I like your second idea for a new design. Something along the lines of the DIA tent - a regional symbol that isn't too Denver-centric to annoy. Colors below I'm flexible with, but an orange "ground" stripe or something makes sense, with blue sky above the mountain/tent, if RTD wants to keep its current colors while adding a bit more flair.

KOA does stream, but when I try to do it during a game I always get some unrelated talk show.

Anyway, yeah, I was thinking DIA when making that. The colors for the 2nd one, by the way, come from RTD's webpage.

Rtds livery sucks. I'd like to see livery based on colorados licence plates, which are a great design and a great bit on place building.

I like the design based on the co flag

:2cents::2cents::2cents:

Ahh, I found the transportation thread. Guess I should stop by to castigate or more likely bore - more often. :D

Regarding Google, there's a piece on HuffPo about how they've flipped their political strategy. Apparently, self-interest reaches all corners. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/0..._n_976804.html

:sly::sly::sly:

:cheers:

Yes, KOA streams from pre-game to post-pame. It's not blocked like the Rockies. Football makes too much money, figuring that everybody is watching something
that they don't worry about free radio streaming.

Cirrus, there's two places (to click) and ways to stream. I've had good luck with the one at the top of the page (I just go to their Home/main site to stream).

:cool::cool::cool:

Very interesting! At this point, I think proposals such as these might just be the only way for RTD to really come through on its original promise of a complete FasTracks system for anywhere near the original cost... :yes:

Let's hope that this proposal really is as "viable" as the initial analysis seems to indicate, for I would love nothing more than to see the North Corridor get moving much sooner than later!

Aaron (Glowrock)

Interesting that it was the North Corridor rather than the NW Corridor, this likely shows just how weak the NW Corridor is.

Hopefully, this comes to fruition.

Very surprising IMO, that a company would want to do a PPP on the North line rather than the NW. Guess the numbers just make a lot more sense for the North.

Not surprising at all. The ridership numbers have always been abysmal on the NW, no matter how much they get tweaked and padded over the years by the Boulder-rail crowd, who still insist the train really isn't in the middle of nowhere. Not to mention, what PPP wants to compete with the B bus? More coordination with the railroads on the NW probably; never easy. Add to the that every business' dream - the opportunity to work with the City of Boulder (just ask Xcel)... yeah, thanks, but no thanks.

On the PPP itself... neat. Since it doesn't appear we'll ever get an infrastructure bank to infuse private capital into public works (too many big words and too serious of an idea for Congress to get its head around; it just makes too much sense), we need to get private capital into the infrastructure business any way we can. If that means PPP'ing every project out there that has any revenue-generating capacity - transport, water, sewer - so be it.

The NW is still has the lowest ridership of any of the corridors and I'd assume that a percentage of the ticket revenues has to be part of this proposal so you've got to have enough butts in the seats to make it work.

Does anyone have knowledge of how the financing for these kind of projects, backed with private funding, work? I'd assume that the company enters into a long-term contract with RTD where they provide the immediate funding for construction and operation and RTD uses the long-term sales tax revenue to pay annual installments. Does the company also receive a portion of the ticket revenue as well? Also, since it is the private company issuing the debt it would seem that this keeps Fastracks under the $4.5 billion bonding limit which allows the tax to continue for a longer period.

The answer is... it depends. Lots of different PPP models out there.

Here's RTD's media guide to explain PPPs for the Eagle P3...

http://www.rtd-fastracks.com/media/u...usPPPweb_2.pdf

The Transit Alliance did a PPP workshop too. Look at page 8 of Bob Walsh's presentation and there is a flowchart of money (just one way of doing things, of course). Basically, the operator/concessionaire gets all the operating revenues, with periodic additional payments from RTD.

http://www.transitalliance.org/pppworkshop/

Well, I'm assuming that we can throw out any of the models that require RTD to provide upfront funding, so it will likely be another DBFOM with RTD providing annual installments to the concessionaire.

Which means that the $4.5 billion bond limit stays unfulfilled possibly allowing the increased sales tax to continue indefinitely providing a funding source for additional projects down the road.

If I'm not mistaken, they include a contribution from the private partners, but RTD is still contributing a big chunk to the up-front capital costs too. Remember that $1 billion full funding grant agreement for the East and Gold lines. That's part of RTD's "down payment."

In other words, RTD will still get to its bonding limit... saving us all yet another ugly Doug Bruce lawsuit.

If you're really really bored, the Eagle P3 Concession Agreement is on the Fastracks page now, in all its full formula-packed glory.

http://www.rtd-fastracks.com/ep3_18

Damn you, now I have to read through it and see what the type of bonding capacity RTD used for Eagle 3, if any at all.

I hate you Bunt.

You're really hell bent on defeating TABOR at all costs aren't you?

If I could build a time machine, go back to 1990 and choke Doug Bruce with his own entrails, I would.

Hell, I'd do it today just for the pleasure of it. But, for good measure, I'd probably also shove his own severed penis down his throat.

Harsh. On what grounds do you think Eagle P3 will not meet its operating goals?

What does Doug Bruce have to do with Eagle P3? I think Wong is fine with the Eagle P3 folks.

I think his goal is to infinitely leverage the money Fastracks brings in and leverage public-private partnerships to the maximum so that RTD never hits its legal bonding maximum under the voter-approved Fastracks initiative. That way the Fastracks sales tax never expires.

It won't work forever, but it certainly would draw this out for a good long time if RTD could leverage that bonding 3-to-1 in little chunks and use the promise of perpetual annual fastracks tax receipts for opportunity payments to concessionaires. Plus a new new starts project every few years for good measure.

The legality of doing it that way...eh, not clear. ;)

Bingo. Nothing in the original ballot language says anything about WHEN the debt needs to be repaid, just that it must be repaid and may not exceed a principal of $3.4 billion. It does not prohibit using FasTracks revenue for operational costs, such as payments to a concessionaire, and in fact encourages the RTD board to find other sources of funding. Also, the funding must be used for fixed-guideway systems, park-and-rides, garages, support facilities, etc. but in now way defines that as being limited to the currently proposed corridors. As for being legal... that's for the courts to decide. ;)