HomeMy WebLinkAboutRFTA 09.22.2025
September 18, 2025
To: John Leybourne,
Planner III
Garfield County Community Development
From: Hannah Klausman,
Regional Planning Director
RFTA
RE: Harvest Roaring Fork PUD
RFTA has reviewed the Harvest Roaring Fork PUD proposal and has incorporated department
comments from Operations, Planning, Trails & Corridor, and Maintenance. Below is a high-level
summary of RFTA’s analysis, followed by further examination of 1. Existing transit service, 2.
Impacts to the Rio Grande Corridor and RFTA ROW process, 3. Review of project compliance
with Garfield County Comprehensive Plan goals as they relate to transit, and finally, 4.
Preliminary Findings and requests for additional information.
Harvest Roaring Fork proposes 1500 dwelling units, and approximately 50,000 square feet of
commercial uses at full build out. This is estimated to be a community of roughly 4,000 people.
Existing transit infrastructure is insufficient to support the transportation needs of a community
of this scale, and significant upgrades will be required to avoid auto-dependence and regional
traffic impacts.
To meet the mobility needs for a project of this size and scale, numerous transit service
frequency, facility, and transportation infrastructure upgrades would be necessary along with
long term maintenance and operations to support such improvements. The project is in
unincorporated Garfield County which is currently not a member of RFTA. RFTA is primarily
funded by dedicated sales and property taxes levied in each of its member jurisdictions.
Improvements to bus stops in non-member jurisdictions require financial participation from
those jurisdictions or project developers.
Given the project’s size and location outside of RFTA member jurisdictions, dedicated funding
commitments from Garfield County and/or the developer are essential to ensure acceptable
transit service and achieve the applicant’s stated goal of traffic reduction.
1. Existing Bus Service to Project Area
The applicant states that “The PUD will attempt to alleviate traffic through Glenwood Springs by
providing substantial housing options mid-valley for Garfield County Residents…. near high
frequency regional transit [that] will help reduce vehicle travel and congestion on Grand
Avenue.” (Page 62, Exhibit C, Rezoning Justification Report).
High frequency bus service is service that occurs every 15 minutes or less. Low frequency bus
service is 30 minutes or more (Bus Rapid Transit Service Design, American Public Transportation
Association, 2010). Current service to the project area is every 30 minutes as described in further
detail below. Ensuring this project has access to high-frequency BRT service every 15 minutes is
key to reducing vehicle travel and congestion.
Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) Service
Current BRT service does not connect to this proposed development. The closest BRT stations
are the 27th Street Station in Glenwood Springs and the Carbondale Park and Ride (PnR) located
5 miles from the proposed development and predominantly requiring vehicular access.
Local Valley Service
While Local Valley service technically reaches the project area at the Spring Valley stop, its 30
minutes frequency, stop amenities, and connectivity are far below what would be required for a
development projected to house nearly 4,000 residents. The Spring Valley stop is half a mile
away. The Aspen Glen stop is over 1 mile away.
Travel times on Local Valley Service, from Spring Valley Stop:
Up valley
Spring Valley to the Carbondale PnR 9 minutes
Spring Valley to El Jebel PnR 29 minutes
Spring Valley to Brush Creek PnR 59 minutes
Spring Valley to Rubey Park 1 hour 17 minutes
Down valley
Spring Valley to Glenwood 27th Street Station 9 minutes
Spring Valley to Downtown Glenwood 15 minutes
Additional time to access stop:
½ mile walk to stop 10 minutes
Drive time to park at stop 5 minutes (estimated)
Bus Stop Guideline Compliance:
The following is a list of compliance of the Spring Valley and Aspen Glen bus stops and
compliance with RFTA’s Bus Stop Design Standards & Guidelines as well as amenity analysis.
Spring Valley:
• Up-valley and down-valley stops are located on the near side of the intersection. RFTA’s
Bus Stop Design Standards & Guidelines outlines RFTA’s preferred stop location on the
far-side of the intersection as it has been shown to be the safest for passengers exiting
the bus and minimizing conflicts with other vehicles. Relocating to far side increases
pedestrian safety and allows bus to utilize the red light for efficient and safe merge
movements back onto SH82.
• Lack of shelter, or seating amenities.
• Lack of bike rack facilities.
Aspen Glen:
• Aspen Glen stops have inadequate lengths and tapers for the design speed of State
Highway 82, Lack bike and pedestrian connections, ADA improvements, lighting,
landscaping, and a safe crossing of SH82.
• Lack of shelter, or seating amenities.
• Lack of bike rack facilities.
Analysis:
This application does not address expected demand for multimodal transportation, nor the
infrastructure and operations required to support that demand.
Current bus service levels fall far short of what is necessary to serve a community of nearly 4,000
residents and would result in disproportionate reliance on single-occupancy vehicles. The
proposed 1500 dwelling units with an average persons per household of 2.6, would equate to
3,900 people. By comparison, the Town of Basalt—with a similar population—has BRT access,
park-and-ride facilities, and local circulator options. Without similar investments, Harvest
Roaring Fork risks functioning as an auto-oriented subdivision rather than a multimodal
community.
The Town of Basalt includes the following transit and mobility components to serve the
population which represent the appropriate level of transit and multimodal options to serve a
town of 4,000 people:
• BRT standard stops on either side of SH82 at the main entrance (15-minute service)
• A grade separated pedestrian crossing (underpass) of SH82 connecting the stations
• Bus/BRT-only pullouts on SH82 in both directions at the stations
• Walkways/bikeways connecting the BRT stations to the rest of the community
• Bikeshare and micro-transit (Basalt Downtowner on demand)
• Large Park and Ride (214 spaces, El Jebel PnR)
• Sales tax and property tax dedication to RFTA as member jurisdiction.
