluride  Between Sterling and Denver  Between Trinidad and Pueblo CDOT is still planning for the new Bustang Outrider routes and is working to develop service plans for top prioritized routes in order to hopefully implement the new routes in Fall 2019.

Colorado Rides Colorado Rides is an effort currently underway to form a new non‐profit corporation to address San Luis Valley transportation needs through a network of volunteer drivers. This effort is based on Erwin Young, owner of the Colorado Gators Reptile Park, and the rides he was providing to locals in need of transportation. Mr. Young would use his own vehicle and time to give rides to people in need. In recent years, as Mr. Young has aged and become less able to provide these volunteer rides, a group of Alamosa area residents have gotten together to form this non‐profit. Currently, this group of volunteers is working with the Colorado Nonprofit Association to establish by‐laws and formalize Colorado Rides as a 501(c)(3) corporation. The envisioned model for the service will be to have a network of volunteer drivers who will be reimbursed per mile to provide trips for those who request transportation. The service would be open to the general public and would incorporate online technology to put trip requests out to the volunteer driver network via an automated dispatch solution.

Western San Luis Valley Transit Study: Final Report ‐ II‐6 ‐ The Eagle Line Shuttle The Eagle Line Shuttle is currently operated by Neighbor to Neighbor (DBA the Chaffee Shuttle), a 501c3 non‐profit organization. As shown in Figure II‐7, the service currently provides two roundtrips per week, with:  One northbound roundtrip from Del Norte to Salida on Tuesdays; and,  One southbound roundtrip from Saguache to Alamosa on Wednesdays.

Figure II‐7: Eagle Line Shuttle Flyer (Source: Eagle Shuttle, 2019)

Since the Eagle Line Shuttle started operating service in June 2018, the service has provided more than 1,300 passenger‐trips to residents along the Highway 285 “gunbarrel” corridor. As shown in Figure II‐ 8, the Eagle Line Shuttle provided the highest volume of passenger‐trips during November 2018 (178 passenger‐trips), followed by October 2018 (174 passenger‐trips) and March 2019 (168 passenger‐ trips). During February and March 2019, the Eagle Line Shuttle also provided 42 passenger‐trips for special events (these numbers are not included in Figure II‐8.

Western San Luis Valley Transit Study: Final Report ‐ II‐7 ‐ Figure II-8: Eagle Line Ridership 200 180 160 140 120 100 80 60 40 20 0 Jun. Jul. Aug. Sep. Oct. Nov. Dec. Jan. Feb. Mar. Apr. May 2018 2018 2018 2018 2018 2018 2018 2019 2019 2019 2019 2019. Northbound (Del Norte ‐ Salida) Southbound (Saguache ‐ Alamosa) Note: Does not include special event ridership.

As shown in Table II‐3, during the first quarter of 2019, from January through March, the Eagle Line Shuttle received $347 in program and special activity income, plus $5,000 from the Saguache County Tax Grant. Expenditures for the first quarter totaled $4,849, of which 57 percent were driver payroll expenses, 33 percent were fuel expenses, six percent were van maintenance expenses, two percent were for van supplies, and two percent were meeting expenses.

Table II-3: The Eagle Line Shuttle Income & Expenditures for the First Quarter 2019 (January-March) Income Program Income $248 Special Activity Income $99 TOTAL INCOME* $347 Expenditures Driver Payroll Gross $2,519 Employer Share $253 Van Fuel $1,599 Van Maintenance $288 Van Supplies $92 Meetings $98 TOTAL EXPENDITURES $4,849 * Note: Received Saguache County Tax Grant of $5,000 and deposited 4/5/2019. Source: Chaffee Shuttle, 2019.

The Chaffee Shuttle indicated that income and expenditures for the Eagle Line Shuttle are expected to remain similar for the remaining three quarters of 2019. Therefore, total expenditures for the Eagle Line Shuttle during 2019 should equal approximately $20,000.

Western San Luis Valley Transit Study: Final Report ‐ II‐8 ‐ Red Willow, Inc. – San Luis Valley Transportation Red Willow, Inc. doing business as San Luis Valley Transportation is a for‐profit corporation operating non‐emergency medical transportation (NEMT) and associated administration for the six‐county region of the San Luis Valley. Red Willow contracts with social service offices to perform NEMT for Medicaid clients, as well as doing some worker’s compensation contract transportation and private pay service. Red Willow/San Luis Valley Transportation operates the largest transportation service in the San Luis Valley and has two types of transportation programs: direct service operated by San Luis Valley Transportation and a reimbursement program for those who choose to drive themselves. The direct transportation program has the following characteristics:  A fleet of 25 vehicles, which includes four wheelchair accessible vans  Annual one‐way passenger trips of 318,722 (2018) and total vehicle fleet miles of over 750,000  26 total employees: five administrative staff, two mechanics, and 19 drivers  Five to six subcontractors such as Little Stinker’s Taxi to operate trips Red Willow can’t provide directly For the reimbursement program, clients are reimbursed at $0.38 per mile. The use of this program is much lower than the regular transportation program, because payments can take up to 12 weeks to be reimbursed through Medicaid. All passengers have to be on Medicaid with a transportation benefit and be certified in advance through their primary care physician and a clinical diagnosis. Certifications last for six months and can be renewed, if necessary, relative to the care needed. The certification process can take between 48 hours and two weeks, depending on Medicaid response time.

Little Stinker’s Taxi Little Stinker’s Taxi is a privately owned, for‐profit taxi service based in Alamosa and serving the entire San Luis Valley with on‐call and pre‐scheduled taxi transportation. Little Stinker’s operates under a Colorado Public Utilities Commission Common Carrier Permit 55607 and is owned by Art Martinez. Service highlights include:  Operates seven days per week, year‐round  Vehicle fleet of 10 taxis, seven of which are sedans and two of which are sport utility vehicles ‐ none of the vehicles are wheelchair accessible  Phone dispatch is available from 7:00 a.m. until 2:15 a.m. on weekdays and from 7:00 a.m. until 3:15 a.m. on weekends for making on‐call trip requests, but trips can be pre‐scheduled in advance for trips outside of dispatch hours  Fares are $1.60 per live mile (mileage only for the time the passenger is on board) for trips that either begin or end in Alamosa, including longer‐distance trips that connect to Alamosa (e.g., Saguache to Alamosa). For trips that do not start or end in Alamosa, passengers must pay the origination cost out of Alamosa for the mileage required to get the vehicle to the start of the trip, also known as deadhead, plus the live mileage rate (e.g., a trip that starts and ends in Monte Vista would pay for both live miles plus the deadhead miles to get a taxi to Monte Vista).

Western San Luis Valley Transit Study: Final Report ‐ II‐9 ‐ The bulk of Little Stinker’s taxi rides are within Alamosa with limited requests for service in the Western San Luis Valley – the owner estimates that they only provide approximately one trip per month from Saguache to Alamosa, one to two trips per month from Center to Alamosa, and two trips per week in Monte Vista. Little Stinkers does provide some Medicaid trips under a contract with Red Willow‐San Luis Valley Transportation.

San Luis Valley Behavioral Health Group The San Luis Valley Behavioral Health Group (SLVBHG) develops mental health services and programs in the San Luis Valley. They have continued over the last 30 years to develop new programs and services to increase clinical quality and improve service and efficiency by sharing “skills and resources with other agencies in the San Luis Valley and the State of Colorado to build stronger programming and alliances.” The SLVBHG has recently started a transportation program and hired a Transportation Coordinator to coordinate transportation for those needing to get to and from mental health services. The transportation program provides transportation through SLVBHG vehicles for outpatient therapy in the Alamosa and Monte Vista clinics. All psychiatric services and Medication Assisted Treatment (MAT) clients can receive transportation to Alamosa, La Jara, Monte Vista and Del Norte clinics. Transportation is provided from the client’s designated address to their SLVBHG appointment and back to the designated address with the following exception: transportation to the pharmacy is provided if needed following a psychiatric appointment or MAT appointment. No other stops are allowed. Transportation is not available for group therapy. SLVBHG transportation is provided from 8:00 a.m. until 5:00 p.m. by advance reservation. Recurring, standing trips are available for recurring transportation needs.

Soul Space Shuttle This service is an informal quasi‐taxi service operated by a single person who provides trips for those in the Crestone area. The cost is $0.49 per mile with a minimum of $4.50.

South Central Colorado Seniors As a state Area Agency on Aging, South Central Colorado Seniors provides of variety of senior services, including transportation, for the counties of Alamosa, Conejos, Costilla, Mineral, Rio Grande, and Saguache. The transportation program is a mileage reimbursement program for pre‐registered seniors for medical appointments and one grocery trip per week. The service is:  For seniors 60 and older who are not on Medicaid  On a reimbursement of up to $0.45 per mile made after the trip is performed and approved  Benefit is capped at $500/year per person According to staff, South Central Colorado Seniors clients could benefit from more connections like the Eagle Line and would like to see more service, such as the Eagle Line, for the eastern side of the San Luis Valley.

Western San Luis Valley Transit Study: Final Report ‐ II‐10 ‐ Valley to Valley Senior Care The Valley to Valley Senior Care Center, located in Salida, is a 501(c)(3) non‐ profit that provides day center services aimed at giving caregivers a break from daily routines by providing a facility where seniors can receive quality care from a qualified staff. Valley to Valley’s mission is “to offer participants an opportunity to build friendships, enjoy the company of others while participating in stimulating activities in a safe environment.” Valley to Valley operates one van and will bring seniors from the San Luis Valley over to the Salida facility as much as is needed. Valley to Valley’s CEO, Yvonne (Eve) Braden, lives in the upper San Luis Valley and understands the needs of the Western San Luis Valley. She stated that the Eagle Line has been a “godsend” and that she hopes that the service will expand and remain affordable. Eve stated that there are not currently any seniors from the San Luis Valley utilizing the Valley to Valley transportation service, but there have been riders in the past. Valley to Valley is currently working on a capital plan to build a new facility, located 1.6 miles east of Saguache to serve seniors in the San Luis Valley. If grant applications are successful, this facility could be under construction this summer.

Veterans Service Office of Alamosa County The Veterans Service Office serves Alamosa County Veterans with a variety of services for veterans, including transportation. The goal of the office is “to assist and provide our veteran residents and their dependents the range of services entitled under the law. Whenever possible, our office will support and advocate on behalf of veteran issues.” The office is not a part of the Department of Veterans Affairs and instead serves as a liaison between local veterans and the Department of Veteran Affairs and the Colorado Division of Veterans Affairs. Veterans Service Office highlights include:  Medical only trips for veterans from Alamosa to Denver, with all points in between. Typical trips connect veterans from Alamosa and Walsenburg to medical services in Pueblo, Colorado Springs, Denver, and Salida.  Operated by volunteer drivers  Fleet of four vehicles with three all‐wheel‐drive passenger vehicles and one large passenger van  Average monthly ridership of 125 occurring over 50 to 65 trips – trips are typically combined  The Veterans Office has picked up in Saguache and other smaller communities of the western San Luis Valley, but it is sporadic and infrequent. The transportation services provided by the Veterans Office are made possible by U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs and military service grants. LSC also reached out to Jim Sheeran at the Saguache County Veterans Service Office, who said that Saguache County does not offer any veterans transportation services and will refer veterans to the Alamosa County Veterans Service Office or the Eagle Line Shuttle.

Western San Luis Valley Transit Study: Final Report ‐ II‐11 ‐ OTHER TRANSPORTATION PROVIDERS In addition to the transportation services discussed in this chapter, other private transportation providers may also serve the greater San Luis Valley area.

Evergreen Nursing Home Evergreen Nursing Home is located in Alamosa and provides transportation services to their residents and patients for activities and outings.

Ramblin Express Ramblin Express was founded in 1993 and is a passenger ground transportation company with operations and facilities in Denver and Colorado Springs. The company employs nearly 100 employees and serves more than 500,000 passengers annually. Ramblin Express provides customized charter and shuttle contract solutions to transportation challenges, including:  Employee shuttle services for casinos, companies, and hospitals  College and university partnerships  Ongoing and special event shuttle services

Western San Luis Valley Transit Study: Final Report ‐ II‐12 ‐ Chapter III (This page intentionally left blank.) Chapter III: Travel Routes

INTRODUCTION This Chapter gives an overview of traffic and travel patterns for the Western San Luis Valley and estimated public transportation demand using specific demand model calculations.

COLORADO DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION (CDOT) TRAFFIC COUNTS LSC has used the Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT) Online Transportation Information System (OTIS) traffic data explorer tool to understand regional traffic patterns. Our analysis uses Annual Average Daily Traffic (AADT) counts for 2017, which is the most recent year available, and AADT projections for 2025. AADT is the total of all vehicles counted in a year divided by 365 days. CDOT uses a combination of continuous counters, which continuously record traffic counts at a permanent location, and short‐duration counters that are put in place temporarily for a few days every two to four years to sample daily traffic counts. Continuous counters provide significantly more data with counts available hour by hour for every day from March of 2019 back 10 to 20 years, depending on when the counter was installed. Short duration counters only provide AADT data and represent the majority of counters in the study area. CDOT uses a variety of analytical tools and calculations to derive current traffic counts for the short duration counters and to make projections about future traffic conditions. For this study, LSC is using the most recent AADT data available, which is 2017 data, and comparing that to the 2025 AADT projections from OTIS. The corridors analyzed, and number of counters, include:

 US Highway 285, between Monte Vista and the Chaffee County line o 12 short duration counters and one continuous counter (put out of operation in 2012)

 US Highway 160/285, between South Fork and Fort Garland (including Alamosa) o 34 short duration counters and two continuous counters

 State Highway 112, between Del Norte and Center o Four short duration counters and zero continuous counters

 State Highway 17, between Alamosa and intersection with US Highway 285 o 12 short duration and zero continuous counters

US Highway 285 AADT data were analyzed for the Highway (Hwy.) 285 “gunbarrel” corridor, stretching between mile marker (MM) 51 in Monte Vista and MM 120, which is approximately at the Saguache‐Chaffee County line, as shown in Figure III‐1.

Western San Luis Valley Transit Study: Final Report ‐ III‐1 ‐ Figure III‐1: US Hwy. 285 Segment Analyzed using CDOT OTIS (point B=MM 51, point E=MM 120). (Source: CDOT, 2019)

All Traffic As shown in Figure III‐2, the AADT for all vehicles ranges from 1,800 to 4,900 vehicles for the “gunbarrel” corridor of US Hwy. 285 within Saguache County (2017 data) and is projected to grow by two to 10 percent by 2025. For reference, Center is at approximately MM 63, Saguache is at MM 86, and Villa Grove is at MM 104.

Figure III-2: US Hwy. 285 Current (2017) vs. Projected (2025) AADT 5,500 5,000 4,500 4,000 3,500 AADT 3,000 2,500 2,000 1,500 51 53 58 63 69 84 86 86 87 99 101 105 121 Mile Marker Number 2017 AADT 2025 AADT (proj.) Truck Traffic As shown in Figure III‐3, total truck traffic (single and combination trucks counted together) ranges from 210 to 400 AADT (2017 data) within the MM 51 to MM 120 corridor and is projected to range between 232 and 410 by 2025. Truck traffic in the corridor ranges from 8.9 to 15.4 percent of AADT, based on CDOT 2017 data, and is expected to grow by three to ten percent by 2025.

Western San Luis Valley Transit Study: Final Report ‐ III‐2 ‐ Figure III-3: US Hwy. 285 Current (2017) vs. Projected (2025) Truck AADT 450

400

350

300 AADT 250

200

150 51 53 58 63 69 84 86 86 87 99 101 105 121 Mile Marker Number 2017 Truck AADT 2025 Truck AADT (proj.)

US Highway 160/285 Another corridor analyzed was the US Hwy. 160/285 corridor that connects the southern communities of the study area with Alamosa and to the east to Fort Garland, as shown in Figure III‐4.

Figure III‐4: US Hwy. 160/285 Segment Analyzed using CDOT OTIS (point B=MM 186, point E=MM 258). (Source: CDOT, 2019)

All Traffic As shown in Figure III‐5, the 2017 AADT for all vehicles ranges from 3,300 to 24,000 vehicles, which is the largest range of AADT for the analyzed corridors. This is likely due to the long length of the corridor and the high traffic around Alamosa as opposed to the much lower traffic in the more rural areas of this corridor. This AADT is projected to grow by two to 19 percent by 2025. For reference, South Fork is at MM 186, Monte Vista is at MM 215, Alamosa is at MM 233 and Fort Garland is at MM 258.

Western San Luis Valley Transit Study: Final Report ‐ III‐3 ‐ Figure III-5: US Hwy. 160/285 Current (2017) vs. Projected (2025) AADT 32,000

27,000

22,000

17,000 AADT 12,000

7,000

2,000 186 196 202 202 207 215 216 217 223 230 232 232 233 234 235 237 254 256 Mile Marker Number 2017 AADT 2025 AADT (proj.) Truck Traffic As shown in Figure III‐6, total truck traffic (single and combination trucks counted together) ranges from 290 to 960 AADT (2017 data) within this corridor and is projected to range between 297 and 1,025 by 2025. Truck traffic in the corridor ranges from 3.4 to 17.2 percent of AADT, based on CDOT 2017 data, and is expected to remain in a similar range in 2025.

Figure III-6: US Hwy. 160/285 Current (2017) vs. Projected (2025) Truck AADT 1050 950 850 750 650 AADT 550 450 350 250 186 196 202 202 207 215 216 217 223 230 232 232 233 234 235 237 254 256 Mile Marker Number 2017 Truck AADT 2025 Truck AADT (proj.) State Highway 112 The shortest corridor analyzed was the section of State Highway (SH) 112 between Del Norte and the intersection of SH 112 and US Hwy. 285 near Center, as shown in Figure III‐7.

Western San Luis Valley Transit Study: Final Report ‐ III‐4 ‐ Figure III‐7: State Hwy. 112 Segment Analyzed using CDOT OTIS (point B=MM 0, point E=MM 13).

All Traffic As shown in Figure III‐8, the 2017 AADT for all vehicles ranges from 1,900 and 2,800 and is projected to grow by four to 10 percent by 2025. For reference, Del Norte is at MM 0 and the intersection of SH 112 with US Hwy. 285 is at MM 13.

Figure III-8: State Hwy. 112 Current (2017) vs. Projected (2025) AADT 3,200

3,000

2,800

2,600

AADT 2,400

2,200

2,000

1,800 01913 Mile Marker Number 2017 AADT 2025 AADT (proj.) Truck Traffic As shown in Figure III‐9, total truck traffic ranges from 170 to 240 AADT (2017 data) within this corridor and is projected to range between 183 and 261 by 2025, which is growth of four to 10 percent. Truck traffic in the corridor ranges from 6.1 to 21.1 percent of AADT, based on CDOT 2017 data, and is not expected to change before 2025.

Western San Luis Valley Transit Study: Final Report ‐ III‐5 ‐ Figure III-9: State Hwy. 112 Current (2017) vs. Projected (2025) Truck 270 AADT

250

230

210 AADT 190

170

150 01913 Mile Marker Number 2017 Truck AADT 2025 Truck AADT (proj.)

State Highway 17 Along the eastern side of the San Luis Valley is SH 17, an alternative north‐south route to US Hwy. 285, shown in Figure III‐10.

Figure III‐10: State Hwy. 17 Segment Analyzed using CDOT OTIS (point B=MM 69, point E=MM118).

All Traffic For this SH 17 corridor, AADT is shown in Figure III‐11 for all vehicles and ranges from 1,400 to 5,100 vehicles, based on 2017 data. Traffic is highest near Alamosa and slowly drops off as you travel north towards Villa Grove. It is projected to grow by nine to 19 percent by 2025. For reference, the southern terminus of SH 17 near Alamosa is at approximately MM 69, Hooper is at MM 88, and the intersection of SH 17 on the north at US Hwy. 285 is at MM 118.

Western San Luis Valley Transit Study: Final Report ‐ III‐6 ‐ Figure III-11: State Hwy. 17 Current (2017) vs. Projected (2025) AADT 6,200 5,700 5,200 4,700 4,200 3,700

AADT 3,200 2,700 2,200 1,700 1,200 69 70 76 81 82 83 88 88 91 105 112 119 Mile Marker Number 2017 AADT 2025 AADT (proj.) Truck Traffic As shown in Figure III‐12, 2017 CDOT total truck traffic data for this corridor ranges from 110 to 350 AADT) and is projected to range between 119 and 405 by 2025, which is growth of between eight and 19 percent. Truck traffic in the corridor ranges from 6.8 to 12.1 percent of AADT, based on CDOT 2017 data, and is to remain in this range until 2025.

Figure III-12: State Hwy. 17 Current (2017) vs. Projected (2025) Truck AADT 450 400 350 300 250 AADT 200 150 100 50 69 70 76 81 82 83 88 88 91 105 112 119 Mile Marker Number 2017 Truck AADT 2025 Truck AADT (proj.)

AADT Comparisons Table III‐1 compares the various corridors analyzed side‐by‐side for AADT, average AADT for the entire corridor, and average AADT for the corridor without the AADT for a 2‐mile radius around the towns of Del Norte, Monte Vista, and Alamosa, based on 2017 CDOT data. The comparison shows that the US Hwy. 160/285 corridor has the most traffic followed by SH 17, US Hwy. 285, and SH 112. Average AADT shows that the U.S. Hwy. 160/285 corridor remains the highest, followed by the US Hwy. 285 gunbarrel corridor, SH 17, and SH 112. We have also shown the AADT with the impact of the larger towns of Del Norte, Monte Vista removed.

Western San Luis Valley Transit Study: Final Report ‐ III‐7 ‐ Table III-1: Comparison of AADTs for Corridors Analyzed 2017 AADT US 285 US 160/285 SH 112 SH 17 Min AADT 1,800 3,300 1,900 1,400 Max AADT 4,900 24,000 2,800 5,100 Average AADT - entire corridor 2,800 9,217 2,200 2,517 Average AADT - corridor less larger towns* 2,436 6,788 1,950 2,110 *Note - this average excludes 2-mile radius around larger towns of Del Norte, Monte Vista, and Alamosa Source: CDOT OTIS, 2017 data.

TRANSIT DEMAND MODELS A key step in developing and evaluating transit plans is a careful analysis of the mobility needs of various segments of the population and potential transit riders. There are several factors that affect demand, not all of which can be forecast. Demand estimation is an important task in developing any transportation plan, and several methods of estimation have been developed. This analysis makes use of the demographic data and community conditions data, as discussed in Chapter IV of this Interim Report. This section presents an analysis of the demand for transit services in the study area based upon standard estimation techniques. These methodologies are standard approaches to estimate transit needs and demand. Some may be more appropriate for Western San Luis Valley than others. The transit demand identified in this section will be used with information to be obtained through the community survey to identify and evaluate various transit service options. The models and formulas used to help quantify different segments of transit need and demand in the study area include:

 Mobility Gap  Greatest Transit Need  General Public Rural Non‐Program Demand  Commuter Transit Demand Data were taken from the 2013‐2017 U.S. Census American Community Survey (2017 ACS) five‐year estimates for all of the population groups. Each of these approaches helps to show the patterns that are likely to arise regarding transit needs within the study area. Estimating demand for services is not an exact science and therefore must be carefully evaluated. While the demand models used in this chapter are targeted for rural areas, it should be noted that they do not take into account proximity of individuals to essential services, such as medical facilities or shopping. Often, small, rural communities do not have their own essential services, which forces residents to travel to other areas to reach these important services. LSC has been performing transit demand modeling for decades, and unfortunately there is no transit demand model that takes into account proximity of individuals to essential services. Therefore, when determining the potential demand for the transit service options discussed in Chapter VII, it is important to also consider the existing ridership on the Eagle Line Shuttle and the CDOT Bustang Outrider service between Alamosa and Pueblo (discussed in Chapter II), as well as the results of the Community Survey (discussed in Chapter V). The lack of access to essential services is a major driver behind why people need public transportation in the Western San Luis Valley.

