Colorado’s Transportation Crossroads Priority Transit Projects for the 21st Century Colorado’s Transportation Crossroads Priority Transit Projects for the 21st Century

CoPIRG Foundation Elizabeth Ridlington, Frontier Group Sarah Payne, Frontier Group Danny Katz, CoPIRG Foundation

March 2010 Acknowledgments

The authors wish to thank Harry Dale, Chairman, Rocky Mountain Rail Authority; Robin Kniech, Program Director, FRESC; and Stephanie Thomas, Smart Growth and Trans- portation Advocate, Colorado Environmental Coalition for their review of this report. The authors would also like to thank Phineas Baxandall of USPIRG and Tony Dutzik of Frontier Group for their editorial assistance.

The generous financial support of the Rockefeller Foundation and the Surdna Foundation made this report possible.

The authors bear responsibility for any factual errors. The recommendations are those of CoPIRG Foundation. The views expressed in this report are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of our funders or those who provided review.

© 2010 CoPIRG Foundation

With public debate around important issues often dominated by special interests pursuing their own narrow agendas, CoPIRG Foundation offers an independent voice that works on behalf of the public interest. CoPIRG Foundation, a 501(c)(3) organization, works to protect consumers and promote good government. We investigate problems, craft solu- tions, educate the public, and offer Colorado residents meaningful opportunities for civic participation. For more information about CoPIRG Foundation or for additional copies of this report, please visit www.copirg.org.

Frontier Group conducts independent research and policy analysis to support a cleaner, healthier and more democratic society. Our mission is to inject accurate information and compelling ideas into public policy debates at the local, state and federal levels. For more information about Frontier Group, please visit www.FrontierGroup.org.

Cover photos: Union Station, crowd exiting train, new light rail train courtesy of RTD; traffic congestion on I-70, David Parsons on istockphoto.com. Layout: Harriet Eckstein Graphic Design Table of Contents

Executive Summary 1 Introduction 4 The Case for More and Better Public Transportation in Colorado 5 Travel Trends 5 The Benefits of Transit in Colorado 9

A 21st Century Transportation Vision for Colorado 12 Goals of Improved Public Transit in Colorado 12 Build Regional Rail Service 13 Complete Denver’s FasTracks System 15 Improve Regional Transit in the North Front Range 18 Improve Transit in Colorado Springs 19 Improve Transit for the Roaring Fork Valley 22 Improve Bus Service in Smaller Communities 22 From Vision to Reality: A 21st Century Transit System for Colorado 25 Federal Government 26 State Government 26 Conclusion 28 Notes 29

Executive Summary

olorado’s transportation network Colorado’s current transportation does a poor job of meeting the needs system leads us to use too much oil, Cof the state’s residents. Heavy auto- spend too much money on fuel, lose too mobile traffic forces consumers to spend much time stuck in traffic, and create more money at the gas pump, steals time too much global warming pollution. from Colorado families and businesses, makes our air less healthy, deepens our • Coloradans drove 46 billion miles in oil dependency, and creates more global 2008, 70 percent more than in 1990. warming pollution. Even though per-capita miles driven Expanding public transportation can in Colorado have stabilized in recent provide more Coloradans with alternatives years due to improved transit options, to driving, while laying the foundation for higher gas prices and a weak economy, an efficient transportation system for the total miles driven continue to rise. 21st century. Public transportation already helps hun- • Coloradans lost 68.8 million hours dreds of thousands of Coloradans get where stuck in traffic congestion in 2007, they need to go. In addition to saving time equal to 7,800 person years. and money for consumers, transit systems take cars off the road, cut air pollution, • Between 2002 and 2007, gasoline provide a dependable way to get around or expenditures rose 86 percent in the an alternative way to get to work in a pinch, state, causing Coloradans to spend and can jump-start economic growth. $2.6 billion more to fuel their cars By expanding transit service and im- than they had just five years earlier. proving connections between existing Colorado’s heavy use of oil leaves us service, Colorado could reap more of these vulnerable to volatile world markets benefits. Scores of good transit projects are and dependent on foreign sources of waiting in the wings, while the problems energy. affecting our existing transportation sys- tem only multiply.

Executive Summary 1 • Transportation-based global warm- metropolitan area linked by efficient, ing pollution increased 62 percent modern transit. Current corridors between 1990 and 2007 in Colorado, where construction is underway jeopardizing the state’s efforts to cut include the East Corridor to Denver global warming emissions. International Airport and along the Gold Line Corridor to Wheat At the same time, Coloradans are rid- Ridge. Encouraging walkable, mixed- ing transit in record numbers, thereby use development centered around saving money, reducing congestion, and new FasTracks transit stops would cutting global warming pollution. further support the goals of reducing automobile traffic and protecting the • In 2008, 74 percent more Coloradans environment. chose to ride transit than in 1991. In the Denver area, the number of pas- • Improved regional transit for towns senger miles traveled via transit nearly in the North Front Range, including doubled between 1998 and 2008. the creation of commuter rail service or bus rapid transit linking Loveland, • Transit use in Boulder, Colorado Greeley and Fort Collins, which Springs and Denver averted more could provide better connections for than 5 million hours of traffic delays commuters and students traveling and saved consumers $107 million in between the three cities, and the 2007. creation of transit service between Fort Collins and Denver. • Public transportation in Colorado helped the state avoid emitting 80,400 • Restoration of service that has metric tons of carbon dioxide pollu- been cut in Colorado Springs, and tion in 2006. then the addition of faster regional and expanded local service. Bus Colorado can reduce traffic, shrink rapid transit lines could connect Fort its oil dependence, improve air quality, Carson and Peterson Air Force Base, cut global warming pollution, and grow two of the area’s largest employers, healthier communities by investing in with residential areas. New and more public transit, creating more choices for frequent local bus service along with a residents. Good transit investments for “call and ride” option in more spread- Colorado include the following: out areas would provide transit choice to more residents. • A rail network connecting com- munities north and south along the • Bus rapid transit in the Roaring Front Range and west to destina- Fork Valley. Efficient, high-capacity tions along I-70. Rapid train ser- bus service on the Western Slope vice could enable residents to travel would address travel problems on the between Front Range cities in half the state’s busiest rural highway, Highway time of driving, while easing conges- 82, and would more reliably link tion and helping to support the state’s residents of the Roaring Fork Valley important tourism industry. with employment opportunities in Aspen, Glenwood Springs and other • Completion of Denver’s FasTracks regional centers. plan, with its vision of a vibrant

 Colorado’s Transportation Crossroads • Improved bus service in smaller the Colorado Department of Trans- communities. Transit, whether in portation and charging that division the form of fixed-route bus service with developing a comprehensive or more flexible on-demand service, statewide transit plan for Colorado. can link those without access to a However, until the division has ad- car to critical services, including equate funding and staffing it will be employment, education, medical hampered in fulfilling its mission. care and critical public services. Unfortunately, few rural areas and • Provide stable funding to make the small towns in Colorado offer transit vision a reality. Any plan for transit service for the general public, but in Colorado must be paired with dedi- the success of fixed-route bus service cated, adequate and sustained funding in Sterling, population 14,000, is for infrastructure and operating ex- indicative of the demand for better penses. Colorado’s current reliance on transit options in similar communities sales tax revenue to fund transit leaves around the state. transit agencies vulnerable to budget shortfalls during economic down- Colorado needs an efficient trans- turns, times when they face higher portation system to support the state’s demand for their services. economic recovery and future growth. Investing in transit now can put Colora- • Urge Congress to reshape the dans to work and move the state toward nation’s transportation funding a modern, 21st century transportation priorities. The new federal transpor- system that can meet our needs in the tation law should prioritize investing future. To get there, the state should: new capital in public transit, fixing existing roads and bridges rather than • Lay out a clear and compelling vi- building more highways, and spend- sion for transit in the 21st century. ing taxpayers’ money more wisely by With a strong vision and commitment using federal dollars to invest in high- to invest in transit statewide as the priority transportation solutions. sensible way forward, Colorado can build an integrated public transporta- • Adopt other policies that support tion network to meet transportation transit. Walkable, mixed-use develop- needs and solve problems for residents ment creates communities that can in cities and towns around the state. be easily served by transit and where Colorado recently took an important residents have real alternatives to driv- step in the right direction by creating ing. Land-use policies can encourage a Division of Transit and Rail within this transit-oriented development.

