Discussing Mass Transit Part III - Who's Minding the Store?

August 29th, 2008 at 10:05pm Common Sense Alliance 1530

Once upon a time, the rail corridor that runs the length of the Roaring Fork Valley was purchased by local governments, with the help of the federal government.

A Corridor Investment Study (CIS) was completed by RFTA in 2003 to serve as a long range plan for the use of the old rail bed. The scope of the study encompassed transportation options in general and the current state of, and future expectations for, conditions on Highway 82.

The CIS predicted huge increases in traffic volume and subsequent congestion, and proposed a mass transit program which would have no effect on the problem. By the year 2025, a Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) system would result in less congestion than the “No-Action” alternative at only one of nineteen selected locations along Highway 82.  One.

This complete disconnection between the proposed massive increase in transit service and its minimal effect on traffic congestion was the predicted outcome despite claims of stunning increases in bus ridership in response to the creation of a BRT system.  BRT would provide some feeder bus service and reduce transit travel time between Glenwood Springs and Aspen by about eleven minutes.  The CIS appeared to claim that bus ridership on the Highway 82 valley route would therefore increase by 176 percent between 2003 and 2008.  Just to provide some perspective, valley ridership did increase by 24 percent between 2002 and 2007, so we are left to conclude that major increases in gasoline prices have had about one seventh the impact on ridership that the eleven minute time savings BRT would have achieved.

This means that either:

1.      the study authors had made a serious error;

2.      the reader misunderstood the study authors; or

3.      the study authors were peddling total nonsense.

CIS Project Manager Roger Millar was contacted at the time, and given ample opportunity to say the equivalent of “oops” and provide either a correction or an explanation.  Instead, he cited Parsons Transportation Group, who had "...developed a travel demand forecasting model for the CIS study area (Roaring Fork Valley and Colorado/Eagle Valleys from Rifle to Eagle) using EMME II travel demand forecasting software."

The problem with EMME II’s travel demand forecast for the Highway 82 valley route was that it could only be fulfilled if six percent of the total population of the RFTA service area began taking roundtrip rides on this one bus route 365 days a year.     There are a dozen other ways to express the impossibility of this computer generated bit of nuttiness, but it’s more important to understand the reaction by those who are charged with protecting the public interest.

There was no reaction.

None of the 39 elected representatives from the seven original RFTA jurisdictions, or any of the paid staff of the local or federal governments, or anyone from the news media ever questioned or challenged the ridership projections contained in the CIS, even after the problem was brought directly to their attention.

It might be expected that companies whose performance was so questionable in the past would not be contracted for additional services in future planning efforts.  However, a look at the new BRT Project Development Team shows:

Parsons Transportation Group - "stakeholder involvement...ridership forecasting"

The new BRT planning process may provide an opportunity for Parsons to correct the previous error, or they may be planning to make it impossible to know. So far, the information necessary to determine their current valley route ridership projections have not been provided, which is curious given that this is the route slated for the primary expansion of service.

More curious than the missing data are other statistics which have been shown at public presentations.  Readers of Discussing Mass Transit Part II will know that “passenger miles traveled” is a key number needed for several methods of assessing performance and efficiency.  Despite several requests, RFTA is unable to provide this information, or to even offer an opinion on the relative accuracy of privately calculated passenger mile estimates.  The curious aspect is provided by a BRT PowerPoint slide showing “Passenger-miles per Service Hour”, and “Average Bus Occupancy”, neither of which can be determined without the information RFTA says it doesn’t have.

So where have project consultants been getting their passenger mile data?  The same place they found their previous ridership estimates, perhaps?

The lesson of the CIS process is that we, the public, are on our own.  The system of oversight which should include professional ethics, official responsibility and media scrutiny is completely absent.

Next:  Part IV

Cost vs. Benefit

Entry Filed under: Transportation, Aspen, Pitkin County