P K XCUV UMMAY oaring Fork and Colorado iver Valleys egional ravel Patterns tudy GAL GGAPHY he regional travel patterns profile includes data collected from all of Garfield and Pitkin Counties and the portion of agle County within the oaring Fork Valley. his includes all 23 transportation analysis zone(s) (AZs) mapped below. Parachute Battlement Mesa orth ifle Central ifle outh ifle ransportation Analysis Zones (AZs) ural ast Garfield County ural West Garfield County ilt ew Castle Downtown/ West Glenwood prgs. Glenwood Meadows/ ed Mtn. outh Glenwood prings Missouri Heights/ Lookout Mtn. Carbondale l Jebel Basalt ural outhwest agle County ural West Pitkin County ural ast Pitkin County nowmass Village Aspen Airport/ Woody Creek West Aspen ast Aspen Data for 2014 was collected from the 2014 Winter and ummer oaring Fork ransportation Authority (FA) ravel Patterns urvey unless otherwise indicated. Data for was collected from the Local & egional ravel Patterns urvey unless otherwise indicated. HUG/DMGAPHC DAA Population 1 71,037 82,227 2 Population residing year-round 94% 94% Lived in region > 1 year 9 9 Households with children under 16 3 3 Households receiving housing assistance 1 1 Median annual household income $75,000 3 $66,000 1. U.. Census Bureau 2. 2012 Population (American Community urvey) 3. nflation adjusted for 2014 dollars V BLAC ransportation Analysis Zone Map of the egion UMM V GAFLD ural West Garfield County Battlement Mesa Parachute «13 «325 orth ifle Central ifle outh ifle ural ast Garfield County 70 ew Castle Downtown/ West Glenwood prings ilt Glenwood Meadows/ ed Mtn. Missouri Heights/ Lookout Mtn. AGL 70 Carbondale ural West Pitkin County l Jebel ural outhwest agle County Basalt!( 82 GA F LD A GL MA PK Aspen Airport/Woody Creek nowmass Village ast Aspen LAK DLA 0 7.5 Miles GU ural ast Pitkin County West Aspen CHAFF W FA 2014 egional ravel Patterns tudy 1
XCUV UMMAY 2014 egional ravel Patterns tudy C CMMUG DAA 2012 Worker population 2 43,000 4 48,385 5 Vehicle available for commuting 8 8 Average commute distance 15 miles 16 miles Average commute time 23 mins 25 mins Work and live in same community 4 3 Workers with free parking at work 8 9 4. stimate based on Bureau of conomic Analysis data 5. 2012 5-yr AC, Worker Population by Workplace Geography M M U 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 5 6 2014 Commute Mode hare Commute Mode hare 1 1 1 ummer Winter 8% 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 Commute Mode hare by Bus Pass wnership* 7 4 3 2 1 34% 6 o Bus Pass tored Value Card Bus Pass 8% 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 64% 6 Winter Commute Mode hift Winter Commute Mode hift 1 1 1 Commute Mode hare by mployer Provided Bus Pass* 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 6 3 1 1 1 5 o mployer Provided Pass mployer Provided Bus Pass (partial or full cost) elecommute Mode hift Commute Mode hare by Parking ype at Work* G 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 9 8 Do not Less than 1 day 1-3 days per 1 day per week 2 days per telecommute a month month week 2014 3 or more days a week 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 7 5 1 8% 3 Free Parking Paid Parking *2014 winter data 2 FA 2014 egional ravel Patterns tudy
XCUV UMMAY 2014 egional ravel Patterns tudy A DAA % of esidents who... wn a bus pass/stored value card 3 28% mployer provided buss pass/ value card 1 18% Live within 5 blocks of a bus stop 5 4 Live over a mile from nearest bus stop 2 34% Have taken VelociFA in last 30 days /A 3 Have taken other bus in last 30 days 38% 3 Bus s Used used For for ypical typical commute Commute Both 18% ther Bus 4 VelociFA 4 A 20,000 18,000 16,000 14,000 12,000 10,000 8,000 6,000 4,000 2,000 0 FA daily ridership -2014 March July +28% +5 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 A ACC How bus riders got to/from the bus 8 7 6 68% 5 "First Mile" "Last Mile" 5 4 3 3 2 2 1 Drove Alone Carpool Walk Personal Bike W-cycle BCYCLG 1 8% 4% ummer bicycle mode share by trip purpose Personal Bike W-Cycle Commute Personal Work elated All W A L K / B K FA 2014 egional ravel Patterns tudy 3
XCUV UMMAY 2014 egional ravel Patterns tudy H PAL P F D Personal rips Mode hare Personal rips Mode hare 6 5 5 4 ummer 4 Winter 3 2 18% 2 8% 1 4% WK-LAD P F WK Work-elated rips Mode hare Work-elated Mode hare 7 64% 58% 6 ummer 5 Winter 4 3 2 1 1 8% 1 Winter Personal rips Mode hift Winter Work-elated rips Mode hift P 6 5 4 3 2 1 5 5 8% 1 2014 4% Mode share is displayed above for the two trips purposes other than commute trips (shown on page 2 in the Commuting section). hese include work-related trips, which are trips made during work by employees for business purposes, and personal trips, which cover all other trips that are not commute or work-related trips. 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 6 64% 1 1 1 8% ABU H PJC he oaring Fork ransportation Authority (FA) conducted a regional travel patterns study in 2014 of the Colorado iver Valley and oaring Fork Valley from Parachute to Aspen. Previous studies were completed in 1998 and. he project was a cooperative effort of FA, Colorado D, and area counties and municipalities. he project was conducted to provide local jurisdictions and planning agencies with information on travel demand within the study area. his includes information about current and future needs for motor vehicles, for public transit and for walking and bicycling. Data from the study was also used to develop travel forecasts and will help companies and agencies design commuter support programs to address needed changes in travel choices. he data collection methodology included two rounds of surveys, a winter and summer survey. he winter survey targeted employees and employers within the study area. he summer survey targeted residents. A total of 1,679 surveys of residents and employees were collected (1,352 in the winter and 327 in the summer) and 110 employer surveys were completed. he region was divided into 23 transportation analysis zones (AZs) and all data will be available at the AZ level. A comprehensive report of the study s findings is available through FA. 4 FA 2014 egional ravel Patterns tudy