Executive Summary 3 Introduction

sk Coloradans why they love living larger problems—such as dependence on in the state and you’ll probably hear oil and global warming—that threaten our Asimilar answers from old-timers future, it is time to look for alternatives. and newcomers alike. They’ll tell you Thankfully, there are other ways to about endless hiking, skiing and camping move people around Colorado. opportunities. You might hear about the By investing in a 21st century network pleasures of watching the sun set behind of public transportation to complement the mountains or seeing stands of bright the state’s existing road network, Colorado gold aspen trees in the fall. Or of how the can address some of the state’s most dif- state manages to maintain its Old West ficult problems—from traffic congestion heritage and strong individualism in the to the loss of precious open space—while midst of modern life. providing the infrastructure Colorado will These traits have drawn many new need to grow and thrive in the years ahead. residents to Colorado in recent decades, To achieve this future, we need a vision of helping the state’s economy to grow and a transportation system in which public bringing renewed vibrancy to communities. transit plays a leading role and a commit- But this growth has also come at a cost. ment to invest resources accordingly. This The transportation choices we’ve made to report describes many projects deserving accommodate our millions of new arriv- of that investment. als—specifically, the massive investments Coloradans have long demonstrated Colorado has made in highways—have their ability to prepare for the future threatened much of what we Coloradans without compromising their heritage hold dear. When a trip to the mountains and love of the outdoors. Building a 21st begins in a snarl of traffic congestion, air century transportation network will allow pollution hampers views of the Rockies, Colorado to both embrace the future and and our reliance on cars contributes to protect the past.

 Colorado’s Transportation Crossroads The Case for More and Better Public Transportation in Colorado

ecause of our car-centered transporta- percent between 1980 and 2007.1 But as tion network, Coloradans spend too new communities have sprawled outward Bmuch time stuck in traffic, burn too from city centers, too often without the much gasoline, and create too much pollution presence of real transportation alternatives, with cars. In response, more Coloradans are Coloradans have had to drive farther and using public transportation to get where they farther to get to the places they frequent. need to go, saving time and money, reducing For years, this meant that the number of global warming pollution, and helping to vehicle miles driven by each Coloradan curb our dependence on oil. increased.2 (See Figure 1.) In total, Colo- Colorado’s existing public transit sys- radans drove 46 billion miles in 2008, 70 tem provides important services, getting percent more than in 1990. thousands of people to and from work With more people driving farther, traf- and around their communities every day. fic congestion is worse than it was in the These services have, moreover, become a 1990s. In Colorado Springs, for example, cost-saving lifeline for many Coloradans in the total number of hours that drivers spent the current economic downturn. But with stuck in congested traffic increased more the growing economic and environmental than 2.5 times between 1995 and 2007, problems of a car-dependent transporta- down from its 2005 high.4 (See Table 1.) tion system and rising transit demand, it is Despite the recent easing of congestion, time for Colorado to expand those services Colorado motorists still wasted 68.8 mil- and invest in public transportation for the lion hours in traffic in 2007, equal to 7,800 21st century. person-years.5 And while spending time stuck in traffic is annoying for motorists, it is also waste- ful, polluting and expensive. In 2007, for example, congestion caused Coloradans Travel Trends to burn an extra 45 million gallons of Colorado’s population has grown quickly gasoline.7 That same year, the combined in recent years, increasing more than 60 expense of wasted fuel and lost economic

The Case for More and Better Public Transportation in Colorado 5 opportunities as a result of congestion cost ring between 2002 and 2007. (See Figure the state more than $1.3 billion.8 2.) In 2007, Coloradans spent $2.6 billion Increased driving and congestion, and more on gasoline than they had just five rising gas prices, mean that Coloradans years earlier, and even more in 2008 when have had to spend more money at the gas gas prices reached a record high.9 Residents pump in recent years. Inflation-adjusted of areas with less transit service end up per-capita spending on gasoline increased spending a greater portion of their income dramatically between 1980 and 2007, with on gasoline and transportation. (See Figure the sharpest increase, 86 percent, occur- 3, page 8.)

Figure 1. Vehicle Miles Traveled Per Capita in Colorado, 1980-20073

12,000

10,000

8,000

6,000 (miles) Capita Vehicle Miles Traveled Miles Vehicle Capita

- 4,000 Per

2,000

0 1980 1982 1984 1986 1988 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006

Table 1. Annual Traffic Delay, 1995, 2005 and 20076

1995 2005 2007 Percent Total Annual Total Annual Total Annual Increase in Traffic Delay Traffic Delay Traffic Delay Traffic Delay, City (Hours) (Hours) (Hours) 1995-2007

Boulder 794,000 996,000 953,000 20% Colorado Springs 2,266,000 7,330,000 6,457,000 185% Denver 31,975,000 64,160,000 61,345,000 92% TOTAL 35,035,000 72,486,000 68,755,000 96% (avg)

 Colorado’s Transportation Crossroads Figure 2. Inflation-Adjusted Motor Gasoline Expenditures in Colorado’s Transportation Sector, 1980-200710

$7,000

$6,000

$5,000

Dollars $4,000 2006

$3,000 Millions of Millions

$2,000

$1,000

$0 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007

Severe traffic congestion on I-70 is an all too common sight. Credit: DaveParsons.com on istockphoto.com

The Case for More and Better Public Transportation in Colorado  Figure 3. Annual Household Gasoline Expenditures in 200811

 Colorado’s Transportation Crossroads In 2007, Coloradans spent $2.6 The Benefits of Transit in Colorado billion more on gasoline than Over the last few years, many of the long- term trends that have defined Colorado’s they had just five years earlier. transportation system in recent decades— an annual increase in driving leading to ever-worsening congestion—have slowed, Wasted fuel also worsens the state’s and in some cases even reversed. The num- growing global warming problem. Colo- ber of miles driven per capita on Colorado’s rado’s transportation sector is one of the highways has declined since 2005, result- main contributors to statewide global ing in a decline in highway congestion in warming pollution. Producing more than several cities. 30 percent of Colorado’s carbon dioxide There are many reasons for the recent emissions, the transportation sector is declines in driving—with high gasoline second only to electricity generation as prices and the economic downturn among the dirtiest sector of the state’s economy.12 them. But it is also true that many more With more residents driving more miles, Coloradans have come to see the benefits global warming pollution from transporta- of public transportation. And by riding tion increased 62 percent over the period transit, Coloradans are making a measur- between 1990 and 2007.13 able contribution toward reducing traffic The additional problem of high gasoline congestion, saving oil, and curbing emis- consumption is that Colorado relies heavily sions of global warming pollution. on imports from beyond state and national Transit ridership has been on a relatively borders. Not only does this expose Colo- steady increase across Colorado since the radans to the fluctuations of the global oil early 1990s. (See Figure 4.) Statewide, 74 market and spikes in the price of gasoline, percent more people chose to ride public but it also means that the money residents transportation in 2008 than in 1991.15 Be- spend on fuel leaves the state. For the tween 2007 and 2008, for example, transit most part, money spent on gasoline does ridership increased dramatically across not create jobs in Colorado or support the the state—jumping by 8.5 percent in the state’s economy. Aspen area, just over 9 percent in Denver, The wasted time and money, lost eco- and more than 17 percent in Grand Junc- nomic opportunities, and environmental tion.16 Total miles traveled on transit have impacts of traffic in Colorado are likely to also risen. For example, passenger miles grow in coming years, as more families and traveled on Denver’s RTD increased by 95 individuals take up residence in our state. percent from 1998 to 2008.17 In fact, Colorado’s population is projected The boom in transit ridership in Colo- to grow nearly 35 percent between 2000 rado is paying off in reduced congestion, and 2030, and even faster in the North lower expenditures on oil, and reductions Front Range—meaning more cars on the in global warming pollution. A study by road, more dollars spent on gasoline, more the Texas Transportation Institute, for pollution, and more time spent in traffic.14 example, quantified the benefits of existing The state’s transportation problems, in transit service in terms of time and money, other words, will only compound if they and found that the use of public trans- are left unaddressed. portation in Boulder, Colorado Springs and Denver saved more than 5.3 million hours of traffic congestion—662,000 work

The Case for More and Better Public Transportation in Colorado 9 Figure 4. Statewide Transit Ridership, 1991-200818

120

100

80

60 (millions)

Unlinked Passenger Trips Passenger Unlinked 40

20

0 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008

days—and $107 million in gasoline costs In addition to these benefits, public and lost productivity in 2007 alone.19 (See transportation creates good, sustainable Table 2.) The previous year, statewide jobs for local communities. Investing in transit helped Coloradans avoid burning new transit projects creates design and 14.7 million gallons of oil.20 construction jobs—often producing more Taking transit also helps cut back on jobs per dollar than investments in roads or the global warming pollution that is dan- bridges. For example, transit investments gerously changing our climate. In 2006, across the nation funded by the American public transportation in Colorado helped Recovery and Reinvestment Act have the state avoid emitting 80,400 metric tons produced twice as many jobs per dollar as of carbon dioxide pollution.22 spending on new road and bridge projects.23

