DENVER | Transportation Thread

[Paulopolis]

Thanks for the clarification, Enginerd and SnyderBock. Much obliged.

[ski82]

RTD overestimated FasTracks sales-tax revenue by at least $1 billion, according to panel
By Jeffrey Leib
The Denver Post
Posted: 12/11/2009 01:00:00 AM MST
Updated: 12/11/2009 01:02:26 AM MST


RTD could have at least $1 billion less than previously forecast to build its FasTracks rail expansion under a more conservative sales-tax revenue model created by a panel of economic experts.

The Regional Transportation District's current plan for FasTracks shows it would cost $7 billion for the program, yet the agency expects to have only $4.7 billion from a variety of sources to pay for construction of the full system by 2017.

That revenue forecast was based on a growth in sales-tax collections averaging about 4.8 percent a year through 2035, said Bill Van Meter, RTD's planning chief.

Yet the special panel commissioned by the agency's board of directors now says sales-tax growth is more likely to average 3.7 percent annually from 2012 through 2035. Such a reduction could slice at least $1 billion from the pool of revenues RTD may have to build FasTracks, officials say.

In addition to the 3.7 percent growth rate, which was characterized as a "medium" forecast, the panel said sales-tax growth might average 4.3 percent a year if it comes in high, or 2.8 percent a year on the low end.

RTD's board had asked for such a range.

The panel, which presented its findings Thursday, was created after the Denver Regional Council of Governments and others criticized RTD for being too optimistic in its sales-tax revenue forecasts. Additionally, a Denver Post report in August pointed to concerns about optimistic revenue forecasts.

The panel included finance specialists from the Colorado Legislative Council, the Office of State Planning and Budgeting, the Colorado Department of Transportation and local governments in the metro area, including Jefferson County, Douglas County, Lakewood, Lone Tree and Arvada.

Sales-tax collections are the largest element of the revenue stream that RTD intends to use to build FasTracks. Federal grant money is another element.

FasTracks planner Julie Skeen said it is too early to know the precise impact the lower sales-tax forecast will have because it must be plugged into an overall financial model for FasTracks.

That model is to generate a new estimate of the cost to build FasTracks, compared with the current $7 billion, and a fresh estimate of the revenue the agency expects to have to construct it by 2017.

RTD planners expect to present the new cost and revenue estimates Jan. 5.

The agency's board of directors plans to consider what is likely to be a wider gap between the cost of building FasTracks and revenues available to construct it as they assess whether to ask metro Denver voters to approve a new tax increase aimed at closing the gap and completing the project.

In coming up with its new, lower forecasts for sales-tax growth, the panel relied on models that factored in predictions of employment and personal income growth in metro Denver as well as growth in the goods component of the national gross domestic product.

RTD had been relying on predictions of growth in metro-area population and in the consumer price index to come up with its tax-growth forecasts, but the panel said those measurements were not good predictors.

Although the consensus of panel members was to go with the new range of lower sales-tax predictions, Lakewood Finance Director Lawrence Dorr, a member of the group, said of the new 3.7 percent growth rate the panel adopted as its medium forecast, "My gut tells me that is too high."

Jeffrey Leib: 303-954-1645 or [email protected]

http://www.denverpost.com/ci_13973718

Oh Boy

I'm starting to think its time to go back to the drawing board. It's pretty clear the bill of goods delivered are going to be radically different than what people voted on. Meanwhile, RTD seems to give lipservice to the potential of some problems while forging ahead. There hasn't been a come to Jesus moment and they are long overdue. Whether it's time to go back to voters and ask for a sales tax increase (which I think is inevitable at this point but unlikely to pass) or change the scope, whats the plan? It seems like they will talk about their options for a month or so and then decide to do new cost/revenue estimates, which will take 6 months to complete. There comes a point when covering the new x dollars in shortages doesn't matter and fixing the broken model does. We're past that point. The current path we're on, the North Metro is going to be screwed over. If I'm their elected official, I'm at least looking at leaving the RTD district and seeing what other public transit options are available. Probably not the best option, but I'm at least looking at it.

