Discussing Mass Transit Part VIII - Things that make you go hmmmm.

October 22nd, 2008 at 12:31pm Common Sense Alliance 1530

The information collection process for this series of articles began more than a year ago, and RFTA has been very patient and generally responsive to our requests. However, the data which has been most difficult for them to produce is the information which is most critical to our analysis.

After several unanswered requests for the average trip length of bus riders on the Highway 82 corridor, it was assumed that RFTA did not have such an estimate. They finally supplied their version of this statistic last week, only after our independent estimate was published in Part VII. The difference between the two is minor.

Having the trip length estimate provides us the opportunity to calculate the answer to one of the most fundamental questions regarding current conditions. What is the average occupancy of buses currently running along the corridor? Despite this being a core question which would presumably be among the first things asked by the RFTA board before proceeding with the Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) expansion plan, RFTA has not determined average occupancy.

Using RFTA’s trip length estimate, and tinkering with the figures to account for such things as variations in the number of bus seats on a particular style of bus, the occupancy percentage could move a few points one way or another. Regardless, our basic conclusion from last week still stands - buses on the corridor route are, on an annualized average basis, running about one third full.

According to RFTA the important factor is that riders during peak hours in peak season are experiencing standing room only conditions, but they have not reported the number of runs affected or what portion of the entire service this number represents. Perhaps this information will be available next week in response to this article?

RFTA purchased or leased 17 buses in the last two years, but has not, in the space of three months of questioning, been able to quantify how much of this rolling stock represents new and additional seats which are now available to respond to the increased peak ridership demand. Perhaps this information will be available next week?

Whatever the status of the peak period situation, its relevance to the planned BRT system is extremely tenuous because BRT calls for increased service throughout the day. This point seems to have been missed even by the Federal Transit Authority (FTA), which is reviewing RFTA’s grant request. The FTA commented that “a few references are made to increases in supply that would result from the project, e.g. 17 bus trips per morning peak hour to 28 bus trips per morning peak hour, but no explicit mention of how demand meets this supply is provided.” If the FTA is skeptical about peak demand, the realization that the remainder of the proposed service expansion overwhelms any discernable need is probably not far behind.

RFTA’s response to the FTA was to cite the Corridor Investment Study (CIS) from 2003, perhaps the least credible source for ridership projections ever produced.

Just before last week’s article went to press, RFTA also provided the statement that “the last estimate of ridership that our consultants have provided specifically for Highway 82 corridor commuter ridership for 2017 is 3.12 million.” However, this new number was also preceded by the caveats that, “our consultants determined the travel demand model is not calibrating accurately and more effort would need to be expended so we can use it to realistically project ridership,” and “the Board of Directors decided to wait on expending any more effort on the model development until we hear back from FTA”.

The 3.12 million ridership figure, aside from being labeled inaccurate, is problematic as a means to determine what is being predicted for a ridership increase on the BRT route. The number is a composite which lumps in routes such as Snowmass Village/Aspen and Woody Creek/Aspen. While the Snowmass to Aspen route may indeed experience ridership growth as the result of making it a free service, it is not part of the BRT expansion plan.

If we borrow the basic assumption consultants made in their “last estimate” to calculate the percentage gain in riders for the next nine years, and apply it to the routes specific to BRT, we come up with about a 50 percent increase by 2017. Coincidentally, that percentage also happens to be about what the average occupancy would be on the existing bus service if it were to absorb that ridership increase.

RFTA doesn’t believe it can achieve its ridership goal without BRT, but the down side will be that the full schedule nature of the expansion will push average occupancy down to a point where buses will be running around about one quarter full.

The effort required to produce this analysis is absolutely without explanation. For the $650,000 the public paid for the BRT planning process, this information should be available on a summary page at the front of the report.

Next: Part IX

More things that make you go hmmmm.