Table 2. Savings Due to Public Transportation, 200721

City Time Savings (hours) Money Savings (2007 dollars) Boulder 52,000 $1,000,000 Colorado Springs 222,000 $4,400,000 Denver 5,033,000 $101,600,000 TOTAL 5,307,000 $107,000,000

10 Colorado’s Transportation Crossroads Transit also creates permanent jobs such as vehicles, use wireless Internet to check e- operators and mechanics, which stimulate mail or do important work. local economies for the long-term through More Coloradans are experiencing the the goods and services these employees benefits of transit than ever before—and purchase with their wages. the state as a whole is better off. But in Public transportation provides a host order to take full advantage of the benefits of other important, if difficult to quan- of transit, Colorado must reevaluate its tify, benefits. Transit provides a source of transportation priorities. To meet current mobility to the poor, elderly, children and challenges and plan better for tomorrow, disabled, many of whom cannot afford a car Colorado must invest in a new vision for or cannot drive. Investments in transit have 21st century transportation. The projects helped spark the economic revitalization described in the following pages comprise of areas around transit stations, helping a good starting point, and should be part to create vibrant communities that are of that vision. Numerous other transit proj- less dependent on the automobile. Transit ects can additionally help move our state in riders are free from the responsibilities of the right direction, and all should be part driving, meaning that they can use their of a new chapter in the story of Colorado’s time to read, chat, catch up on the day’s ailing transportation system. news or, in an increasing number of transit

The Case for More and Better Public Transportation in Colorado 11 A 21st Century Transportation Vision for Colorado

olorado needs an efficient trans- useful in combination than each one is portation system to support the alone. Together, these projects supply the Cstate’s economic recovery and future vision of a new direction for transportation growth. By investing in a wide variety in Colorado, one in which the state would of transit options—from local buses and be wise to invest. light rail to commuter buses and regional rail—Colorado can grow in smarter, cleaner and more efficient ways, while providing new transportation options to residents. The following projects can help Goals of Improved Public Colorado achieve a 21st century vision for Transit in Colorado public transportation. Any transit investment strategy for Colo- The projects listed in this section are rado should have a blueprint to guide it—a not in order of priority. Transit investments set of goals that the state wishes to achieve. must be evaluated on a range of criteria, The state should set a target of complet- from their impact on air quality and global ing investments, by 2030 at the latest, that warming emissions to their potential to would achieve the following goals: spark economic development and improve quality of life. Investments in commuter 1) Provide access to convenient, rail, for example, deliver different benefits affordable, efficient transit service for to different constituencies than invest- residents of Colorado’s biggest cities. ments in improved local bus service. This includes completing construction As part of a transportation network, of FasTracks to adequately serve the however, new transit projects connect and 2.8 million Coloradans who live in add value to one another—and so are more the Denver metro area.24 In other

12 Colorado’s Transportation Crossroads communities, light rail and bus Rail Service Along the infrastructure can provide better Front Range local transit options. Commuter rail The majority of Coloradans live in the cit- service can further connect workers ies and towns stretching north and south and employers more efficiently on the along the Front Range. Decades ago, these regional level. were independent communities, but in the past 30 years, Fort Collins, Boulder, Den- 2) Develop alternatives to high-volume ver, Colorado Springs and the numerous highway corridors. Use frequent, towns in between have grown and spread reliable and fast rail service to con- into one nearly continuous urban area. The nect major corridors in the state. Bus region’s transportation system has not kept service can connect smaller communi- up with this growth, creating terrible con- ties to rail hubs. gestion on I-25 and secondary roads, and offering travelers few alternatives. Tens 3) Integrate transit and land-use plan- of thousands of residents work in one city ning wherever transit projects exist. and live in another, creating huge daily Use principles of efficient, compact commute flows.26 The majority of these development to combat sprawl and commuters travel into Denver for work, but create a healthier future for Colorado’s reverse commutes are common also. communities and overall economy. More than 2 million more residents are projected to live in the Front Range region 4) Develop local public transportation by 2030, a 61 percent increase.27 Growth networks in cities and towns across will be especially rapid in the North Colorado using a combination of Front Range, with that region’s popula- transit services to provide appealing tion more than doubling. The number alternatives to driving. of jobs is projected to rise by 56 percent, but those new employment opportunities Completing these infrastructure proj- will not necessarily be close to projected ects and adequately funding their reliable new housing. (See Table 3.) This problem operation will create a Colorado that is is especially pronounced in the Pueblo more economically vibrant, less dependent area, with employment increasing just 33 on oil, less impacted by traffic on the road- percent, compared to a 59 percent increase ways, and capable of meeting the transpor- in population. The influx of residents com- st tation challenges of the 21 century. muting to new jobs will create congestion along the length of I-25 from Fort Collins to Pueblo.28 Fast, reliable train service along the I-25 corridor would provide travelers an alterna- Build Regional Rail Service tive to driving, something that residents Rapid, reliable rail service along Colorado’s are eager for. Multiple surveys of northern two busiest travel corridors would draw Colorado residents, for example, reveal millions of passengers annually. Though stronger support for improved transit, rail lines along I-25 and I-70 would meet especially rail, than any other option for very different travel needs, the impact of improving transportation. More survey building two lines is more than twice that respondents wanted rail service along I-25 of building just one.25 The new lines would than wanted the highway widened to carry create a backbone for the state’s transit more vehicles.30 network. The specific route a north-south rail line

A 21st Century Transportation Vision for Colorado 13 Table 3. Projected Increase in Population Versus Jobs by 203029

Region Population Growth Job Growth North Front Range Region 478,000 238,000 Denver Region 1,297,000 775,000 Pikes Peak Region 281,000 195,000 Pueblo Region 84,000 27,000

could take is still in the early discussion those routes, could provide an alternative stages. A route that serves fewer stations to driving and offer both residents and would provide faster service, but could tourists an easier trip. dampen ridership numbers. Trains could Fast and frequent passenger rail service serve communities from Cheyenne to into the mountains makes sense for sev- Trinidad, including Fort Collins, Denver, eral reasons. Scenic and recreational sites Colorado Springs and Pueblo. The trip in the Rockies draw tourists from across from Fort Collins to Denver could take the country, but I-70 is nearing capacity as little as 40 minutes by train, compared in some locations.33 This congestion is a to an hour or an hour and a half by car, problem for Coloradans on weekend excur- depending on traffic.31 Denver to Pueblo sions and for the state’s tourism industry. by train could take up to an hour and 40 Two-thirds of the 28 million overnight minutes, half as long as driving during trips to Colorado in 2007 were made by peak times. out-of-state visitors.34 In partnership with New Mexico and Destinations along I-70 account for a Texas, Colorado is proposing a north-south surprisingly large share of intercity travel high speed rail corridor that would extend in Colorado, as shown in Table 4. And from Denver to El Paso through Albu- linking any mountain rail line to Denver querque.32 Federal recognition of this high and the airport is crucial to the system’s speed rail corridor would allow the state to usefulness, enabling out-of-state visitors compete for billions in federal funding for to forgo renting a car or flying into a small the study, design and construction of high airport where weather conditions can dis- speed train service. rupt service for days. There are multiple rail alignments pos- sible along I-70 from Denver to Avon. The Rail Service to the most likely routing would use both exist- Eastern Rockies ing rail right-of-way and new tracks. For The weekend after heavy snowfall in example, train service with a maximum the winter or on summer weekends with speed of 125 miles per hour could make the beautiful weather, Coloradans and out- trip from Denver International Airport to of-state tourists flock to the mountains to Avon (a likely western terminus of the line) enjoy the state’s natural beauty and take in approximately two and a half hours, the advantage of its recreational resources. same time as a car if there is no traffic but Often, however, the trip into the Rockies an hour faster than a vehicle stuck in traffic is marred by heavy traffic congestion, congestion.36 particularly at bottlenecks or when severe To be eligible for some of the billions weather causes accidents. Rail service of federal dollars that have been promised along I-70, the most heavily traveled of for high-speed rail projects, Colorado’s

