DENVER | Transportation Thread

[bunt_q]

Originally Posted by TakeFive

It's wonderful support of the medical system for care that would be given anyway.

It's also a wonderful incentive for care that might not be needed. But in any case, it counts against the TABOR cap, and there does not appear to be any incentive for slow-government-growth types to pull it out. (It's sort of like state level sequestration.) After which, you'd have two years of litigation before we're certain that it's a valid enterprise (although the bridge enterprise case would seem to help clarify that).

So, the question we need to ask is whether more free money for hospitals is such a wonderful thing that it is more important than schools and roads. Or perhaps Medicaid providers here should be forced to "make do" as they do in other states. It's no longer a question of expanding access, after all, the ACA took care of that. Now it's just about how much hospitals should be reimbursed for the care they will provide to covered individuals. To me, less s better, there's enough greed in that system.

[TakeFive]

Admittedly it gets complicated but just a few highlights:

How many people do you know that like to hang out in ER's for care they don't need especially since there's no direct monetary benefit to them?

States had the option of opting into the expanded Medicaid part of ACA or not. Republican Gov. Kasich of Ohio and even Arizona's Gov. Brewer opted IN. Many southern states did not.

Other states "make do" by receiving a Big Blank check (little or very vague accountability) from a nebulous "uninsured federal pot." How is that any more economical or efficient? Texas, for example has a "five-year waiver to pump $29 billion into state health care coffers" from the "uninsured funding." You can read more HERE or elsewhere.

The very necessary healthcare system is also a Big economic engine. Why not support it while striving for more efficiency and economies of scale?

[bobg]

Originally Posted by bunt_q

It's also a wonderful incentive for care that might not be needed. But in any case, it counts against the TABOR cap, and there does not appear to be any incentive for slow-government-growth types to pull it out. (It's sort of like state level sequestration.) After which, you'd have two years of litigation before we're certain that it's a valid enterprise (although the bridge enterprise case would seem to help clarify that).

So, the question we need to ask is whether more free money for hospitals is such a wonderful thing that it is more important than schools and roads. Or perhaps Medicaid providers here should be forced to "make do" as they do in other states. It's no longer a question of expanding access, after all, the ACA took care of that. Now it's just about how much hospitals should be reimbursed for the care they will provide to covered individuals. To me, less s better, there's enough greed in that system.

The ACA just expanded access to insurance. If you increase the under-compensation for medicare for the hospitals/providers in poor areas that are predominately medicare/medicaid/etc. they will be less able to serve poor areas, and in turn impact access to the actual healthcare. Poor people living in economically diverse areas would probably not notice a thing, but getting rid of this fee would certainly impact access to healthcare in rural areas and poorer suburban areas such as Adams County.

[bunt_q]

So you are voting yes, that is more important than schools and roads.

I can't speak to general fund impact, but the affect on special transportation projects was an immediate $102 million reduction this fiscal year. (Off I-70, primarily.)

[bobg]

Originally Posted by bunt_q

So you are voting yes, that is more important than schools and roads.

I can't speak to general fund impact, but the affect on special transportation projects was an immediate $102 million reduction this fiscal year. (Off I-70, primarily.)

Is keeping this fee intact over time more important to CO given our healthcare system reimbursement structure than the I70 corridor (and other CDOT projects) is to CO? Absolutely with zero hesitation yes. It may take till the next recession when TABOR surpluses are just theoretical, but ultimately I believe it will become an enterprise. So it should only be creating a temporary dilemma.

I cannot speak to the schools on this as I haven't read or heard how this impacts them right now.

[bunt_q]

Originally Posted by bobg

It may take till the next recession when TABOR surpluses are just theoretical, but ultimately I believe it will become an enterprise.

I don't understand what you're saying, how would a future recession affect the creation of an enterprise?

[TakeFive]

Originally Posted by bunt_q

So you are voting yes, that is more important than schools and roads.

I can't speak to general fund impact, but the affect on special transportation projects was an immediate $102 million reduction this fiscal year. (Off I-70, primarily.)

Just a quick final thought. That population which lives below the median or is w/o corporate or government health coverage is akin to water in a water balloon. You can't diminish the volume of water by just squeezing on the balloon. It just finds a different path.

It's not about being more important; it's not a black/white, either/or kind of argument. As you pointed out the hospital provider fee should have logically been put into an enterprise fund from the beginning. No tax dollars are involved.


Moving right along then...