Western San Luis Valley Transit Study: Final Report ‐ III‐8 ‐ MOBILITY GAP The mobility gap methodology is used to identify the amount of service required to provide equal mobility to households that have access to vehicles and those that do not. The National Household Travel Survey (NHTS) provides data that allow for calculations to be made relating to trip rates. Separate trip rates are generated for various regions throughout the United States to help account for any locational inequities. Trip rates are also separated by general density and other factors, such as age. This methodology was updated using the most recent NHTS data available (2009). Colorado is part of the U.S. Census Mountain Division which has a trip rate of 5.2 daily trips for rural zero‐vehicle households and a trip rate of 6.0 daily trips for rural households with at least one vehicle. The mobility gap is calculated by subtracting the daily trip rate of zero‐vehicle households from the daily trip rate of households with at least one vehicle. Thus, the mobility gap is represented as 0.8 household trips per day. This mobility gap is lower than the national average of 1.5 for rural households. To calculate the transit need for each municipality in the study area, the number of zero‐vehicle households is multiplied by the mobility gap number. Table III‐2 shows the mobility gap analysis broken out by municipality. In total, 390 daily trips need to be provided by transit to make up for the gap in mobility. This calculates to an annual transit need of approximately 142,204 trips, assuming 365 days of service. Monte Vista has the highest need with 234 daily trips, significantly higher than the three other municipalities.

Table III-2: Mobility Gap Transit Need

Total Number Zero-Vehicle Mobility Transit Need Municipality of Households Households Gap (Daily Trips) Center 724 109 0.8 87 Del Norte 698 56 0.8 45 Monte Vista 1,768 292 0.8 234 Saguache 233 30 0.8 24 TOTAL: 3,423 487 390

Source: US Census Bureau, American Community Survey - 2017, LSC 2019.

Western San Luis Valley Transit Study: Final Report ‐ III‐9 ‐ GREATEST TRANSIT NEEDS INDEX The “greatest transit need” is defined as those areas in the study area with the highest density of zero‐ vehicle households, older adults, people with ambulatory disabilities, and low‐income populations. This information will also be used in the development of service alternatives and the identification of appropriate service constraints later in the planning process.

Methodology and Results The categories used for calculation of the greatest transit need were zero‐vehicle households, older adult population, ambulatory disability population, and low‐income population. Using these categories, LSC developed a “transit need index” to determine the greatest transit need. The density of the population for each municipality within each category was calculated, placed in numerical order, and divided into four segments. Four segments were chosen to reflect a reasonable range, with each segment corresponding to a municipality. The municipality with the lowest densities was given a score of one. The municipality in the segment with the next lowest densities was given a score of two and so on until the municipality in the segment with the highest densities was given a score of four. This scoring was completed for each of the categories (zero‐vehicle households, older adult population, ambulatory disability population, and low‐ income population). After each of the municipalities were scored for the four categories, all of the scores were added to achieve an overall score. Table III‐3 presents the rank for each municipality in the study area. The scores range from eight (lowest need) to 13 (highest need). As shown in Table III‐3, the greatest transit need is located in Center, followed by Del Norte, Monte Vista, and Saguache.

Western San Luis Valley Transit Study: Final Report ‐ III‐10 ‐ (1-4) Final Final Ranking

Score (4-16) Overall Rank Density Sq. Miles) (Persons Per Per (Persons Rank # Density Sq. Miles) Population Population Low-Income (Persons Per Ambulatory Disability Rank # Density Sq. Miles) (Persons Per (65 and Over) and (65 Older Adult Population Older Rank # Table III-3: Greatest Transit Need Model Need Greatest Transit III-3: Table Density Sq. Miles) (Hhlds. Per # Zero-Vehicle Households Total Households Total Population (sq. miles) Land Area TOTAL: 4.83 8,363 3,423 487 100.8 1,221 252.8 1,179 244.1 1,934 400.4 Municipality Center Del NorteMonte VistaSaguache 0.83 1.01 2.59 0.40 2,033 1,621 4,236 473 724 1768 698 109 292 56 233 131.3 112.7 30 55.4 4 3 1 192 75.0 613 303 2 231.3 236.7 113 300.0 1 2 4 246 575 282.5 257 3 296.4 222.0 101 254.5 4 1 3 634 867 252.5 334 2 763.9 334.7 330.7 99 4 3 2 13 247.5 9 10 1 4 2 3 8 1 Source: US Census Bureau, American Community Survey - 2017, LSC 2019. LSC 2017, - Survey Community American Bureau, Census US Source:

Western San Luis Valley Transit Study: Final Report ‐ III‐11 ‐ GENERAL PUBLIC RURAL NON-PROGRAM DEMAND TCRP Report 161: Methods for Forecasting Demand and Quantifying Need for Rural Passenger Transportation provides a method of estimating general public rural transit demand. The analysis procedure considers transit demand in two major categories:

 Program demand, which is demand that is generated by transit ridership to and from specific social service programs; and  Non‐program demand, which is demand that is generated by the other mobility needs of the elderly, disabled, and general public (including youth and tourists). Examples of non‐ program trips may include shopping, employment, and medical trips. This methodology applies transit‐dependent population statistics and trip rates to estimate the annual demand for non‐program and overall general public rural transportation. The general public rural non‐ program demand estimation technique described in TCRP Report 161 is calculated by the following formula: Annual Demand = (2.20 x Population Age 60+) + (5.21 x Mobility Limited Population Age 18‐64) + (1.52 x Residents of Households Having No Vehicle) Annual Demand Calculation = (2.20 x 1,760) + (5.21 x 633) + (1.52 x 778) As calculated above, transit demand in the study area is estimated at approximately 8,400 passenger‐ trips annually.

Western San Luis Valley Transit Study: Final Report ‐ III‐12 ‐ COMMUTER TRANSIT DEMAND The demand estimation technique established in TCRP Report 161 to estimate commuter demand between places is presented by the following formula: Commuter trips by transit from Place A to Place B per Day = Proportion using transit for Commuter Trips from Place A to Place B x Number of Commuters x 2

Proportion using Transit for Commuter Trips from Place A to Place B = 0.024 + (0.0000056 x Workers Commuting from Place A to Place B) – (0.00029 x Distance in Miles from Place A to Place B) + 0.015 (if the Place is a state capital) Census Longitudinal Employer‐Household Dynamics (LEHD) data were used to determine the number of individuals commuting between various employment centers in the study area. Table III‐4 shows the associated demand estimates. Overall, the demand for daily commuter transit is very low throughout the study area using this methodology. The highest levels of commuter demand using transit occur from Alamosa to Monte Vista (800 annual trips) and from Monte Vista to Del Norte (800 annual trips). While Saguache was analyzed, the commuter demand model estimated no annual transit trips.

Table III-4: Commuter Transit Demand Annual Transit Percent Demand Residence Location Work Location Count Transit (one-way trips) Alamosa, CO Monte Vista, CO 71 2% 800 Monte Vista, CO Del Norte, CO 62 2% 800 Monte Vista, CO Center, CO 61 2% 500 Alamosa, CO Center, CO 38 2% 300 Del Norte, CO Monte Vista, CO 37 2% 300 Center, CO Monte Vista, CO 28 2% 300 Alamosa, CO Del Norte, CO 18 2% 300 South Fork, CO Del Norte, CO 18 2% 300 Del Norte, CO Center, CO 16 2% 300 Center, CO Del Norte, CO 14 2% 300

Source: LEHD, LSC 2019.

Western San Luis Valley Transit Study: Final Report ‐ III‐13 ‐ (This page intentionally left blank.) Chapter IV (This page intentionally left blank.)

Chapter IV: Community Conditions

INTRODUCTION Chapter IV presents the community conditions, demographics, and select local travel patterns for the Western San Luis Valley Region. Where appropriate, figures and tables are used for illustration. The San Luis Valley is located in south central Colorado and is the headwaters of the Rio Grande river. The Valley includes six counties in Colorado – Saguache, Alamosa, Rio Grande, Conejos, Costilla, and Mineral. This study will mainly focus on two of these counties – Saguache and Rio Grande. Specifically, we will be focusing on the US Highway 285 “gunbarrel” corridor between Saguache and Monte Vista as well as US Highway 160 and State Highway 112 to Del Norte as shown in Figure IV‐1. While the analysis will focus mainly on this area, it will take into consideration residents needs to travel to Salida and Alamosa. The Baca National Wildlife Refuge and the Monte Vista National Wildlife Refuge are both located within the study area. The Monte Vista Crane Festival is held in March and draws people to the area, hoping to catch sight of the migrating Sand Hill Cranes which stop at the Monte Vista National Wildlife Refuge on their way through the area. The demographic analysis was done by municipalities, and includes the towns of Center, Del Norte, Monte Vista, and Saguache Colorado.

Western San Luis Valley Transit Study: Final Report ‐ IV‐1 ‐

DEMOGRAPHIC CHARACTERISTICS Demographics Unless noted otherwise, all data listed in this chapter are from the 2013‐2017 U.S. Census American Community Survey (2017 ACS) five‐year estimates. Population data from the 2017 ACS was compared with data from the Colorado State Demographer at the municipality level. State Demographer population data was found to be within the margin of error in the 2017 ACS data. According to the 2017 ACS, the total population of the study area municipalities is 8,363. As shown in Table IV‐1, the study area municipalities have a much higher percentage of persons who have identified themselves as Hispanic or Latino in the 2017 ACS (almost 70 percent for the study area compared to approximately 21 percent for Colorado).

Table IV-1: Percent of Population by Race Colorado Study Area Municipalities Hispanic or Latino 21.3% 69.3% Non-Hispanic Population 78.7% 30.7% Non-Hispanic White 68.6% 28.1% Non-Hispanic Black or African American 3.9% 0.3% Non-Hispanic American Indian/Alaska Native 0.5% 1.0% Non-Hispanic Asian 3.0% 0.3% Non-Hispanic Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander 0.1% 0.1% Non-Hispanic Other 0.2% 0.4% Non-Hispanic, Two or more Races 2.4% 0.4%

Source: US Census Bureau, American Community Survey, 2017; LSC 2019. Population Trends Using data from the Colorado State Demographer, population trends for the last ten years for each of the four municipalities were collected. As shown in Table IV‐2, both Monte Vista and Del Norte have seen a somewhat steady decline in population since 2010. Center and Saguache are seeing a small rise in population after reaching a low point in 2014.

Table IV-2: Percent of Population Change Year Center Del Norte Monte Vista Saguache 2007 0% 0% 0% 0% 2008 0% -1% 0% -1% 2009 0% -1% -1% -1% 2010 2% 2% 0% -5% 2011 0% -1% -1% 0% 2012 2% -1% 0% 2% 2013 -2% -2% -2% -2% 2014 -1% -2% -1% -1% 2015 0% -1% -1% 0% 2016 2% 0% 0% 2% 2017 2% -1% -1% 2% Source: Colorado State Demographer, 2019; LSC, 2019.

Western San Luis Valley Transit Study: Final Report ‐ IV‐2 ‐

Figure IV‐2 shows the population trend for Center over a ten year period from 2007 to 2017. As shown in the figure, the population of Center increased by three percent between 2007 and 2012 and decreased by three percent between 2012 and 2015. Since 2015, the population of Center has been increasing and is at the highest point it has been over the past 10 years.

Figure IV-2: Center Population Trends 2,290

2,270

2,250

2,230

2,210

2,190

2,170

2,150 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 Center

Figure IV‐3 shows the population trend for Del Norte over the same ten year period. As shown in the figure, the population of Del Norte declined by three percent between 2007 and 2009. In 2010, the population of Del Norte rose slightly by two percent, but between 2010 and 2017 the population declined by seven percent.

Figure IV-3: Del Norte Population Trends 1,750

1,700

1,650

1,600

1,550

1,500 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 Del Norte

Western San Luis Valley Transit Study: Final Report ‐ IV‐3 ‐

Like Del Norte, Monte Vista also experienced a similar six percent decline in population between 2010 and 2017, as shown in Figure IV‐4.

Figure IV-4: Monte Vista Population Trends 4,500 4,450 4,400 4,350 4,300 4,250 4,200 4,150 4,100 4,050 4,000 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 Monte Vista

As shown in Figure IV‐5, Saguache’s population varied quite a bit between 2007 and 2017. Between 2007 and 2011, Saguache’s population decreased by seven percent, the sharpest decrease in population out of the four municipalities. The population of Saguache grew slightly between 2011 and 2012 (two percent), declined by three percent between 2012 and 2014, and increased by four percent between 2014 and 2017.

Figure IV-5: Saguache Population Trends 530

520

510

500

490

480

470

460

450 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 Saguache

Population Density Population density is used to determine where population is concentrated. Transit is generally more successful in areas with greater concentrations of population. As shown in Figure IV‐6, Center has the highest population density, followed by Monte Vista and Del Norte. Saguache has the lowest population density of the four municipalities.

Western San Luis Valley Transit Study: Final Report ‐ IV‐4 ‐

Transit-Dependent Population Characteristics This section provides information on the individuals considered by the transportation profession to be dependent upon public transit. The four types of limitations that preclude people from driving are physical limitations, financial limitations, legal limitations, and self‐imposed limitations. Physical limitations may include permanent disabilities (i.e., frailty, blindness, paralysis, or developmental disabilities) to temporary disabilities (i.e., acute illnesses and head injuries). Financial limitations include people who are unable to purchase or rent a vehicle. Legal limitations include being too young to drive or having no driver’s license. Self‐imposed limitations refer to people who choose not to own or drive a vehicle (some or all of the time) for reasons other than those listed in the first three categories. The U.S. Census is generally capable of providing information about the first three categories of limitation. The fourth category of limitation represents a relatively small portion of transit ridership in areas with low density. Table IV‐3 presents the study area’s statistics on transportation dependent populations, as well as the statistics for Rio Grande and Saguache Counties and the state of Colorado. Table IV‐4 shows the densities of transit‐dependent populations in the four municipalities in the study area.

Western San Luis Valley Transit Study: Final Report ‐ IV‐5 ‐

Table IV-3: Estimated Population Characteristics for the Western San Luis Valley

Older Adult Ambulatory Youth State Population Disabled Low-Income Zero-Vehicle Population Total Margin Demographer Total (65 and Over) Population Population Households (1 0-1 9) County Municipality Population of Error Population Households #%#%#%#%#% Saguache Center 2,033 +/-233 2,273 724 192 9.4% 246 12.1% 634 31.2% 109 15.1% 420 20.7% Saguache 473 +/-135 499 233 113 23.9% 101 21.4% 99 20.9% 30 12.9% 26 5.5% Saguache Municipality Totals 2,506 -- 2,772 957 305 12.2% 347 13.8% 733 29.2% 139 14.5% 446 17.8% Rio Grande Del Norte 1,621 +/-223 1,571 698 303 18.7% 257 15.9% 334 20.6% 56 8.0% 133 8.2% Monte Vista 4,236 +/-27 4,179 1768 613 14.5% 575 13.6% 867 20.5% 292 16.5% 600 14.2% Rio Grande Municipality Totals 5,857 -- 5,750 2,466 916 15.6% 832 14.2% 1,201 20.5% 348 14.1% 733 12.5% Municipality Totals 8,363 -- 8,522 3,423 1 ,221 1 4.6% 1 ,1 79 1 4.1 % 1 ,934 23.1 % 487 1 4.2% 1 ,1 79 1 4.1%

Rio Grande County 11,403 -- 1 1 ,251 4,750 2,094 1 8.4% 1 ,249 1 1 .0% 2,01 8 1 7.7% 475 1 0.0% 1 ,526 1 3.4% Saguache County 6,338 -- 6,631 2,626 1 ,254 1 9.8% 672 1 0.6% 1 ,327 20.9% 1 92 7.3% 807 1 2.7% State of Colorado 5,436,51 9 -- -- 2,082,531 707,396 1 3.0% 266,234 4.9% 61 2,1 43 1 1 .3% 1 1 0,1 43 5.3% 705,436 1 3.0% Source: US Census Bureau, American Community Survey, 2017; Colorado State Demographer, 2019.

Table IV-4: Densities of Population Characteristics for the Western San Luis Valley

Older Adult Ambulatory Youth Population Disabled Low-Income Zero-Vehicle Population Population (65 and Over) Population Population Households (1 0-1 9) Density Density Density Density Density Density Area Households (persons per (persons per (persons per (persons per (hhlds per sq. (persons per Municipality (sq. mi.) (hhlds) # sq. mi.) # sq. mi.) # sq. mi.) # sq. mi.) # mi.) # sq. mi.) Center 0.83 724 2,033 2,461 192 232 246 298 634 768 109 132 420 508 Del Norte 1.01 698 1,621 1,609 303 301 257 255 334 332 56 56 133 132 Monte Vista 2.59 1768 4,236 1,634 613 236 575 222 867 334 292 113 600 231 Saguache 0.40 233 473 1,187 113 284 101 253 99 248 30 75 26 65 Source: US Census Bureau, American Community Survey, 2017; LSC, 2019.

Older-Adult Population The older‐adult population, defined by the U.S. Census Bureau as people 65 years of age or older, represents a significant number of the national transit‐dependent population and represents 16.8 percent of the total population in the study area. This is greater than the percentage of older adults in the state of Colorado (13 percent). Saguache has a lower density of older adults (284 persons per square mile), however it has the highest percentage of older adults out of the four municipalities (approximately 24 percent). Del Norte has the highest density of older adults (301 persons per square mile) and is the municipality with the second highest percentage of older adults (approximately 19 percent). This is followed by Monte Vista, which has a density of 236 persons per square mile with approximately 14.5 percent of its population being older adults. Center, though it has the highest population density, has both the lowest density of older adults (232 persons per square mile) and the lowest percentage of older adults (approximately 9.4 percent).

Population of Persons with an Ambulatory Disability An individual is classified as having “ambulatory disability” if they have serious difficulty walking or climbing stairs. Approximately 14 percent of the population in the study area has some type of ambulatory disability. This is more than twice the percentage of persons with an ambulatory disability in the state of Colorado (4.9 percent). Center has the highest density of persons with an ambulatory disability (298 persons per square mile), but has the lowest percentage of persons with an ambulatory disability (approximately 12 percent). Del Norte has the next highest density of persons with an ambulatory disability (255 persons per square mile), and also has the second highest percentage of

Western San Luis Valley Transit Study: Final Report ‐ IV‐6 ‐

persons with an ambulatory disability (approximately 16 percent). Saguache has the third highest density of persons with an ambulatory disability (253 persons per square mile) and has the highest percentage of persons with an ambulatory disability (approximately 21 percent). Monte Vista has the lowest density of persons with an ambulatory disability (222 persons per square mile) and has the third highest percentage of persons with an ambulatory disability (approximately 13.6 percent).

Low-Income Population Low‐income population, as defined by the Federal Transit Administration (FTA), includes persons whose household income is at or below the Department of Health and Human Services’ poverty guidelines. The low‐income population listed in the tables and GIS maps includes people who are living below the poverty line using the U.S. Census Bureau’s poverty threshold. Approximately 24.5 percent of the population of the study area are considered low income while the percentage of persons considered low income for the state of Colorado is less than half (11.3 percent). Center has both the highest density of low‐income population (768 persons per square mile) and the highest percentage of low‐income population (approximately 31 percent). Saguache has the next highest percentage of low‐ income population (approximately 21 percent) but has the lowest density of low‐income persons (248 persons per square mile). Del Norte and Monte Vista are very similar in density and percentage of low‐ income population. Both have approximately 20.5 percent low‐income populations and Monte Vista has a slightly higher density (334 persons per square mile) when compared to Del Norte (332 persons per square mile).

Zero-Vehicle Households Individuals residing in zero‐vehicle households are generally transit‐dependent as they do not have access to a private vehicle. Approximately 5.3 percent of Colorado’s households reported no vehicle available for use while approximately 14.3 percent of households in the study area municipalities reported having no vehicle available for use. Center has the highest density of zero‐vehicle households (132 households per square mile) and the second highest percentage of zero‐vehicle households (approximately 15.1 percent). Monte Vista has the highest percentage of zero‐vehicle households (approximately 16.5 percent) and the second highest density of zero‐vehicle households (113 households per square mile). Saguache has both the third highest density (75 households per square mile) and percentage of zero‐vehicle households (approximately 13 percent). Del Norte has both the lowest density (56 households per square mile) and percentage of zero‐vehicle households (approximately eight percent).

Youth Population Approximately 15 percent of the population of the study area are youth (10‐19 years of age), this is similar to the state of Colorado (13 percent). Center had both the highest density (508 persons per square mile) and percentage (approximately 21 percent) of youth. Next highest in both density (231 persons per square mile) and percentage of youth (approximately 14 percent) was Monte Vista. Del Norte had the third highest density (132 persons per square mile) and percentage of youth (approximately 8 percent). Saguache had the lowest percentage (approximately 5.5 percent) and density of youth (65 persons per square mile).

Western San Luis Valley Transit Study: Final Report ‐ IV‐7 ‐

COMMUNITY ECONOMIC CHARACTERISTICS Table IV‐5 shows the 2017 ACS employment statistics for Center, Del Norte, Monte Vista, Saguache, and the state of Colorado. As shown in the table, the state of Colorado had a lower five‐year average unemployment rate (5.2 percent) than each of the four municipalities. The municipality with the highest unemployment rate was Monte Vista (14.5 percent), followed by Del Norte (10.5 percent), Saguache (7.9 percent), and Center (6.4 percent).

Table IV-5: Employment Statistics in the Western San Luis Valley Center Del Norte Monte Vista Saguache Colorado Estimate Percent Estimate Percent Estimate Percent Estimate Percent Estimate Percent Population 16 years and over 1,499 1,388 3,197 427 4,320,213 In labor force 971 64.8% 775 55.8% 1,758 55.0% 178 41.7% 2,946,354 68.2% Civilian labor force 971 64.8% 775 55.8% 1,730 54.1% 178 41.7% 2,912,932 67.4% Employed 909 60.6% 694 50.0% 1,480 46.3% 164 38.4% 2,760,076 63.9% Unemployed 62 4.1% 81 5.8% 250 7.8% 14 3.3% 152,856 3.5% Armed Forces 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 28 0.9% 0 0.0% 33,422 0.8% Not in labor force 528 35.2% 613 44.2% 1,439 45.0% 249 58.3% 1,373,859 31.8%

Unemployment Rate 6.4% 10.5% 14.5% 7.9% 5.2% Source: US Census Bureau, American Community Survey, 2017 Employment Sectors Table IV‐6 shows the available 2017 ACS employment information for the study area municipalities and the state of Colorado by employment sector. The employment numbers reflect a five‐year average and may not accurately reflect current conditions. The Retail Trade sector is the largest sector in the study area, accounting for approximately 14 percent of employment. This is the second most reported sector in Colorado with approximately 11 percent of employees reporting work in this sector. The second highest industry sector for the study area municipalities is Healthcare and Social Services (13.8 percent). This is the highest sector for Colorado (11.9 percent). The third highest sector in the study area municipalities is Manufacturing (13.3 percent) and the third highest sector in the state of Colorado is Professional and Business Services (9.3 percent). In Saguache, Agriculture was the highest reported sector (22.1 percent). In Center, Manufacturing was the highest reported sector (23.4 percent). In Monte Vista, Healthcare and Social Assistance was the highest reported sector (17.4 percent). Similar to the study area municipalities in total, Del Norte reported Retail Trade as its highest sector (16.3 percent).