Entry Filed under: Transportation, Basalt, Snowmass, Carbondale, Glenwood Springs, Aspen, El Jebel, Pitkin County, Rifle, Eagle County

17 Comments Add your own

1. infowars.com | October 23rd, 2008 at 3:45 pm

Mike, since you and others ride the bus, why not just cough up the extra money. Why should I and others pay for your transportation???

Another problem I have is RAFTAs CEOs high paying salaries and nepotism. Could be rumors, but I keep hearing them year after year after year. Have you actually asked how much money they make for running a business that doesnt seem to be able to keep its employees and stay afloat without bailouts?

I agree with this letter to the editor in yesterdays paper.

RFTA should just raise fares

I have read with interest the recent letters supporting increased sales taxes to further subsidize the Roaring Fork Transportation Authority (RFTA). Sales taxes already approximate 10 percent in many localities. RFTA is already heavily-subsidized and does not keep to budgetary constraints or projections. But what the heck, let’s tax the people more because subsidized mass transit must be good for all of us.
Rather, let me make a modest proposal. Why don’t we just let the people getting on the bus put more money in the fare box? And figure out how much money RFTA needs, and charge appropriately? That might actually be best for all of us.

Michael K. Stahl Carbondale
2. Jerry Bovino | October 24th, 2008 at 9:35 pm

We should institute a construction tax throughout the valley and use the funds to make RFTA totally free. Decreasing truck and car traffic will enhance the quality of life for everyone in the valley. If we encourage more people to ride the bus, the reduced impacts from vehicular delays and toxic emissions will benefit all of us.
3. Common Sense Alliance | October 24th, 2008 at 10:43 pm

The most recent customer survey we have from RFTA is 2004.
In response to the statement "The fares are reasonable", only 15% either disagreed or strongly disagreed.

The is no known basis for the assumption that there is a large pool of price sensitive potential riders who currently choose to drive in response to fares.

The impact of the existing ridership on "vehicular delays" and "toxic emissions" is minimal at best, so the slight increase in ridership you might achieve with a free service would not have a perceptable effect . (See Part IV - Cost vs. Benefit)
4. reckless G | October 25th, 2008 at 5:49 am

[The is no known basis for the assumption that there is a large pool of price sensitive potential riders who currently choose to drive in response to fares.]

My family shares a car, so I ride the bus when my car is being used by another family member. This costs me more than driving; $8 round trip from Carbondale to Aspen as opposed to $6 (or less, now that gas prices are dropping). If my granddaughter joins me on the trip it's $14 as opposed to the same $6 for driving.

How is that not an encouragement to drive rather than take the bus?
5. Common Sense Alliance | October 25th, 2008 at 7:27 am

As you've just pointed out, you've determined that it is cheaper to ride the bus than buy a second car. That would be the real cost of driving, not the $6 per trip you're quoting.

Meanwhile, RFTA only receives 14 percent of its income from fares. If you look at cost per passenger mile for the bus, oops you can't, because RFTA doesn't assign costs per route, or at least hadn't the last time I asked. Regardless, the real price of your bus trip is considerably more than what you're paying.

While it's nice that you are making a trip that can be served by the bus, that is not the case for most people most of the time. Why is everyone else obligated to subsidize your travel costs? Why should they do more than they already are? (See Part I - Who is Served?)
6. Jerry Bovino | October 26th, 2008 at 6:48 am

Common Sense Alliance wonders why "everyone else should subsidize travel costs" for mass transit. It's a fair question. The simple answer is that decreasing the number of cars on Highway 82 would raise the quality of life for everyone in the Roaring Fork Valley and simultaneously reduce our collective dependence of fossil fuels.

Reckless G points out that the cost of RFTA ridership is a factor to her and may be to others. Therefore, reducing the cost, or eliminating it all together, would probably encourage the use of RFTA buses.