"CDOT director’s assessment of Colorado’s highway system: 'Terrible'
May 7, 2015 by Cathy Proctor, Denver Business Journal

“The state of the state on transportation: it’s terrible in Colorado,” said Bhatt, who started his job heading CDOT in February. “In Colorado today, we have a transportation crisis on our hands.” Colorado ranks 37th in the nation in terms of pavement conditions, he said.

For a state that is experiencing lots of growth this is not a sustainable model.

[bobg]

Originally Posted by bunt_q

I don't understand what you're saying, how would a future recession affect the creation of an enterprise?

In general just not having a surplus -not necessarily a recession- will effect the political viability of making such a change to the Healthcare Provider Fee. Right now the proposal comes off to a lot of Republicans (and their constituents) as just a loophole to get around TABOR in order for the state to keep more money regardless of the merits of the HPF enterprise status.

Without the surplus it doesn't create the same political pressure and more R's can judge it on it's merits. Kind of like a 5 story zoning in NW Denver creates political pressure on a city councilperson when an actual proposal comes up but doesn't create as much pressure when it's completely theoretical.

[bunt_q]

Originally Posted by TakeFive

You can't diminish the volume of water by just squeezing on the balloon. It just finds a different path.

I'm not suggesting that people get less coverage. I am suggesting that we should do everything possible to pay hospitals less for all forms of health care delivery. That is what needs to be squeezed, across the board. It's the one industry where market forces don't apply - there's no supply and demand when you're sick - you'll pay anything for that health care, if you can. And for that reason, health care exploits people and government. Most people thing lawyers are greedy thieves - that's how I feel about doctors (and everybody else in the health care food chain). Recent DaVita settlements, for example. Criminals, the lot of them.

Originally Posted by bobg

In general just not having a surplus -not necessarily a recession- will effect the political viability of making such a change to the Healthcare Provider Fee. Right now the proposal comes off to a lot of Republicans (and their constituents) as just a loophole to get around TABOR in order for the state to keep more money regardless of the merits of the HPF enterprise status.

Without the surplus it doesn't create the same political pressure and more R's can judge it on it's merits. Kind of like a 5 story zoning in NW Denver creates political pressure on a city councilperson when an actual proposal comes up but doesn't create as much pressure when it's completely theoretical.

Oh, I follow. I agree. Hate to waste a whole economic cycle, but if that's what it takes, so be it.

Of course, there would probably need to be some sort of compromise. If spending that counts (including the fee) goes up and up and up, and then suddenly the fee is pulled out, unless that is somehow deducted from the baseline, you'd effectively neuter TABOR forever. I am not sure how that would work. I'll have to ask.

[TakeFive]

Focusing on transportation needs and a fix... of course it's about politics.

For Republicans there's the whole "small government" meme and specifically there's TABOR. It's no surprise that the state senator from C-Springs speaks for the TABOR crowd. Co. Sprgs. has gotten some I-25 relief and aren't growing much and likely feel no urgency for roads I'd guess.

But there's many R's who have a need for better roads but still cling to the notion of floating bonds not backed by any revenue stream other than from the Feds. They seemingly, like Kentucky, still believe that federal billions will bail everybody out as in the past despite significant evidence to the contrary.

There has been several "no new taxes" red states that have in fact raised their gas taxes this year. Colorado R's need to grasp the reality of things like their conservative brethren in other states already have. I'm sure they're aware of the potential underlying folly of what they propose but it's always tempting to hope to get something for free.

Hickenlooper has mentioned a willingness to refund dollars to taxpayers. He primarily wants preserve $200 million passing to the highway trust fund for five years. He doesn't want to lose half or all if it because of TABOR. So there is room for compromise.

[bunt_q]

In reality, we'll be fine. The less money we have, the more we'll need tolling and public-private partnerships, and the longer I'll have a job.

[seventwenty]

DBJ on car sharing (specifically Car2Go) in Denver

Highlights:

Denver's car sharing programs have grown so much that the city has carved out tiny half-space parking slots on some downtown streets and reserved them for Car2Go, the largest car share operator in the city. Car2Go currently has 450 vehicles in its Denver program and a 50-square-mile “home” area, where cars can be parked at any legal parking spot on public streets.

For companies that are part of Denver's car share program, the drivers/members don’t have to pay parking meters when they park the car — the city picks up the revenue from the parking by issuing an annual $850 permit for car share vehicles.

. . .

The city developed a strategic parking plan in 2011 that included three goals: a desire to reduce the existing demand for parking, to reduce the number of vehicle miles traveled (VMT) in the city, and also to provide more options for mobility, [City spokesperson] Ferrin said.