Western San Luis Valley Transit Study: Final Report ‐ IV‐8 ‐

Table IV-6: Employment by Industry Study Area Colorado Center, CO Del Norte, CO Monte Vista, CO Saguache, CO Municipalities Industry Total % Total % Total % Total % Total % Total % Accomodation and Food Services223,5548.1%303.3%527.5%956.4%1710.4% 194 6.0% Administration and Waste Services 125,058 4.5% 4 0.4% 26 3.7% 12 0.8% 0 0.0% 42 1.3% Agriculture 66,523 2.4% 201 22.1% 79 11.4% 32 2.2% 31 18.9% 343 10.6% Arts, Entertainment and Recreation 74,062 2.7% 0 0.0% 12 1.7% 14 0.9% 0 0.0% 26 0.8% Construction 218,515 7.9% 34 3.7% 70 10.1% 159 10.7% 24 14.6% 287 8.8% Educational Services 239,326 8.7% 59 6.5% 50 7.2% 92 6.2% 14 8.5% 215 6.6% Finance and Insurance 126,782 4.6% 5 0.6% 7 1.0% 77 5.2% 0 0.0% 89 2.7% Government 130,540 4.7% 13 1.4% 58 8.4% 160 10.8% 21 12.8% 252 7.8% Healthcare and Social Assistance 328,815 11.9% 87 9.6% 100 14.4% 257 17.4% 4 2.4% 448 13.8% Information 80,6272.9%40.4%20.3%382.6%00.0% 44 1.4% Manufacturing 189,456 6.9% 213 23.4% 23 3.3% 179 12.1% 18 11.0% 433 13.3% Other Services 138,852 5.0% 7 0.8% 26 3.7% 21 1.4% 3 1.8% 57 1.8% Professional and Business Services 256,183 9.3% 22 5.1% 26 2.9% 0 0.0% 1 0.1% 49 1.5% Real Estate and Rental and Leasing 65,991 2.4% 12 1.3% 16 2.3% 15 1.0% 6 3.7% 49 1.5% Retail Trade 299,623 10.9% 160 17.6% 113 16.3% 165 11.1% 17 10.4% 455 14.0% Transportation and Warehousing 126,136 4.6% 34 3.7% 28 4.0% 141 9.5% 2 1.2% 205 6.3% Wholesale Trade 70,033 2.5% 24 2.6% 6 0.9% 23 1.6% 6 3.7% 59 1.8% Source: US Census Bureau, American Community Survey, 2017; LSC 2019. Major Employers and Activity Centers Major transit activity centers are important in terms of land use, trip generation, and the ability to be served by public transit. Activity centers are locations that are typically shown to generate transit trips because they are prime origins or prime destinations, and they generally include a wide variety of land uses including shopping/retail areas, and commercial, hospital, or education centers. There is no set formula that is used to derive a list of activity centers as the process is subjective. Figure IV‐7 shows locations of possible transit generators within Center, Del Norte, Monte Vista, and Saguache. Places that have been identified as possible transit generators include medical centers, middle schools, high schools, grocery stores, libraries, county and city administrative buildings, Head Start locations, and museums.

Western San Luis Valley Transit Study: Final Report ‐ IV‐9 ‐

TRAVEL PATTERNS Work Transportation Mode The 2017 ACS yields information about the means of transportation to work for the study area’s employed residents. Table IV‐7 shows the number of people in the study area’s workforce, as well as the state of Colorado’s, and their modes of travel. These data were tabulated for employees 16 years of age and older who were employed when the ACS was completed. Figure IV‐8 shows this information in a visual format. The majority of employees drove alone to work in each of the four municipalities. This is consistent with what is seen at the state level. In Saguache, 23 percent of employees reported walking to work. The other three municipalities were similar to the state of Colorado in their percentages of employees who reported walking to work (between one to four percent). Center employees had a similar percentage of using public transportation to get to work when compared to the state of Colorado – four percent reported using public transportation in Center while three percent reported using it in the state.

Western San Luis Valley Transit Study: Final Report ‐ IV‐10 ‐

Table IV-7: Means of Transportation to Work Center Del Norte Monte Vista Saguache Colorado Means of Transportation Workers Percent Workers Percent Workers Percent Workers Percent Workers Percent Drove alone 675 74% 577 85% 1,029 75% 112 68% 2,062,986 75% Carpooled 154 17% 53 8% 274 20% 8 5% 249,838 9% Public transportation (excluding taxicab) 33 4% 3 0% 0 0% 0 0% 86,517 3% Walked 36 4% 23 3% 17 1% 38 23% 78,198 3% Taxicab, motorcycle, bicycle or other means 11 1% 9 1% 23 2% 6 4% 61,673 2% Worked at home 0 0% 17 3% 32 2% 0 0% 202,939 7% Total 909 1 00% 682 1 00% 1 375 1 00% 1 64 1 00% 27421 51 1 00% Note: Workers 16 years and over Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2013-2017 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates

Figure IV-8: Means of Transportation to Work 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% Drove alone Carpooled Public Walked Taxicab, Worked at home transportation motorcycle, (excluding bicycle or other taxicab) means Center Percent Del Norte Percent Monte Vista Percent Saguache Percent Colorado Percent

As shown in Table IV‐8 and Figure IV‐9, the most frequent response for residents’ travel time to work for the study area municipalities was less than 10 minutes. This is about half the travel time that was most reported for the state of Colorado (15 to 19 minutes). For Center, the next most frequent travel time was 20 to 24 minutes (12 percent), followed closely by 15 to 19 minutes (11 percent) and 10 to 14 minutes (10 percent). In Del Norte, the next most frequent travel time was 20 to 24 minutes (17 percent), followed by 30 to 34 minutes (11 percent) and 15 to 19 minutes (10 percent). Monte Vista’s next most frequent travel time was 20 to 24 minutes (23 percent), followed by 10 to 14 minutes (16 percent). The next most frequent travel time for Saguache was 10 to 14 minutes (28 percent). Table IV‐8 also shows that the mean commute time for Center residents was approximately 13 minutes, Del Norte residents was approximately 18 minutes, Monte Vista residents was approximately 14.5 minutes, and Saguache residents was approximately 11 minutes. These are all lower than the mean commute time for the State of Colorado (approximately 25 minutes).

Western San Luis Valley Transit Study: Final Report ‐ IV‐11 ‐

Table IV-8: Travel Time to Work Center Del Norte Monte Vista Saguache Colorado Travel Time Workers Percent Workers Percent Workers Percent Workers Percent Workers Percent Less than 10 minutes 452 50% 280 42% 487 36% 94 57% 326,333 13% 10 to 14 minutes 92 10% 43 6% 214 16% 46 28% 348,940 14% 15 to 19 minutes 104 11% 64 10% 53 4% 0 0% 396,573 16% 20 to 24 minutes 108 12% 110 17% 313 23% 5 3% 387,675 15% 25 to 29 minutes 50 6% 11 2% 120 9% 3 2% 171,830 7% 30 to 34 minutes 50 6% 70 11% 71 5% 5 3% 355,238 14% 35 to 44 minutes 19 2% 12 2% 85 6% 2 1% 176,978 7% 45 to 59 minutes 34 4% 62 9% 0 0% 3 2% 198,124 8% 60 or more minutes 0 0% 13 2% 0 0% 6 4% 177,521 7% Total: 909 1 00% 665 1 00% 1 ,343 1 00% 1 64 1 00% 2,539,21 2 1 00%

Mean travel time to work (minutes): 12.8 18.2 14.5 10.8 25.2 Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2013-2017 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates.

Figure IV-9: Travel Time to Work 70%

60%

50%

40%

30%

20%

10%

0% Less than 10 to 14 15 to 19 20 to 24 25 to 29 30 to 34 35 to 44 45 to 59 60 or more 10 minutes minutes minutes minutes minutes minutes minutes minutes minutes

Center Percent Del Norte Percent Monte Vista Percent Saguache Percent Colorado Percent

Table IV‐9 shows the time ranges for study area municipalities and Colorado residents leaving home to go to work. The most frequent response for the study area municipalities was between 7:30 and 7:59 a.m. The most frequent response for residents in Colorado was between 7:00 and 7:29 a.m. As shown in Figure IV‐10, between 7:00 and 7:29 a.m. was the second highest response for the combined study area municipalities, followed by residents who reported leaving for work between 4:00 and 11:59 p.m.

Western San Luis Valley Transit Study: Final Report ‐ IV‐12 ‐

Table IV-9: Time Leaving Home to go to Work Center Del Norte Monte Vista Saguache Colorado Time Ranges Workers Percent Workers Percent Workers Percent Workers Percent Workers Percent 12:00 a.m. to 4:59 a.m. 15 2% 16 2% 34 3% 0 0% 106,447 4% 5:00 a.m. to 5:29 a.m. 12 1% 38 6% 21 2% 0 0% 96,695 4% 5:30 a.m. to 5:59 a.m. 16 2% 45 7% 21 2% 28 17% 133,333 5% 6:00 a.m. to 6:29 a.m. 77 8% 16 2% 52 4% 4 2% 235,124 9% 6:30 a.m. to 6:59 a.m. 85 9% 52 8% 96 7% 22 13% 269,572 11% 7:00 a.m. to 7:29 a.m. 131 14% 110 17% 192 14% 14 9% 393,361 15% 7:30 a.m. to 7:59 a.m. 288 32% 206 31% 513 38% 32 20% 325,674 13% 8:00 a.m. to 8:29 a.m. 136 15% 26 4% 36 3% 32 20% 268,116 11% 8:30 a.m. to 8:59 a.m. 15 2% 16 2% 17 1% 8 5% 137,955 5% 9:00 a.m. to 9:59 a.m.61%305%806%117%159,6526% 10:00 a.m. to 10:59 a.m. 0 0% 35 5% 20 1% 0 0% 74,711 3% 11:00 a.m. to 11:59 a.m. 0 0% 14 2% 0 0% 2 1% 36,439 1% 12:00 p.m. to 3:59 p.m. 63 7% 40 6% 47 3% 1 1% 152,686 6% 4:00 p.m. to 11:59 p.m. 65 7% 21 3% 214 16% 10 6% 149,447 6% Total: 909 1 00% 665 1 00% 1 ,343 1 00% 1 64 1 00% 2,539,21 2 1 00% Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2013-2017 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates.

Figure IV-10: Time Leaving Home to go to Work

12:00 a.m. to 4:59 a.m.

5:00 a.m. to 5:29 a.m.

5:30 a.m. to 5:59 a.m.

6:00 a.m. to 6:29 a.m.

6:30 a.m. to 6:59 a.m.

7:00 a.m. to 7:29 a.m.

7:30 a.m. to 7:59 a.m.

8:00 a.m. to 8:29 a.m.

8:30 a.m. to 8:59 a.m.

9:00 a.m. to 9:59 a.m.

10:00 a.m. to 10:59 a.m.

11:00 a.m. to 11:59 a.m.

12:00 p.m. to 3:59 p.m.

4:00 p.m. to 11:59 p.m.

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% Study Area Percent Colorado Percent

Western San Luis Valley Transit Study: Final Report ‐ IV‐13 ‐

Commuter Patterns Commuter patterns were analyzed for Center, Del Norte, Monte Vista, and Saguache using Longitudinal Employer‐Household Dynamics (LEHD) data. In the absence of a better source of commuter pattern data, it is worthwhile to include these data as a general indicator of commuter patterns in the study area. However, it should be noted that LEHD data represent estimates of commuter patterns, synthesized from several sources of US Census residential locations, business locations, and commute data. This data excludes federal, railroad, retired, disabled, unemployed and self‐employed employees. As such, these data should be used to provide only a general commuting pattern. Table IV‐10 shows the top‐ten reported places where Center residents are employed. Approximately 26 percent of Center residents work within Center, followed by six percent working in Alamosa and four percent in Monte Vista. Table IV‐11 shows where Center workers live. Approximately 29 percent of Center workers live in Center, 10 percent live in Monte Vista, and 6.4 percent live in Alamosa.

Table IV-10: Employment Location of Table IV-11: Residence Location of Center Residents Center Workers Residents Workers Area of Work # % Area of Residence # % Center, CO 172 26.0% Center, CO 172 29.0% Alamosa, CO 41 6.2% Monte Vista, CO 61 10.3% Monte Vista, CO 28 4.2% Alamosa, CO 38 6.4% Colorado Springs, CO 15 2.3% Del Norte, CO 16 2.7% Del Norte, CO 14 2.1% Alamosa East, CO 9 1.5% Denver, CO 10 1.5% Saguache, CO 5 0.8% Pueblo, CO 10 1.5% South Fork, CO 5 0.8% Westminster, CO 10 1.5% Gerrard, CO 4 0.7% Moffat, CO 8 1.2% La Junta, CO 3 0.5% Lakewood, CO 7 1.1% Manassa, CO 3 0.5% All Other Locations 346 52.3% All Other Locations 277 46.7% Source: LEHD; LSC, 2019 Source: LEHD; LSC, 2019

Table IV‐12 shows the top‐ten reported places where Del Norte residents are employed. Approximately 24 percent of Del Norte residents work within Del Norte, followed by approximately eight percent working in Alamosa and approximately six percent working in Monte Vista. Table IV‐13 shows where Del Norte workers live. Approximately 31 percent of Del Norte workers live in Del Norte, 12 percent live in Monte Vista, and four percent live in Alamosa.

Western San Luis Valley Transit Study: Final Report ‐ IV‐14 ‐

Table IV-12: Employment Location of Del Table IV-13: Residence Location of Del Norte Residents Norte Workers Residents Workers Area of Work # % Area of Residence # % Del Norte, CO 154 24.1% Del Norte, CO 154 30.7% Alamosa, CO 48 7.5% Monte Vista, CO 62 12.4% Monte Vista, CO 37 5.8% Alamosa, CO 18 3.6% South Fork, CO 21 3.3% South Fork, CO 18 3.6% Colorado Springs, CO 18 2.8% Center, CO 14 2.8% Santa Fe, NM 18 2.8% Gerrard, CO 7 1.4% Denver, CO 17 2.7% Aurora, CO 5 1.0% Center, CO 16 2.5% Denver, CO 4 0.8% Lakewood, CO 13 2.0% Alamosa East, CO 3 0.6% City of Creede, CO 12 1.9% Vail, CO 3 0.6% All Other Locations 284 44.5% All Other Locations 214 42.6% Source: LEHD; LSC, 2019 Source: LEHD; LSC, 2019

Table IV‐14 shows the top‐ten reported places where Monte Vista residents are employed. Approximately 23 percent of Monte Vista residents work within Monte Vista, followed by 16 percent who work in Alamosa and approximately four percent who work in Del Norte. Table IV‐15 shows where Monte Vista workers live. Approximately 31 percent of Monte Vista workers live in Monte Vista, 5.5 percent live in Alamosa, and approximately three percent live in Del Norte.

Table IV-14: Employment Location of Table IV-15: Residence Location of Monte Vista Residents Monte Vista Workers Residents Workers Area of Work # % Area of Residence # % Monte Vista, CO 403 22.8% Monte Vista, CO 403 31.2% Alamosa, CO 289 16.3% Alamosa, CO 71 5.5% Del Norte, CO 62 3.5% Del Norte, CO 37 2.9% Center, CO 61 3.4% Denver, CO 31 2.4% Colorado Springs, CO 59 3.3% Center, CO 28 2.2% Denver, CO 50 2.8% Aurora, CO 20 1.5% Lakewood, CO 38 2.1% Lakewood, CO 17 1.3% Pueblo, CO 31 1.8% Highlands Ranch, CO 16 1.2% Westminster, CO 23 1.3% Alamosa East, CO 13 1.0% South Fork, CO 21 1.2% Castle Rock, CO 12 0.9% All Other Locations 734 41% All Other Locations 643 49.8% Source: LEHD; LSC, 2019 Source: LEHD; LSC, 2019

Western San Luis Valley Transit Study: Final Report ‐ IV‐15 ‐

Table IV‐16 shows the top ten reported places where Saguache residents are employed. Approximately 17 percent of Saguache residents work within Saguache, followed by approximately seven percent who work in Moffat and five percent who work in Alamosa. Table IV‐17 shows where Saguache workers live. Approximately nine percent of Saguache workers live in Saguache, four percent live in Salida, and three percent live in Crestone.

Table IV-16: Employment Location of Table IV-17: Residence Location of Saguache Residents Saguache Workers Residents Workers Area of Work # % Area of Residence # % Saguache, CO 20 16.5% Saguache, CO 20 9.0% Moffat, CO 8 6.6% Salida, CO 9 4.0% Alamosa, CO 6 5.0% Crestone, CO 7 3.1% Gunnison, CO 6 5.0% Moffat, CO 6 2.7% Center, CO 5 4.1% Del Norte, CO 5 2.2% Denver, CO 5 4.1% Monte Vista, CO 5 2.2% Salida, CO 5 4.1% Center, CO 4 1.8% Crestone, CO 3 2.5% Longmont, CO 4 1.8% Colorado Springs, CO 2 1.7% Alamosa, CO 3 1.3% Commerce City, CO 2 1.7% Colorado Springs, CO 3 1.3% All Other Locations 59 48.8% All Other Locations 157 70.4% Source: LEHD; LSC, 2019 Source: LEHD; LSC, 2019

Western San Luis Valley Transit Study: Final Report ‐ IV‐16 ‐ Chapter V (This page intentionally left blank.) Chapter V: Community Survey Analysis

INTRODUCTION As part of the effort to obtain input from the community, a separate survey questionnaire was used for residents in the study area. The questionnaire was developed with input from members of the Western San Luis Valley Transit Committee and then distributed as widely as possible. The survey asked respondents about their personal and household transportation needs. The survey was available online and as a paper version for four weeks (from Wednesday, April 3, 2019 through Wednesday, May 1, 2019). The survey questionnaire was provided in English and Spanish, and is included in Appendix A.

SURVEY ANALYSIS A total of 245 responses were received, 244 to the English questionnaire and one to the Spanish questionnaire. The results of the survey will be discussed in the following section.

Existing Transportation Modes Used Respondents were asked which types of transportation—personal vehicle, borrow a vehicle, ride from a friend / relative, walk / bicycle, the Chaffee Shuttle / Eagle Line, taxi, Red Willow, Veteran Transportation Service, or CDOT Bustang Outrider Service between Alamosa, Salida, Pueblo, and Denver—they and others in their household use and how often they use it—six to seven days per week, three to five days per week, one to two days per week, one to three days per month, or less than once a month. Respondents were allowed to select multiple responses to explain the types of transportation currently used by their household. The results are shown in Table V‐1. The majority of survey respondents (89 percent) reported they or a member of their household use their personal vehicle. Of those who use a personal vehicle, 71 percent use it six to seven days per week, 18 percent use it three to five days per week, seven percent use it one to two days per week, four percent use it one to three days per month, and less than one percent use it less than once per month. Forty‐four percent of survey respondents indicated that they walk or use a bicycle, followed by 41 percent of respondents who receive a ride from a friend or relative and 17 percent of respondents who indicated they use the Chaffee Shuttle / Eagle Line. Approximately 15 percent of respondents said they borrow a vehicle and 14 percent of respondents indicated they use the CDOT Bustang Outrider Service between Alamosa, Salida, Pueblo, and Denver.

Western San Luis Valley Transit Study: Final Report ‐ V‐1 ‐ Respondents Percent of All Total Resonses % of Responses once/month # of # of Responses % of Responses # of # of Responses % of Responses # of # of Responses % of % of Table V-1:Table Transportation Modes Currently Used Responses # of # of Responses % of Responses 6-7 Days/week6-7 Days/week 3-5 1-2 Days/week 1-3 Days/month Less than # of # of Responses Personal VehicleBorrow a vehicle Ride from a friend/relative Walk / Bicycle 151 / Shuttle Chaffee The Eagle Line 3 71%TaxiRed Willow 14 9%Veteran 24 39 Transportation 14%Service 23%CDOT 18%Bustang 8 Service 2Outrider 12 Alamosa, between 23% and 2 Pueblo, 25Salida, 14 5% 1Denver 12% 13% 24% 7% 3 8% 0 1 12 15 2 9% 8 12% 0% 2% 1 14% 13% 3 4% 5 23 8% 1 8 15 3 14% 9% 24% 1 10% 20% 14% 0 20% 16 0 36 0% 13 0 0% 27 46% 1 213 37% 0% 32% 25% 0% 2 35 7% 97 89% 106 17 1 15% 0 15% 41% 7 41% 3% 44% 0% 9 47% 41 8 69% 9 15 17% 24% 13 90% 6% 22 10 5% 65% 4% 34 14% Source: LSC Community Survey, 2019. Survey, Community LSC Source:

Western San Luis Valley Transit Study: Final Report ‐ V‐2 ‐ Residence Location Respondents were asked to list which community or town they live in within the study area. The results are shown in Figure V‐1. Responses we received from residents throughout the study area, as well as the surrounding area. Over a quarter of respondents (27 percent) indicated that they reside in Saguache, followed by 25 percent of respondents who live in Monte Vista, 12 percent who reside in Alamosa, nine percent who live in Center, and nine percent who reside in Crestone.

Figure V-1: Residence Location

Saguache

Monte Vista

Alamosa

Center

Crestone

Del Norte

Moffat

Conejos

Villa Grove

South Fork

Other

0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30%

Age Respondents were asked to indicate their age and the results are shown in Figure V‐2. Approximately half of respondents were between the ages of 55 and 74, with 25 percent between the ages of 55 and 64, and 26 percent between the ages of 65 and 74. Only three percent of respondents were age 24 or younger.

Figure V-2: Age of Respondents

75 years old or older 65‐74 years old 7% 26% Under 16 years old Less than 1%

17‐24 years old 55‐64 years old 3% 25% 25‐34 years old 11%

35‐44 years old 45‐54 years old 13% 15% n=244

Western San Luis Valley Transit Study: Final Report ‐ V‐3 ‐ Employment Status Respondents were asked to indicate their current employment status—employed full‐time, employed part‐time, unemployed, retired, student, or other. Respondents were allowed to select multiple responses to explain their current employment status and the results are shown in Table V‐2. Approximately 40 percent of respondents indicated they are employed full‐time, followed by 39 percent of respondents who said they were retired and 12 percent of respondents who indicated they were employed part‐time.

Table V-2: Employment Status Number of Percent of Employment Status Responses Responses Employed Full-Time 96 40% Retired 93 39% Employed Part-Time 29 12% Unemployed 11 5% Disabled 11 5% Student 6 3% Other 9 4% TOTAL 255 106% Source: LSC Community Survey, 2019.

Annual Household Income The annual household incomes of survey respondents are shown in Figure V‐3. Almost a third of respondents indicated their annual household income was between $20,000 and $39,999 a year, followed by approximately a quarter of respondents (26 percent) who indicated their annual household income was less than $19,999 a year. Approximately 10 percent of respondents who indicated their annual household income was $80,000 or more a year.

Figure V-3: Annual Household Income

$100,000 or more per year Less than $19,999 7% per year 26% $80,000 ‐ $99,999 per year 3%

$60,000 ‐ $79,999 per year 9% $20,000 ‐ $39,999 per year $40,000 ‐ $59,999 per year 32% 23% n=228

Western San Luis Valley Transit Study: Final Report ‐ V‐4 ‐ Household Size Survey respondents were asked how many people age 10 and older live in their household. The results are shown in Figure V‐4. Approximately 47 percent of respondents said they live in a household with two people age 10 or older, followed by 30 percent of respondents who said they live in a single‐person household and 15 percent of respondents who said they live in a household with three people age 10 or older.

Figure V-4: Number of Household Members

One Person Two People 30% 47%

Six or More People 1%

Five People Three People 1% 15% Four People 6% n=234 Operating Vehicles & Licensed Drivers Lack of a private vehicle influences people to use public transportation. This comparison provides an indication of the number of potential choice riders compared to those who are transit‐dependent. Potential choice riders refer to those respondents that live in households with an operating vehicle and a driver’s license, who may choose to use transit. Figure V‐5 shows the number of respondents with operating vehicles available in their household. As illustrated, the majority of respondents have at least one household vehicle and only seven percent of respondents indicated they did not have a household vehicle. The largest percent of respondents (39 percent) live in households with two vehicles, followed by 34 percent of respondents who live in single vehicle households and 14 percent of respondents who live in households with three vehicles.

Western San Luis Valley Transit Study: Final Report ‐ V‐5 ‐ Figure V-5: Number of Household Vehicles

1 Vehicle 34%

2 Vehicles 39% None 7%

4 or More Vehicles 6%

3 Vehicles 14% n=241 Survey respondents were also asked how many people living in their household (including themselves) have a valid driver’s license. The results are shown in Figure V‐6. Over half of respondents (51 percent) indicated that there were two people in their household who had a valid driver’s license, followed by approximately 37 percent of respondents who indicated that there was one person in their household who had a valid driver’s license. Approximately five percent of respondents indicated that there was no one in their household who had a valid driver’s license.

