Castle Pines council declines to back county'led microtransit expansion amid cost and data concerns

City staff and councilors spent a Dec. 2 study session weighing whether Castle Pines should join Douglas County'led plans to expand Link On Demand microtransit through the southern I-25 corridor. Charlie Smith, assistant to the city manager, told the council the county's southern expansion could launch in late Q3 2026 at an estimated total program cost of $2.4 million to $2.6 million, with Castle Pines'proposed participation initially estimated at $200,000 for a six month launch period.

Smith described microtransit as an app- or call'based, zone'limited, on'demand shared-ride service that operates during specified hours and typically produces wait times of 10'025 minutes (Highlands Ranch reported an average wait of about 13 minutes). He said the county's Highlands Ranch pilot recorded about 41,286 rides from late May through Oct. 31, 2025, at an approximate per-ride cost of $23.40 and an operating cost to the county of about $70.19 per vehicle hour.

The presentation flagged several caveats about the available data. Smith said the county's app does not capture personally identifiable information, so staff have only time-range aggregates and self'reported survey responses (the presenter characterized the survey as a modest sample, perhaps less than half of ridership). Council members repeatedly asked for more granular timing and ridership breakdowns to assess whether microtransit would substitute for school bus trips, parent drives or represent net new trips.

Funding questions were central to the discussion. Smith said Douglas County would cover roughly half the program cost and that Castle Rock and Castle Pines would split the remaining half, putting Castle Pines'projected share at $200,000 for an initial six months. He also explained that UZA (urbanized area) funds tied to the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act could lower the local annual cost in a five-year encumbrance window: staff described a scenario in which UZA support reduces an estimated $400,000 annual local cost to roughly $200,000 a year for that period, but that outcome depends on federal program continuation and competitive application results.

Council members raised several policy concerns. One councilor, Jaime, criticized the proposal as creating a "publicly funded Uber," warning it could undercut drivers who rely on gig work: "We're putting people out of business," Jaime said. Roger (a councilor who spoke of his elderly mother's reliance on similar services) urged caution with that framing, saying microtransit "is a lifeline for folks who are retired" and allows seniors to make medical and grocery trips independently. Several members said they were not convinced Castle Pines had a demonstrated need and worried about retail leakage if residents used the service to shop outside the city.

Members also discussed operational limits: different providers and contracts can create zone boundaries that require riders to change vehicles when crossing jurisdictions, and existing Lone Tree arrangements operate under a separate contract that does not fully interoperate with the county's model. Legal and regulatory questions were flagged as well; staff said they would evaluate FTA, CDOT and RTD implications, and several councilors warned of the potential for transit'oriented community (TOD) designations to carry state zoning implications.

When staff asked whether the council would support continuing discussions with Douglas County on the southern expansion, a majority of council members withheld support or said "no," leaving staff without a directive to proceed. Smith said further negotiation points would be negotiable (including cost allocation and IGA exit terms) and that any IGA would be subject to annual appropriation; he also offered to request more granular county data if available near a one-year operations mark.

The study session concluded with staff taking the council's lack of support as guidance not to move forward immediately. The meeting adjourned at 6:58 p.m.

Provenance: Staff presentation and the council'wide discussion appear across the study session (topic introduced at SEG 003; discussion and direction request concluded by SEG 1422).