[SnyderBock]

This just confirms what they already knew. They've known for well over a year that their sales tax collections are likely to be around $1 billion less than projected previously. This is why they have been looking for new funding options (PPP, feds, increased sales tax). This report just solidifies what RTD suspected was occurring with the sales tax base.

It's obviously written in a misleading way, as to make people think this is a new occurrence, and all new problem to all the problems with FasTracks. It's the same problem. The quote at the end of the article is a dead giveaway that this article is being used as anti-FasTracks political manipulation, to shy voters away from another sales tax.
"Lakewood Finance Director Lawrence Dorr, a member of the group, said of the new 3.7 percent growth rate the panel adopted as its medium forecast, "My gut tells me that is too high.""

So his gut feeling is the economy will not recover as much as the medium projection? This is the pessimistic outlook often shared by those whom oppose Obama and thus think everything he does will worsen the economy instead of improve it. The common thought among these groups of people is that taxes are bad and rail transportation is a subsidy for the poor and just wasted funds that could be used on roads.

[Giovoni]

Yeah I thought 4.7 Billion was the number we were told they would raise with the original vote back in the 1920's before all the environmental impact statements started. I thought it was known for a very long time once the economic world ended that it was going to be substantially less than $4.7bil.

Incidentally is RTD going to be required to study how much money they are going to have until they've actually spent an additional 1billion on STUDIES and come up 2billion short of the original estimate?

[EngiNerd]

They have probably already spent a good chunk of the money on Environmental studies and property/equipment acquisitions.

Its just disheartening to see RTD bumbling this much on Fastracks when they were so on top of things with TREX. They will have a VERY hard time convincing voters this time around to increase their taxes again....I just don't see it happening.

[ski82]

Originally Posted by SnyderBock

This just confirms what they already knew. They've known for well over a year that their sales tax collections are likely to be around $1 billion less than projected previously. This is why they have been looking for new funding options (PPP, feds, increased sales tax). This report just solidifies what RTD suspected was occurring with the sales tax base.

It's obviously written in a misleading way, as to make people think this is a new occurrence, and all new problem to all the problems with FasTracks. It's the same problem. The quote at the end of the article is a dead giveaway that this article is being used as anti-FasTracks political manipulation, to shy voters away from another sales tax.
"Lakewood Finance Director Lawrence Dorr, a member of the group, said of the new 3.7 percent growth rate the panel adopted as its medium forecast, "My gut tells me that is too high.""

So his gut feeling is the economy will not recover as much as the medium projection? This is the pessimistic outlook often shared by those whom oppose Obama and thus think everything he does will worsen the economy instead of improve it. The common thought among these groups of people is that taxes are bad and rail transportation is a subsidy for the poor and just wasted funds that could be used on roads.

I've kept hearing about the $2.3b gap all year. Assuming the median estimate, the gap is now $3.3b. They have about half this thing paid for. Throw in the $1.9b hoped for from federal funds and the PPP and we are still at a $1.4b shortfall. It will be interesting to see what the private partners come up with in their numbers as success of the partnership depends on the future revenue streams of RTD. One of the three finalists (and unfortunately the local one of CH2M and Flatiron) said they could not put together a viable bid. I can't imagine many companies investing $900m in a project that would still be 1.4b in the hole. When you look at the how the numbers don't add up, the differences within the district, and no real direction by RTD to fix these things, you just get the sense the whole thing is sitting on stilts. I want this thing to work, but fundimental changes need to be made.

[ski82]

Originally Posted by EngiNerd

They have probably already spent a good chunk of the money on Environmental studies and property/equipment acquisitions.

Its just disheartening to see RTD bumbling this much on Fastracks when they were so on top of things with TREX. They will have a VERY hard time convincing voters this time around to increase their taxes again....I just don't see it happening.

Although I'd probably vote yes, there is no way a vote passes...but its almost something they have to try. Assuming it doesn't pass, they you have to start looking at cuts or timeline extensions. The areas that would be shafted by these have already expressed their disinterest in that. That would end up in court.

There is still a lot that needs to be settled here and its going to get ugly.