Figure V-6: Number of Household Members with a Valid Driver's License

One 37%

None 5% Two Five 51% Less than 1%

Four 2% Three 5% n=242 Medical Care and Transportation The survey asked respondents if they have, or if someone in their household has, a disability, health concern, or other issue that makes travel difficult. As shown in Figure V‐7, approximately 83 percent of respondents answered no, while approximately 17 percent of respondents answered yes, that they have or someone in their household has a disability, health concern, or other issue that makes travel difficult. Respondents who answered yes, were asked to specify the type(s) of issues that make travel difficult for them or a household member. The most frequent responses included various health issues

Western San Luis Valley Transit Study: Final Report ‐ V‐6 ‐ (16 respondents, seven percent), use of a cane, walker, wheelchair, or other mobility issues (13 respondents, seven percent), and vision issues (seven respondents, three percent).

Figure V-7: Do you or a household member who needs transportation have a disability, health concern, or other issue that makes travel difficult?

Yes ‐ Age 1% Yes ‐ Disability 1% No 83% Yes ‐ Health Issues 7%

Yes ‐ Use a Cane/ Walker/ Wheelchair/ or Other Mobility Issues 5%

Yes ‐ Vision Issues 3% n=236 The survey also asked respondents if they have or if someone in their household has been unable to access medical care due to lack of transportation in the last two years. As shown in Figure V‐8, approximately 85 percent of respondents answered no, while approximately 15 percent of respondents answered yes, that they have or someone in their household has been unable to access medical care due to lack of transportation in the last two years.

Figure V-8: In the last 2 years, have you or a member of your household been unable to access medical care due to lack of transportation?

No 85% Yes 15%

n=228 Employment and Transportation The community survey asked respondents if they or someone in their household had lost a job, dropped out of school, or had problems finding work in the last two years due to lack of transportation. As shown in Figure V‐9, approximately 89 percent of respondents answered no, while approximately 11 percent of respondents answered yes, that they or someone in their household had lost a job, dropped out of school, or had problems finding work in the last two years due to lack of transportation.

Western San Luis Valley Transit Study: Final Report ‐ V‐7 ‐ Figure V-9: In the last 2 years, have you or a member of your household lost a job, dropped out of school, or had problems finding work due to lack of transportation?

No Yes 89% 11%

n=228 Potential Public Transportation Use Respondents were asked to indicate if they or a member of their household would use public transportation, such as a local bus or shuttle, to reach areas within the Western San Luis Valley and/or to reach areas outside the Western San Luis Valley. As shown in Figure V‐10, approximately three quarters of respondents (75 percent) indicated they would use public transportation to reach areas within and outside the Western San Luis Valley, followed by nine percent of respondents who said they would only use public transportation to reach areas within the Western San Luis Valley. Only nine percent of respondents indicated that they would not use public transportation to reach areas within or outside the Western San Luis Valley.

Figure V-10: Would you or a member of your household use public transportation, such as a local bus or shuttle, if available and going where and when you need to go? No, would not use public transportation 9% Yes, would use public Yes, would use public transportation transportation outside within and the San Luis Valley outside the San 7% Luis Valley Yes, would use public 75% transportation within the San Luis Valley 9%

n=245

Western San Luis Valley Transit Study: Final Report ‐ V‐8 ‐ Potential Public Transportation Use to Reach Areas within the Western San Luis Valley Respondents who indicated they would potentially use public transportation to reach areas within the Western San Luis Valley were asked a series of separate questions.

Desired Destinations Survey respondents were asked to which destinations they or members of their household would use public transportation within the Western San Luis Valley. The results are presented in Table V‐3. The most frequent responses included Alamosa (85 percent), Salida (57 percent), Monte Vista (46 percent), Del Norte (35 percent), and Saguache (29 percent).

Table V-3: Desired Destinations Using Public Transportation Within the Western San Luis Valley

Number of Percent of Location Responses Respondents Alamosa 175 85% Salida 117 57% Monte Vista 95 46% Del Norte 72 35% Saguache 59 29% South Fork 42 20% Center 40 19% Other 26 13% TOTAL 626 302% Source: LSC Community Survey, 2019.

By comparing this data with where respondents live, we are able to identify the most desired travel patterns using public transportation within the Western San Luis Valley. As shown in Table V‐4, the most desired travel pattern using public transportation within the Western San Luis Valley is between Alamosa and Monte Vista, indicated by 28 percent of respondents. This is followed by trips between Alamosa and Saguache which was indicated by 25 percent of respondents, trips between Monte Vista and Saguache which was indicated by 22 percent of respondents, and trips between Saguache and Salida which was indicated by 17 percent of respondents.

Western San Luis Valley Transit Study: Final Report ‐ V‐9 ‐ Table V-4: Desired Travel Patterns Using Public Transportation Within the Western San Luis Valley Number of Percent of Destinations Responses Respondents Alamosa-Monte Vista 58 28% Alamosa-Saguache 51 25% Monte Vista-Saguache 45 22% Saguache-Salida 35 17% Del Norte-Monte Vista 30 15% Alamosa-Center 29 14% Monte Vista-Salida 24 12% Alamosa-Alamosa 23 11% Alamosa-Del Norte 23 11% Del Norte-Saguache 22 11% Center-Saguache 16 8% Center-Monte Vista 15 7% Saguache-South Fork 15 7% Alamosa-Salida 14 7% Alamosa-South Fork 14 7% Crestone-Alamosa 14 7% Monte Vista-Monte Vista 14 7% Saguache-Saguache 14 7% Crestone-Saguache 9 4% Crestone-Salida 9 4% Del Norte-Salida 9 4% Monte Vista-South Fork 9 4% Center-Salida 8 4% Center-Del Norte 7 3% Other (Travel Patterns with 5 or Fewer Responses) 111 54% TOTAL 618 301% Source: LSC Community Survey, 2019.

Trip Purpose Respondents were asked to indicate their top three reasons they or a member of their household would use public transportation within the Western San Luis Valley—work, personal business, school/college, doctor/medical/health care, shopping, recreation, or the San Luis Valley Regional Airport. The results are shown in Table V‐5. Approximately 67 percent of respondents indicated they would use public transportation within the Western San Luis Valley for shopping trips, followed by 61 percent who would use it for doctor, medical, or health care trips and 57 percent who would use it for personal business. Approximately 39 percent of respondents indicated that they would use public transportation within the Western San Luis Valley for recreation and 30 percent would use it for commuting to and from work.

Western San Luis Valley Transit Study: Final Report ‐ V‐10 ‐ Table V-5: Purpose for Using Public Transportation Within the Western San Luis Valley Number of Percent of Trip Purpose Responses Respondents Shopping 137 67% Doctor/Medical/Health Care 126 61% Personal Business 116 57% Recreation 80 39% Work 61 30% San Luis Valley Regional Airport 51 25% School/College 19 9% TOTAL 590 288%

Source: LSC Community Survey, 2019.

Frequency of Transit Use Respondents were asked how often they or a member of their household would use public transportation within the Western San Luis Valley—six to seven days per week, three to five days per week, one to two days per week, one to three days per month, or less than once a month. The results are shown in Figure V‐11. Approximately 30 percent of respondents indicated that they or a household member would use public transportation within the Western San Luis Valley one to three days per month, followed by those who would use it three to five days per week (28 percent) and those who would use it one to two days per week (22 percent).

Figure V-11: Trip Frequency Using Public Transportation Within the Western San Luis Valley

6‐7 Days/Week 3‐5 Days/Week 8% 28%

Less than Once/Month 12%

1‐2 Days/Week 22% 1‐3 Days/Month 30% n=206

Passenger Fare Respondents were asked if a fare structure based on the Eagle Line’s current passenger fare rate of about $0.07 per mile, would be appropriate for taking public transportation within the San Luis Valley. Using this rate, one‐way trips under 25 miles would cost up to $2.00, one‐way trips between 25 and 50

Western San Luis Valley Transit Study: Final Report ‐ V‐11 ‐ miles would cost between $2.00 and $3.30, and one‐way trips between 50 and 100 miles would cost between $3.30 and $6.60. Approximately 98 percent of respondents indicated that a fare structure based on the Eagle Line’s current passenger fare rate of about $0.07 per mile would be appropriate. Some of the reasons given by the two percent of respondents who indicated that this fare structure would not be appropriate included that this should be the cost for a round‐trip and that the respondents felt that the proposed fares would be higher than the cost of gas.

Importance of Service Characteristics Respondents were asked to rank various service characteristics on how important they would be in their decision to use public transportation within the Western San Luis Valley. Participants were asked to rank various service characteristics from one to four with one being not important and four being very important. The average response was then calculated for each service characteristic. The middle point of responses would be 2.5, so an average score above 2.5 would indicate positive perceptions for that particular service characteristic. The responses from the survey are shown in Table V‐6.

Table V-6: Importance of Characteristics in Influencing Potential Ridership Within the Western San Luis Valley

Service Characteristic Average Fixed-route transit service with designated bus stops and a set schedule 2.84 Weekend service 2.65 Fares 2.64 Evening service 2.55 Transit service that picks me up at my home and drops me off at my destination 2.34 Source: LSC Community Survey, 2019.

The service characteristics having the highest scores were fixed‐route transit service with designated bus stops and a set schedule (2.84) and weekend service (2.65). The attributes that received the lowest ratings were evening service (2.55) and transit service that picks me up at my home and drops me off at my destination (2.34).

Potential Public Transportation Use to Reach Areas outside the Western San Luis Valley Respondents who indicated they would potentially use public transportation to reach areas outside the Western San Luis Valley were asked a series of separate questions.

Desired Destinations Survey respondents were asked which destinations they or members of their household would use public transportation to reach outside the Western San Luis Valley. The results are presented in Table V‐7. The most frequent responses included Denver (76 percent), Colorado Springs (66 percent), Pueblo (64 percent), and Durango (29 percent).

Western San Luis Valley Transit Study: Final Report ‐ V‐12 ‐ Table V-7: Desired Destinations Using Public Transportation Outside the Western San Luis Valley Number of Percent of Location Responses Respondents Denver 151 76% Colorado Springs 131 66% Pueblo 127 64% Durango 57 29% New Mexico (Albuquerque, Santa Fe, Taos, etc.) 12 6% Denver International Airport 5 3% Cañon City 4 2% Other 5 3% TOTAL 492 248% Source: LSC Community Survey, 2019. Trip Purpose Respondents were asked to indicate their top three reasons they or a member of their household would use public transportation outside the Western San Luis Valley—work, personal business, school/college, doctor/medical/health care, shopping, and recreation. The results are shown in Table V‐8. Approximately 65 percent of respondents indicated they would use public transportation outside the Western San Luis Valley for doctor, medical, or health care trips, followed by 60 percent who would use it for personal business trips, 58 percent who would use it for shopping trips, and 47 percent who would use it for recreation trips.

Table V-8: Purpose for Using Public Transportation Outside the Western San Luis Valley Number of Percent of Trip Purpose Responses Respondents Doctor/Medical/Health Care 128 65% Personal Business 117 60% Shopping 113 58% Recreation 93 47% Work 23 12% School/College 13 7% TOTAL 487 248%

Source: LSC Community Survey, 2019.

Frequency of Transit Use Respondents were asked how often they or a member of their household would use public transportation outside the Western San Luis Valley—six to seven days per week, three to five days per week, one to two days per week, one to three days per month, or less than once a month. The results are shown in Figure V‐12. Approximately 41 percent of respondents indicated that they or a household member would use public transportation outside the Western San Luis Valley one to three days per month, followed by those who would use it less than once per month (36 percent) and those who would use it one to two days per week (12 percent).

Western San Luis Valley Transit Study: Final Report ‐ V‐13 ‐ Figure V-12: Trip Frequency Using Public Transportation Outside the Western San Luis Valley

6‐7 Days/Week Less than Once/Month 2% 36%

3‐5 Days/Week 9%

1‐2 Days/Week 1‐3 Days/Month 12% 41%

n=195 Passenger Fare Respondents were asked if a fare structure based on the Eagle Line’s current passenger fare rate of about $0.07 per mile, would be appropriate for riding public transportation outside the San Luis Valley. Using this rate, one‐way trips between 100 and 149 miles would cost between $6.60 and $9.90, one‐ way trips between 150 and 199 miles would cost between $9.90 and $13.20, and one‐way trips between 200 and 250 miles would cost between $13.20 and $16.50. Approximately 98 percent of respondents indicated that a fare structure based on the Eagle Line’s current passenger fare rate of about $0.07 per mile would be appropriate. Some of the reasons given by the two percent of respondents who indicated that this fare structure would not be appropriate included that the rate is too expensive for those with limited incomes and that the rate is too low.

Importance of Service Characteristics Respondents were asked to rank various service characteristics on how important they would be in their decision to use public transportation outside the Western San Luis Valley. Participants were asked to rank various service characteristics from one to four with one being not important and four being very important. The average response was then calculated for each service characteristic. The middle point of responses would be 2.5, so an average score above 2.5 would indicate positive perceptions for that particular service characteristic. The responses from the survey are shown in Table V‐9. The service characteristics having the highest scores were comfortable buses (3.03) and weekday service (2.85). The attributes that received the lowest ratings were weekend service (2.75) and fares (2.74).

Table V-9: Importance of Characteristics in Influencing Potential Ridership Outside the Western San Luis Valley Service Characteristic Average Comfortable Buses 3.03 Weekday Service 2.85 Weekend Service 2.75 Fares 2.74 Source: LSC Community Survey, 2019.

Western San Luis Valley Transit Study: Final Report ‐ V‐14 ‐ Additional Comments At the end of the questionnaire, respondents were asked to provide additional comments about the public transportation service they would would like to see or any other unmet transportation needs they or members of their household have. The individual comments can be read in full in Appendix B. Out of 245 total survey responses received, 87 respondents chose to add additional comments. General categories were used to group the comments based on the topics mentioned. If multiple subjects were addressed in one comment, the comment was counted in each of the relevant categories. Figure V‐13 categorizes the various comments received.

Figure V-13: Additional Comments Public Transportation is needed in the West SLV Expand existing bus frequency Service to ariports is needed Low fare is important Important to have transportation to medical appointments Positive Comment about existing service Accessible bus stops in convenient locations Increase advertising of existing bus/create website Coordinate service with Bustang for regional connections Regional service to NM is desired Important to have trips outside the valley Home pick‐up is desirable Weekday service is most important Seasonal service during summer would be helpful Proposed prices are very reasonable Passenger safety is important Not needed at this time Able to accommodate bikes and groceries/purchases Other (Categories with one response)

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% Percent of Respondents The most frequently received comment was that public transportation is needed in the Western San Luis Valley, indicated by 43 percent of all respondents. Within this category, several respondents noted that even if they would not personally use the service, they recognized the importance of having public transportation for the community, especially for the elderly and persons with limited income. Other frequently received comments included expanding the frequency of the existing bus service (14 percent), providing bus service to airports (nine percent), having a low passenger fare (nine percent), and the importance of having transportation to medical appointments (eight percent). Many respondents who knew about or have ridden the existing Eagle Line service said that they were happy with the service but wanted it to see additional frequency added. However, many respondents also said that many community members do not know that the Eagle Line even exists so additional advertising of the existing bus service is needed, including creating a website and promotional materials.

Western San Luis Valley Transit Study: Final Report ‐ V‐15 ‐ (This page intentionally left blank.) Chapter VI (This page intentionally left blank.) Chapter VI: Governance Options

Before the first transit passenger can be served, before the first bus can be purchased, and before the first dollar of funding can be generated, an institutional structure must be developed to manage and operate the transit service. The identification of a cost‐effective and geographically appropriate institutional structure is therefore a key element in the improvement of public transportation services. LSC approaches the institutional alternatives from a practical standpoint rather than a theoretical one. As the population in the region changes, so will demands on existing agencies. This chapter will examine the institutional alternatives that could be used in the development of a formal regional transit service in the Western San Luis Valley.

CRITERIA The history of transit organizations indicates that the following criteria should guide the selection of the institution for managing and operating transportation services in the area. The institutional structure should be an entity:  Whose structure is legitimate;  Whose policy‐making actions are authorized and defensible;  Which can limit the exposure of the participants to suits and claims of liability;  Which can be responsive to the complete policy‐making and management needs of the transit organization;  Which has the political and financial support to endure more than one year at a time; and  Which can annually perform proactive planning to improve the system and can effectively identify and implement improvements regularly and easily.

INSTITUTIONAL ALTERNATIVES Transit services throughout the United States have a variety of organizational structures—independent agencies (such as resort areas in the western United States); transit districts (such as the Utah Transit Authority); departments of a municipal government (such as Colorado Springs, Colorado); transit agencies formed by Intergovernmental Agreements (such as Central Arkansas Transit Authority); and departments of county government such as Cleveland Area Rapid Transit in Norman, Oklahoma. The institutional alternatives that have been evaluated for the Western San Luis Valley include:

 Coordinating Council  Intergovernmental Agreement  Intergovernmental Transit Agency  Regional Transportation Authority

Coordinating Council A coordinating council is made up of the various local agencies and partners with a common goal of coordinating transportation resources. This group differs from a coalition in the fact that it is primarily made up of agencies which have a need for service and other groups (such as local municipalities) specifically formed to accomplish a strategic goal (such as to implement a new service). A coalition is

Western San Luis Valley Transit Study: Final Report ‐ VI‐1 ‐ typically more of an advocacy organization and may not include those who are responsible for implementation. Key benefits:  Allows for greater input from the key transportation agencies in the region.  Allows the members to share information and knowledge on a one‐on‐one basis.  Provides greater opportunity to identify possible coordination actions.  Increase in the integration of transit planning within the region. The Colorado Department of Transportation is encouraging the formation of Coordinating Councils and has developed guidelines for the formation of these Councils. Roles of a Coordinating Council may include:

 Provide information about existing transportation services.  Coordinate efforts among human service agencies and public transit providers.  Apply for local, state, and federal funds to operate regional transportation services.  Prioritize regional transportation needs and funding requests.  Establish and manage a regional call center for transportation services.  Contract for transportation services.

Intergovernmental Agreements Intergovernmental agreements (IGAs) may be used by local governments to fund transportation services and contract with one or more transportation providers to operate that service. Contracts may also be established among providers to allow for coordinated service to be provided to passengers. Agencies may fund transportation for their clients on services operated by other agencies. In this regional setting, a community or a transportation provider could supply financial support for regional service operated by another agency. This approach offers the advantage that no new organization is formed. Oversight is maintained by each individual government and agency through terms specified in the contracts and agreements. A significant disadvantage of this approach is that service is dependent on local general fund priorities and contracts which must be renewed on a regular basis.

Intergovernmental Transit Agency An intergovernmental transit agency (ITA) is an independent agency that can be formed by intergovernmental agreements (IGA) among the various communities and counties in the study area. An ITA could be formed by Saguache and Rio Grande Counties; and the communities of Saguache, Center, Del Norte, and Monte Vista. The governing board should have equal representation from each entity. An ITA has been successfully implemented in other locations and could build on the services already established within the region. The Grand Valley Regional Transportation Committee was formed by an intergovernmental agreement in 2000. The partners are the City of Grand Junction, Mesa County, the Town of Palisade, and the City of Fruita. One elected official from each partner serves on the committee, as well as a representative from the Colorado Department of Transportation who serves in an ex‐officio position.

Western San Luis Valley Transit Study: Final Report ‐ VI‐2 ‐ The intergovernmental agreement institutional structure has many advantages for implementing a public transit service and was the institutional structure first used by the Roaring Fork Transportation Authority (RFTA)—then known as the Roaring Fork Transit Agency—to begin transit service in the Roaring Fork Valley. The Northeast Colorado Association of Local Governments (NECALG) also uses intergovernmental agreements to operate its transit service (known as County Express). If provided with a dedicated local funding source, an ITA provides stability and helps ensure the continuation of transit service within the community. An ITA requires cooperation from each government entity and the ITA could create agreements with existing transportation providers to provide a portion of the transit service within the region, thereby linking several transportation providers together to improve access and mobility without creating a new large agency. Listed below are the advantages of this form of institutional structure.  Can Provide Revenue and Assets from Local Governments: Local governments that agree to enter into an IGA can bring to the table financial and capital assets, as well as administrative expertise, which can be of great benefit to public transit service. Assets such as maintenance equipment, facilities, administrative services, personnel expertise, legal services, and funding allow the new agency to be very efficient and not create redundancy.  Provides a Level of Financial Stability: Generally IGAs have a contractual period of at least three years which will lock in a specific amount of funding from the local governments. Although local governments may agree to a three‐year commitment, they can only guarantee funding yearly since they have an annual budget. County governments and “Home Rule” municipalities can also ask their residents to approve a sales tax increase dedicated to the regional transit service.  Clearly Defines the Transit Service Area: The transit service will be defined by the municipalities and county governments that join the transit service via an IGA.  Allows for Regional Growth: It is relatively easy to increase the service area by obtaining additional intergovernmental agreements outside of the study area.  Enhances the Ability to Obtain Federal and State Funding: Having a relatively stable source of local funding provided by the IGAs, the new transit service will be in a favorable position to have local matching funds that are needed to apply for federal transit grants. The Federal Transit Administration (FTA) looks favorably to applicants that have a stable source of funding since this generally leads to completed projects, which is very important to the FTA and the federal government. There are some disadvantages to the IGA institutional structure, which are listed below.

 Need to Develop an Operating Agency with a Governing Body: This institutional structure has no ready‐made operating agency. Therefore, a governing body needs to be developed as well as an operating entity. Generally, the governing body is made up of representatives of the local governments which have signed IGAs to establish the public transit agency. An agency also needs to be developed which will oversee the transit service operation, develop and administer the grant applications, develop reports for regularly held Board of Directors meetings, and promote the transit service.  No Regulatory or Legal Authority to Develop a Dedicated Tax for Public Transit: Unlike a Regional Transportation Authority (discussed later in this chapter), an IGA cannot petition for a dedicated tax to operate and administer the transit service. The only source of revenue

Western San Luis Valley Transit Study: Final Report ‐ VI‐3 ‐ available to this institutional structure is revenue agreed upon by the local governments which establish the agency, federal and state funding grants, possible advertising revenue, and fare revenue. Transit funding may be subject to annual budget decisions made by each of the participating governments. Local “Home Rule” governments may choose to ask for voter approval to increase sales taxes and dedicate these funds for local transit service in their jurisdictions.

Regional Transportation Authority Colorado House Bill 97‐1273 created the “Rural Transportation Authority Law” in 1997, which was amended in 2005 to be Regional Transportation Authorities. This law enables any combination of local governments to create, by contract, an Authority that is authorized to exercise the functions conferred by the provisions of the law. In essence, a Regional Transportation Authority (RTA) can develop and operate a transit system, construct and maintain roadways within its service area, and petition the citizens within the RTA boundary through a referendum to tax themselves for the purpose of funding the RTA and the services the RTA provides. Voting referendums can be held at a general election or any election held on the first Tuesday in November of an odd‐numbered year. In order to take effect, a voter majority is required and the authority will be responsible for paying the costs incurred in conducting such an election. Listed below are some advantages of creating an RTA.  Removes Jurisdictional Boundary Restrictions: An RTA can be made up of several counties with many municipalities. For instance, the Pikes Peak Rural Transportation Authority (PPRTA) includes El Paso County, the City of Colorado Springs, the City of Manitou Springs, and the Town of Green Mountain Falls.  Allows for the Establishment of Dedicated Funding for Transit: An RTA can petition the citizens of the RTA to agree, by popular vote, to establish a sales tax which will provide revenue to operate the RTA and its programs and services. The sales tax can be as high as one percent. An RTA can also increase vehicle registration fees up to $10 per vehicle and a visitor benefit tax. Local improvement district assessments can be used as well, with assessments being based on the provision of the County’s Improvement District Law.  Funds from the RTA can be used for Other Transportation Modes: An RTA can be established to fund transportation modes other than just transit. RTA‐dedicated tax revenue can be used to fund highway construction and maintenance projects, air transportation, rail projects, and bicycle and pedestrian projects such as trails.  Enhances Federal and State Funding Possibilities: Having a relatively stable source of local funding provided by the dedicated tax, an RTA will be in a favorable position to have local matching funds. The FTA is favorable to applicants that have a stable source of funding since this generally leads to completed projects, which is very important to the FTA. The Regional Transportation Authority institutional structure has many advantages for implementing a public transit service and is now the institutional structure being used by the Roaring Fork Transportation Authority (RFTA) to operate transit service in the Roaring Fork Valley. The Gunnison Valley RTA originally was developed to support commercial aviation, but now also supports regional transit service in the county. The PPRTA allocates 90 percent of the revenue generated by its dedicated tax to roadway, bicycle, and pedestrian projects. The remaining 10 percent is used to support Mountain

Western San Luis Valley Transit Study: Final Report ‐ VI‐4 ‐ Metropolitan Transit which is a municipal transit system within the City of Colorado Springs’ Public Works Department. Mountain Metro now uses PPRTA funds to provide transit service to the local governments that have joined the RTA. The disadvantage to an RTA institutional structure is the development of the RTA which is described below.

