DENVER | Transportation Thread

[bunt_q]

Umm, you have no idea what you're talking about, sorry.

But even assuming everything you said is true... what's this nonsense about the $6 fare only actually costs me $.60? Was that saracasm? Because as far as I know, every one of here on the forum gets paid in U.S. dollars, buys our groceries in U.S. dollars, and pays for the overpriced train in U.S. dollars. A $6 fare is a $6 fare. It's small comfort to me that Europeans (both of them) who visited Denver this year got a great deal on our trains...

edit: christ, you sound like my little brother, who actually thinks that we should go back to some screwed idea of medieval utopia, shoot'em in the streets justice, and a time (as if one ever really existed) when government just left everybody alone. You really believe Americans were better off, however you measure it, in 1892? You want to go back to a gold standard to return us to some sort of past late 19th-century greatness? wtf? Do you want to invade mexico too... go with the teddy roosevelt approach to illegal immigration? My, aren't we progressive thinkers...

[SnyderBock]

lmao... yeah

Better off than in 1892? No. I was only dating the inflation back to were it started. Since that time, the USD has lost 98% of it's value. That's why you can't buy a Pepsi for a nickel anymore - inflation.

Our currency is backed by a promise to pay back debt. Well, what happens if we keep taking on more debt at this alarming rate and it turns out we can't pay it off? Was not the gold standard a more stable way to back a currencies value? Is there not some kind of 21st century variation of the gold standard (perhaps a hybrid between our debt backing system and the gold standard), which would work better than our failing system? $7 trillion in debt now? About to be $9 trillion in debt. This promise to pay this debt off is what backs our currency, how can we keep going down this road? How can our currency not be threatened by collapse? Our nation is headed towards bankruptcy.

If inflation is really not as bad as the government is reporting, than their vast gold reserves have reaped incredible returns. All they need to do is sell it. Sell the gold, pay off the debt. Why not, we are transferring all our wealth to other countries anyway, why not send them our gold too? The truth is, our gold's value has not been properly adjusted for inflation. Even more so, our governments gold and oil reserves are the only reason our currency hasn't already collapsed. They are backing our debt which is backing our currency.

No wonder we don't have money for transportation projects. China is artificially deflating it's currency, the USA is artificially under-reporting inflation of it's currency, resulting in raw materials being over-valued, as they have not been properly adjusted for inflation, because of government manipulations (by both China and the USA) to conceal the truth about inflation and their currencies value. This is a mess!

But if course I am exaggerating this. I must be. My apologies for being so pessimistic.

[ski82]

Snyder, a little inflation is a good thing. A growing economy is almost impossible without a little inflation. Knowing that, run a compounding interest calculation over 100+ years, set the interest level (inflation) at 2-3% (a healthy rate), and see what happens to any given amount.

[Istanbul5280]

Also, as the American economy becomes more dependent on foreign trade, exchange rates should become as more significant factor in determining economic growth. For example, if the US economy and wages grow at 2.5% this year, but inflation is 2.5%, isn't it a wash? Then factor that the dollar has depreciated against a basket of foreign currenies by 5%. Americans are paid in dollars and purchase in dollars, but does the inflation number take into account all aspects of the additional costs of imported goods due to the a devalued dollar? I hope we have an economist in this forum. And to stay on topic, if someone could help clarify this, it would help us all understand why the construction budgets are so far out of wack.

[Octavian]

Most economists like a modest rate of inflation. Look at 2 recent examples of inflation. 1) the Great Depression. 2) Japan in the 1990's. Deflation is not good.

And while the dollar has lost value, the overall standard of living (and real GDP) the true measure of of a nation's wealth, in the U.S. has increased fabulously since whatever period you want to point to. So we can purchase far more today than we could at any other period in our history.

If things seem like budget busters today, consider that far more of our budget is spent on other things. Domestic programs today are much larger today than in the 1950's when the interstate highway system was created. Medicare and Medicaid (each about 20% of the federal budget) did not exist and Social Security was a much smaller program as a percentage of federal spending.

[SnyderBock]

Well, the Great Depression was not a recent period of inflation, it was a period of deflation.

The 1920's were a roaring period of rapid inflation. The great depression which followed was a market correction - resulting in deflation.