The proposed development utilizes the following existing transit infrastructure:
• Local Valley stops on either side of SH82. (30-minute service)
• At grade crosswalk on SH82 connecting the stops (Less safe than grade separated, slows
signal timing)
• Rio Grande Corridor Trail, Community trails to access Local Valley Stops
• Small Park and Ride (53 spaces, Spring Valley PnR)
• Non-member service area (Jurisdictional funding necessary for improvements)
Inadequate transit service results in less residents choosing transit as their preferred mode of
travel and more single occupancy vehicle use, increasing traffic congestion and greenhouse gas
emissions region wide. It may also force demands from residents for transit service equivalent to
what other towns receive, long after the improvements needed to be established.
While the applicant cites proximity to jobs as a congestion benefit, the phenomenon of latent
demand suggests this effect will not materialize without parallel transit investments. Congestion
relief depends on diverting trips from autos to high-quality transit, not simply shifting residential
locations. The Upper Valley Mobility Report from the Aspen Institute explains the concept in the
following paragraph.
(A) Latent Demand. When perceived auto congestion is reduced during peak hours, many people
will use a highway more often, shift their travel back to peak hours, or switch from transit to
driving, thus increasing congestion again. This is a specific application of the economic concept of
“induced demand.” That is, when the supply of a good increases, more of the good is consumed.
(Community Forum Task Force on Transportation and Mobility. (2017, September). Upper Valley
Mobility Report. Aspen Institute)
Recognizing that any new residential development adds to traffic congestion, a more effective
tool to lessen the growth of congestion is to implement efficient and convenient transit options
to encourage less automobile use.
2. Rio Grande Corridor ROW Crossing and Access
The RFTA right-of-way crossings proposed are covered by an Easement. The easement for
access to the Project Site at this location was granted by Roaring Fork Railroad Holding
Authority.
The applicant will be required to submit a Land Use Application and receive approval from RFTA
for work within the Railroad Right of Way. This process includes a 30-60 day minimum
turnaround for approval with an additional 60-90 days if the Public Utilities Commission requires
sign off, which RFTA expects. The applicant will be required to meet design requirements
outlined in RFTA’s Access Control Plan.
The applicant has proposed a below grade crossing of the Rio Grande Corridor at the main
vehicular entrance with a realignment of the trail from the centerline of the ROW. RFTA is
requesting additional design information and the reasoning behind this alignment choice.
Additionally, RFTA would like to know the proposed distances between trail access points
identified on Figure F2. Public Transit Access Map, within the neighborhoods. Specifically, how
are RFTA Trail Access points 1, 2, 4, 5, and 6 intended to function and interface with the adjacent
neighborhoods.
3. Garfield County Comprehensive Plan Analysis
Chapter 2, Future Land Use
Growth in Unincorporated Communities
Policy 1: Where growth or the development of an expanded community is proposed in unincorporated areas it should meet the following concepts and be developed in accordance with the following strategies.
vii. Transit opportunities are provided.
RFTA Response: The proposal in its current form does not adequately meet Garfield County’s
comprehensive plan goals related to transit and transportation. Substantial upgrades—including
but not limited to bus stop relocation, a grade-separated crossing, and funding commitments to
support expanded service—are needed for consistency.
Chapter 3, Plan Sections
SECTION 3: TRANSPORTATION:
Policy 2: Support public transit services as well as alternative modes of
transportation, when and where feasible.
Policy 3: Explore options to address transportation and access issues.
iii. Explore mechanisms for the county to address increased traffic from
new development.
RFTA Response: The increased traffic from this development can be partially mitigated by
improved transit access and increased transit service. While this project is providing needed
regional housing options, without the matching appropriate transit service, it will become an
auto-centered suburb that does not meet Garfield County’s or the region’s traffic mitigation
goals.
4. Preliminary Findings & Additional Information Request
RFTA recognizes the immense need for housing units, specifically affordable units, to address
the region’s housing gaps. To ensure that Harvest Roaring Fork functions as a multimodal
community rather than an auto-dependent suburb, RFTA recommends the following preliminary
findings for improvements. These improvements should be developer-funded and implemented
in partnership with Garfield County and RFTA.
• Consideration of BRT access to the project site with stations, pullouts and dedicated bus
lanes to maintain travel times. This service level would require funding from jurisdiction
and/or developer.
• Construct a grade separated pedestrian crossing (underpass) of SH82 connecting bus
stops
• Relocate Spring Valley stops to far-side intersection locations.
• Evaluate expansion and relocation of the Spring Valley PnR.
• Upgrade bus stops to comply with Bus Stop Guidelines including bike and pedestrian
connections, ADA, lighting, and landscaping improvements.
• Implement Bikeshare and micro-transit.
To fully understand whether the above improvements are necessary and at what phases, RFTA
requests a Multimodal Transportation Impact Analysis (MTIA) to examine the project’s impact on
both the Rio Grande and local transit service. This would preferably be submitted with time for
review and comment period from RFTA prior to the first public hearing. This would also allow
RFTA to look at location feasibility for the listed improvements and discuss with the developer.
Requested information summary:
• Multimodal Transportation Impact Analysis
• Additional design detail and reasoning for RFTA Trail Access 3, relocated underpass.
• Additional detail on how the development interfaces with the Rio Grande Corridor
including distances between access points specific to neighborhoods.
Hannah Klausman, AICP
Regional Planning Director
Roaring Fork Transportation Authority