 Development of an RTA: The development of a Regional Transportation Authority is time‐ consuming and labor‐intensive. Intergovernmental agreements must be made among the governmental agencies that wish to be a part of the RTA, research needs to be done to confirm the need for the RTA, public hearings need to be conducted, the RTA must be approved by the voters in each jurisdiction wanting to join the RTA, and the State of Colorado needs to certify the new RTA. Voters, by jurisdiction, must approve any tax or fee revenue to provide the funding needed to operate the RTA and its programs and services. The development of the PPRTA failed on the first try. It took over two years and the help of a large number of people to create the institution. A factor in the success was the funding for multiple modes. The Fort Collins area has made several attempts to establish an RTA which have failed primarily due to the reluctance of citizens in the area to increase taxation. Establishment of the RFTA required investment of significant time and money prior to the vote.

SUMMARY Table VI‐1 ranks each institutional alternative according to four factors—legal capability, revenue generation capacity, administrative impacts, and political acceptability. Legal capability refers to the existence of statutory authority. Revenue generation capacity refers to the capability of the institutional structure to generate adequate funding relative to the projected subsidy requirements. Administrative impacts refer to the level of effort involved in implementing the institutional structure and the ability to provide coordinated service throughout the region. Political acceptability refers to the likelihood of an organizational structure being accepted by the public and local governments.

Table VI-1: Institutional Alternatives Comparison Matrix Revenue Legal Generation Admin. Political Organizational Alternative Capability Capacity Impacts Acceptability Intergovernmental Agreements ‚ G ‚  Intergovernmental Transit Agency ‚ G ‚ ‚ Regional Transportation Authority    G Legend:  = strong/acceptable ‚ = moderate/satisfactory G = weak/unacceptable Source: LSC, 2019.

The first column (legal capability) in Table VI‐1 shows that all of the alternatives are permitted legally to some degree, with the Regional Transportation Authority (RTA) rated as having the strongest legal capacity. The second column (revenue generation capacity) indicates that an RTA has a strong ability to generate funding, while the funding ability of the other options is dependent on the participating

Western San Luis Valley Transit Study: Final Report ‐ VI‐5 ‐ entities. The third column (administrative impacts) shows that the RTA is rated strongly because it has administrative capabilities. The intergovernmental agreements and intergovernmental transit agency are rated as having moderate administrative impact. The fourth column (political acceptability) indicates that the intergovernmental agreements have a strong rating. The RTA has a weak political acceptability compared to the other institutional alternatives. As can be seen from the evaluation, the RTA has the greatest overall rating of the three organizational structures. However, while the RTA provides long‐term advantages, it is also more complex, takes longer to establish, and may not have broad community support. That being said, LSC recommends the Western San Luis Valley Transit Committee consider implementing either intergovernmental agreements or an intergovernmental transit agency in the short‐term horizon. At a later date once the new transit service has been implemented, the new entity should reevaluate if forming an RTA is feasible and worth pursuing.

Western San Luis Valley Transit Study: Final Report ‐ VI‐6 ‐ Chapter VII (This page intentionally left blank.)

Chapter VII: Transit Service Options

This Chapter describes a variety of different types of transit service, as well as transit service options for the Western San Luis Valley. In addition, this chapter identifies and describes capital needs, marketing and branding, service monitoring, and cooperation and collaboration efforts.

TYPES OF TRANSIT SERVICE The term “transit service” encompasses a wide range of service options. Traditionally, people think of transit service as buses operating on a strict schedule. A number of other transit service options exist such as demand‐response, fixed‐route, flex‐route, and commuter transportation.

Fixed-Route Service Fixed‐route service fits the popular description of a transit system with transit vehicles operating on specified routes and following set schedules. Specific bus stops are typically identified for the locations where passengers will be picked up and dropped off. Routes are usually laid out in either a radial or grid pattern. Fixed‐route service is particularly convenient for passengers without disabil‐ ities and non‐elderly passengers. Research has shown that fixed‐route passengers are willing to walk up to one‐quarter‐mile to reach a bus stop. Many small, rural communities, such as Saguache, Villa Grove, Center, and Del Norte, are walkable communities due to their small size, which makes fixed‐route service worth considering in the Western San Luis Valley. However, individuals with mobility impairments may have difficulty accessing a fixed‐route system. The advantages of fixed‐route service are that it can be provided at a relatively low cost on a per‐ passenger‐trip basis, schedule reliability is high since buses do not deviate from their routes, service does not require advance reservations, and service is easy to understand. The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) requires that communities with fixed‐route transit service also provide complementary paratransit service that operates, at a minimum, in a three‐quarter‐mile radius of each fixed route. Paratransit service is typically much costlier to operate than fixed‐route service because of the service’s characteristics. Fixed routes are established to meet the highest demand travel patterns, while paratransit service must serve many origins and destinations in a dispersed pattern. Therefore, fixed‐route operations lack the flexibility to meet the needs of passengers with any special requirements in low‐density

areas.

Western San Luis Valley Transit Study: Final Report ‐ VII‐1 ‐

Demand-Response Service Demand‐response transit service, frequently termed dial‐a‐ride, is characterized as door‐to‐door transit service scheduled by a dispatcher. With demand‐response service, advance reservations are typically required, although some immediate requests may be filled if time permits and if the service is particularly needed. The concept of demand‐response was originally developed in the early 1970s as an alternate form of public transportation for the general public. The original efforts proved to be more expensive than envisioned and did not attract the ridership that was forecast. As a result, demand‐response transit has been used almost exclusively in this country for elderly and disabled passengers. However, many communities are beginning to recognize the advantages of demand‐response service for low‐density areas with low levels of transit demand. Improved technology has led to improvements in dispatching and scheduling which has increased the

efficiency of demand‐response service and allows for real‐time dispatching.

Service Routes One concept that is being implemented in some communities as an alternative to fixed‐route or demand‐response service is the service route. A service route is essentially a fixed route specifically designed to serve the elderly and disabled. Typically, a service route winds through residential neighborhoods with high concentrations of elderly and disabled persons in a pattern that passes within one or two blocks of all houses. The service route also directly serves major destinations such as senior centers, commercial areas, and medical centers. However, the service route provides a higher in‐vehicle travel time and a longer wait for the bus than normally acceptable to the general public. The Bus in Butte, Montana and MET in Billings, Montana are examples of systems with successful service routes.

Flexible Routes Another alternative is flexible routes such as route‐deviation or checkpoint service. With flexible routes, transit vehicle dispatching and scheduling must be done carefully to ensure that vehicles are available to serve the designated stops at the scheduled times. To provide a reasonable amount of flexibility, a lenient definition of on‐time performance is typically used with a 10‐ to 15‐minute window at each designated stop.

Route Deviation With route deviation, transit vehicles follow a specific route, but can leave the route to serve demand‐response origins and destinations. The vehicles are required to return to the designated route within one block of the point of deviation to ensure that all intersections along the route are served. The passengers on the bus may have a longer travel time than for fixed‐route service and the service reliability is lower. However, ADA‐mandated complementary paratransit service is not necessary since the bus can deviate from the route to pick up disabled passengers.

Western San Luis Valley Transit Study: Final Report ‐ VII‐2 ‐

Checkpoint Service Under checkpoint service, the transit vehicles make periodic scheduled stops at major activity centers. The specific routes are not established between checkpoints, which allows the vehicles to provide demand‐ response service and alleviates the need for ADA‐mandated complementary paratransit service. Riders are picked up (typically at a reduced fare) at the checkpoints and are taken either to another checkpoint or to a demand‐ response specific destination. Service between the checkpoints does not require advance reservations. However, service from any other location on a demand‐response basis requires an advance reservation so that the vehicles can be scheduled for pick‐up and drop‐off. Checkpoint service offers an advantage over route deviation because there is no specified route for the vehicles to use. Checkpoint service requires only that the vehicle arrive at the next checkpoint within the designated time window.

Regional and Commuter Service With regional and commuter service, the route is primarily designed to link different communities for employment purposes. These communities may be within the same geographic area. In urban areas, this type of service is commonly known as express or limited express service. In rural areas, the regional and commuter service links communities across the study area with each other and with

communities outside the study area.

Ridesharing Ridesharing can take the form of carpooling, whereby two or more people take turns driving their personal vehicles from a common meeting point to a common destination. Vanpools are also a form of ridesharing. Vanpools can be operated by a paid driver or can be driven by vanpool participants. Vanpools are for larger groups of people going to a common destination or a small number of somewhat adjacent destinations. The pick‐up location also needs to be convenient to vanpool participants and convenient to the highway. A park‐and‐ride lot is a common starting point for vanpools. The cost of the vanpool is split between riders.

 Park‐and‐Ride Lot: A parking lot where people meet to share rides or to utilize transit service. The lot is generally well lit and has a place to wait for ridesharing partners or transit service under cover— for example, the lobby of a building or a bus shelter. Generally, there is no cost to park in the park‐and‐ride lot to encourage

ridesharing and transit usage.

Western San Luis Valley Transit Study: Final Report ‐ VII‐3 ‐

TRANSIT SERVICE OPTIONS Table VII‐1 presents the options for transit service in the Western San Luis Valley, including service operation information, ridership projections, and performance measures. These service options are presented as a menu for the Western San Luis Valley to pick from in order to create a transit system that best meets the needs of their constituents.

The types of transit service evaluated include:

 Bustang Outrider Service  Fixed‐Route Service – Hybrid (based on the existing Eagle Line Shuttle service model)  Fixed‐Route Service – Checkpoint  Demand Response Service

Bustang Outrider Service The Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT) has identified the corridor between Alamosa and Salida along Hwy. 285 as a possible future Bustang Outrider route. This service option, illustrated in Figure VII‐1, includes weekday service with one round‐trip per day. The route would operate northbound in the morning from Alamosa to Salida, and would operate southbound in the afternoon from Salida to Alamosa. In each direction, the route would serve a bus stop in Monte Vista, Center, and Saguache. The annual operating cost for this option is based on CDOT’s estimated cost to operate existing Bustang Outrider services, approximately $286 per hour.

Western San Luis Valley Transit Study: Final Report ‐ VII‐4 ‐

.0 per Hour Passengers Passengers 62 3.1 77 2.5 Trip Cost per Passenger- Annual Annual Passengers Cost Annual Annual Alamosa and Pueblo. and Alamosa tems in Colorado. in tems Operating Operating Days Annual Annual Operating Operating - Hours Revenue - Miles Revenue - Hours Revenue Total Daily Total Annual - Miles Revenue 2 322 10 16,744 520 52 $31,857 1,610 $19.79 3.1 1 424 10 22,048 520 52 $31,857 1,026 $31.05 2.0 1 322 9 33,488 884 104 $54,157 2,074 $26.11 2.3 1 322 9 16,744 442 52 $27,079 927 $29.23 2.1 1 161 5 16,744 520 104 $31,857 1,610 $19.79 3.1 1 424 10 44,096 1,040 104 $63,714 2,312 $27.56 2.2 1 217 5 22,568 520 104 $31,857 1,546 $20.61 3.0 1 210 5 54,600 1,170 260 $334,620 2,966 $112.84 2.5 # of # of Vehicles Required rts rts he at he at e e d and and tion ng ng ssenger. ssenger. ssenger. ssenger. ssenger. ssenger. te, and ida to any . Fixed- te, and . Fixed-route . Fixed-route enter, enter, enter, enter, Table VII-1:Table Transit OptionsService Continued . LSC's estimate takes into account ridership data between Alamosa and Salida on the existing Bustang Outrider service between between service Outrider Bustang existing the on Salida and Alamosa between data ridership account into takes estimate LSC's . for the other service options are estimated using data from the 2017 National Transit Database for comparable rural transit rural sys comparable for Database Transit National 2017 the datafrom using estimated are options service other the for Fixed-route service with one stop in stop one in with service Fixed-route Fixed-route service with one stop in Saguache, Saguache, in stop one with service Fixed-route Fixed-route service with one stop in Saguache, Saguache, in stop one with service Fixed-route Fixed-route service with one stop in Del Norte, Norte, Del in stop one with service Fixed-route Fixed-route service with one stop in Del Norte, Del stop one in with service Fixed-route Fixed-route service with one stop in Del Norte, Del stop one in with service Fixed-route ervice in Alamosa to any destination desired by passenger. Depa passenger. by desired destination any to Alamosa in ervice 1 round-trip per day (status quo Eagle Line Shuttle service) 2 round-trips per day. per round-trips 2 Salida, the Bustang Outrider service would stop in Monte Vista h 1 round-trip per day. day. per round-trip 1 h h 2 round-trips per day. 285 rve a couple of bus stops before heading northbound. One vehicl rve a couple of bus stops before heading northbound. One vehicl Alamosa at 2:00 p.m. 1 161 5 8,372 260 52 $15,929 675 $23.60 2.6 Alamosa to any destination desired by passenger. Departs Saguac Departs passenger. by desired destination any to Alamosa Alamosa to any destination desired by passenger. Departs Saguac Departs passenger. by desired destination any to Alamosa 2 round-trips per day. per round-trips 2 1 round-trip per day (status quo Eagle Line Shuttle service) h 2 round-trips per day. h 1 round-trip per day. all loop in Salida and serve a couple of bus stops before headi all loop in Salida and serve a couple of bus stops before headi :45 p.m. and 2:00 p.m. 2 322 10 33,488 1,040 104 $63,714 3,376 $18.87 3.2 2:00 p.m. Fixed-route service with one stop in Saguache, Center, Del Nor Del Center, Saguache, in stop one with service Fixed-route . and departs Salida at 2:00 p.m. 1 217 5 11,284 260 52 $15,929 643 $24. p per day. The route would operate northbound in the morning an morning the in northbound operate would route The day. p per and Response Service in Salida to any destination desired by pa by desired destination any to Salida in Service Response and and Response Service in Salida to any destination desired by pa by desired destination any to Salida in Service Response and and Response Service in Salida to any destination desired by pa by desired destination any to Salida in Service Response and Fixed-route service with one stop in Saguache, Center, Del Nor Monte Vista. Demand Response Service in Alamosa to any destina da at 12:45pm and 2:00 p.m. 2 434 10 45,136 1,040 104 $63,714 3,248 $19. da at 12:45pm and 2:00 p.m. 2 434 10 22,568 520 52 $31,857 1,546 $20.61 3 he, KV Estates, and Villa Grove. Demand Response Service in Sal Fixed-route service with one stop in Del Norte, Monte Vista, C Vista, Monte Norte, Del in stop one with service Fixed-route Fixed-route service with one stop in Del Norte, Monte Vista, C Vista, Monte Norte, Del in stop one with service Fixed-route Service Description (Similar to ExistingShuttle) Line Eagle SB Route from Saguache to Alamosa operating 2 days per week wit week per days 2 operating Alamosa to Saguache from Route SB SB Route from Saguache to Alamosa operating 1 day per week with week per day 1 operating Alamosa to Saguache from Route SB 8:30 a.m. and 10:30 a.m., and departs Alamosa at 12:45 p.m. and southbound. One vehicle would operate 2 twodays Norte operating Salida to perfrom Del week. Route NB round-trips per day. Saguache, KV Estates, and Villa Grove. Route would operate a sm Monte Vista. Route would operate a small loop in Alamosa and se and Alamosa in loop a small operate would Route Vista. Monte would operate two round-trips per day. Monte Vista. Route would operate a small loop in Alamosa and se and Alamosa in loop a small operate would Route Vista. Monte would operate week. per days 2 two round-trips operating Alamosa to Saguache per from Route day.SB 8:30 a.m. and departs wit Alamosa week per at days 2:002 p.m. operating Alamosa to Saguache from Route SB Saguache, KV Estates, and Villa Grove. Route would operate a southbound.sm One vehicle week. per day 1 would operating Alamosa operate to Saguache from two Route round-tripsSB per day. Monte Vista, Center, Saguache, KV Estates, and Villa Grove. Dem Departs Del Norte at 8:00 a.m. and 10:00 a.m., and departs Sali Monte Vista, Center, Saguache, p.m. KV 2:00 Estates, at Salida departs and and a.m. Villa 8:00 Grove. at Norte Dem Del Departs 2 dayswit Norte operating Salida to perfrom Del week Route NB Departs Del Norte at 8:00 a.m. and 10:00 a.m., and departs Sali Monte Vista, Center, Saguache, KV Estates, and Villa Grove. Dem NB Route from Del Norte to Salida operating 2 dayswit Norte operating Salida to perfrom Del week Route NB Saguache, Center, Del Norte, and Monte Vista. Demand Response S Response Demand Vista. Monte and Norte, Del Center, Saguache, Saguache at 8:30 a.m. and 10:30 a.m., and departs Alamosa at 12 at Alamosa departs and a.m., 10:30 and a.m. 8:30 at Saguache NB Route from Del Norte to Salida operating 1 day per week. Center, Del Norte, and Monte Vista. Demand Response Service in Center, Del Norte, and Monte Vista. Demand Response Service in desired by passenger. Departs Saguache at 8:30 a.m. and departs and a.m. 8:30 at Saguache Departs passenger. by desired with week per day 1 operating Alamosa to Saguache from Route SB route service with one stop in Saguache, Center, Del Norte, and Norte, Del Center, Saguache, in stop one with service route service with one stop in Del Norte, Monte Vista, Center, Saguac Center, Vista, Monte Norte, Del in stop one with a.m service 8:00 at Norte Del Departs passenger. by desired destination NB Route from Del Norte to Salida operating 1 day per week with Saguache. NB Route from Del Norte to Salida operating 1 day per week with Bustang Outrider service operating on weekdays with 1 round-tri would operate southbound in the afternoon. Between Alamosa and Fixed-Route Service - Hybrid Fixed-Route Service Fixed-Route Notes: costs Operating hour. per $286 at approximately cost a of operate currently services Outrider Bustang the According to CDOT, - - CDOT estimated rthe idership for the Bustang Outrider service along the Gunbarrel Corridor to be 1,159 annual passenger-trips annual Corridor 1,159 tobe Gunbarrel the along service Outrider Bustang the for idership rthe estimated CDOT - 2019. LSC Source: Bustang Outrider Service between Alamosa and Salida along Hwy.

Western San Luis Valley Transit Study: Final Report ‐ VII‐5 ‐

per Hour Passengers Passengers Trip Cost per Passenger- Annual Annual Passengers Cost Annual Annual Alamosa and Pueblo. and Alamosa tems in Colorado. in tems Operating Operating Days Annual Annual Operating Operating - Hours Revenue - Miles Revenue - Hours Revenue Total Daily Total Annual Total - Miles Revenue 12 2001 4002 2001 10 4002 20 10,400 2001 10 20,800 4002 520 20 20,800 1,040 2001 10 41,600 1,040 4002 20 31,200 2,080 52 200 10 62,400 52 1,560 400 104 20 41,600 3,120 104 10 83,200 $27,248 2,080 $54,496 156 20 52,000 $54,496 4,160 104,000 156 $108,992 2,600 1,040 208 2,080 5,200 $81,744 2,080 208 $163,489 4,160 260 $108,992 $26.20 260 3,120 $26.20 $217,985 6,240 $26.20 $136,241 $26.20 4,160 $272,481 8,320 $26.20 2.0 2.0 $26.20 5,200 10,400 2.0 $26.20 2.0 $26.20 2.0 $26.20 2.0 $26.20 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 1 3221 9 16,744 322 442 9 33,488 52 884 $27,079 104 1,479 $54,157 $18.31 3,135 3.3 $17.28 3.5 1 424 10 22,048 520 52 $31,857 1,676 $19.01 3.2 1 424 10 44,096 1,040 104 $63,714 3,560 $17.90 3.4 # of # of Vehicles Required ection to Salida and Alamosa. - - are are are are ng ng . One . One . One . One e, and e, and round two two round two nter, nter, cle. cles. cle. cles. cle. cles. cle. cles. cle. cles. Table VII-1: Transit Service Options Continued Options Service Transit VII-1: Table . LSC's estimate takes into account ridership data between Alamosa and Salida on the existing Bustang Outrider service between between service Outrider Bustang existing the on Salida and Alamosa data between into account ridership takes estimate LSC's . for the other service options are estimated using data from the 2017 National Transit Database for comparable rural transit sys rural comparable for Database Transit National 2017 the data from using estimated are options service other the for ommunities along the Gunbarrel, Hwy. 112 and Hwy. 160, and conn rve a couple of bus stops before heading northbound. Passengers rve a couple of bus stops before heading northbound. Passengers e for pick-up or drop-off at other destinations along the route along the or destinations drop-off e other forat pick-up e for pick-up or drop-off at other destinations along the route along the or destinations drop-off e other forat pick-up all loop in Salida and serve a couple of bus stops before headi before stops bus of a couple serve and Salida in loop all all loop in Salida and serve a couple of bus stops before headi before stops bus of a couple serve and Salida in loop all Checkpoint service with one stop in Saguache, Center, Del Nort Del Center, Saguache, in stop one with service Checkpoint t other destinations along the route. One vehicle would operate t other destinations along the route. One vehicle would operate Checkpoint service with one stop in Saguache, Center, Del Nort Del Center, Saguache, in stop one with service Checkpoint Checkpoint service with one stop in Del Norte, Monte Vista, Ce Vista, Monte Norte, Del in stop one with service Checkpoint Checkpoint service with one stop in Del Norte, Monte Vista, Ce Vista, Monte Norte, Del in stop one with service Checkpoint Service Description Service between 8:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. (10 hours per day) with 1 vehi 1 with day) per hours (10 p.m. 6:00 and a.m. 8:00 between vehi 2 with day) per hours (10 p.m. 6:00 and a.m. 8:00 between vehi 1 with day) per hours (10 p.m. 6:00 and a.m. 8:00 between vehi 2 with day) per hours (10 p.m. 6:00 and a.m. 8:00 between vehi 1 with day) per hours (10 p.m. 6:00 and a.m. 8:00 between vehi 2 with day) per hours (10 p.m. 6:00 and a.m. 8:00 between vehi 1 with day) per hours (10 p.m. 6:00 and a.m. 8:00 between vehi 2 with day) per hours (10 p.m. 6:00 and a.m. 8:00 between between 8:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. (10 hours per day) with 1 vehi 1 with day) per hours (10 p.m. 6:00 and a.m. 8:00 between vehi 2 with day) per hours (10 p.m. 6:00 and a.m. 8:00 between NB Route from Del Norte to Salida operating 1 day per week. Monte Vista. Route would operate a small loop in Alamosa and se and Alamosa in loop a small operate would Route Vista. Monte a or drop-off for pick-up advance in a reservation make to able Demand response 1 Demand day peroperating service week response 2 Demand daysoperating service per week response 2 Demand daysoperating service per week response 3 Demand daysoperating service per week response 3 Demand daysoperating service per week response 4 Demand daysoperating service per week response 4 Demand daysoperating service per week response 5 Demand daysoperating service per week response 5 Demand daysoperating service per week SB Route from Saguache to Alamosa operating 2 days week. per days 2 operating Alamosa to Saguache from Route SB response 1 Demand day peroperating service week trips per day. trips per day. Saguache, KV Estates, and Villa Grove. Route would operate a sm Monte Vista. Route would operate a small loop in Alamosa and se and Alamosa in loop a small operate would Route Vista. Monte a or drop-off for pick-up advance in a reservation make to able Saguache, KV Estates, and Villa Grove. Route would operate a sm southbound. Passengers are able to make a reservation in advanc in reservation a make to able are Passengers southbound. southbound. Passengers are able to make a reservation in advanc in reservation a make to able are Passengers southbound. vehicle would operate two round-trips per day. round-trips operate two would vehicle NB Route from Del Norte to Salida operating 2 days per week. vehicle would operate two round-trips per day. round-trips operate two would vehicle week. per day 1 operating Alamosa to Saguache from Route SB - CDOT estimated rthe idership for the Bustang Outrider service along the Gunbarrel Corridor to be 1,159 annual passenger-trips annual 1,159 Corridor to be Gunbarrel the along service Outrider Bustang the for idership rthe estimated CDOT - 2019. LSC Source: Notes: costs Operating hour. per $286 approximately at cost a of operate currently services Outrider Bustang the According to CDOT, - Fixed-Route Service - Checkpoint Demand Response Service - service in and between the West SLV c

Western San Luis Valley Transit Study: Final Report ‐ VII‐6 ‐

Fixed-Route Service – Hybrid This service option, presented in Figure VI‐2, is a hybrid of fixed‐route service and demand response service, and maintains the existing two routes operated by the Eagle Line Shuttle:

 The northbound route, operating from Del Norte to Salida, with one stop in Del Norte, Monte Vista, Center, Saguache, KV Estates, and Villa Grove. Once in Salida, transit service changes to demand response service with the transit vehicle driving passengers to their desired destinations.