Finally, I have written about this concept before and there is a "third requirement" to my plan that would have an additive effect. The Rosetta Stone here is to dramatically raise the cost of parking in Aspen and extend the number of paid parking areas. The first hour would remain $1 or $2 so valley locals could shop or do their business. However, the second third and fourth hours would go up to $5, 10, and $15 dollars per hour. This won't discourage wealthy tourists who are spending $1000 dollars a day or more to vist Aspen with their family. It would change the behavior of locals from Basalt, Carbondale, Glenwood and New Castle. When RFTA is free and parking your car for a few hours would cost $30 dollars, poeple will take the bus.

Most major cities have already changed the dynamic to drive commuters to mass transit. In NYC it costs $40 or $50 dollars a day to park your car in Mahattan and the bridge and tunnel tolls have been simultaneously raised. It's no surprise that people use buses and subways. Wouldn't they rather take their car? Sure, but everyone responds to incentive. I stick with my premise. Tax construction. Make RFTA free. Increase the cost of parking in Aspen. Voila....less traffic, less grumpy commuters, less noise, more clean air. Just like magic.
7. Common Sense Alliance | October 26th, 2008 at 10:46 am

Keep in mind that there is another possible response to your proposal than riding the bus, which is to just avoid Aspen altogether....

I think that we who live downvalley are already aware that we aren't welcome in Aspen unless we have a job to do - or would like to deposit some money in your coffers - and that we are then expected to get the hell out. It can't possibly be necessary to make that point any more clear.

Aside from that, I cannot distinguish between your parking plan and Aspen's actual policy, which hasn't done much for congestion at the entrance. I could get into the technical reasons for that, but have some difficulty believing that you're interested.

The last time I looked, it cost more than $18 a day to park all day on the streets of downtown Aspen, but I really don't know what the price is now, or even whether you are allowed to park for more than two hours no matter who you are or what you're willing to pay.

Whatever impact the new parking policy will have - along with buslanes - on traffic, it is likely to be obscured by national economic conditions. Regardless, the intent of the parking policy is exactly as you describe - to increase bus ridership. So, applied to the context you've provided, this is the equivalent of Aspen advising people throughout the region that they should be happy to pay higher sales taxes so that Aspenites won't have to be bothered by visits from them.

You're quite the ambassador for your town, but if increased bus ridership is all about Aspen's desire to be left alone, then Aspen should pick up the tab for free bus service, not the rest of us - through any form of tax. From the perspective you've described, there doesn't seem to be any really good reason why Aspen shouldn't cover the whole tab for BRT.

Whatever the top rate for a day's parking in Aspen is currently, it is based on a figure which the city assumes people will not be willing to pay, so taking it to $50 a day is irrelevent. To determine how much impact the new fees might have, you would need to know how many people were willing to park at the rate of $18 per day. If further price hikes don't have many people left to discourage, there won't be any discernable impact over the old parking rates. At that point, the last strategy in the "Transportation Management" playbook is to charge "congestion pricing" - a toll to enter Aspen during peak periods.

Because of the economic times, and the almost certain impact on tourism, it may be a few years before we can really determine whether the parking fee experiment has had much effect. If it doesn't, should we envision a valley - even a nation - where we are all charged some onerous amount of money to enter a neighboring town in our car?

Lastly, I don't understand why it should be difficult to comprehend that transit has no perceptable impact on traffic congestion unless you retreat to an example from a city with a population density of thousands of people per square mile. There is no rational connection between NYC and the RFV.
8. Jerry Bovino | October 26th, 2008 at 9:00 pm

Common Sense makes excellent points and his analysis is quite interesting. I don't really disagree with him about his proposal that Aspen pay for the free RFTA buses. That would be fine with me. We already waste millions of dollars of taxpayer money on questionable expenditures. At least a free RFTA would be likely to produce tangible results in the quality-of-life arena.

The only reason that I chose a tax on new construction is because it's my contention that construction vehicles are responsible for many of the traffic delays and a great deal of our pollution. I do not intend for these taxes to be punitive on the construction industry. If structured properly, they would simply allow those causing the problem (and profiting from new development) to pay their fair share.