14 Colorado’s Transportation Crossroads Table 4. Annual Intercity Trips to Major Colorado Destinations35

Destination Millions of Trips Corridor Denver Airport 44.0 I-25 and I-70 Denver 36.6 I-25 and I-70 Blackhawk/Central City 12.0 I-70 Breckenridge 8.2 I-70 Vail 7.9 I-70 Colorado Springs 7.3 I-25 Keystone 5.7 I-70 Copper Mountain 4.7 I-70 Avon 4.6 I-70 Fort Collins 3.6 I-25 Boulder 3.6 I-25 Pueblo 1.8 I-25 Georgetown 1.5 I-70 rail service would need to travel at speeds three concerns for the region.39 In 2009, of at least 110 miles per hour.37 Achieving even in the midst of economic turmoil, such speed will require a combination improving public transportation declined of straightening some sections of track, only to third place on respondents’ list of selecting locomotive technology that can top concerns.40 handle steep grades, or picking new rail- In 2004, Denver metro area residents’ road technology. desire for better public transit led to pas- No matter how fast trains are able to sage of a ballot measure approving a sales run, speedy, reliable rail service along the tax increase to fund a major expansion of I-25 and I-70 corridors is expected to draw light rail, commuter rail, and bus service. significant numbers of passengers. Trains The FasTracks expansion plan promises to operating at 125 miles per hour along a mix transform Denver’s transportation system of new and existing routes would carry 17 by creating a dense network of light rail, million riders, most of whom would be new local bus lines, and bus rapid transit. Once transit riders who switch from driving.38 the FasTracks network is completed, Den- ver should be a region where residents and visitors know they’ll be able to get around easily and reliably even without access to Complete Denver’s a car. The FasTracks plan includes construc- FasTracks System tion of approximately 120 miles of new The Denver metro region suffers from sig- light rail and commuter rail, 18 miles of nificant traffic congestion and residents are bus rapid transit, more than 50 new transit eager for alternatives to driving in congest- stations, and other transit enhancements.41 ed traffic. In 2007, a survey of Denver-area New transit lines will connect communi- residents identified inadequate transit and ties in every direction through downtown high traffic congestion as two of the top Denver, where Union Station is being rede-

A 21st Century Transportation Vision for Colorado 15 veloped into a multi-modal transportation hub and a destination in its own right. Not only will the new service offer travelers a convenient transit trip from one side of the metropolitan area to the other, but it will also provide total travel times that are competitive with driving. For example, in 2025, rush-hour trips from various locales around the Denver area to Denver Interna- tional Airport should be as much as 30 to 40 percent faster on transit than by car.42 Construction has commenced on some A light rail train at a stop on Denver’s C Line. parts of the FasTracks project. Construc- Credit: EPA Smart Growth. tion of the West Corridor Line from the Jefferson County Government Center to downtown Denver is underway and the line is scheduled to open in 2012.43 Upgrades to the same traffic that snags car drivers.45 As Union Station should begin soon. When the Denver metro area’s population grows, the project is complete, the station will traffic delays in this corridor are projected serve as a major multi-modal hub con- to more than double.46 Several studies, is- necting the FasTracks system and allowing sued over the past 15 years, have confirmed passengers to transfer seamlessly from one the need for rail service along this route. mode of travel to another. The commuter rail line being planned Unfortunately, the reworking of Den- for this corridor will cover 24 miles and ver’s transit network has been slower than link six stations. The ride from downtown planned due to higher than expected costs Denver to the airport will take less than and lower than anticipated revenues. As 30 minutes, with trains operating every Denver’s Regional Tranportation District 15 minutes for 22 hours a day.47 Daily (RTD) is trying to figure out how to deal ridership in 2030 is expected to be nearly with this funding shortfall, it is important 38,000. Construction is scheduled to begin not to lose sight of the value of construct- in 2011. ing a comprehensive, regional transit sys- tem. The next two lines that are slated for Gold Corridor construction are the East corridor and the For the Gold Line to Wheat Ridge, RTD Gold Line to Wheat Ridge. has proposed an 11-mile commuter rail line that will connect Union Station in down- East Corridor town Denver with Wheat Ridge, passing East of downtown Denver, FasTracks will through unincorporated Adams County offer travel improvements to people com- and Arvada.48 This area is currently served, ing and going from Denver International in part, by I-70 and I-76.49 Airport (DIA) and points in between, such The population and employment centers as Stapleton. In this corridor, currently in this corridor are expected to grow in served by I-70 and Pena Boulevard, conges- coming years, adding to congestion and tion can be so severe that travel times are lengthening travel times. Population is highly unpredictable.44 More than a quarter expected to increase by 34 percent and of residents in this corridor have low in- employment by 45 percent in the area comes and thus are heavily dependent on served by the planned Gold Line. Without limited bus service, which gets caught in the new commuter rail line, travel time

16 Colorado’s Transportation Crossroads Figure 5. Map of Planned FasTracks System53

in a car from the end of the Gold Line to the route, scheduled to open in 2016. On downtown Denver is predicted to increase weekdays, trains would operate from 4:00 by 35 percent in 2030.50 a.m. to 12:30 a.m., with trains coming as RTD plans to address these problems often as eight times an hour during peak by building a commuter rail line that heads periods.51 The planned line is expected to straight north from downtown before turn- carry a daily ridership of 17,000 to 20,000 ing west toward Wheat Ridge. The plans by 2030, and would help reduce total ve- call for eight stations to provide access to hicle miles of travel in the corridor.52

A 21st Century Transportation Vision for Colorado 17 Regionwide Transit-Oriented Development

asTracks is helping to address the Denver metro region’s transportation problems not only by offering travelers more alternatives to driving, but also by spurring Ftransit-oriented development that should reduce travel needs. Transit-oriented development includes residential and commercial uses within walking distance of transit, allowing travelers to combine trips or eliminate some trips by car altogether. Commuters might drop off dry-cleaning on the way to catch the train, walk to a store during lunch to complete some errands, and stop by the florist on the way home, all without needing a car. Denver’s existing light rail lines have spurred new development at many of their 34 stations.54 Since the light rail lines were announced and built, more than 11,000 residential units, 4,500 hotel rooms, and millions of square feet of commercial and retail space have opened within one-half mile of transit stations.55 The proximity of these facilities to transit means that residents and workers are better able to get where they need to go via transit and leave their cars at home. As new transit lines are completed, public policy that supports construction of more transit-oriented development would further enhance their benefit. Convenient transit and vibrant development are mutually reinforcing. As more people ride transit, more shops and restaurants can thrive near transit stops, and as development around stations increases, riding transit becomes more convenient and a greater time-saver. In areas surrounding stations included in the FasTracks plan, 2,500 residential units, 2.7 million square feet of retail space, and extensive government, office, medical and entertainment facilities have been constructed or are planned.56

Improve Regional Transit in passengers annually.58 In Loveland, the City of Loveland Transit (COLT) network the North Front Range links residential areas with downtown.59 The North Front Range has multiple lo- Greeley-Evans Transit connects major cal transit options. Greeley, Fort Collins activity centers and has expanded in recent and Loveland each operate bus systems years as the communities have grown. As that carry tens of thousands of passengers is also true for Transfort, Greeley-Evans annually. However, passengers wishing to Transit offers increased transit service travel from one community to another, or during the school year to make travel easier to Denver, currently find it difficult to -im for students and university employees. possible to do so on transit.57 Residents of What the region lacks is much transit the North Front Range could benefit from between these communities. Currently, improved regional transit options. only two routes operate between North Loveland, Greeley and Fort Collins Front Range towns. The North Front have their own bus networks that serve Range Metropolitan Planning Organiza- each community separately. Fort Collins’ tion has begun a two-year trial of the 34 Transfort system, designed to serve Xpress, bus service between Loveland and students and the most densely developed Greeley, a trip that 30,000 people make parts of town, carries almost 1.5 million each day by car.60 During its first month of