 The southbound route, operating from Saguache to Alamosa, with one stop in Saguache, Center, Del Norte, and Monte Vista. Once in Alamosa, transit service changes to demand response service with the transit vehicle driving passengers to their desired destinations.

As presented in Table VII‐1, LSC prepared a variety of options in this category, including:  Fixed‐route transit service one day per week with one round‐trip per day.  Fixed‐route transit service one day per week with two round‐trips per day.  Fixed‐route transit service two days per week with one round‐trip per day.  Fixed‐route transit service two days per week with two round‐trips per day.

Western San Luis Valley Transit Study: Final Report ‐ VII‐7 ‐

Fixed-Route Service – Checkpoint As mentioned previously in this chapter, with checkpoint service specific bus stops are identified and the bus has a designated pick‐up time window at each stop, but the specific route is not established between checkpoints. Service between the checkpoints does not require advance reservations, but service from any other location on a demand‐response basis requires an advance reservation so that the vehicles can be scheduled for pick‐up and drop‐off. This service option maintains the existing northbound and southbound routes operated by the Eagle Line Shuttle:  For the northbound route, the bus would make one stop in Del Norte, Monte Vista, Center, Saguache, KV Estates, and Villa Grove, and then would operate a small loop in Salida and serve a couple of bus stops before heading southbound.  For the southbound route, the bus would make one stop in Saguache, Center, Del Norte, and Monte Vista, and then would operate a small loop in Alamosa and serve a couple of bus stops before heading northbound. For both routes, the transit vehicle would operate two round‐trips per day and passengers would be able to make a reservation in advance for pick‐up or drop‐off at other destinations along the route. As shown in Figure VII‐3, with a checkpoint transit service, the route map will illustrate the location of the bus stops service by the route, but will not show a designated route between the bus stops as there is no designated route between bus stops with a checkpoint transit service.

Western San Luis Valley Transit Study: Final Report ‐ VII‐8 ‐

Demand Response Service This service option, presented in Figure VII‐4, consists of demand response service along the Gunbarrel Corridor (Hwy. 285), Hwy. 112, and Hwy. 160, providing service to the communities that are represented by the Western San Luis Valley Transit Committee, as well as connection from those communities to Alamosa and Salida. As presented in Table VII‐1, LSC prepared a variety of options in this category, including service between one and three days per week and service operated by either one or two vehicles. In each of the options, the service would operate 10 hours per day, from 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m.

Western San Luis Valley Transit Study: Final Report ‐ VII‐9 ‐

CAPITAL NEEDS Transit Facility Requirements A major capital investment is the development of a vehicle maintenance and storage facility. The transit facility should accommodate bus storage, as well as provide administration office space. While having the entire vehicle fleet parked at a single location generally supports management and control of the fleet, in rural communities covering a large area of land, it can be helpful to have vehicles located at

different locations throughout the service area for ease of operations.

Transit Vehicles Depending on the service options selected for implementation, the number and types of transit vehicles required will differ.

Fixed-Route Vehicles For fixed‐route style services, LSC recommends a sprinter of cutaway style vehicle. These vehicles are smaller than traditional 35‐ or 40‐foot buses and work well in many rural areas.  Vehicle platform: sprinter or cutaway vehicle (7‐ year or 200,000‐mile min. useful life)  Capacity: 12 passengers plus 2 wheelchair positions  Fuel Type: could be gas or diesel, depending on manufacturer  Cost: approximately $90,000 per vehicle

Demand Response Vehicles For demand response service, LSC recommends an accessible minivan.

 Vehicle platform: Accessible minivan  Capacity: 3 passengers and 1 wheelchair position  Fuel Type: Gas  Cost: approximately $40,000 per vehicle

Western San Luis Valley Transit Study: Final Report ‐ VII‐10 ‐

Bus Stop Improvements With a new fixed‐route service, bus stop improvements will include new bus stop signs and/or shelters, as well as ensure that all bus stops are accessible to wheelchairs by meeting the baseline requirements of the Americans with Disability Act. If demand response service is selected bus stop improvements are not necessary. The cost for a new bus stop sign and post, including full installation costs for materials and labor, is approximately $500 per sign. Adding other amenities to bus stops, like shelters, benches, waste bins, etc. will add additional capital costs.

MARKETING AND BRANDING Marketing is important to disseminate transit service information to study area residents and visitors. For residents and commuters, the primary goal of marketing will be to ensure that they are aware of the service. Often, community members do not use transit because they are unaware that the service exists, or do not know how to find basic information about the service, such as fare rates and schedules. For a new transit service, one of the most important marketing approaches is to create a detailed transit service website that provides information on the types of transit service that are provided, route schedules, hours of operation, fare information, and contact information for the agency. Other key marketing approaches to consider include:

 Developing helpful printed and electronic resources for riders, like a rider’s guide/brochure with hours of operation, a map of the service area and/or route(s), how‐to‐ride information including fares, information on how to make a reservation (if applicable), and the cancellation policy (if applicable), and contact information for the agency, including phone number and website.

 Creating a branding campaign to enhance the agency’s image and increase visibility in the community, through use of a consistent name, logo, colors, and graphics in all promotional materials and on agency vehicles.

 Developing a bus stop sign that clearly identifies the stop and indicates which routes or services are served by that stop and displays the bus schedule(s) serving that stop. A well‐designed bus stop sign can help to increase public awareness and visibility.

 Creating a social media presence on Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, etc. Having direct links to the social media accounts on the website is very helpful to riders.

 Developing a series of “how‐to‐ride” videos on the website including how to board the bus using a wheelchair, how to pay using the farebox, appropriate bus etiquette, etc.

Western San Luis Valley Transit Study: Final Report ‐ VII‐11 ‐

 Conducting outreach to local schools/colleges, businesses, organizations, and community groups throughout the service area. In addition, having transit staff present at local community events like health fairs, veterans’ meetings, community fundraisers, etc. can help publicize the service.  It can also be beneficial to have staff take the bus as a “show and tell” way to connect with potential or new riders in rural areas that may not be familiar with public transportation.

 Creating a rider alert list that allows passengers to sign up for alerts via email or text message about service changes or disruptions, like service cancellation due to bad weather.  In the future, implementing a real‐time bus location application will allow passengers to be well informed and able to track the current location of their transit vehicle, as well as receive real‐time arrival predictions. Additional marketing strategies are available through the following resources:

 TCRP Report 50: A Handbook of Proven Marketing Strategies for Public Transit – a resource for transit agencies that identifies, describes, and assesses proven low‐cost and cost‐effective marketing techniques and strategies. The report is available for free on the Transit Research Board’s website: http://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/tcrp/tcrp_rpt_50‐a.pdf.

 TCRP Report 122: Understanding How to Motivate Communities to Support and Ride Public Transportation – a study exploring the methods and strategies used by public transportation agencies in the United States and Canada to enhance their public images and motivate the support and use of public transportation. The report also identifies effective communication strategies, campaigns, and platforms for motivating individuals to support public transportation, as well as ways to execute those communication strategies, campaigns, and platforms. The report is available for free on the Transit Research Board’s website: http://www.trb.org/Main/Public/Blurbs/159756.aspx.

 TCRP Report 168: Travel Training for Older Adults – a handbook presenting a comprehensive roadmap for designing a travel training program to meet the mobility needs of older persons. The report is available for free on the Transit Research Board’s website: http://www.trb.org/Publications/Blurbs/171323.aspx.

 National Rural Transit Assistance Program (National RTAP) Marketing Transit Toolkit – a resource designed as to be a comprehensive and practical guide for rural and tribal public transportation agencies to develop and implement successful marketing programs for their systems. The toolkit is available for free on their website: https://www.nationalrtap.org/Toolkits/Marketing‐Toolkit/Welcome .  National RTAP Web Builder – a free tool to help transit agencies make improvements to their websites. More information can be found at their website: http://www.nationalrtap.org/Web‐Apps/Website‐Builder.

Western San Luis Valley Transit Study: Final Report ‐ VII‐12 ‐

SERVICE MONITORING System Performance Measurement LSC recommends closely monitoring the new transit system’s performance and quality. A monitoring program is essential to determine the efficiency and effectiveness of the service being provided. Monthly reports (including information on productivity measures and cost information) should be created and presented to a Transportation Advisory Committee. In addition, a rider survey should be conducted at a minimum every other year. Metrics to track should include:

 Miles by bus and by route reported daily  Hours by bus and by route reported daily  One‐way passenger‐trips by bus, by route, and by passenger type  Fares collected by bus, by route, and by fare type  Vehicle breakdowns that require a road call or vehicle replacement  Accidents and incidents Productivity measures should indicate the number of passengers per revenue‐hour and passengers per revenue‐mile by service area. The actual productivity should be compared with system standards. In order to monitor productivity, it is essential that passenger ridership data continue to be collected on an ongoing basis. The simplest approach for collecting the ridership data is to equip each vehicle with manual counting devices that allow the drivers to register each passenger who boards by the appropriate fare category. The ridership data should be collected by route and not by vehicle, so that each route can be compared to the whole system. When a vehicle moves from route to route, the count should return to zero. Hence, runs should also be counted individually. This will allow the new transit service to track demand not only by route, but also by time (peak hours and off‐peak hours). Cost information should include the cost per passenger, cost per revenue‐mile, ridership, and average fare. The data should be collected and tracked based on each route of the transit system. The monthly reports on productivity and costs should be prepared in spreadsheet or database format to analyze each bus stop, route, and service type. The data will help to evaluate ridership patterns and operating cost trends, and determine if transit system changes are needed.

Driver Monitoring Program Service can also be monitored through a driver tracking program. The drivers use a tracking sheet to gather data for evaluating the transit system’s performance. The tracking sheet is designed to have the driver log in the number of passengers on each bus at each location; the number of agency, wheelchair, and discounted‐fare clients; and the starting and ending mileage of the vehicle for each day. The information from the tracking sheet should be entered into a spreadsheet or database to analyze the performance of each bus stop, route, and service type.

Comment Cards and Boxes LSC recommends that the new transit service provide comment cards and comment boxes on each transit vehicle so the passengers have an opportunity to provide input regarding the transit system.

Western San Luis Valley Transit Study: Final Report ‐ VII‐13 ‐

COOPERATION AND COLLABORATION EFFORTS Cooperative Working Relationships Many successful transit programs have worked in cooperation with other transportation programs. In some cases, these have included working with other transit programs to coordinate schedules, allow transfers between systems, or establish a consolidated transit service. Cooperation and coordination of services have allowed rural transit providers to pool existing resources and leverage those financial resources to obtain additional funding. Coordinated efforts result in greater efficiency in delivering service and often allow for a greater service area.

Participation in State and National Organizations Participation in state, regional, and national organizations gives transit staff access to many resources. Agencies that have established successful transit programs often have been involved in these outside organizations. Attendance at conferences and transiting programs helps transit personnel develop the skills and expertise necessary to operate a successful system. Interaction with other transit providers is another benefit of participating in these organizations. The peer‐to‐peer connections that are established serve as a resource for transit programs to increase expertise and obtain informal assistance. LSC recommends participation in the following regional, state, and national organizations:  San Luis Valley Development Resources Group  Colorado Association of Transit Agencies  South West Transit Association  Community Transportation Association of America  American Public Transportation Association

San Luis Valley Development Resources Group The San Luis Valley Development Resources Group (SLVDRG) serves as the coordinating agency for the San Luis Valley Transportation Planning Region (SLV TPR), an area that includes the Alamosa, Chaffee, Conejos, Costilla, Mineral, Rio Grande, and Saguache counties. The role of the SLV TPR is to facilitate regular communication between the Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT) and local government and private parties in the planning region, including:  Planning quarterly meetings of the SLVTPR  Enabling public input into state transportation planning and projects  Maintaining a record of meetings  Attending local, regional and state meetings on transportation issues  Keeping TPR members informed of transportation project status and funding opportunities

Western San Luis Valley Transit Study: Final Report ‐ VII‐14 ‐

In addition, the SLVDRG formed the San Luis Valley Regional Transit Council (SLVRTC) in 2015 as a vehicle to address issues and concerns regarding transit services in the San Luis Valley. The SLVRTC began as an informal group with the following goals:  Organize and establish the SLVRTC with the objective of establishing collaborative decision making; establish suitable meeting time and location, as well as general protocols for conducting the meetings; make participants aware of each other’s roles, transportation services, and needs; find areas of common ground; identify any concerns of participants about the project; find consensus on the goals and objectives.  Assess current transit services; identify service gaps; identify funding sources and how they are used; identify areas where increased coordination might benefit participants; identify how long‐distance trip needs are being met and how they might be improved; obtain information from similar regions’ projects and successes via speaking presentations.  Create a directory of transit services for online or print publication; develop a list of optional strategies for improving services, coordination and collaboration.  Make recommendations on how to improve coordination among participants; identify future transit goals, issues or projects. LSC encourages the Western San Luis Valley Transit Committee to continue working with SLVDRG and SLVRTC, especially as part of implementing any new transit services. Many of the transit service options LSC has developed for the Western San Luis Valley could also work well in other parts of the San Luis Valley.

Colorado Association of Transit Agencies Founded in 1985, the Colorado Association of Transit Agencies (CASTA) represents transit interests and provides professional development to the transit community. Membership includes Colorado transit providers, transit‐related businesses, and governmental entities. CASTA’s mission is to ensure that all Colorado residents and visitors enjoy safe, convenient, affordable, and accessible public transportation. Transit in Colorado plays a significant role in promoting the economic vitality and environmental leadership of the state.

South West Transit Association The South West Transit Association (SWTA) is a regional transit association serving eight states: Arizona, Arkansas, Colorado, Kansas, Louisiana, Oklahoma, New Mexico, and Texas. SWTA’s mission is to “provide a community of education, communication, and advocacy to strengthen our members and their ability to better provide public transportation services and products in the communities they serve.” While the South West Transit Association certainly embraces such standard values as integrity, excellence, honesty, accountability, diversity, and innovation, our planning process identified additional values that make SWTA unique. SWTA values a set of traditional ideals including integrity, excellence, honesty, accountability, diversity, and innovation, as well as a set of values that are unique to SWTA, including:  SWTA’s regional nature and strength  SWTA’s culture of friendliness, approachability, and enthusiastic idea sharing

Western San Luis Valley Transit Study: Final Report ‐ VII‐15 ‐

 SWTA’s ability to provide more personal and customized services to members  SWTA’s no‐frills, economical, and efficient member services  SWTA’s ability to have fun and not always take themselves seriously Some of the Colorado transit agencies that are SWTA members include:

 City of Cripple Creek  San Miguel Authority for Regional Transportation  Mesa County Regional Transportation Planning Office  Colorado Department of Transportation  Colorado Association of Transit Agencies  Denver Regional Transportation District  Roaring Fork Transportation Authority  Mountain Metropolitan Transit

The Community Transportation Association of America The Community Transportation Association of America (CTAA) and its members believe that mobility is a basic human right. From work and education to life‐sustaining health care and human services programs to shopping and visiting with family and friends, mobility directly impacts quality of life. CTAA members are in the business of moving people ‐ efficiently and cost‐effectively. CTAA staff, board and state/tribal delegates are dedicated to ensuring that all Americans, regardless of age, ability, geography or income, have access to safe, affordable, and reliable transportation. CTAA is committed to providing the highest quality training, certification, and education services to its members and to the community and public transportation industry. Since 1988, CTAA has pioneered training and certification programs that have enabled community transportation systems to grow and develop.

American Public Transportation Association The American Public Transportation Association (APTA) is a non‐profit international association of more than 1,500 public and private sector member organizations. APTA is the only association in North America that represents all modes of public transportation, including bus, paratransit, light rail, commuter rail, subways, waterborne services, and intercity and high‐speed passenger rail. APTA offers the following benefits to members: advocacy for federal funding and policies, research, technical expertise and consulting services, workforce development programs, educational conferences and seminars, and 135 subject‐matter working committees. APTA’s members represent every aspect of the industry, from planning, designing, financing, constructing, and operating transit systems to the research, development, manufacturing, and maintenance of vehicles, equipment, and transit‐related products and services. In addition, APTA members also represent academic institutions, transportation network companies, transit associations, and state departments of transportation.

Western San Luis Valley Transit Study: Final Report ‐ VII‐16 ‐ Chapter VIII (This page intentionally left blank.) Chapter VIII: Funding Alternatives and Financial Plan

This chapter provides a thorough evaluation of possible federal, state, and local funding sources for public transportation in the Western San Luis Valley, as well as a five-year transit financial plan and implementation timeline. FUNDING ALTERNATIVES This section presents potential federal, state, and local funding alternatives for transit services within the Western San Luis Valley. Federal Funding Sources Descriptions of federal funding programs that could potentially be used for regional transit service in the study area are listed below:

FTA Section 5310 Enhanced Mobility of Seniors and Individuals with Disabilities This program is intended to improve mobility for seniors and individuals with disabilities by removing barriers to transportation service and expanding transportation mobility options. This program supports transportation services planned, designed, and carried out to meet the special transportation needs of seniors and individuals with disabilities in all areas—large urbanized (with a population over 200,000), small urbanized (with a population between 50,000-200,000), and rural (with a population under 50,000). Eligible projects include both traditional capital investment and nontraditional investment beyond the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) complementary paratransit services. This program allows states or localities that provide transit service to be direct recipients under this program. Funding for this program is approximately $278 million authorized for FY 2019, with non- urbanized areas receiving approximately $56 million (20 percent). In Colorado, the Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT) is the direct recipient for Section 5310 funds apportioned for rural, small urban, and the Denver urban areas and distributes these funds to eligible grant partner organizations. Eligible grant partners include private non-profit organizations, governmental authorities where no non-profit organizations are available to provide service, and governmental authorities approved to coordinate services. As part of the FY 2019 funding cycle, CDOT determined that Section 5310 operating funds are no longer eligible in rural parts of the state due to lack of funding. Rural areas in Colorado with less than 50,000 population can apply for Section 5310 funds for mobility management services, including 1) Operating a transportation brokerage to coordinate service providers; 2) Providing information and referral services and/or resources 3) Operating one-call one-click systems and/or call centers 4) Supporting local partnerships that coordinate transportation services (R/LCC’s); 5) Staffing for the development and implementation of coordination plans; and 6) Providing travel training and trip planning activities. Applications for 5310 funding are available online on COTRMAS (Colorado Transit & Rail Awards Management System) on an annual basis. Once all applications have been received, CDOT convenes an Inter-Agency Evaluation Committee to provide input to the process. Applicant merit scoring is based on: 30 percent financial need, 30 percent service need, and 40 percent coordination/performance effort. For FY 2019, CDOT allocated $300,000 to rural mobility management and the application period was open from April 27, 2018 through June 15, 2018. Projects funded in this category require a 20 percent local match.

Western San Luis Valley Transit Study: Final Report - VIII-1 - In the fall of 2018, CDOT announced that $370,000 in 5310 funds would be available for rural areas, $360,000 in 5310 funds would be available for small urban areas, and $660,000 in 5310 funds would be available for large urban areas to complete transit capital projects initiated in 2019. For FY 2019, the application period for capital 5310 funds was open from October 19, 2018 through December 7, 2018. A 20 percent local match is required for capital funding.

FTA Section 5311 Formula Grants for Rural Areas The Formula Grants for Rural Areas program provides capital, administrative, and operating assistance to states to support public transportation in rural areas with populations of less than 50,000, where many residents often rely on public transit to reach their destinations. The program also provides funding for state and national training and technical assistance through the Rural Transportation Assistance Program (5311(b)(3)), where funds are eligible for developing training, technical assistance, research, and related support services in rural areas. In addition, a portion of the funds are made available for the support of inter­city bus transportation (5311 (f)), in response to a long-term trend of national intercity bus carriers discontinuing routes in rural areas not served by an interstate highway. Sections 5311 and 5340 received approximately $716 million in authorized funding for FY 2019. In accordance with language in the FAST conference report apportionments for Section 5311 and Section 5340 were combined to show a single amount. Section 5311(b)(3) received approximately $12 million in authorized funding for FY 2019. CDOT is the direct recipient for Section 5311 funds and distributes these funds competitively to eligible grant partner organizations. Eligible organizations include state or local government authorities, nonprofit organizations, and operators of public transportation or intercity bus service. Eligible activities include planning, capital, operating, job access and reverse commute projects, and the acquisition of public transportation services. CDOT requires applicants for Section 5311 funds to meet a variety of eligibility criteria, including:

• Operate a general public demand response or fixed route service in rural regions of Colorado; • CDOT will fund operations for year-round services that operate a minimum of three days per week; • Agencies providing service must certify that they comply with all federal and state regulations by signing annual Certifications & Assurances; • Agencies will comply with federal drug & alcohol testing regulations and report results on an annual basis; and, • Agencies shall draft and maintain the following plans and/or policies: Title VI plan, LEP plan, asset management plan, drug and alcohol policies and procedures, procurement policies and procedures, service plan, and ADA plan (when applicable). CDOT expects that new applicants will have recently completed a study that demonstrates the need for transit service and that explores alternatives for expanding service under an existing transit provider. The applicant will also need to provide operational plans and a multi-year budget that forecasts operational, administrative, and capital expenses along with a long-term funding source. Applications for 5311 funding are available online on COTRMAS on an annual basis. CDOT’s projected allocation for Section 5311 funds for FY 2019 included $8.2 million for 5311 Administration and Operating, and $2 million for FASTER Local Operating. CDOT indicated that operating funds not

Western San Luis Valley Transit Study: Final Report - VIII-2 - awarded during the application process will be available in the fall for the capital call for projects. For FY 2019, the application period was open from April 27, 2018 through June 15, 2018. For FY 2019, the following two application types were available for 5311 funding for rural agencies:

• 5311 – General Public Rural Operating/Admin.: This funding is for rural agencies (less than 50,000 population) who provide transit service that is available to the general public. Agencies may seek administrative (reimbursed up to 80 percent of eligible costs) and operating (reimbursed up to 50 percent of eligible costs) funding. In spring 2018, CDOT’s Transportation Commission approved an updated funding distribution methodology for the 5311 program that will be used for FY 2019. In the application, each agency is asked to enter the amount of funding eligible to the agency in 2019, and then provide a budget to match this amount. o CDOT’s New Funding Distribution Methodology: The new methodology consists of dividing available operating funds into two pools: the “Base” pool (Section 5311 funds, approximately $8.2 million) and the “Equity” pool ($2 million in FASTER funds). For the “Base” pool, agencies are divided into five categories based on the size of an agency, and depending on the agency’s size, the agency would be eligible to receive a base award up to a specific percentage of their operating budget, known as their budget factor. Agencies in the Very Small category will receive a base award equal to 50 percent of their operating budget, while agencies in the Large category will receive a base award to 14 percent of their budget. Funds in the “Equity” pool are allocated according to the demographic factors that represent transit need. Providers that have a greater number of transit dependent individuals within their service area will receive a higher award. • 5311 – Purchased Transit Services for General Public Rural Operating. This funding is for rural agencies (less than 50,000 population) who contract out all of their operating service. In this application, agencies will be required to enter information about the contractor/subcontractor, such as the name of the provider, type of service provided, location of service and estimated contract amount. In the fall of 2018, CDOT announced that $1 million in 5311 funds would be available for rural areas to complete transit capital projects initiated in 2019. For FY 2019, the application period for capital 5311 funds was open from October 19, 2018 through December 7, 2018. A 20 percent local match is required for capital funding.

