Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutRFTA Revised Comments 01.14.2026 January 12, 2026 To: John Leybourne, Planner III, Garfield County Community Development From: Hannah Klausman, Regional Planning Director, RFTA RE: Harvest Roaring Fork PUD, Revised Preliminary Multimodal Analysis Response RFTA has reviewed the applicant’s Preliminary Multimodal Transportation Impact Analysis (MTIA) and SGM’s Transportation Study Review memorandum for the Harvest Roaring Fork Planned Unit Development, which proposes up to 1,500 dwelling units with associated neighborhood-serving retail. The MTIA estimates that approximately 17–19 percent of residential trips would be made by pedestrian, bicycle, or transit modes, reflecting the project’s proximity to the Rio Grande Trail and existing RFTA service. The analysis projects approximately 255 morning peak- hour and 285 afternoon peak-hour non-auto trips, with ridership at nearby Local Valley bus stops anticipated to increase by at least 200 transit riders during each peak period. RFTA provides the following comments related to the projected increase in transit demand. Service Increase and Cost Implications RFTA concurs that accommodating an increase of approximately 200 peak-period transit riders would require a substantial expansion of service. Based on current operating assumptions, meeting this project-generated demand would require approximately eight additional BRT- equivalent peak-period trips. The estimated 2025 cost to provide this level of additional service is approximately $2.2 million, inclusive of vehicle mileage, running time, marginal costs, and operating expenses. This estimate assumes BRT service. If the increased trips were applied to Local service instead of BRT, the cost would be higher due to longer running times. The MTIA further notes that Willits Town Center—approximately one-third the size of the proposed development—generates substantial peak-period transit boardings. This comparison provides relevant context indicating that ITE-based transit ridership estimates may understate actual future demand at the Harvest Roaring Fork site. Importantly, transit infrastructure and service enhancements associated with Willits were supported, in part, through developer contributions and negotiated mitigation obligations tied to development impacts, establishing a relevant local precedent for addressing development-generated transit demand. Infrastructure Considerations In addition to service expansion costs, infrastructure improvements including Spring Valley Station upgrades and potential pedestrian underpass improvements represent significant capital investments. While RFTA recognizes that Harvest Roaring Fork would not be the sole user of these facilities, the development would be a primary generator of new transit demand at this location. Consistent with established practice for major mixed-use developments in the Roaring Fork Valley, including Willits Town Center, RFTA believes it is appropriate for the applicant to provide a proportional financial contribution toward transit capital improvements necessitated by the project, including station enhancements, pedestrian grade-separated access, and other infrastructure required to safely and efficiently accommodate development-generated ridership. Transit Access and Stop Spacing RFTA concurs with SGM’s Transportation Study Review that multimodal options are most effective when located within approximately ¼ to ½ mile of development. Existing RFTA stops are located outside of this range for much of the proposed site. RFTA is undertaking a Transit Master Plan in 2026 that will evaluate service efficiency, stop spacing, and route alignment relative to emerging residential and employment centers. This planning effort may present a future opportunity to collaboratively evaluate service optimization in this corridor; however, any service or stop modifications driven by Harvest Roaring Fork would need to be supported by developer-funded mitigation. Funding and Mitigation Responsibility RFTA notes that the Harvest Roaring Fork site is not located within a RFTA member jurisdiction and that existing transit resources are programmed to serve current and regionally forecasted baseline demand. Service expansions required to accommodate development-specific impacts are not assumed within RFTA’s adopted funding framework. Accordingly, RFTA’s position remains that the cost of providing adequate transit service levels attributable to the Harvest Roaring Fork development, including increased service frequency and peak-period capacity, is the responsibility of the applicant. This includes, but is not limited to, costs associated with increased service frequency, peak-period capacity, supporting capital infrastructure, and long-term operations and maintenance attributable to project-generated demand. Potential approaches may include a project-specific metro district or other developer-funded mitigation strategy, subject to coordination with Garfield County and RFTA. RFTA remains available to coordinate with the applicant and Garfield County to refine ridership projections, confirm service requirements, and identify feasible mitigation measures as the project advances through subsequent development approvals. At this time, RFTA is supportive of improvements to existing transit infrastructure to better serve the project area but is not supportive of service directly to the development site that would create route deviations and add time to transit trips. The initial concept of direct bus access onto the property utilizing right-in/right-out movements and protected U-turns—is not consistent with efficient transit operations. Absent grade-separated crossings allowing pedestrians to access the up valley and down valley routes and buses to remain on existing route paths, service directly to the site is not considered viable. Given the substantial increase in transit ridership and pedestrian trips generated by the development, RFTA’s priority for improving transit service to this project area remains to expand the Spring Valley Station to a BRT station, with all necessary upgrades for BRT station compliance, with a grade-separated underpass connecting both sides of State Highway 82. The underpass is a key part of connecting transit and pedestrian networks in the project area and would be a direct link between development, active transportation, and transit use. This would require a long-term, sustainable funding mechanism to support increased transit service and contributions to on-going station/underpass maintenance, as the property is not located within a RFTA member jurisdiction. A project-specific metro district remains a potential option for further consideration. Hannah Klausman, AICP Regional Planning Director Roaring Fork Transportation Authority