18 Colorado’s Transportation Crossroads service, the 34 Xpress carried 1,280 riders rail can provide better service and a more beyond local service areas.61 Loveland and pleasant trip for commuters, the advantage Fort Collins also have a bus link known as of bus rapid transit service is that it can FoxTrot. Limited funding, however, means sometimes be constructed more quickly and that service is infrequent, and roadway at lower cost than a new rail line. congestion hampers reliability. The North Front Range area also needs Commuters who live in one town a transit link to Denver. The Northwest but work in another would benefit from Corridor rail line of FasTracks will termi- improved regional connections. While nate in Longmont, leaving Loveland, Fort most Fort Collins residents who work are Collins and Greeley without a direct line employed in Fort Collins, almost half of to Denver. If a north-south high-speed Loveland residents who work leave the rail line is built, Fort Collins and several city.62 More than 5 percent of workers who other cities will likely have stations, but live in Fort Collins work in Loveland, 4 construction of this rail line is far from percent work in Greeley, and 8 percent certain and its completion would likely be work elsewhere. Of Loveland workers, 18 many years away. percent travel to Fort Collins, 4 percent The benefit of transit options in the to Greeley, 7 percent to Longmont and 16 North Front Range will be greater if the percent to other destinations. region encourages transit-oriented devel- The key regional transit improvements opment. An analysis of potential transit needed in the North Front Range area routes shows that including transit-orient- include:63 ed development can reduce total driving. Over time, transit-oriented projects in the • Bus rapid transit from Loveland to five locations considered—one each in Fort Greeley, Collins, Windsor, and Greeley, and two in Loveland—could become major employ- • Rail or bus rapid transit along the ment and residential centers.64 Coupled US-287 corridor from Fort Collins to with improved regional transit, these de- Loveland, velopments will offer North Front Range residents real transportation choices. • Rail or bus rapid transit between Fort Collins and Greeley, • Express bus service between Milliken Improve Transit in and Berthoud, and Colorado Springs • Improved local transit service with Colorado Springs, the state’s second largest more routes, more frequent buses, and city, suffers from frustrating and wasteful longer hours. traffic congestion that likely will get worse in coming years as the area’s population Bus rapid transit (BRT) lines typically grows. Transit service is limited, as budget include a separate traffic lane for buses, pri- cuts have forced huge reductions in bus ority for buses through intersections, and service, leaving travelers with no choice pre-paid fares to speed boarding. High- but to drive. Colorado Springs needs to quality bus stops, improved pedestrian restore the service that has been cut, and amenities and regular updates for riders then consider expanding transit service to about when the next bus is coming improve offer area residents more alternatives to the experience for passengers. Though light driving.

A 21st Century Transportation Vision for Colorado 19 Figure 6. Projected Traffic Congestion Levels in 203565

As the region’s population increases—a intense congestion and has a clear need 60 percent increase is expected by 2035— for expanded transit services, a $17 mil- congestion is also projected to worsen. As lion budget shortfall in 2009 resulted in seen in Figure 6, by 2035 many of Colorado a massive scale-back of transit service.66 Springs’ major roads will carry more ve- Mountain Metropolitan Transit provided hicles than they were designed to carry. 3.8 million transit trips in 2008, up 12 per- Currently, Mountain Metropolitan cent from 2007.67 For 2009, the agency had Transit offers transit service in the Pikes to cut 50,000 service hours—roughly 25 Peak area. Before recent funding cuts due to percent of its service—and raise fares by 20 a downturn in sales tax revenue, Mountain percent, the combination of which caused Metropolitan Transit provided local and ridership to plummet.68 The agency expects express bus service to Colorado Springs, to cut another 60,000 service hours in 2010, Manitou Springs, Fountain, Falcon, Wide- a 33 percent reduction from 2009.69 field, and Security, along with commuter These service cuts have repercussions bus service from Fountain to Denver with for the entire community. More than 200 multiple stops along the way. monthly transit pass users who work at Though Colorado Springs suffers from Schriever Air Force Base no longer have

20 Colorado’s Transportation Crossroads Lack of stable revenue has forced Mountain Metropolitan Transit to cut service. Credit: Evan McCausland bus service to the base.70 Roughly 70 tran- rapid transit lines. One north-south sit workers lost their jobs.71 Anybody who line would parallel I-25 and SH-115, relied on buses at night or on the weekend providing transit service to Fort Car- no longer has transportation. And cuts son, which is the area’s largest em- could continue next year: riders on the ployer with 15,000 employees.73 The FrontRange Express (FREX) to Denver other north-south line would serve have service for 2010 because Mountain the same corridor as Academy Road. Metropolitan Transit sold nine buses, Two shorter east-west routes would raising funds that will cover operating reach Garden of the Gods, a city park expenses for this year, but service is slated that draws thousands of visitors, and to be canceled in 2011.72 Peterson Air Force Base, the area’s Colorado Springs’ highest priority third-largest employer.74 must be restoring bus service that has been slashed by more than half in the past • Expanded local bus routes would serve two years. But even reinstating service to more residential and employment historic levels still leaves many gaps in the areas, giving people in those locations area’s transit infrastructure. choice about how to travel between The key transit improvements that home and work. Colorado Springs needs include: • More frequent service would make • High-speed rail links to Denver and trips by bus faster by reducing how Pueblo, as discussed in the “Build long passengers have to wait for buses, Regional Rail Service” section. particularly if they have to transfer from one line to another. • Regional rapid transit. Four corridors in the Pikes Peak region have been • “Call and ride” service in neighbor- identified as needing streetcar or bus hoods too spread out for conventional

A 21st Century Transportation Vision for Colorado 21 bus service would give all residents relatively short timeline. access to some form of transit service. The first phase of RFTA’s planned BRT line includes upgrades to bus stops along These transit improvements, along State Highway 82 from Glenwood Springs with restoration of recent service cuts, to Aspen, new express service to selected would allow Colorado Springs to provide stops, and new lanes and traffic signals residents with more transportation choices that give priority to buses at congested and alternatives to driving. intersections.77 The BRT service, called VelociRFTA, will begin by 2013 at the latest.78 Funding for BRT service will come from Improve Transit for the local sales taxes, federal funds, and other sources. Voters in communities served by Roaring Fork Valley RFTA approved higher sales tax rates in In sight of meadows full of wildflowers or November 2008.79 RFTA issued $27.5 mil- mountain peaks covered in snow, travelers lion in bonds for the project.80 Should costs seeking to enjoy Colorado’s beauty in the rise, RFTA has voter approval to issue more Roaring Fork Valley must struggle with bonds. Assuming that the federal budget snarled traffic. The highway linking Glen- proposed by President Obama for the 2011 wood Springs, Carbondale and Aspen is the fiscal year is approved by Congress, RFTA state’s busiest rural highway and operates will receive $24 million in federal transit near capacity in some sections.75 Improv- funds.81 ing regional transit by building bus rapid In the long-term, travelers in the Roar- transit could provide better service for both ing Fork Valley and on the Western Slope residents and visitors within a few years. may be best served by rail. Should traffic Currently, the Roaring Fork Trans- congestion continue to worsen despite portation Authority (RFTA) provides bus BRT service, the reliability and speed of service to Aspen, Carbondale, Glenwood bus-based transit will decline. Geographic Springs, Rifle and points in between. constraints make highway widening very Ridership on RFTA’s local bus routes has expensive, so non-highway transit may be skyrocketed in recent years, growing by essential. The transit authority purchased more than 30 percent in the past five years the Denver and Rio Grande Western Rail to 4.4 million boardings annually.76 Many line in 1997, securing a right-of-way for riders are workers who live in areas with future passenger rail through the Roar- more affordable housing and who must ing Fork Valley.84 The Rocky Mountain commute to jobs in other towns, as well as Rail Authority examined the possibility skiers and other visitors who don’t want to of rail linking Grand Junction, Glenwood rely on a car. Springs and Aspen and found that regional RFTA plans to provide faster and more rail service could improve travel options. reliable service by constructing a bus rapid transit (BRT) line. BRT typically includes a variety of measures to speed boarding and travel and to provide an easy and pleasant experience for riders. New service can be Improve Bus Service in added more quickly and at lower cost than Smaller Communities a rail line, and in travel corridors where Public transportation is often associated conventional bus service is inadequate BRT with big cities. But in many rural Colo- offers a way to improve transit service on a rado communities, transit plays a vital