That's my whole point, we are now experiencing a rapid inflationary period - evident as seen by rapidly rising (inflating) prices. If it continues long enough, a market correction will be severe enough to cause a deflationary correction or also known as a depression. So far, we are only threatened by recession, but the inflation does not seem to be correcting it's self.

This may be caused by several variables compounding themselves:

1.) The USA's extreme trade deficit, resulting in rapid production of new currency (inflation of quantity of dollars in circulation), to replace the dollars being sent to other nation's for their goods.
2.) China artificially deflating it's currency which gives it an unfair advantage in trades (and in violation of WTO rules and guidelines).
3.) The United States under-reporting inflation of it's currency, throwing it out of sync with market values of raw materials.
4.) The United States holding the prime interest rate too low, in order to stimulate further US consumerism - causing greater debt loads.

These are my observations of the current economic state. These are not facts and are not supported by reports and studies. However, they are believed to be an accurate interpretation of the current economic state. This is intended as a hypothesis for a possible theory as to the root causes for rapidly inflating costs of construction materials.

[Octavian]

Originally Posted by SnyderBock

Well, the Great Depression was not a recent period of inflation, it was a period of deflation.

The 1920's were a roaring period of rapid inflation. The great depression which followed was a market correction - resulting in deflation.

That's my whole point, we are now experiencing a rapid inflationary period - evident as seen by rapidly rising (inflating) prices. If it continues long enough, a market correction will be severe enough to cause a deflationary correction or also known as a depression. So far, we are only threatened by recession, but the inflation does not seem to be correcting it's self.

This may be caused by several variables compounding themselves:

1.) The USA's extreme trade deficit, resulting in rapid production of new currency (inflation of quantity of dollars in circulation), to replace the dollars being sent to other nation's for their goods.
2.) China artificially deflating it's currency which gives it an unfair advantage in trades (and in violation of WTO rules and guidelines).
3.) The United States under-reporting inflation of it's currency, throwing it out of sync with market values of raw materials.
4.) The United States holding the prime interest rate too low, in order to stimulate further US consumerism - causing greater debt loads.

These are my observations of the current economic state. These are not facts and are not supported by reports and studies. However, they are believed to be an accurate interpretation of the current economic state. This is intended as a hypothesis for a possible theory as to the root causes for rapidly inflating costs of construction materials.

You're right, I meant to say deflation in my post (to illustrate that it's worse than modest inflation). More later when i have time.

[SnyderBock]

Originally Posted by Octavian

Most economists like a modest rate of inflation. Look at 2 recent examples of inflation. 1) the Great Depression. 2) Japan in the 1990's. Deflation is not good.

And while the dollar has lost value, the overall standard of living (and real GDP) the true measure of of a nation's wealth, in the U.S. has increased fabulously since whatever period you want to point to. So we can purchase far more today than we could at any other period in our history.

If things seem like budget busters today, consider that far more of our budget is spent on other things. Domestic programs today are much larger today than in the 1950's when the interstate highway system was created. Medicare and Medicaid (each about 20% of the federal budget) did not exist and Social Security was a much smaller program as a percentage of federal spending.

Good points, I thought you might have meant deflation, but I just wasn't for sure. So much tax money goes into military. A lot of good technology and security does come from it. There are nations that might try to attack our nation if they thought there was a vulnerability.

However, I do think we can scale back our offensive military and replace it with defensive military infrastructure (it is the Department of Defense after all). The missile defense shield may be controversial, but it will allow for the decommissioning of thousands of nukes. I think the military budget must come down considerably. If they are going to fight wars and bill the American people for it, they need to let us (The People) vote on whether or not we should fight the war.

Through the advancements of the computer revolution, we might be able to abandon Representative Democracy for a True Democracy. Each citizen of voting age could be issued by the government some kind of hand held, personal voting unit. Or even have such a program and hardware (for security and identity verification) be integrated into hand held cell phone/PC hybrids. These units would be purchased by consumers for their cell phone and hand held PC needs; and simply have the voting capability built in. Citizens below a certain income could be issued a credit to help them afford one - just as was recently done with HDTV receivers/converter boxes.