[Giovoni]

RTD needs to go to the legislature and ask that the restrictions on commercial development be erased for them. There has got to be a way to get more money from leasing commercial space for food, coffee or whatever else that commuters actually want/need at transit stops to take SOME of the pressure off this financially. There should also be a way RTD can partner with private developers to build residential units to profit from as well - another thing that is currently illegal for them as I understand it.

I don't think RTD should go to the voters to ask for more money until they look at other ways to get additional funds like this - or even make it part of a seperate ballot issue. At least then they could say they did their best to get as many avenues as possible for more money.

Also what are materials prices at now? The initial budget problem was because steel skyrocketed when everyone was building everything for everyone at any price. Thats not happening right now. Has the agency redid the construction estimates already? I know there was talk of another build estimate a while back; was that finished?

[EngiNerd]

Originally Posted by ski82

I've kept hearing about the $2.3b gap all year. Assuming the median estimate, the gap is now $3.3b. They have about half this thing paid for. Throw in the $1.9b hoped for from federal funds and the PPP and we are still at a $1.4b shortfall. It will be interesting to see what the private partners come up with in their numbers as success of the partnership depends on the future revenue streams of RTD. One of the three finalists (and unfortunately the local one of CH2M and Flatiron) said they could not put together a viable bid. I can't imagine many companies investing $900m in a project that would still be 1.4b in the hole. When you look at the how the numbers don't add up, the differences within the district, and no real direction by RTD to fix these things, you just get the sense the whole thing is sitting on stilts. I want this thing to work, but fundimental changes need to be made.

I thought to pay for the initial $4.5b number included what they though they would get from the Feds in addition to sales tax receipts.

An Annual Program Evaluation (APE) was conducted in 2009 to determine changes in corridor costs and to further evaluate these costs against projected revenues. Overall, it shows an increase in costs from 2004 ($4.7 billion to $6.9 billion) and a decrease in projections of sales and use tax receipts for the period 2005 through 2035 ($13.66 billion to $9.1 billion) from 2004 forecasts. The 2009 APE serves as the cost basis for the approved April 2009 FasTracks Financial Plan.

Annual Program Evaluation
The 2008 APE showed a continued rise in materials and costs (from $6.1 billion in 2007 to $7.9 billion), as well as a continued decease in tax revenue (from $11.84 billion in 2007 to $10.9 billion), that resulted in a gap in funding for the program. The results of the 2008 APE were not officially adopted by the RTD Board; however, they were the impetus for developing potential alternative implementation strategies for the FasTracks Program, which were presented for feedback to stakeholders, elected officials, and DRCOG. Further, the Metro Mayors Caucus formed the Metro Mayors Task Force that
has continued to meet regularly since October 2008 to study the FasTracks Program and issues. They provided input to the RTD Board and made a formal recommendation for the implementation of FasTracks on March 31, 2009. This is discussed further below. The 2009 APE was conducted to update program costs and revenues. As a result of a downturn in the world economy, key commodity prices declined since early to mid-2008, which resulted in a decrease in capital costs from 2008 ($7.9 billion to $6.9 billion). While this is lower than projected in the 2008 APE, it is still higher than the costs projected in 2004. Further, sales and use tax revenues through 2035 are projected at $9.1 billion, which remains below those projected in 2004, and as in 2008, represents a funding gap. Costs and revenue projections for 2004, 2007, 2008, and 2009 are shown the two tables below.

• Financial Scenario #1 identifies potential results if RTD does receive a Full Funding Grant Agreement (FFGA) for the EAGLE P3 Project but a 0.4% sales and use tax is not passed. Under this scenario, it is estimated that $4.64 billion will be available for FasTracks capital improvements by 2017, with a funding gap of approximately $2.23 Billion.
Under this scenario, the East and Gold Line projects are completed on schedule in 2016 and phased operating segments of the remaining FasTracks Corridors would be built by 2017. Full build-out of the FasTracks program would be delayed until revenues permit – currently estimated at 2034.

• Financial Scenario #2 identifies potential results if RTD does not receive an FFGA for the EAGLE P3 Project and a 0.4% sales and use tax increase is not passed. Under this scenario, it is estimated that $3.64 Billion will be available for FasTracks capital improvements by 2017, with a funding gap of approximately $3.23 Billion.
Under this scenario, full build-out of the FasTracks program would be delayed until revenues permit – currently estimated at 2034.