Finally, I want to be clear that I am not against the automobile. I recognize that many Americans (myself included) enjoy driving their own vehicle. However, we can reduce traffic and ease the commute of those who must take their own cars if we can encourage the use of mass transit. Let's make RFTA fee!
9. reckless G | October 27th, 2008 at 10:36 am

[As you've just pointed out, you've determined that it is cheaper to ride the bus than buy a second car. That would be the real cost of driving, not the $6 per trip you're quoting.]

Buying a second car is not even an option, nor is it relevant to the discussion. The decision for me and other budget restricted citizens, is not whether it’s cheaper to ride the bus or buy a second car, it’s when I do have access to my car, whether it’s cheaper to take the bus or drive.

As a conscientious citizen, I would like to use my car less and in so doing relieve the traffic on 82 and the air pollution in our valley. But as it is, because I have a limited income, I only ride the bus when I absolutely need to get somewhere and I don’t have a car. If the bus were free, I’d leave my car home and take the bus every time. Many other budget restricted valley residents would do the same.

Jeffrey Evans is right; “There is no rational connection between NYC and the RFV” as far as population density goes. But that doesn’t justify the supposition that mass “transit has no perceptable impact on traffic congestion,” for our valley. If RFTA ridership increased as a result of free fares, traffic would consequently and inevitably be reduced, air pollution would be reduced, and consumption of foreign oil would be reduced. However imperceptible, it would still increase quality of life for all of us.

Which as Jerry pointed out, answers your question; “Why is everyone else obligated to subsidize your travel costs?”
10. Common Sense Alliance | October 27th, 2008 at 5:25 pm

Fascinating concept.

I would have thought that an imperceptible improvement in quality of life is the practical equivalent of no improvement.

So, transit must be subsidized for some in order to provide no perceptible improvement to the community as a whole.

You've stumped me. I have no response for that.
11. reckless G | October 28th, 2008 at 6:16 am

Imperceptible improvement is not the equivalent of no improvement. Imperceptible means very slight or gradual. If 50 people decided to start taking the bus to work from Glenwood to Aspen, that’s fifty less cars on the road a day. It would be imperceptible to the drivers on 82 in terms of traffic congestion, but that’s not the only issue here. Fifty less cars spewing fumes and guzzling precious resources is the benefit that everyone shares whether they ride the bus or not.

A democratic republic such as the U.S. is a co-operative. We pool our money to take care of the Commons; the air, earth, water, finite and renewable resources (such as minerals and forests), and the transportation system which is vital to our economy.

Obviously you are less interested in the common good than in pursuing and preserving your own interests. That’s fine for you. But if I had the money to spare, I would take the bus on principle like Michael Conniff, regardless of the cost of the fare. Unfortunately, there aren’t enough principled people to make a “perceptible” difference. That’s where incentives come in. There are far more people in this valley who would take the bus rather than drive if they had a financial incentive to do so.

The fact is, you have no way of knowing how much ridership would be increased if the fare was dropped or whether there would someday be a perceptible decrease in the traffic situation because of it. And neither do I. But I’m willing to give it a try on the principle of the common good.
12. Jerry Bovino | October 28th, 2008 at 7:19 am

Common Sense questions whether the small reduction in the number of private vehicles that would result from making RFTA free is worth the cost. Reckless G correctly observes that even small reductions in pollution and traffic are worhtwhile.

However, the mistake that Common Sense makes is that he presumes only a linear reduction in traffic and congestion. In fact, complex mathematical equations exist that show that a small reduction in the number of cars produces a dramatically greater benefit in traffic flow than one could extrapolate by simply using percentages. In simple terms, a 10 percent reduction in number of cars will improve traffic flow by more than 10 percent.