When a bill or issue needs to be voted on (still prepared by an elected legislative branch), all hand held devices would notify the owners with a special alert, require a fingerprint scan then it would be followed by a summary of the bill and optional streaming video and digital documents of any such debates and details concerning the issue at hand. They would then be issued a deadline to vote (one week for example). When they vote, they would again confirm identity on the hand held cell phone/PC with a finger print scan, then they would place their vote.

A True Democracy - We The People of the United States of America

[bunt_q]

That sounds awful... for crying out loud, i don't want to have to deal with that. i don't want to have to know that much about everything... thats why we have representatives (and lobbyists, for that matter)... let the sierra club tell me what the environment needs, i don't have the time or the desire to know. i know i care about it, that's enough for me. you know what would happen? americans would sell off their votes to proxies (or otherwise assign them), and the result would be... no big surprise, a representative democracy.

[SnyderBock]

Well of course, if you didn't want to vote, you wouldn't have to. As for selling votes, what is stopping that from occurring now? Might it be laws? By making that a serious crime, it would be likely to effectively limit any large enough population from being bought out. Most people aren't going to risk sitting in prison for the next 20 years without chance for parole.

Perhaps it is a bad idea, yet I still envision technology leading to a utopia like non-representative, true democracy in which every law and bill passed was approved by the majority of the people. No other time in history would such a democracy have been possible, but with mobile, compact computers, it might just be.

Oh, and obviously all lobbyist should be outlawed, as it is We the People, not We the Corporations of the United States of America.

[ski82]

Does anyone else think extending the time frame for completion is the BEST of the proposed actions for FastTracks? They are not going to get another tax hike and the costs that come out soon are going to turn a lot of heads, I think. Cutting some lines for the sake of getting others complete on time is short sighted. Leaders are demanding that the project be delivered on time and with now new public funds. While I could see why they say this, I hope they don't actually think it. The last thing we need is to cut corners and build a shoddy system that is going to fall apart.

[bunt_q]

I don't know about extending construction - I think that'll only end up costing more - but I think that extending the tax is probably the way to go.

I'm really not sure why Cal thinks the best route is to go to the voters and ask for another sales tax. I think he believes that if it's packaged with general (non-fastracks) RTD improvements and road money for CDOT, it'll fly through a'la T-Rex. I don't buy it. I think that's a horrible solution, and I think there is probably an outer limit to this happy cooperation between roads and rail... And I can only imagine the long-term implications when RTD goes to CDOT and asks, "hey, we screwed it up, can we hide behind you know when we go back begging for more?".

If it was only construction cost escalation, that would be one thing... but RTD missed it's numbers on the base system, period. The cost escalation that was included was embarassingly low, and any halfway competent engineer should have known better. And combined with depressingly rosy sales tax projections... it's not just global pressures hitting RTD over the head here. They never had a $4.7B plan to begin with... I dont think I'll support a higher rate to bail them out... but letting it run longer makes sense.

Sure, that'll get in the way of fastracks 2, but who really thinks that'll (a) happen, or (b) be worth it when it does?... rail to brighton? woo hoo. Maybe we should send a third corridor up to Boulder.

[ski82]

Originally Posted by bunt_q

I don't know about extending construction - I think that'll only end up costing more - but I think that extending the tax is probably the way to go.

I'm really not sure why Cal thinks the best route is to go to the voters and ask for another sales tax. I think he believes that if it's packaged with general (non-fastracks) RTD improvements and road money for CDOT, it'll fly through a'la T-Rex. I don't buy it. I think that's a horrible solution, and I think there is probably an outer limit to this happy cooperation between roads and rail... And I can only imagine the long-term implications when RTD goes to CDOT and asks, "hey, we screwed it up, can we hide behind you know when we go back begging for more?".

If it was only construction cost escalation, that would be one thing... but RTD missed it's numbers on the base system, period. The cost escalation that was included was embarassingly low, and any halfway competent engineer should have known better. And combined with depressingly rosy sales tax projections... it's not just global pressures hitting RTD over the head here. They never had a $4.7B plan to begin with... I dont think I'll support a higher rate to bail them out... but letting it run longer makes sense.