22 Colorado’s Transportation Crossroads role in linking people with employment, Unfortunately, the bus system in Ster- education, medical care and critical public ling is an exception for Colorado’s smaller services. Transit is particularly important communities. Rural areas and small towns for those who cannot always drive—the in Colorado do offer transit service to the young, the elderly, the disabled and those elderly and disabled population but too who cannot afford the expense of owning often don’t provide any transit for the a car. general population.91 A comprehensive In rural areas, transit may take a differ- transportation system in Colorado should ent form than in larger metropolitan areas. include better transit in and between Fixed-route bus service operating on a set smaller towns. schedule may fulfill some transit needs, Colorado has 10 rural transportation but rural transit providers often offer planning regions. The planning agencies for more flexible service, such as on-demand each region have identified local transit needs transit in which passengers can schedule and suggested potential solutions. Most areas a ride or be picked up at a location not on need transit that has a broader geographic an established route. Vanpools—which use reach and expanded service scope. volunteer drivers and vehicles provided For example, some of the more rural by a transit agency to provide shared-ride areas of southeast Colorado currently lack service—may also be an effective way to any transit service and would benefit from offer transit to commuters. on-demand transit options.92 Other areas Sterling, Colorado, a town with a popu- that already have transit for seniors and the lation of 14,000, has demonstrated how im- disabled need options that are available to portant and successful a form of fixed-route the general public, and this expanded ser- bus service can be in a small community.85 vice should operate on longer hours than The South Platte Regional Transporta- current service. Low-income individuals tion Authority (RTA) began operating who need bus service to get to work need the Prairie Express in 2005 to connect longer hours than seniors attending medi- employment, shopping and residential cal appointments. areas. Service is flexible: if passengers need In southwestern Colorado, the biggest to be picked up or dropped off from a loca- need is for expanded service options. La tion not on the route, drivers will make a Plata, San Juan, Archuleta, Montezuma detour.86 Passengers who request that the and Dolores counties would benefit from driver deviate from the fixed route pay a the establishment of regularly scheduled slightly higher fee. In 2007, passengers transit service between Dove Creek and took 8,853 trips.87 Pagosa Springs, with the schedule timed RTA receives funding from several to allow people to attend medical appoint- sources. The Northeast Colorado Associa- ments in Durango, replacing the on-de- tion of Local Governments (NECALG) mand service that currently serves only provided seed money until the RTA was seniors needing medical care.93 Commuters able to begin collecting revenue from a 0.1 in Durango, Ignacio and Farmington, and percent sales tax approved by voters.88 in communities just over the border in Residents in the 9,600 square mile six- New Mexico could use scheduled service county area around Sterling have access also. Existing on-demand service could to the on-demand County Express bus be made more convenient and reliable if it service, which requires an advance reser- served several major destinations (such as vation.89 In the first six months of 2008, Wal-Mart, the San Juan Basin Technical County Express made more than 55,000 School, and the Southern Ute Casino) on trips.90 a schedule.

A 21st Century Transportation Vision for Colorado 23 In addition, to better serve commuters Larimer and Weld counties, is for transit the southwestern counties could create a service available to the general public.94 vanpool program in which transit agen- This service would also help seniors who cies or another local government entity may have access to transit for medical purchases vans and organizes commuters appointments but who need transit for ac- with similar work times and destinations cessing other necessities. to travel together. Whoever agrees to drive The other rural transportation planning the van rides for free; other passengers areas have identified similar shortcomings pay a monthly fare. Likely city pairs for in transit availability. Modified fixed route vanpool service are Dove Creek to Cortez, transit, on-demand transit and vanpools Cortez to Durango, and Pagosa Springs to are among the options for improving tran- Durango. sit for Coloradans in small communities Overall, the greatest transit need for the and rural areas. Upper Front Range region, which includes

24 Colorado’s Transportation Crossroads From Vision to Reality: A 21st Century Transit System for Colorado

olorado must make sound invest- which represents an important first step ments in public transportation if it in the right direction. However, far more hopes to remain competitive in the must be done to plan for and fund the fu- Cst 21 century—a time that looks increasingly ture of transportation in our state. likely to be one of growing concern about Colorado must solve its transportation global warming, continued congestion finance problems in ways that ensure the problems, and volatile oil prices. continued safe operation of the state’s ex- At the same time, however, Colorado isting transit systems and that will allow faces a transportation funding shortfall. construction of new, much needed transit Transit agencies rely heavily on sales expansions. To achieve this, Colorado tax revenue to fund operations and new should develop a long-range, strategic plan construction. With the slowing economy, for transit investments and operations, consumers have been purchasing fewer identify the price tag of completing that items and sales tax revenue has dropped. As plan, and then work to obtain the necessary a result, transit agencies have had to slash resources to get the job done. Colorado service—as in Colorado Springs—and po- took an important step toward better plan- tentially slow construction of new projects ning by creating a Division of Transit and like FasTracks. Rail within the Colorado Department of The federal economic stimulus package Transportation in 2009. The federal gov- will provide an injection of much-needed ernment recently granted Colorado $1.4 dollars into Colorado’s transit system. In million for studying statewide high speed February 2009, the state received $102.7 rail and how that system could be linked million for transit projects.95 These funds to local transit, provided the state finds included $12.5 million for rural areas, $72.1 matching funds.96 million for RTD, $8.8 million for Colorado Many levels of government and other Springs, and smaller amounts for Fort Col- institutions have a role to play in achieving lins, Greeley, Pueblo and Mesa County. the goal of a 21st century transit system for Using part of the first wave of stimulus Colorado. funds to support public transit is a move

From Vision to Reality 25 Federal Government State Government The main federal transportation funding The good news for Colorado is that a law—the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Effi- sizeable part of our state’s public transit cient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy future lies within our control. Coloradans for Users (SAFETEA-LU)—expired in the have good ideas about how to meet our fall of 2009, and was temporarily extended transportation needs with public transit, by Congress with allocations from general but these ideas are frequently held back by revenues. It is possible that the coming a lack of funds. Other public policies must federal bill will be the most sweeping also be revised to support transit develop- reform of federal transportation policy ment and use. in nearly two decades. America’s aging transportation network is increasingly in need of costly repairs. Meanwhile, with the Provide Reliable Funding memory of soaring gas prices still fresh and for Transit concerns about oil dependence still acute, Colorado transit agencies rely on sales tax the downsides of the highway-centered in- revenue, federal funds, and fares to cover vestment policies of the last few decades are operating costs. As has become all too becoming increasingly apparent. In short, evident in the past year, sales tax revenue the status quo cannot continue. does not provide a reliable source of fund- Colorado officials should advocate ing. During an economic downturn, con- for a new federal transportation fund- sumer spending slows, reducing revenues ing law that makes a large investment in for transit agencies, while at the same time needed improvements to transit systems transit agencies face higher demand from and intercity rail, while focusing federal cash-strapped residents. Due to funding highway investment on maintaining and shortfalls, Colorado Springs has slashed repairing existing infrastructure. Federal transit service by 33 percent. The Roaring money should be used in a targeted and Fork Transit Authority had a half-million strategic way to encourage transportation dollar budget shortfall in 2009 but tempo- investments that minimize oil dependence, rarily avoided service cuts by using reserve congestion, environmental pollution and funds.97 For 2010, RFTA has reduced the sprawl, and encourage the development service it offers.98 Service cuts during a re- of compact, livable mixed-income com- cession are especially hard on riders, many munities where driving is an option, not of whom are trying to save money wherever a requirement. possible, including by using transit instead Such a dramatic shift would benefit of driving. Colorado by providing additional resources Until recently, Colorado was one of for needed transit projects. In addition to only a handful of states that failed to pro- pushing for new federal transportation pri- vide a dedicated funding source for public orities, Colorado should also work aggres- transportation. Legislation passed last sively through existing avenues to obtain year includes up to $5 million in annual federal funding for transit infrastructure funding for transit projects and up to $10 projects. A key step is to obtain federal million for pedestrian/bicyclist safety.99 recognition of the state’s proposed high- The legislation also allows fee or toll rev- speed rail corridor along the Front Range enue to be applied to transit projects that and into the mountains, thereby allowing will help reduce traffic on state highways. the state to compete for federal funding While this legislation is a step in the right included in the February 2009 American direction—and the first time Colorado has Recovery and Reinvestment Act. ever had state-level funding dedicated for

26 Colorado’s Transportation Crossroads transit—Colorado needs to do much more few through streets make it very difficult to fund transit operation and expansion. to design bus routes that can efficiently Colorado will never realize the full connect residential areas with commercial benefits of transit until the state embraces and employment centers. All too often, a more reliable system for funding public residential developments have inadequate transportation. To capitalize on the eco- pedestrian infrastructure, where the lack nomic, social and environmental benefits of sidewalks and bus shelters further deters of transit, Colorado should designate an would-be transit riders. In addition, when adequate and long-term state-wide revenue homes and businesses are spread out, few stream for public transportation. people live within walking distance of each A number of different revenue options transit stop. This results in low ridership could help Colorado fund its public trans- on each route. If ridership is low, the cost portation investments. Funding sources per transit trip becomes too expensive for used across the country include transporta- the community to provide transit access tion-based taxes and fees, such as a gas tax, to all residents. vehicle registration tax, parking tax, rental Encouraging development patterns that car tax, tire or vehicle battery tax; tolls are more pedestrian- and transit-friendly from publicly owned toll roads or revenues will make transit accessible to more riders. from congestion pricing; and development Homes, offices, schools and shops should fees like development impact, storm water, be situated in developments within walk- or real estate transfer fees. In January 2008, ing distance of bus and rail lines. More the Colorado Transportation Finance and compactly arranged buildings with condos, Implementation Panel completed A Report apartments and offices can be closest to To Colorado that identified different revenue transit, while single-family homes can be options and presented a number of fund- built slightly farther away but still within ing scenarios. This 32-member panel, with an easy walk of a bus or rail stop. Because representatives from every part of the state including housing that serves a range of and various interest groups, has done the incomes can increase transit ridership and research. It is time for Colorado to review help systems compete for federal funds, all the available options and move forward public policy should ensure that transit- in creating sustainable transportation oriented development includes a diverse funding. mix of housing options. Of course, state lawmakers should expect some guarantee of good use in exchange for the badly needed funds. The state should Adopt Other Policies That conduct a comprehensive audit and review Support Transit of existing transit systems and administra- Colorado should align other public policies tive agencies to eliminate wasteful spend- with its vision for a 21st century transporta- ing, with added accountability measures tion system that offers Coloradans transit over each transit project’s lifetime. options in addition to driving.