XCUV UMMAY 2014 egional ravel Patterns tudy UMMAY F KY D 160,000 140,000 120,000 100,000 80,000 60,000 40,000 20,000 0 151,000 137,000 15,072 egion +3./yr 123,000 13,768 27,656 109,000 12,397 25,624 95,000 11,033 23,478 82,344 85,000 9,644 21,286 8,484 8,729 19,190 17,173 17,658 108,000 97,804 87,300 76,687 56,687 58,961 66,558 2013 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 outhwest agle County (+2./yr) Pitkin County (+2./yr) Garfield County (+3.4%/yr) 6 winter ource: Colorado tate Demography ffice work in ifle, Glenwood prings or Aspen 7 walk/bike commute mode share (2.23k 2.28k) summer 1 DALY VM* 0./yr P CAPA DALY VM* (35.7 31.0) since 0./yr AUAL A DHP (3.5k 4.8k) ource: CD 4./yr ource: FA Population Growth 2000-2013 population grew at 1.8% per year 2013-2040 population forecast to grow at 3. per year merging mployment Centers concentration of jobs into three primary regional employment centers: Aspen (3), Glenwood prings (2), and ifle () emerging regional employment centers in Garfield County Active ransportation high walk/bike commute mode share in the summer contributes to lower summer driving mode share active commute mode share is particularly high in the regional employment centers raffic Demand 0. growth per year in state highway VM since 0. decline per year in per capita state highway VM since ransit idership 4. growth per year in transit ridership since 6 increase in the winter bus commute mode share since K Y D FA 2014 egional ravel Patterns tudy 5
XCUV UMMAY 2014 egional ravel Patterns tudy UMMAY F MPLCA M P L C A egional DM Program he key trends from this study suggest that this region may have an opportunity in coming years to encourage a broad shift away from reliance on personal vehicles. uch an effort would coincide with a general trend already underway. An effective way to encourage this would be to implement a regional transportation demand management (DM) program that would coordinate local DM programs in each community similar to the ransportation Program in the City of Aspen. he data provided by this study indicates that two significant opportunities could be the initial focus of a regional DM program transit passes and parking management. DM ransit Passes he survey results revealed that the propensity to commute by bus is five times higher for workers with an employer-provided bus pass than for those without an employer-provided bus pass. nly of employees in ifle and of employees in Glenwood prings own a bus pass, whereas of Carbondale, 2 of nowmass Village, and 3 of Aspen workers own passes. A regional program coordinated by or with FA to increase the number of workers with bus passes would pay direct and significant dividends in increased ridership, reduced dependency on auto commuting and employment growth. DM Parking Management he survey data indicates that 88% of commuters with access to free parking drive to work, while only 6 of those who do not have access to free parking drive to work. As employment grows in the regional job centers, local communities and employers should consider taking a more active role in parking management in order to reduce vehicle trips, more efficiently utilize developable land and facilitate the creation of more pedestrianfriendly urban environments. trategic Community Development ransit ridership growth has created the potential for municipalities in the region to integrate land use development with these transit services. ne way to do this would be update local comprehensive plans to include transit-oriented development strategies. With population growth in the region forecast to continue above annually, there will be ample opportunity to guide this new housing and employment toward transit-served places. uch an approach would pay major long-term dividends in the form of transportation and land use efficiencies that would reduce future tax burdens and encourage economic development. ransit service in the -70 corridor he emergence of Glenwood prings and ifle as significant employment centers has implications for the regional transit network. n 2014, 38% percent of all winter commute trips by Aspen and nowmass workers and 2 by Carbondale workers were made by transit. However, transit only accounts for of winter commute trips by Glenwood prings employees, and by ifle employees. hese differences in transit propensities are a direct result of the limited transit service currently available within and to these communities. Future transit could include the eventual extension of B-style services (bus rapid transit) to ifle or even Parachute, an effort that could begin with an increase in regular bus and express bus service in the -70 corridor. Access to VelociFA ervice he new VelociFA Bus apid ransit (B) between Glenwood prings and Aspen has improved regional travel. However, the more streamlined system, with fewer detours off the highway is producing greater demand for first and last mile travel (to and from the B stations) in the communities along the route. ince the percent of bus commuters who drove to the bus increased from 1 to 2. At the same time, FA s park-n-ride lots are at or near capacity throughout most of the transit system. o leverage the B program investment, future regional and local transportation investments should focus on improving facilities for walking and biking to the major bus stops and increasing local bus circulation within communities, particularly in communities north and west of Aspen and nowmass. Local connectivity he three regional employment centers are not only growing in size, but the percent of residents who both live and work in those communities is also growing. his presents an opportunity to increase the number of walk/ bike commute trips. Local jurisdictions could support this by connecting missing links in the street, bike and pedestrian networks; establishing robust connectivity requirements for future developments; and establishing policies that support and encourage walking and biking within these communities. 6 FA 2014 egional ravel Patterns tudy