Sure, that'll get in the way of fastracks 2, but who really thinks that'll (a) happen, or (b) be worth it when it does?... rail to brighton? woo hoo. Maybe we should send a third corridor up to Boulder.

So there a sunset on the current sales tax for FasTracks? If so, extending that would be a no brainer.

I also agree with their mismanagement. I wasn't around when this was voted in, but how can you have tax revenue projections that doesn't take into consideration an economic slowdown when the project runs over 10 years and your last slowdown was a few years before? Poor planning.

As for part deux, you would have to think that would be 15+ years after the completion of FasTracks. I think a lot of those routes will be determined by the demographic shifts that occur after FasTracks (linking the denser developments away from the city center). Who knows how big the metro will be by then. All aboard the Parker-Loveland Express.

[bcp]

no way man...connecting more suburbs? if there is a second phase (and i say there should be a concurrent phase) it should focus 100% on the already dense neighborhoods in the center which gain almost nothing from FT.

[ski82]

Originally Posted by bcp

no way man...connecting more suburbs? if there is a second phase (and i say there should be a concurrent phase) it should focus 100% on the already dense neighborhoods in the center which gain almost nothing from FT.

I believe the idea of the long range plan is to create dense areas outside of the center of Denver. Besides, there is no way the region as a whole will pay for a transit project that just supports central Denver.

[SnyderBock]

I agree totally, I envision NexTracks picking up right after FasTracks and focusing nearly entirely on the City Center. A line to Cherry Creek, a Colfax line, a Broadway line, a City Park line, etc,.. I also envision NexTracks as going back over the FasTracks corridors and adding back on all that meat they have trimmed from the system and also an upgrade at Union Station.

I also assumed NexTracks would be funded by an extension of the FasTracks sales tax. So they could package the proposal to teh voters as an all-in-one deal.

"No new tax, just extend the existing tax and solve the FasTracks budget crunch, plus get new transit to Chery Creek, Colfax, etc,..."

I also think PPP's can and should be a huge part in solving the budget crunch. It is possible that PPP's alone, without a tax extension, could solve the budget problem. The best solution would be PPP's on only two or three corridors (instead of on all FasTracks corridors minus West line) and a tax extension of 10 years with a voter approved option for an additional 10 year extension at the end of that.

[1Post2]

Originally Posted by bunt_q

They never had a $4.7B plan to begin with... I dont think I'll support a higher rate to bail them out... but letting it run longer makes sense.

So you think that the rate should have been higher from the get go, but you're not willing to raise it now? Who are you really punishing, RTD or the Denver metro area?

[bunt_q]

Originally Posted by 1Post2

So you think that the rate should have been higher from the get go, but you're not willing to raise it now? Who are you really punishing, RTD or the Denver metro area?

I wouldn't intend to punish either really. But I think it's fair to say the Denver voters are a pretty intelligent bunch. We're given a package of improvements for a cost - a definite cost-benefit to look at when we vote yes or no. As I saw it, we had a mediocre plan (of moderate benefit) for a pretty low cost. Would I have voted for the same plan for $7B? I don't know - maybe not. That's a big difference - there's a lot of fat there - the 225 line, duplicate lines to Boulder. And who's to say whether metro Denver would have voted for it, given the real costs. Who's to say that the RTD board wouldn't have weighed some of the political compromises differently and maybe thinned out some of the weaker portions (boulder, especially). I know one thing, though. I think it is pretty unlikely that the metro are voters will provide RTD with a bailout. There's a strong sense of frustration out there that nothing's been built. You know and I know that these things take time and that the frustration is somewhat irrational (although RTD has wasted an awful lot of time running cost estimates and constantly re-evaluating this - I know folks in RTD engineering who are actually *not busy* if you would believe that). So in the end, I expect that we will get a $4.7B system after all, even if that's Cal's last choice, and some of these tough decisions that should have been made up front will get made now. Shame, really, though, because I think the game is somewhat changed now and some of the choices that'll be made will be the wrong ones. In the US36 corridor, for example... if RTD doesnt get more money, I'm sure that they'll go with the "easy" rail line rather than the "hard" BRT - save themselves the CDOT headaches for now (and promise voters that'll it'll get done someday later - when there's highway money to do it "comprehensively" - and in the meantime, we'll have a slow, low-ridership, low-headway rail line to east Boulder. I'll bet Gabe wouldn't even take it - with the best commute possible on that line - a 5-minute walk to union station to the IBM/niwot stop, in an amazingly fast 60 minutes...

edit: by the way, RTD has made it perfectly clear that it is "not interested" in streetcars (and basically, other central city rail options). it is a "regional authority"... fastracks 2 - the denver edition - isn't even worth fantasizing about. it's impossible unless the city steps up. and the hickenlooper administration has even said it's leery of streetcars. the good mayor is on the light rail bandwagon, 100%, but that's about the extent of the vision there.