• Local governments should adopt Require Land Use Patterns that land-use plans and zoning reforms Support Transit that allow for and encourage compact Sprawling land development patterns development in and around transit are difficult to serve with reliable transit stations. New developments should service. Dispersed developments and be designed so that fixed-route transit isolated subdivisions with cul-de-sacs and service is possible.

From Vision to Reality 27 • The state should require that all Conclusion proposed transportation investments Colorado’s existing transit network is an be evaluated for their impact on oil asset for the state and it provides a strong dependence and global warming pol- backbone for transit expansions to help lution. Government buildings should address congestion from a growing popu- be located, to the extent possible, in lation, assist the state in cutting its global areas with accessible transit service. warming pollution, and insulate residents from future increases in gasoline prices. • If the state privatizes any roads—gen- There are myriad potential solutions to erally a bad deal for the public in Colorado’s transportation funding chal- which a private operator pays a fee lenges, but obtaining money for trans- to the state in return for the right to portation improvements is only half the charge drivers to use the road—the battle—the state also needs a visionary, arrangement must not preclude or forward-looking plan for investing that discourage improvements to transit. money in ways that create and sustain a In some states, road privatization con- safe, affordable and extensive transporta- tracts have labeled transit improve- tion system for the 21st century. The proj- ments as unfair competition with the ects listed in this report should make up toll road, forcing the state to compen- the core of Colorado’s transit “to-do” list sate the toll road operator. over the coming years. The state simply cannot afford to allow these projects to remain undone—for the sake of mobility, consumers’ pocketbooks, and environmen- tal concerns.

28 Colorado’s Transportation Crossroads Notes

1 1980s population estimates from U.S. Census 7 Ibid. Bureau, Intercensal Estimates of the Total Resident 8 Ibid. Population of States: 1980 to 1990, August 1996; 1990s population estimates from U.S. Census 9 Based on state gasoline expenditure data for Bureau, State Population Estimates: Annual 1980 through 2007 from U.S. Department of Time Series, July 1, 1990 to July 1, 1999, 19 Energy, Energy Information Administration, December 1999; 2000s population estimates State Energy Data 2007: Transportation Sec- from U.S. Census Bureau, Annual Population tor Energy Price and Expenditure Estimates, Se- Estimates, Estimated Components of Population lected Years, 1970-2007, Colorado, 28 August Change and Rates of the Components of Population 2009. Adjusted for inflation based on U.S. Depart- Change for the United States, Regions, and States, ment of Commerce, Bureau of Economic Analysis, and Puerto Rico: April 1, 2000 to July 1, 2007, National Income and Product Accounts Table, Table 27 December 2007. 1.1.9: Implicit Price Deflators for Gross Domestic Product, 30 September 2009. Further adjusted 2 Vehicle miles traveled from U.S. Depart- for the fact that nationally, about 94 percent ment of Transportation, Federal Highway of the motor gasoline consumed in the trans- Administration, Highway Statistics series of portation sector is used in light-duty cars and reports, Historical Summary to 1995 and trucks, per data from supplementary tables to annual reports from 1996 to 2006; 2007 and U.S. Department of Energy, Energy Informa- 2008 vehicle-miles traveled estimates from tion Administration, Annual Energy Outlook U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal 2009, April 2009. Highway Administration, Traffic Volume Trends series of reports, 2007 and 2008. Population 10 Based on state gasoline expenditure data for estimates, see note 1. 1980 through 2007 from U.S. Department of Energy, Energy Information Administration, 3 See note 2. State Energy Data 2007: Transportation Sector 4 David Schrank and Tim Lomax, Texas Energy Price and Expenditure Estimates, Select- Transportation Institute, 2007 Annual Urban ed Years, 1970-2007, Colorado, 28 August 2009. Mobility Report, September 2007. Adjusted for inflation based on U.S. Depart- 5 David Schrank and Tim Lomax, Texas ment of Commerce, Bureau of Economic Transportation Institute, 2009 Annual Urban Analysis, National Income and Product Accounts Mobility Report, July 2009. Table, Table 1.1.9: Implicit Price Deflators for Gross Domestic Product, 30 September 2009. 6 Ibid.

Notes 29 11 Center for Neighborhood Technology, Housing portation Challenges with Modern Public Transit, and Transportation Affordability Index, down- March 2008, Appendix B, 66. loaded from htaindex.cnt.org/map_tool, 29 21 See note 5. May 2009. 22 See note 20. 12 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 23 The Center for Neighborhood Technology, State CO2 Emissions from Fossil Fuel Combus- tion, 1990-2005, downloaded from www.epa. Smart Growth America, and U.S. Public Inter- gov/climatechange/emissions/downloads/ est Research Group, Analysis of Latest Jobs Data CO2FFC_2005.pdf, 27 April 2009. Show Stimulus Spending on Public Transporta- tion Produces More Jobs, Faster, Than Highways, 13 Tony Dutzik, Elizabeth Ridlington, and downloaded from www.cnt.org/news/media/ Emily Figdor, Frontier Group and Environ- ARRA-Public-Transit-Jobs-Fact-Sheet-Dec- ment America Research and Policy Center, 17.pdf, 5 February 2010. Too Much Pollution: State and National Trends in Global Warming Emissions from 1990 to 2007, 24 Denver Regional Council of Govern- Fall 2009. ments (DRCOG), Frequently Asked Questions, downloaded from http://drcog.org/index. 14 Colorado’s population is projected to grow cfm?page=FAQs, 27 May 2009. by 1,491,096 people, or 34.7 percent, between 2000 and 2030. U.S. Census Bureau, Interim 25 TEMS, Inc./Quandel Consultants, LLC, Projections: Change in Total Population and Popu- RMRA Alternatives Analysis Workshop, Prelimi- lation 65 and Older, by State: 2000 to 2030, 21 nary Results (powerpoint)¸ 24 April 2009. April 2005. 26 Rob MacDonald, Executive Director, Pikes 15 Transit lines with non-consecutive rider- Peak Area Council of Governments, and Jeff ship data sets or lacking data for the last five May, Metro Vision Resource Center, DRCOG, years were removed from the total. National Front Range Transportation Forum (powerpoint), Transit Database, TS2.1 – Service Data and 21 September 2005. Operating Expenses Time-Series by Mode, 15 27 Ibid. April 2009, updated with National Transit 28 Denver Region Council of Governments, Database, RY 2008 Data Tables, downloaded , from www.ntdprogram.gov/ntdprogram/data. Front Range Transportation Forum, Summary 21 September 2005. htm, 3 February 2010. 29 See note 26. 16 American Public Transportation Asso- ciation, APTA Public Transportation Ridership 30 Colorado Department of Transportation, Report, Fourth Quarter, 2008. Available from Federal Transit Administration, Federal High- www.apta.com/research/stats/ridership/ way Administration, North I-25 Draft Environ- riderep/documents/08q4rep.pdf. mental Impact Statement, October 2008. 17 270 million miles on bus and light rail in 31 TEMS, Inc./Quandel Consultants, LLC, 1998 versus 527 million miles in 2008. 1998 Presentation to RMRA Alternatives Development data from Federal Transit Administration, Workshop, Feasibility Study Update, High Speed 1998 National Transit Database, downloaded Rail Feasibility Study (powerpoint)¸ 23 January from www.ntdprogram.gov/ntdprogram/data. 2009. htm, 5 February 2010. 2008 data from Federal 32 Office of Governor Bill Ritter, Jr.,Governor Transit Administration, 2008 National Transit Ritter Announces Plans to Seek High-Speed Rail Database, 29 October 2008. Linking Colorado, New Mexico and Texas (press 18 See note 15. release), 9 July 2009. 19 5.3 million hours is 662,500 8-hour work 33 TEMS, Inc./Quandel Consultants LLC, days. David Schrank and Tim Lomax, Texas for the Rocky Mountain Rail Authority, High Transportation Institute, 2009 Annual Urban Speed Rail Feasibility Study, Existing Conditions Mobility Report, July 2009. Report, October 2008. 20 Phineas Baxandall, Tony Dutzik and Joshua 34 Ibid. Hoen, U.S. PIRG Education Fund, A Better 35 Ibid. Way to Go: Meeting America’s 21st Century Trans-