FTA Section 5339 Bus and Bus Facilities Program This program makes federal funds available to states and designated recipients to replace, recover, and purchase buses and related equipment and to construct bus-related facilities including technological changes or innovations to modify low or no-emission vehicles or facilities. Funding is provided through formula allocations and competitive grants. A sub-program provides competitive grants for bus and bus facility projects that support low and zero-emission vehicles. Available funding under this program for FY 2019 was $610 million. CDOT is the direct recipient for Section 5339 formula funds apportioned for rural and small urban areas of the state and distributes these funds competitively to eligible grant partner organizations. Eligible organizations include public agencies or private nonprofit organizations engaged in public transportation.

Western San Luis Valley Transit Study: Final Report - VIII-3 - In the fall of 2018, CDOT announced that $1.9 million in 5339 funds would be available for small urban areas and $5.3 million in 5339 funds would be available for rural areas to complete transit capital projects initiated in 2019. For FY 2019, the application period for capital 5339 funds was open from October 19, 2018 through December 7, 2018. A 20 percent local match is required for capital funding.

Other Federal Funds The US Department of Transportation funds other programs including the Research and Special Programs Administration (RSPA), and the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration’s State and Community Highway Grants Program funds transit projects that promote safety. A wide variety of other federal funding programs provide support for transportation programs for the elderly and handicapped, including: • Access to Jobs/Reverse Commute Program • Older Americans Act • Centers for Independent Living • Retired Senior Volunteer Program • Community Development Block Grants • Rural Development Loan Fund • Community Health Centers • Rural Housing and Economic Development • Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Grants Improvement Program • Senior Community Service Employment • Corporation for National Service, National Program Senior Service Corps • Social Services Block Grants • Dept. of Commerce, Economic • Special Education Transportation Development Administration • Supportive Housing for Persons with • Dept. of Education, Federal TRIO Programs Disabilities • Dept. of Justice Weed and Seed Program • Surface Transportation Program • Developmental Disabilities Basic Support • Temporary Assistance for Needy Families and Advocacy Grants • Transit Benefit Program • Head Start • Veterans’ Employment and Training • Housing Opportunities for Persons with Service, Homeless Veterans’ Reintegration AIDS Project • Job Training Partnership Act • Vocational Rehabilitation Grants • Medicaid • Workforce Investment Act Programs

The following federal funding opportunities are most applicable to the Western San Luis Valley:

Community Development Block Grants The Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) program supports a wide variety of community and economic development activities, with priorities determined at the local level. Some communities have used CDBG funds to assist in the construction of transportation facilities or for operating expenses and vehicle acquisition for community transportation services. Most CDBG funds are distributed on a formula basis to entitled cities, states, and urban counties. In addition, the Economic Development Initiative provides competitive grants and the Section 108 loan guarantee program underwrites commercial lending to carry out CDBG activities. In Colorado, the Department of Local Affairs administers the federal CDBG program for non- entitlement municipalities and counties to carry out community development activities. The funds must be used for activities that either benefit low- and moderate-income persons, or prevent or

Western San Luis Valley Transit Study: Final Report - VIII-4 - eliminate slums or blight. Entities eligible to apply for grants are limited to units of local governments, including counties. These entities may apply on behalf of nonprofits. The application deadline for 2019 CDBG funding consideration was February 15, 2019.

Community Health Centers This program supports primary health care centers in medically underserved areas, migrant communities, public housing sites, and at organizations providing medical care to homeless persons. Funds may be used to provide transportation services as necessary to provide health care services. Private nonprofit and public health agencies are eligible applicants.

Head Start Head Start is a program of comprehensive services for economically disadvantaged preschool children. Head Start grants are awarded directly to public or private non-profit organizations, including community-based organizations, faith-based organizations or for-profit agencies, to provide child development and education services, as well as supportive services such as transportation. Head Start funds are used to provide transportation services, acquire vehicles, and provide technical assistance to local Head Start centers. The same categories of organizations are eligible to apply for Early Head Start, except that applicants need not be from the community they will be serving.

Medicaid Medicaid is a program of medical assistance for qualified low-income persons and persons with disabilities. Under this program, states are required to arrange for transportation of beneficiaries to and from medical care. Individual states determine how transportation costs are to be paid and which transportation providers are eligible program participants.

Older Americans Act Through the Administration on Aging’s Title III-B program, funds are awarded on a formula basis to state and area agencies on aging for the purpose of providing supportive services for older persons, including the operation of multipurpose senior centers. Many area agencies on aging use these funds to help meet the transportation needs of older persons

Rural Development Loan Fund These loans finance business activities in rural communities and towns with a population of less than 25,000. Transportation facilities and other community development projects are among the eligible uses of borrowed funds. Some loans are made to direct borrowers; others are awarded to national and local nonprofit intermediaries. These intermediaries then make and service loans to individual borrowers.

Senior Community Service Employment Program This program, authorized by Title V of the Older Americans Act, provides formula grants to states and grants to national nonprofit organizations for subsidized employment, and related services for low- income elders. Transportation is among the services provided through this program.

Transit Benefit Program The “Transit Benefit Program” is a provision in the Internal Revenue Code (IRC) that permits an employer to pay for an employee’s cost to travel to work in other than a single-occupancy vehicle. The program is designed to improve air quality, reduce traffic congestion, and conserve energy by encouraging employees to commute by means other than single-occupancy motor vehicles.

Western San Luis Valley Transit Study: Final Report - VIII-5 - Veterans’ Employment and Training Service, Homeless Veterans’ Reintegration Project This is a program of discretionary grants to local public and private nonprofit organizations to provide employment and training services that help urban and rural homeless veterans re-enter the workforce. Funds may be used to provide transportation, outreach, and other support services.

State Transit Funding Sources Funding Advancement for Surface Transportation & Economic Recovery (FASTER) Senate Bill 09-108, also known as the Funding Advancements for Surface Transportation and Economic Recovery Act of 2009 (FASTER), allows the State of Colorado to improve roadway safety, repair deteriorating bridges, and support and expand transit. FASTER transit funds are split between local transit grants ($5 million annually) and statewide, interregional, and regional projects ($10 million annually). Local recipients are required to provide a minimum 20 percent local match. Among the types of projects that have been awarded are the purchase or replacement of transit vehicles, construction of multimodal stations, and acquisition of equipment for consolidated call centers.

Local Transit Funding Sources A variety of local funds are available in the study area. Examples of local support that could be used for transit include the following: voluntary assessments of municipalities; contributions by major business associations; and taxes (sales tax, lodging tax, property tax, fuel tax, real estate tax). Many local agencies benefit from business support in the form of advertising. These and other local funding sources are discussed below.

Fare Revenues Passenger fares are a key component of local transit funding. Table VIII-1 presents the existing passenger fare structure for the Eagle Line Shuttle. LSC recommends continuing to use this fare structure if any of the fixed route service options are selected by the Western San Luis Valley Transit Committee. If the fixed-route checkpoint service is selected, LSC recommends adding an additional fee for passengers wanting to make reservations. The fee does not need to be substantial, consider $2.00 per one-way trip. Table VIII-1: Eagle Line Shuttle Passenger Fares Round Trip Route Fare Price Northbound Route Del Norte - Salida $8.00 Monte Vista - Salida $8.00 Center - Salida $6.00 Saguache - Salida $6.00 KV Estates - Salida $4.00 Villa Grove - Salida $4.00 Southbound Route Saguache - Alamosa $6.00 Center - Alamosa $4.00 Del Norte - Alamosa $4.00 Monte Vista - Alamosa $2.00 Source: The Eagle Line Shuttle, 2019.

Western San Luis Valley Transit Study: Final Report - VIII-6 - University Pass Program Many college and university community transit services are funded through revenues from a University Pass (U-Pass) program. Typically, students are assessed a semester fee for transit services and are then able to ride the transit system without paying a fare each time. Faculty and staff may be charged a similar fee which gives them access as well. Some systems issue a pass and others accept the current student identification when boarding the bus. Many systems set the fee at a level to cover most or all of the operating cost of the transit service. Implementation of the fee may require a vote of students.

General Fund Appropriations Counties and municipalities appropriate funds for transit operations and maintenance and for transit capital needs. Monies to be appropriated generally come from local property taxes and sales taxes. Competition for such funding is tough and local governments generally do not have the capacity to undertake major new annual funding responsibilities for transit.

Advertising One modest but important source of funding for many transit services is on-vehicle advertising. The largest portion of this potential is for exterior advertising, rather than interior “bus card” advertising. The potential funds generated by advertising placed within the vehicles are comparatively low. Additionally, advertising on bus shelters has been used to pay for the cost of providing the shelter.

Voluntary Assessments This alternative requires each participating governmental entity (cities and counties) and private businesses to contribute to funding the system on a year-to-year basis. This alternative is common for areas that provide regional service rather than service limited to a single jurisdiction. An advantage of this type of funding is that it does not require voter approval. However, the funding is not steady and may be cut off at any time.

Private Support Financial support from private industry is essential to provide adequate transportation services in and around the study area. This financial support should continue even if an Regional Transportation Authority is established to ensure that adequate service is provided. Major employers in the study area are potential sources of revenue.

Transportation Impact Fees Traditional methods of funding transportation improvements required by new development raise questions of equity. Sales and property taxes are applied to both existing residents and to new residents attracted by development. However, existing residents then inadvertently pay for public services required by the new residents. As a means of correcting this inequity, many communities nationwide, faced with strong growth pressures, have implemented development impact fee programs that place a fee on new development equal to the costs imposed on the community. Previous work by the LSC Team indicates that the levy of impact fees on real estate development has become a commonplace tool in many areas to ensure that the costs associated with a development do not fall entirely on existing residents. Impact fees have been used primarily for highways and roads, followed by water and sewer projects. A program specifically for mass transit has been established in San Francisco.

Western San Luis Valley Transit Study: Final Report - VIII-7 - A number of administrative and long-term considerations must be addressed:

• It is necessary to legally ensure that the use on which the fees are computed would not change in the future to a new use with a high impact by placing a note restricting the use on the face of the plat recorded in public records. • The fee program should be reviewed annually. • The validity of the program, and its acceptability to the community, is increased if a time limit is placed on the spending of collected funds. • TIF funds need to be strictly segregated from other funds. The imposition of a TIF program could constrain capital funding sources developed in the future, as a new source may result in a double payment. • TIF fees should be collected at the time that a building permit is issued.

Lodging Tax The appropriate use of lodging taxes (a.k.a. occupancy taxes) has long been the subject of debate. Historically, the bulk of these taxes are used for marketing and promotion efforts for conferences and general tourism. In other areas, such as resorts, the lodging tax is an important element of the local transit funding formula. A lodging tax can be considered as a specialized sales tax, placed only on lodging bills. As such, it shares many of the advantages and disadvantages of a sales tax. Taxation of this type has been used successfully in Park City, Utah; Sun Valley, Idaho; Durango, Colorado; and Telluride, Colorado. A lodging tax creates inequities between different classes of visitors, as it is only paid by overnight visitors. Day visitors (particularly prevalent in the summer) and condominium/second homeowners, who may use transit as much as lodging guests, do not contribute to transit.

Sales Tax A sales tax could be implemented with funds to go to transit services. Sales tax is the financial base for many transit services in the western United States. The required level of sales tax would depend upon the service alternatives chosen. One advantage is that sales tax revenues are relatively stable and can be forecast with a high degree of confidence. In addition, sales tax can be collected efficiently, and it allows the community to generate revenues from visitors in the area. This source, of course, would require approval by voters. In addition, a sales tax increase could be seen as inequitable to residents not served by transit. This disadvantage could be offset by the fact that sales taxes could be rebated to incorporated areas not served by transit. Transit services, moreover, would face competition from other services that may seek to gain financial support through sales taxes.

Ad Valorem Property Taxes for Capital Projects Counties are authorized (Sec. 39-13-103) to impose property taxes for specific capital projects with voter approval.

Regional Transportation Authority Legislation adopted in 1997 and amended in the 2000 session (CRS Sec. 43-4-603) provides authority for Colorado municipalities and counties (outside the RTD area) to establish Regional Transportation Authorities (RTAs) (originally called Rural Transportation Authorities). With voter approval, RTAs are able to impose an annual vehicle registration fee of up to $10, charge a toll, levy a sales tax of up to one percent and/or a visitor benefit fee (fee added to the lodging rate within the area) of up to two

Western San Luis Valley Transit Study: Final Report - VIII-8 - percent of the price of overnight lodging. Local governments have considerable flexibility in designing the boundaries of RTAs, which may include all or a portion of the areas of participating jurisdictions. An RTA is a regional, multi-jurisdictional entity that becomes a separate subdivision of the state, but which operates pursuant to an intergovernmental agreement adopted by its member governments. A visitor benefit fee was added to the statute in the 2000 legislative session.

Special Districts Colorado local governments also may create a variety of local districts including special districts (CRS Sec. 32-1-101), service authorities (CRS Sec. 32-7-101), municipal general improvement districts (CRS Sec. 31-25-601), county public improvement districts (CRS Sec. 30-20-501), municipal special improvement districts (CRS Sec. 31-25-501), and county local improvement districts (CRS Sec. 30-20- 601). In general, these districts are funded from fees or property taxes, with the exception of the county improvement district, which, with voter approval, may levy a sales tax of up to 0.5 percent. In general, these districts are limited in their usefulness as mechanisms for funding transit systems, particularly in a multi-jurisdictional setting. Funding Summary Experience with transit systems across the nation underscores the critical importance of dependable (preferably dedicated) sources of funding if the long-term viability of transit service is to be assured. Transit agencies that are dependent upon annual appropriations and informal agreements have suffered from reduced ridership (because passengers are not sure if service will be provided from one year to the next), high driver turnover (contributing to low morale and a resulting high accident rate), and inhibited investment in both vehicles and facilities. The advantages of financial stability indicate that a mix of revenue sources is prudent. The availability of multiple revenue sources helps to avoid large swings in available funds which can lead to detrimental reductions in service. As the benefits of transit service extend over more than one segment of the community, dependence upon more than one revenue source helps to ensure that costs and benefits are equitably allocated. FINANCIAL PLAN This section presents a financial plan with projected expenditures and required revenues. While the Western San Luis Valley Transit Committee will need to work together to reach a decision on the type and amount of transit service to operate, LSC understands that this will happen after the completion of this study. As a result, we have prepared a potential financial plan that recommends implementing transit service in a two-phase approach, including: • Years 1-3: Operating a fixed-route checkpoint service with one northbound and one southbound roundtrip per week. • Years 4-5: Doubling the fixed-route checkpoint service to provide two northbound and two southbound roundtrips per week. Table VIII-2 presents the potential five-year transit financial plan, with the assumption of an annual three percent inflation rate. The three percent inflation rate takes into account historical trends for increases in transit operating expenses.

Western San Luis Valley Transit Study: Final Report - VIII-9 - Table VIII-2: Potential Five-Year Transit Financial Plan (assumed 3% inflation) Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 EXPENSES Operation Phase I Fixed-Route Service - Checkpoint NB Route operating 1 day per week $31,857 $32,813 $33,797 Fixed-Route Service - Checkpoint SB Route operating 1 day per week $27,079 $27,891 $28,728 Phase I Subtotal $58,936 $60,704 $62,525 $0 $0 Phase II Fixed-Route Service - Checkpoint NB Route operating 2 days per week $69,622 $71,711 Fixed-Route Service - Checkpoint SB Route operating 2 days per week $59,179 $60,954 Phase II Subtotal $0 $0 $0 $128,802 $132,666 Operation Subtotal $58,936 $60,704 $62,525 $128,802 $132,666 Capital Vehicle Purchase (1) $90,000 Vehicle Purchase (1) $98,345 Bus Stop Signs (10) $5,000 Capital Subtotal $95,000 $0 $0 $98,345 $0 TOTAL EXPENSES $153,936 $60,704 $62,525 $227,147 $132,666 REVENUES Operation FTA 5311 Operational Grant Funding^ $37,159 $38,274 $39,422 $81,209 $83,646 Passenger Fares (3% Recovery Rate) $1,768 $1,821 $1,876 $3,864 $3,980 Local Match $20,009 $20,609 $21,227 $43,728 $45,040 Operation Subtotal $58,936 $60,704 $62,525 $128,802 $132,666 Capital FTA 5311 Capital Grant Funding* $80,500 $0 $0 $83,594 $0 Local Match $14,500 $0 $0 $14,752 $0 Capital Subtotal $95,000 $0 $0 $98,345 $0 TOTAL REVENUES $153,936 $60,704 $62,525 $227,147 $132,666 Total Annual Local Match Required $34,509 $20,609 $21,227 $58,480 $45,040 ^Up to a 65% federal share w as estimated for operations. *An 85% federal share w as estimated for vehicles and an 80% federal share w as estimated for bus stops. Source: LSC, 2019.

The five-year transit financial plan incorporates the following elements: Revenues The financial plan identifies the revenues required in order to operate LSC’s recommended transit services and procure the necessary capital equipment. As shown in Table VIII-2, FTA 5311 Operational and Capital Grants will serve as the main funding sources, with the new transit service providing the required local match. Capital Expenses Capital expenses include the following:

• Vehicle purchases: one vehicle will be needed when transit service begins in Year 1 and a second vehicle should be purchased in Year 3 to be used as a spare or in case two routes operate on the same day. • Bus stop signs: the financial plan includes the cost for 10 bus stop signs. This number may need to be adjusted based on the Western San Luis Valley Transit Committee’s determination of bus stops. The five-year transit financial plan does not include the cost to build or purchase a transit facility, but an important consideration for the Western San Luis Valley Transit Committee to discuss is where the bus will be stored. The preferred alternative, especially in a cold and snowy climate like Colorado has,

Western San Luis Valley Transit Study: Final Report - VIII-10 - is to store the vehicle inside. This could be done by partnering with a city or county municipal office, or a service organization in the study area. However, in the early years of operation, it may be necessary to store the vehicle outside, while longer-term discussions and analysis take place on where to locate a permanent vehicle storage location. IMPLEMENTATION TIMELINE Figure VIII-1 presents a timeline for potential implementation. Adjustments may be necessary as implementation proceeds because of changes in services to be operated based on the Western San Luis Valley Transit Committee’s future discussions, possible funding sources, or other unforeseen circumstances.

Figure VIII-1: Timeline of Implementation Steps

•Western San Luis Valley Transit Committee decides on the transit agency governance structure and sets up the new transit agency •Develop agency policies and procedures Prior to Year 1 •Finalize operating plan and adopt a budget •Submit CDOT funding application for operating and capital •Develop local match funding sources and necessary funding partnerships

•Begin Phase 1 Transit Service Year 1 •Purchase New Vehicle and Bus Stop Signs

Year 2 •Continue Phase 1 Transit Service

Year 3 •Continue Phase 1 Transit Service

•Begin Phase 2 Transit Service Year 4 •Purchase Second Vehicle

Year 5 •Continue Phase 2 Transit Service

Long-Term •Consider purchasing/building a transit facility

Western San Luis Valley Transit Study: Final Report - VIII-11 - (This page intentionally left blank.) Appendix A (This page intentionally left blank.) WESTERN SAN LUIS VALLEY COMMUNITY TRANSPORTATION SURVEY Dear Western San Luis Valley Resident: Please take a few minutes to answer the following questions about your personal/household transportation needs. Your answers will help identify the transportation needs of the Western San Luis Valley. To return the survey, you may: Fill it out online at: https://surveynuts.com/westslv Scan and email it to: Megan at [email protected] Mail it to: LSC Transportation Consultants, 545 E. Pikes Peak Ave. Suite 210, Colorado Springs, CO 80903 Fax it to: 719-633-5430 Please complete the survey only once, either paper OR online. 1. Which of the following types of transportation does your household currently use and how often? 6-7 3-5 1-2 1-3 Less than

Days/ Days/ Days/ Days/ Once/

Week Week Week Month Month Never

Your personal vehicle ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ Borrow a vehicle ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ Ride from a friend/relative ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐

Walk / Bicycle ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐

The Chaffee Shuttle / Eagle Line ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ Taxi ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ Red Willow ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐

Veteran Transportation Service ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐

CDOT Bustang Outrider Service between ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ Alamosa, Salida, Pueblo, and Denver 2. In which community do you live? ☐ Saguache ☐ Center ☐ Del Norte ☐ Monte Vista ☐ Other - specify your zip code: ______

3. What is your age? ☐ Under 16 years old ☐ 17–24 years old ☐ 25-34 years old ☐ 35-44 years old ☐ 45-54 years old ☐ 55-64 years old ☐ 65-74 years old ☐ 75 years old or older

4. Are you: (Check all that apply) ☐ Employed Full-Time ☐ Employed Part-Time ☐ Unemployed ☐ Retired ☐ Student ☐ Other – please specify: ______

5. What is your total annual HOUSEHOLD income? (Include all income from all household members) ☐ Less than $19,999 per year ☐ $20,000-$39,999 per year ☐ $40,000-$59,999 per year ☐ $60,000-$79,999 per year ☐ $80,000-$99,999 per year ☐ $100,000 or more per year

6. Including yourself, how many people, age 10 and over, live in your household? ☐ One ☐ Two ☐ Three ☐ Four ☐ Five ☐ Six or more

7. Including yourself, how many people living in your household have a valid driver’s license? ☐ None ☐ One ☐ Two ☐ Three ☐ Four ☐ Five ☐ Six or more

8. How many operating vehicles are available to your household? ☐ None ☐ 1 Vehicle ☐ 2 Vehicles ☐ 3 Vehicles ☐ 4 or more Vehicles

9. Do you or a household member who needs transportation have a disability, health concern, or other issue that makes travel difficult? ☐ No ☐ Yes – please specify, e.g. “I use a wheelchair”: ______

10. In the last 2 years, have you or a member of your household been unable to access medical care due to lack of transportation? ☐ No ☐ Yes – please describe: ______

11. In the last 2 years, have you or a member of your household lost a job, dropped out of school, or had problems finding work due to lack of transportation? ☐ No ☐ Yes – please describe: ______

12. Would you or a member of your household use public transportation, such as a local bus or shuttle, if available and going where and when you need to go? (Check all that apply) ☐ Yes, would use public transportation within the San Luis Valley (please continue with questions 13-17) ☐ Yes, would use public transportation outside the San Luis Valley (please continue with questions 18-22) ☐ No, would not use public transportation (please skip to question 23) Please Continue on the Opposite Side

Questions about public transportation needs within the San Luis Valley: 13. To which areas inside the San Luis Valley would you or your household use public transportation to reach? (Check all that apply) ☐ Saguache ☐ Center ☐ Del Norte ☐ Monte Vista ☐ Salida ☐ Alamosa ☐ South Fork ☐ Other – please specify: ______