Here's a clip you guys may remember from last December in the Denver Business Journal:

"In his opening comments, Mayor John Hickenlooper enumerated his doubts about streetcars and their application in Denver partly because we have already made a significant investment in buses, concern that streetcars are "novel" and that the "cost per rider" needs to be considered in any public-transportation conversation. While the mayor's comments warrant further discussion, we should not allow them to be the last word."

Now, I think the mayor is nuts here... but if RTD is against it, and the mayor is doubtful... I'm not holding my breath for a few years.

[bcp]

Originally Posted by ski82

I believe the idea of the long range plan is to create dense areas outside of the center of Denver. Besides, there is no way the region as a whole will pay for a transit project that just supports central Denver.

that's kind of sad...given that the 600k people in the city are doing just that to fund a system that gains them only a handful of useful new stations, but is a much bigger boon for the burbs. i would hope the burbs would reciprocate or hick has been wasting his time on regionalism (which, in my opinion, has gone too far)

dense nodes will pop up around the transit stations in the burbs, but long term we will all be better off if we have better transit inside our largest TOD - central denver. less emissions, traffic, etc, more cafes, density, jobs...good urban stuff.

[Octavian]

I have many unrelated points to make.

Originally Posted by bcp

that's kind of sad...given that the 600k people in the city are doing just that to fund a system that gains them only a handful of useful new stations, but is a much bigger boon for the burbs. i would hope the burbs would reciprocate or hick has been wasting his time on regionalism (which, in my opinion, has gone too far)

dense nodes will pop up around the transit stations in the burbs, but long term we will all be better off if we have better transit inside our largest TOD - central denver. less emissions, traffic, etc, more cafes, density, jobs...good urban stuff.

Well the suburbs is where most people actually live. Like you said, Denver has a population of about 600,000 in a metro area of 2.4 million. And the suburbs have been growing faster than Denver.

Denver gets plenty of new stations in Fastracks. Most of the East Corridor is in Denver and portions of all the other corridors are as well. Not to mention the Union Station redevelopment (which has other revenue sources but wouldn't happen without Fastracks). Moreover, Denver got new stations when the Central Corridor was made (which no one but Denver benefited from but which was paid for by everyone).

My understanding is that the Fastracks tax may never expire. If anyone has the original language of the bill, I'd be interested to see if that's the case.

One place I would suggest cutting is buses. I mean just your typical everyday buses. Why is a public entity even responsible for this? It might seem heretical to ask the question, but why are buses.

An interesting story from Chile. Chile until recently had a private bus system. Anyone could go there and start a bus company. Instead of the giant buses RTD buys (which they do because it reduces the number of drivers they use), most companies opted for smaller buses. Competition meant you weren't likely to fill a very large bus so smaller buses predominated. Because they were smaller, buses came very frequently. Smaller buses also use less gas. Drivers were paid by the number of passengers they carried (ever had to run towards the bus and had the driver not stop?). There also had different classes of service. There were express buses, local buses. Some buses for rich people were better appointed and had fancy extras for a higher price.

Notice I said till recently. Here is one article explaining what happened. Here is another.

Because they were private, the buses responded more quickly to changes in either the cost of fuel or demand for services. Certainly much faster than RTD could.

With rail, at least its a big infrastructure investment and you need eminent domain to acquire the right of way. But what's the argument for public buses? RTD could use bus revenue to pay for the cost-overruns.

Also, why does RTD have such a s**ty website? I mean really?

Something else that's cool that I recently discovered. Hong Kong's subway system is privately owned and operated. Of course, Hong Kong is much denser.