30 Colorado’s Transportation Crossroads 36 See note 31. 56 Ibid. 37 U.S. Department of Transportation, Fed- 57 Colorado Department of Transportation, eral Railroad Administration, “High-Speed Federal Transit Administration, Federal High- Intercity Passenger Rail Program Notice,” way Administration, North I-25 Draft Environ- Federal Register, 74: 119 (29900-29929), 23 mental Impact Statement, October 2008. June 2009. 58 North Front Range Metropolitan Planning 38 See note 25. Organization and Fellsburg, Holt & Ullevig, 39 Denver Regional Transportation District, The North Front Range 2035 Regional Transporta- FasTracks Survey, January 6-January 12, 2009, tion Plan, December 2007. Data & Findings, 2009. 59 Ibid. 40 Ibid. 60 Nate Miller, “Commuters and Shoppers 41 Regional Transportation District, What Should Utilize 34-Xpress Bus Service,” Greeley Is FasTracks? downloaded from www.rtd-fas- Tribune, 12 August 2008. tracks.com/main_26, 14 May 2009. 61 North Front Range Metropolitan Planning 42 Denver Regional Transportation District, Organization, 34 Xpress Bus Has Strong First Why FasTracks?, downloaded from www.rtd- Month: Greeley-Loveland Bus Had 2,459 Riders fastracks.com/main_28, 14 May 2009. in August, 30 September 2008. 43 Denver Regional Transportation District, 62 Larimer County, Work Commute, 4 Sep- FasTracks Program Schedule, downloaded from tember 2003. www.rtd-fastracks.com/main_31, 26 August 63 See note 58. 2009. 64 Ibid. 44 Federal Transit Administration and Re- 65 Pikes Peak Area Council of Governments, gional Transportation District, East Corridor Moving Forward 2035 Regional Transportation Draft Environmental Impact Statement, January Plan, February 2008. 2009. 66 Danielle Leigh, “Colorado Springs Transit 45 Ibid. Faces Major Cuts,” KXRM Fox 21, 7 February 46 Ibid. 2009. 47 Ibid. 67 2008 ridership: Bea Karnes, “Colorado 48 Regional Transportation District, Gold Line Springs Budget Cuts Will Hurt Everyone,” Corridor, downloaded from www.rtd-fastracks. KOAA, downloaded from www.koaa.com/aaaa_ com/gl_1, 20 November 2009. top_stories/x1589520614/Colorado-Springs- budget-cuts-will-hurt-everyone, 20 January 49 Federal Transit Administration and Re- 2009. 2007 ridership: Pikes Peak Area Council gional Transportation District, Final Envi- of Governments, Moving Forward 2035 Regional ronmental Impact Statement, Gold Line Corridor Transportation Plan, February 2008. Project, August 2009. 68 Dave Menter, Transit Planning Supervisor, 50 Ibid. Mountain Metropolitan Transit, personal com- 51 Ibid. munication, 29 May 2009; and Sherre Ritenour and David Menter, Mountain Metropolitan 52 Ibid. Transit, memo to City of Colorado Springs 53 Regional Transportation District, FasTracks Citizens’ Transportation Advisory Committee, System Map, downloaded from www.rtd-fas- Pikes Peak Rural Transportation Authority tracks.com/media/uploads/gl/FEIS_Goldline_ Citizens’ Transportation Advisory Committee, Board32_GoldLine_FasTracks_SystemMap. Pikes Peak Rural Transportation Authority pdf, 20 November 2009. Board, Monthly Mountain Metropolitan Transit 54 Regional Transportation District, Tran- Update, 25 November 2009. sit-Oriented Development 2008 Status Report, 69 Sherre Ritenour and David Menter, December 2008. Mountain Metropolitan Transit, memo 55 Ibid. to City of Colorado Springs Citizens’

Notes 31 Transportation Advisory Committee, Pikes Governments, Prairie Express, downloaded Peak Rural Transportation Authority Citizens’ from www.necoexpress.com/CountyExpress/ Transportation Advisory Committee, Pikes prairieexpresspg.htm, 13 May 2008. Peak Rural Transportation Authority Board, 87 Jenni Grubbs, “RTA Busy Getting Set Up,” Monthly Mountain Metropolitan Transit Update, Journal-Advocate, 31 January 2008. 25 November 2009. 88 Ibid. 70 Jennifer Thibault, “City Bus Service Stops Stopping at Schriever,” Colorado Springs Mili- 89 Northeast Colorado Association of Lo- tary Newspaper Group, 7 January 2010. cal Governments, County Express/Prairie Express, downloaded from www.necoexpress. 71 Bill Reid and Bill McKeown, “73 City com/CountyExpress/HowToRide.htm, 13 Transit Workers Are Told They Will Lose May 2008. Jobs Dec. 31,” The Gazette (Colorado Springs), 12 November 2009. 90 John La Porte, “NECALG Approves Ster- ling Fixed Route Agreement,” The Fort Morgan 72 Associated Press, FREX Bus Service to Run Times, 18 July 2008. Through at Least 2010, 10 February 2010. 91 Colorado Department of Transportation, 73 See note 65. 2035 Statewide Transportation Plan, 20 March 74 Ibid. 2008. 75 Roaring Fork Transportation Authority, 92 LSC Transportation Consultants for West Glenwood Springs to Aspen Corridor Invest- Southeast Transportation Planning Region ment Study, May 2003, downloaded from www. and Colorado Department of Transportation, rftabrt.com/history. Southeast Transportation Planning Region Hu- 76 Roaring Fork Transportation Author- man Services Transportation Coordination Plan, ity, History: Transit in the Roaring Fork Valley, January 2008. downloaded from www.rftabrt.com/history, 93 LSC Transportation Consultants for 15 May 2009. Region 9 Economic Development District 77 Roaring Fork Transportation Authority, of Southwest Colorado, Southwest Colorado Regional Bus Rapid Transit Project, Fast, Fun, Regional Transit Feasibility Study, Draft Report, Frequent: RFTA’s Plan for the Future, 20 June 17 June 2009. 2008. 94 LSC Transportation Consultants and URS 78 Ibid. Corporation for the Upper Front Range Trans- portation Planning Region and the Colorado 79 Brent Gardner-Smith, “RFTA Board Department of Transportation, Upper Front Weighing Cuts, Hikes, Freezes,” Aspen Daily Range Coordinated Public Transit and Human News, 15 May 2009. Services Transportation Plan, January 2008. 80 “RFTA to Issue Bonds for BRT Project,” 95 Colorado Department of Transportation, Aspen Daily News, 15 May 2009. American Recovery and Reinvestment Act Transit 81 Scott Condon, “Obama Budget Earmarks Allocation, downloaded from www.dot.state. $24M for RFTA,” The Aspen Times, 9 Febru- co.us/arra/content/ARRATransitAllocation. ary 2010. pdf, 28 May 2009. 82 Ibid. 96 Office of Governor Bill Ritter, Jr.,Gov. Rit- ter Applauds $1.4 Million Grant to Advance High 83 Ibid. Speed Rail (press release), 28 January 2010. 84 Roaring Fork Transportation Authority, 97 Scott Condon, “RFTA Now Projects West Glenwood Springs to Aspen Corridor Invest- $526,000 Shortfall,” The Aspen Times, 10 April , May 2003, downloaded from www. ment Study 2009. rftabrt.com/history. 98 Scott Condon, “RFTA Expects 2010 to Be 85 City of Sterling, Colorado, Welcome, Another Difficult Year,” The Aspen Times, 9 downloaded from www.sterlingcolo.com, 13 October 2009. May 2009. 99 Colorado Legislature, Senate Bill 09-108. 86 Northeast Colorado Association of Local

32 Colorado’s Transportation Crossroads