14. What are the top three reasons your household would use public transportation within the San Luis Valley? ☐ Work ☐ Personal Business ☐ School/College ☐ Doctor/Medical/Health Care ☐ Shopping ☐ Recreation ☐ San Luis Valley Regional Airport

15. If available and going where and when you need to go, how often would your household use public transportation within the San Luis Valley? ☐ 6-7 Days/Week ☐ 3-5 Days/Week ☐ 1-2 Days/Week ☐ 1-3 Days/Month ☐ Less than Once/Month

16. The current passenger fare rate for the Eagle line is about $0.07 per mile. Using this rate, do you think the following is an appropriate fare structure for riding public transportation within the San Luis Valley? For one-way trips under 25 miles = up to $2.00 / For one-way trips between 25 - 50 miles = $2.00 - $3.30 / For one- way trips between 50 - 100 miles = $3.30 - $6. ☐ Yes ☐ No - please explain why not: ______

17. How important would each characteristic be in your decision to use public transportation within the San Luis Valley? Not Very Important Desirable Important Important Transit service that picks me up at my ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ home and drops me off at my destination Fixed-route transit service with designated ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ bus stops and a set schedule

Evening service ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ Weekend service Fares ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ Questions about public transportation needs outside the San Luis Valley: 18. To which areas outside the San Luis Valley would you or your household use public transportation to reach? (Check all that apply) ☐ Pueblo ☐ Colorado Springs ☐ Denver ☐ Durango ☐ Other – please specify: ______

19. What are the top three reasons you would use public transportation for trips outside the San Luis Valley? ☐ Work ☐ Personal Business ☐ School/College ☐ Doctor/Medical/Health Care ☐ Shopping ☐ Recreation

20. If available and going where and when you need to go, how often would your household use public transportation outside the San Luis Valley? ☐ 6-7 Days/Week ☐ 3-5 Days/Week ☐ 1-2 Days/Week ☐ 1-3 Days/Month ☐ Less than Once/Month

21. The current passenger fare rate for the Eagle line is about $0.07 per mile. Using this rate, do you think the following is an appropriate fare structure for riding public transportation outside the San Luis Valley? For one-way trips between 100 - 149 miles = $6.60 - $9.90 / For one-way trips between 150 - 199 miles = $9.90 - $13.20 / For one-way trips between 200 - 250 miles = $13.20 - $16.50 ☐ Yes ☐ No - please explain why not: ______

22. How important would each characteristic be in your decision to use a public transportation service outside the San Luis Valley? Not Very Important Desirable Important Important Weekday service ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ Weekend service ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ Fares ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ Comfortable buses ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ Questions for all respondents: 23. Please provide any additional comments about the public transportation service you would like to see or any other unmet transportation needs you or members of your household have. ______

If you would like to receive updates about the Western San Luis Valley Transit Study please provide your email address: ______THANK YOU! ENCUESTA DE TRANSPORTE COMUNITARIO WESTERN SAN LUIS VALLEY Estimado Residente del Western San Luis Valley: Por favor tómese unos minutos para contestar las siguientes preguntas acerca de sus necesidades de transporte person- ales y/o del hogar. Sus respuestas ayudarán a identificar las necesidades de transporte de la Western San Luis Valley. Para devolver la encuesta, usted puede: Llénelo en línea en: https://surveynuts.com/westslv _spanish Escanear y enviarlo por correo electrónico a: [email protected] Envíelo a: LSC Transportation Consultants, 545 E. Pikes Peak Ave. Suite 210, Colorado Springs, CO 80903 Envíelo por fax a: 719-633-5430 Por favor llene la encuesta solamente una vez, ya sea en papel o en línea. 1. ¿Cuál de los siguientes tipos de transporte necesita usar su familia y con qué frecuencia? 6-7 3-5 1-2 1-3 Menos de Días/ Días/ Días/ Días/ una vez al

Semana Semana Semana Mes mes Nunca

Su vehículo personal ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ Vehículo prestado ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ Visita a un amigo/a o pariente ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ Caminar / Bicicleta ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐

The Chaffee Shuttle / Eagle Line ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ Taxi ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ Red Willow ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ Servicio de Transporte de Veteranos ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ CDOT Bustang Outrider Service entre ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ Alamosa, Salida, Pueblo, y Denver

2. ¿En qué comunidad vive usted? ☐ Saguache ☐ Center ☐ Del Norte ☐ Monte Vista ☐ Otro - Por favor, especifique su código postal: ______

3. ¿Qué edad tiene usted? ☐ Menores de 16 años ☐ 17–24 años ☐ 25-34 años ☐ 35-44 años ☐ 45-54 años ☐ 55-64 años ☐ 65-74 años ☐ 75 años o más

4. Por favor, compruebe las opcións a continuación que mejor le describe: (Marque todos los que aplican) ☐ Empleado de tiempo complete ☐ Empleado a tiempo parcial ☐ Desempleados ☐ Jubilado ☐ Estudiante ☐ Otro – Por favor sea específico: ______

5. ¿Cuál es el total del ingreso anual en su HOGAR? (incluya a todos los miembros de su hogar) ☐ Menos de $19,999 al año ☐ $20,000-$39,999 al año ☐ $40,000-$59,999 al año ☐ $60,000-$79,999 al año ☐ $80,000-$99,999 al año ☐ $100,000 o más al año

6. Incluyéndose usted, ¿cuántos miembros de su hogar son mayores de 10 años? ☐ Uno ☐ Dos ☐ Tres ☐ Cuatro ☐ Cinco ☐ Seis o más

7. Incluyéndose usted, ¿cuántos miembros de su hogar tienen licencia para conducir? ☐ Ninguno ☐ Uno ☐ Dos ☐ Tres ☐ Cuatro ☐ Cinco ☐ Seis o más

8. ¿Cuántos automoviles hay disponibles en su hogar? ☐ Ninguno ☐ 1 vehículo ☐ 2 vehículo ☐ 3 vehículo ☐ 4 o más vehículos

9. ¿Tiene usted o algun miembro de su familia quien necesita transporte público alguna discapacidad, problemas de salud, o algun otro problema que le cause dificultad para viajar? ☐ No ☐ Sí – (Por favor sea específico - por ejemplo: Yo utilizo una silla de ruedas): ______

10. ¿En los últimos dos años, usted o algún miembro de su hogar no ha podido recibir atención médica debido a la falta de transporte? ☐ No ☐ Sí – (Por favor explique):______

11. En los últimos dos años, ¿usted o alquien de su hogar ha perdido el trabajo, ha dejado los estudios, o ha te- nido problemas para encontrar trabajo debido a la falta de transporte público? ☐ No ☐ Sí – (Por favor explique):______

12. Si estuviera este disponible, ¿utilizarías un servicio público de transporte? (Marque todos los que aplican) ☐ Sí, usaría el transporte público dentro del San Luis Valley (por favor continue con las preguntas 13-17) ☐ Sí, usaría el transporte público fuera del San Luis Valley (por favor continue con las preguntas 18-22) ☐ No, no usaría el transporte público (por favor continue Por favor continue en la siguiente página con la pregunta 23)

Necesidades de transporte público dentro del San Luis Valley: 13. ¿A dónde necesitas viajar dentro del San Luis Valley en transporte público? (Marque todos los que aplican) ☐ Saguache ☐ Center ☐ Del Norte ☐ Monte Vista ☐ Salida ☐ Alamosa ☐ South Fork ☐ Otro – Por favor sea específico: ______

14. ¿Cuales son las tres razones principales del por qué usted o un miembro de su familia usaría un servicio público de transporte usted dentro del San Luis Valley? (Marque todos los que aplican) ☐ Trabajo ☐ Negocios Personales ☐ Escuela/Colegio ☐ Médico/Medicina/Salud ☐ Compras ☐ Recreación ☐ San Luis Valley Regional Airport

15. Si estuviera este disponible, ¿con qué frecuencia usaría un servicio público de transporte usted dentro del San Luis Valley? ☐ 6-7 días por semana ☐ 3-5 días por semana ☐ 1-2 días por semana ☐ 1-3 días por mes ☐ Menos de una vez por mes

16. La tarifa de tarifa de pasajero actual para la Eagle Line es de aproximadamente $ 0.07 por milla. Usando esta tarifa, ¿cree que la siguiente es una estructura de tarifas apropiada para viajar en transporte público dentro del San Luis Valley? Para viajes de ida de menos de 25 millas = hasta $ 2.00 / Para viajes de ida entre 25 - 50 millas = $ 2.00 - $ 3.30 / Para viajes de ida entre 50 - 100 millas = $ 3.30 - $ 6.00. ☐ Sí ☐ No - Por favor explique: ______

17. ¿Qué tan importantes serían cada una de estas características para su decisión de poder usar un servicio público de transporte dentro del San Luis Valley? No es Muy Importante Deseable Importante Importante Servicio de autobús que me recoge en mi casa ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ y me deja en mi destino Servicio de autobús de ruta fija con paradas de ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ autobús designadas y un horario establecido Servicio de Noche ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ Servicio de autobús de fín de semana ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ Tarifas ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ Necesidades de transporte público fuera del San Luis Valley: 18. ¿A dónde necesitas viajar fuera del San Luis Valley en transporte público? ☐ Pueblo ☐ Colorado Springs ☐ Denver ☐ Durango ☐ Otro – Por favor sea específico: ______

19. ¿Cuales son las tres razones principales del por qué usted o un miembro de su familia usaría un servicio público de transporte usted fuera del San Luis Valley? ☐ Trabajo ☐ Negocios Personales ☐ Escuela/Colegio ☐ Médico/Medicina/Salud ☐ Compras ☐ Recreación

20. Si estuviera este disponible, ¿con qué frecuencia usaría un servicio público de transporte usted fuera del San Luis Valley? ☐ 6-7 días por semana ☐ 3-5 días por semana ☐ 1-2 días por semana ☐ 1-3 días por mes ☐ Menos de una vez por mes

21. La tarifa de tarifa de pasajero actual para la Eagle Line es de aproximadamente $ 0.07 por milla. Usando esta tarifa, ¿cree que la siguiente es una estructura de tarifas apropiada para viajar en transporte público fuera del San Luis Valley? Para viajes de ida entre 100 - 149 millas = $ 6.60 - $ 9.90 / Para viajes de ida entre 150 - 199 millas = $ 9.90 - $ 13.20 / Para viajes de ida entre 200 - 250 millas = $ 13.20 - $ 16.50. ☐ Sí ☐ No - Por favor explique: ______

22. ¿Qué tan importantes serían cada una de estas características para su decisión de poder usar un servicio público de transporte fuera del San Luis Valley? No es Muy Importante Deseable Importante Importante Servicio de autobús entre semana ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ Servicio de autobús de fín de semana ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ Tarifas ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ Autobús cómodos ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ 23. ¿Qué necesidades de transporte no satisfechas tiene o qué mejoras le gustaría ver por los servicios de transporte en el área de San Luis Valley? ______

Si quisiera recibir información actualizada sobre el estudio de tránsito de Western San Luis Valley, por favor proporcionenos su correo eléctronico: ______¡Gracias! Appendix B (This page intentionally left blank.) Appendix B: Community Survey Responses

1) A shuttle from Crestone to Moffat for 6:45 AM Bustang bus. Possibly return as well ‐ Moffat to Crestone, for a decent fee ‐ and scheduled at least 3 days (if not more) in advance by the rider for the driver. Just an idea. I think a daily shuttle between Crestone/Baca and Salida would do very well ‐ just one round trip a day. Maybe departures (both ways) at 8am and 8pm. Perhaps the same for Crestone/Baca and Alamosa. It could have a decent $$$ fare for it, too. I know folks would pay for this service no matter what. I would. The service could be seasonally, too, say April through Sept. Just ideas. I want a job helping this to happen. 2) A shuttle to and from airports in Denver and Colorado Springs would be ideal for our family when we are unable to fly out of Alamosa. MANY people traveling to the SLV look for a quick and easy back and forth shuttle for this purpose. This also saves money on parking lots for longer trips. 3) Alamosa is large enough now that public transportation would be very desirable. Safety of passengers would be a big concern. 4) Allowing bikes or other large outdoor equipment. Allowing well‐behaved pets.

5) Although I do not need public transportation I am aware of many elderly and under income individuals that do not have vehicles, drivers licenses, or the money to operate such and could benefit from public transit to get them to their appointments in the SLV. 6) Although I myself may not use or have a need to use the public transportation system right now, I think it is a GREAT idea for others, especially those who may not have the finances or a mode of transportation to get where they need to go. 7) Although I would not personally use public transportation due to the availability of my own vehicles, there is a significant need in the SLV for this type of service. Most of the clients that I work with do not have a driver's license or own their own vehicle. 8) Another bus or shuttle. The one now has blocked me and others because they didn't take his holiday rides. 9) As an individual with transportation options, I still think transportation in the SLV is very needed. I work with many clients and patients that need transportation to medical appointments, shopping, and various places. It is hard for me to find transportation for others in the SLV. It is a huge barrier to services for many people in the Valley. 10) As the population ages, it is extremely important to provide this service. 11) Bus connections that could get to Pueblo, Colorado Springs, and Denver would get me to use Eagle daily. 12) Creede residents have to rely on other residents to connect them to the rest of the Valley when they are temporarily or permanently unable to drive. This isolates the community from important services which are only available in the larger towns, especially medical and shopping needs. Connections to the airport would be enormously helpful for part‐time residents who leave vehicles at second homes. 13) Currently I am still mobile, however, I am going blind and will need help sooner rather than later. 14) Frequency with other days as needs are expressed by Valley residents. 15) Have a designated area for pickup and drop offs. If clients need to be picked up at home, then charge a small additional fee. Would like public transportation to DIA so it saves the client money for gas, airport parking, etc.

Western San Luis Valley Transit Study: Final Report ‐ 1 ‐ 16) Help with groceries/purchases and place to store these on bus. Also help with luggage if going to connection to airport. 17) Hope to see an additional day for the shuttle to run. Stay in the valley and add additional days. Don't add other towns. Add more days!! 18) I am fortunate to have a reliable car. I drive everywhere. But — many people do not. Good public transportation would be a great thing for the elderly in our community. And those with more limited resources. 19) I currently have used Bustang to/from Alamosa/Salida/Denver and have been very pleased with the quality of the buses and timing of the connections. 20) I feel that those who could use this service most, possibly do not have computer availability to respond to this survey. 21) I feel there are many people in the San Luis Valley that would benefit from public transportation. I know many people who post on Facebook that they need a ride or are looking for a ride. I'm sure more public transportation would be helpful. 22) I feel this is very important for our area. Many households are low income and are without vehicles and funds for transportation. I feel a low cost option is necessary. 23) I have family and friends in Colorado Springs and my orthopedic surgeon is also there. I anticipate more surgery in the future and that would be much less daunting if there were public transportation. 24) I know it is expensive, but you need to advertise more, I didn't know you existed! 25) I live 15 miles from Villa Grove, 22 miles from Saguache, 21 miles from Moffat and 22 miles from Crestone. Therefore, I would have to get a ride or drive to any given bus stop. I've done this ‐ my husband has driven me to Salida to catch the bus to Denver. I drove to Villa Grove and parked our vehicle by the Villa Grove Trade and caught the bus there to Salida and connected with the bus to Denver (when there was an early morning stop in Villa Grove). A bus is not going to stop within walking distance of my home. A stop in Villa Grove as the Eagle Line used to do was the most convenient for me to take the bus to Salida to connect to the (now) Bustang bus to Denver (to go to DIA) and for the return trip. I would use this bus service perhaps 2 or 3 times per year to connect to air travel out of state. I love public transportation! Unfortunately, we live 15‐22 miles from any town in the SLV. 26) I think it would be of great benefit to me if you were able to schedule trips outside of the valley. I have family that lives outside who I would love to visit or even out of state where I could make connections in other cities. I don't travel alone and would appreciate a service like this. 27) I think people with Medicare should get help as well with transportation, not just Medicaid. That is all thank you. 28) I think this is an excellent resource that could be made available to the San Luis Valley as it is something that is not available to individuals. 29) I think transportation service in the west side of the valley is extremely important. I know many people would use the service regularly. I think I would just use it on a regular basis as I get older. 30) I work at a hot springs that would very much appreciate a shuttle for guests who fly in to Denver or other areas and need to catch a ride to our property. 31) I would like to see several pick up areas that are accessible by walking and not have to drive to get transportation. 32) I would like to see the bus run more days a week ‐ 2 is not enough. Fridays midday schools are out, this makes it a good day to schedule appointments and get shopping done etc.

Western San Luis Valley Transit Study: Final Report ‐ 2 ‐ 33) I would love to see more public transportation from Crestone (or a park & ride in Moffat), and would use the service on a regular basis, rather than driving, if it was available. There would need to be round trip options. I would use public transportation to go from Crestone to Saguache, or Crestone/Moffat to Salida, and back. 34) I’m a disabled mother of 2 full‐time high school sons. I have trouble finding a ride or looking for a job due to lack of transportation. It would be awesome to have a shuttle that takes me to and from work, store and doctors’ appointments. Thank you for reading this. 35) I'd like to see the bus operate more than 2 days a week. 36) If information were published in local newspaper I think more people would take advantage of your service. 37) I'm disabled with a bad back and I like the Eagle shuttle....EXCEPT THAT THE BUS NEEDS BETTER SHOCK ABSORBERS, BECAUSE THE RIDE IS SOMETIMES PAINFUL. 38) In winter months especially, it would be great to have public transportation to reduce the number of vehicles on the road. Very reassuring that we have an option to take a bus in winter time or summer time rather than drive ourselves. 39) I’m writing this for mom ‐ she enjoys the shuttle because she meets other seniors who enjoy it also. It gives them freedom. 40) It takes so long here to get information out about new services. I would suggest that it is very important to have very consistent, clearly posted and available (maybe online somewhere) schedules to help people plan. Also ‐ has there been discussion around stops being located in high traffic areas (i.e. college, WalMart, downtowns) to make sure people can get where they need to go once they are dropped off. I would personally love to see a drop off in Alamosa at the County building complex south of town. Finally, Rio Grande Hospital & SLV Health both are very aware of the transportation needs in the SLV, and they know Red Willow is not always the preferred, or available, means of transportation for all. (I.e. some may schedule shopping trips around medical appointments, and Red Willow can't transport for shopping). It could be beneficial to have a specific discussion with our health care facilities to see if they can do something to support scheduling of appointments and services around bus line schedules. More bike lanes and bike paths‐‐‐especially ones that lead to somewhere (i.e. grocery stores, schools, businesses)! 41) It will be very nice to have a bus that goes to Denver, Springs and Pueblo. 42) It would be nice to have service to Santa Fe and other places for a reasonable price. 43) It would be nice to see affordable recreational trips. Our vehicle is pretty much in Valley only. Tired of being stuck in the Valley, watching everyone else go have fun. It’d be nice to see a trip to the Albuquerque balloon festival in early October. 44) It would benefit the citizens to have consistent public transportation within the San Luis Valley. 45) I've always had a car and lived in rural areas, so it's hard to know what my needs would be and how well I would adapt to public transport. It IS VERY necessary. 46) Many people don’t have a car so picking them up at home is desirable. 47) More help with local transportation. 48) Most important routes: transportation to work ‐ S. Fork, Del Norte, Monte Vista, San Luis, to/from Alamosa. 49) Much needed for some members of our community. 50) Nearby pick up points.

Western San Luis Valley Transit Study: Final Report ‐ 3 ‐ 51) Need Wi‐Fi on the bus so my child can do school work while in transit to their medical appointments. 52) No transport available during recovery from knee surgery during rehab for several weeks. I'd not be able to drive. Not eligible for Medicaid which is only provider of transport or in‐home PT. 53) Not having transportation has had a very negative effect on my health. If I could get to my doctor when I need to I would probably be a lot healthier. 54) Not needed at this time. 55) Probably would only use to go to DIA. Doing okay now ‐ may need them more in the future. 56) Really need affordable & convenient transportation to/from the Valley & the airports at Denver & at CO Springs 57) Right now our taxi service is the only game in town and it shows. Their service is awful, and often drivers not friendly, fair, or good drivers. Too expensive. Competition and something else would be nice for people who can't afford the price of a taxi or having to wait for them for their convenience. 58) Senior citizens would take advantage of this service if they knew about it. 59) Service to Denver International Airport. 60) Service, from what I hear, is great. Thank you for your continued service you provide for the Valley. 61) Taxis or buses. 62) Thank you for providing this service in the San Luis Valley. 63) Thank you, I love the bus! 64) The current shuttle is nice for the elderly who are able to go and come back at set times, it is not ideal for people trying to get to a job earlier in the mornings and back after they get off in the evenings. 65) The difficulty going south from the San Luis Valley except by car is frustrating. I hope at least bus service might be available to the Albuquerque airport. 66) The prices are much lower than I thought they would be. 67) The SLV does not have public transportation. The transportation needs of all SLV residents are not being met. The only solution is private cars, which is not a solution. 68) The structure of this area is designed to separate towns by long distances despite impoverished areas and individuals that cannot afford personal transportation. As we enter the future, more people would like the autonomy to drive, yet this is a selfish endeavor. Public transportation is the initiative that will effectively allow our communities to think green in commuting and eliminate nuisances such as traffic (more in the metro areas). Public perception surrounding understanding and accepting the purpose of public transit is key. Ultimately this will become the future and should be embraced sooner rather than later so that mankind can actually evolve towards structures that expect exponentially massive growth and working communities that all seem to serve the same timeframe 8‐4 or 9‐5. Carpooling options or other means of commuting between towns. 69) The two problems with using public transportation for my medical exams: 1) I have to spend all day in town waiting for my return bus. 2) If I want to shop during the time I’m waiting I’m not sure there would be adequate local public transportation to take me to my other stops. 70) There isn’t any and it’s needed. 71) Think a set route and times for pick up are the best way to go. Weekday service most important in the Valley.

Western San Luis Valley Transit Study: Final Report ‐ 4 ‐ 72) This service would be helpful for recreational use such as being able to go to Salida for three or four hours for dinner and then take us home or at least take us to a central location in the north end of the San Luis Valley such as Villa Grove or Joyful Journeys or Saguache. 73) This would be a great asset to our community. 74) This would be very beneficial to the valley. 75) This would GREATLY improve the quality of life, economy, cut down on a lot of the small time crime from boredom for sure. 76) Though my household is not going to be a big user of public transport, I believe it is absolutely imperative that this service exist for others who have a difficult time with personal transportation. 77) To run M‐F to Salida. 78) Transportation to the Denver and Albuquerque airports would be very helpful! 79) Transportation to the VA Hospital in Denver and the VA clinics in Pueblo is very important. 80) Villa Grove is remote and even current public transportation buses do not usually stop there. We are often forgotten in the SLV. 81) We are both good for now. 82) We are currently able to drive, but are looking ahead to when we can't (5‐10 years). Both my husband and I have extensive medical concerns and need to see Denver doctors. We need more choices in the Valley, especially as Front Range travel gets worse. It would even be nice to have the option of door‐to‐doctor service, knowing that would be more of a van type versus bus service (many baby boomers will pay this willingly). We encourage you to explore all the options, as we see this problem becoming more prevalent in the coming years. The Valley is so isolated and getting over the pass can be difficult. Traffic is worse each year. 83) We currently have the Eagle Line Shuttle and are very pleased with the service and routes currently but would like to see the routes increase from two days a week to more days during the week and weekends. Thank you! 84) Wheelchair/ walker capability. 85) When cold weather occurs, I will not walk to wait for shuttle/bus stop. It is convenient to be picked up at my living location. 86) When there was a shuttle here before, I used it to save on my vehicles. I would like to see it come back to the Valley. 87) Would want to feel safe. Need qualified, certified, sober drivers. Would want to feel confident that fellow travelers will not harass. I have used bus out of SLV years ago and was harassed.

Western San Luis Valley Transit Study: Final Report ‐ 5 ‐