The Boltzman equation can be applied to kinetic traffic flow on roads. It shows that there are complex interractions between drivers and cars in competition for the same space on the road. Without getting into advanced mathematical formulas and calculus, suffice it to say that the best data demonstrates that even a small reduction in number of cars produces a great benefit.
13. reckless G | October 28th, 2008 at 8:00 am

Right Jerry, even a little reduction in cars could help a lot, and remember that in comment # 3 it was noted that 15% of those (who were already bus customers) polled said they either disagreed or strongly disagreed that the fares were reasonable. So if those 15% were induced with low or no fares to ride the bus more, some reduction in traffic would result. And that’s not counting potential new customers who might be financially induced to start riding instead of driving.

Also I think it’s worth mentioning that less cars also means less opportunity for accidents with wildlife, pedestrians and other cars. When gas prices rose to near $5.00 a gallon, people slowed down and some quit driving as much. As a result the number of traffic deaths and injuries went down.
14. Jerry Bovino | October 28th, 2008 at 8:31 pm

Amen to Reckless G! The only additional thought that comes to mind is that the reduced price of oil and gasoline seems like a blessing, but may actually be a curse. I fear that complacency will drive us all back to our gas-dependent ways and will reduce the stimulus and urgency for the development of alternative energy vehicles, electric cars, hydrogen power and mass transit.
15. Common Sense Alliance | October 28th, 2008 at 10:29 pm

It currently costs about $31 million per year to operate both RFTA and Snowmass Village transit systems, making this the second largest public expenditure in the area behind the school system. (Aspen + RE-1 school districts = $42 million)
Snowmass Village and Aspen have had free buses for decades, but ridership is a small percentage of the total vehicle trips – even those generated internally. Ride Glenwood Springs, another free service, has had very large ridership increases in the last few years, but still only accounts for a few day’s worth of vehicle trips in that community.
The 5 million passengers on the two bus systems can be credited with replacing something in the range of 2-4 percent of the vehicle trips made in the RFTA service area.
The disproportion between person trips made in private vehicles and those in mass transit means that a “small” decrease of 10 percent of vehicles would require bus ridership to increase by 2 to 3 times over current levels.
I don’t know if Reckless and Jerry really think that a tripling or quintupling of bus ridership is an achievable goal, or whether they are prepared to spend more on transit than we commit to education just to make a negligible reduction in traffic volumes. Neither seems to be aware that this is the real context of their arguments.
Both are operating in an information free zone, and that is not a good place from which to make public policy decisions.
16. reckless G | October 29th, 2008 at 9:39 am

[I don’t know if Reckless and Jerry really think that a tripling or quintupling of bus ridership is an achievable goal]

You're just not thinking fourth dimensionally...

If a person who currently rides the bus to work one day a week, decides to start riding three days a week; their ridership has tripled. Five days a week; it's quintupled. It's not a matter of gaining only new riders, it's getting people who already use the bus sometimes to use it all of the time.

Jerry's right again though, the low cost of gas will induce people to drive instead of ride. Ipso facto; if the bus fare is lowered so that it’s cheaper than driving or even better; free, it would translate into more bus trips.

I’m pretty confident that the gas prices will soar again after the election, so it may eventually get to a point where, even if the RFTA fares stay as they are, more people will be financially induced to ride more often. Voila! Increased ridership. Then RFTA will need more buses to accommodate the volume of riders. If they need to increase the fare to pay for those buses, ridership will decrease and they won’t need the buses after all. If they can buy the buses without increasing the fare, we’ll have achieved equilibrium.

Jeffrey, you accuse us of operating in an information free zone, which I take as a nice way of calling us ignorant, yet you refuse to acknowledge the fact that ridership is heavily tied to the cost of the fare. As I said before, you have no way of knowing by how much lowering or eliminating the fare would increase ridership. As a result of your assumption that ridership cannot possibly be increased enough to make a perceptible difference, your extensive mathematical formulations simply justify what you think you know. And that is not a good place from which to make public policy decisions.
17. Jerry Bovino | October 29th, 2008 at 9:08 pm

Wow - Jeffrrey and Sue and I must be total losers to spend all this time writing about buses and traffic and roads. We probably should "get a life" and do something other than "blog ourselves to death." I am going for a hike!