“We had all this development going on with the FasTracks project and all the larger transportation efforts, and we needed to have some glue to make it stick,” Ferrin said.

According to the city, the four car share operators have about 17,500 members who have taken the vehicles for 377,400 trips. The average trip is about 5.16 miles and lasts for 33 minutes.

And the peak times for the shared vehicles to be on the move is in the afternoon and evening on Thursdays, Fridays and Saturdays, according to the city.
Based on information from surveys, Denver has seen a reduction in the demand for parking, Ferrin said.

“Members say they’re now using their single-occupancy vehicles less, and they’re using other modes of transportation more,” Ferrin said.

“What we’re trying to do is really mesh it into the transportation infrastructure of Denver. For instance, our partnership with RTD allows our members to use our cars as the first mile and the final mile option — they can use our cars to get to the station, it’s one of the options.” [Car2Go spokesperson]

[TakeFive]

Hi Kim

Photographer: Sasha Graff/Bloomberg

"Denver Airport Beats Peers as Its City Ranks Near Top for Growth"
May 6, 2015 by Jennifer Oldham BloombergBusiness

Denver International Airport posted lower borrowing costs than most of its peers last year while generating higher returns, although it operates in a state with the 22nd-largest population.

DIA has become Colorado’s top economic generator, earning $26.3 billion a year and supporting 225,000 jobs. Bonds that financed its construction were the sixth-best performer in the past 12 months among 53 U.S. airports with outstanding debt. Their 5.41 percent gain outstripped both U.S. investment-grade and high-yield corporate bonds, according to data compiled by Bloomberg.

Even if, like me, you're not intimate with the Bond Market this is obviously a glowing report for DIA.

Of course Kim Day has her DIA rap:

“A large part of the population in the Denver area voted for the bonds to build this airport -- it’s really unique,” said Kim Day, the facility’s chief executive officer. “This community understands the economic engine they get growing this airport -- we’ve got political support you don’t find anywhere else.”

This is the gem that's priceless:

The airport started life as a project people loved to hate, with political consultant Roger Ailes, now president of Fox News Channel, spearheading a campaign by businesses near the former Stapleton International Airport to defeat it. Today, as Congress debates whether to replenish the federal Highway Trust Fund while roads and bridges crumble, DIA has become a testament to the economic heft of infrastructure projects.

The Bloomberg quality article goes on at some length in discussing DIA. Good read.

[CharlesCO]

I find that TV commercial with her talking about the airport being so energy sustainable really ridiculous. I thought I was on something when I saw it pop up over here on Bay Area TV.

[TakeFive]

"Self-Driving Cars Are Already Getting Into Accidents"
Gizmoda's Got the Goods
5/11/15 by Kate Knibbs

[TakeFive]

"Why is Amtrak such a mess?"
May 13 by By Tom Zoellner in WaPo

This is a nice review (not long) of the railroad's and passenger train's American history. Tom is the author of "Train: Riding the Rails that Created the Modern World, from the Trans-Siberian to the Southwest Chief." More importantly, I'll give props to anybody who links to an Arlo Guthrie song (more interesting live version).

[bcp]

awful tragedy in philly, need to up the safety / attitude / mechanical issues where needed...but here are the numbers - while the car is clearly used a LOT more, it has around 900x more deaths from 2000-2009. should we focus on these safety issues a bit more?



journalisticresearch.org

[bunt_q]

Focus how? We do focus - good lord, we have thousands of pages of federal highway safety regulations, what more do you want? Accidents happen. I figure to some extent this is the cost of the American way of life. We could invest more in infrastructure, of course, which would help, but nobody wants to do that.

[wong21fr]

Originally Posted by bunt_q

Focus how? We do focus - good lord, we have thousands of pages of federal highway safety regulations, what more do you want? Accidents happen. I figure to some extent this is the cost of the American way of life. We could invest more in infrastructure, of course, which would help, but nobody wants to do that.

Horrible drivers to have their hands chopped off in the public square. We should be looking to ISIS for ways of enforcing laws and appropriate punishment.

[RyanD]

Originally Posted by bunt_q

Focus how? We do focus - good lord, we have thousands of pages of federal highway safety regulations, what more do you want? Accidents happen. I figure to some extent this is the cost of the American way of life. We could invest more in infrastructure, of course, which would help, but nobody wants to do that.

You're putting bike lanes, with a 10 foot double reinforced retaining wall between the bike and car lane, on I-70 right?? Nothing spells out safety like some good retaining walls!