• Financial Scenario #3 identifies potential results if RTD does not receive an FFGA for the EAGLE P3 Project but a 0.4% sales and use tax increase is passed.
Under this scenario, it is estimated that the entire FasTracks program can be built out by 2017. However, this scenario is highly sensitive to changes in sales and use tax projections, and sunsetting of the new sales and use tax would be delayed 4 – 5 years (as compared to the recommended scenario).

from http://www.rtd-fastracks.com/media/uploads/main/2008_DRCOG_Report.pdf

So if sales receipts fall even shorter, that means they could potentially be $3.3 billion under even if they get their federal grants for the Gold and East lines.

Pages 14 or so show how much material costs have come down. Original projections for Fastracks were $7.9b in 2008, so at least they backed off from there in 2009 because of material costs being cheaper.

[Giovoni]

I just don't see how building out everything by 2034 is a catastrophe either. I know it's not what exactly has been promised but in the lifetime of a city 17 years is NOT a huge amount of time. It also gives a large window to possibly wait for a demand from the voters to increase the tax devoted to transit after the economy gets a lot better. Are the northern cities looking to sue so they can destroy fastraks altogether or what? What exactly could they sue for? More money materializing out of the ether? They can't very well sue reality for changing since the vote can they? (I know they could sue for something but maybe it's time to start talking about the reasonableness of the situation)

EVERYONE everywhere has had to scale things back the last couple years. Instead of a shiny new 56" LCD TV maybe now you can afford a dinky 36" instead.

For now I'd like to see RTD plan for the worst case scenario and delay things. There is no need to ask for money until people actually feel like they HAVE money again. Actually ACT like a government agency that responds and understands reality.. if only for a few years until reality changes again.

[SnyderBock]

RTD ran a poll and did find a majority support for the additional sales tax, so I'm not convinced it would not be passed. The conservative groups against this seem to be very, very vocal minorities--perhaps leading to a false sense of hopelessness to getting it passed.

I don't think it's a bad option to build the West, East and Gold lines on schedule, plus Union Station, then implement BRT and improved express bus service to the cities along the North and NW corridors to serve them more effectively for a while, buying time for a phased build out of those lines.

And I still think the DMU to Boulder and Longmont should be removed from FasTracks altogether and placed into a new state project for a Front Range commuter rail line from Fort Collins to Pueblo. This would cut FasTracks cost be nearly $1 billion and probably lead to even better commuter rail service for those communities (and more communities), in the long run. This would allow RTD to focus on getting extra funding to build the North Metro EMU and I-225 LRT lines in a phased build out by 2034 and also extend the Boulder BRT to Longmont.

[electricron]

I just don't see why not building out everything by 2034 is catastrophic.

It's a disaster because the sale tax that's building these rail and bus lines ends in 2034. For the northern suburbs (if you consider Boulder a suburb) don't get what they were promised, they'll drop out of RTD. And that means still less sales tax revenues to build what RTD plans to build nearer Denver.

Additionally, with Denver getting its lines on time, most taxpayers paying taxes in Denver aren't going to wish to increase or lengthen the time the tax is being collected. Which leaves the far northern suburbs holding onto nothing for the taxes they have paid already.....

As for substituting the HSR project for the Commuter rail project, that's not going to work either. Boulder is being taxed for Commuter rail, not for HSR. HSR will require an entirely different tax. What is the likelihood Boulder citizens will vote for HSR taxes after being left in the cold over Commuter rail taxes? I don't think Boulder taxpayers are going to trust anyone in the future after RTD breaks their promises......

RTD needs to build some sort of better transit to Boulder and the other northern suburbs as promised now. Building nothing to them is unacceptable.......

[DenverInfill]

Boulder and the northern suburbs are not going to drop out of RTD. That's just silly. Boulder in particular enjoys some of the best transit bus service around, both within Boulder and between Boulder and Denver.

The region will find a political solution to the FasTracks dilemma. What I don't get are all the doomsday hysterical reactions in this thread and the Union Station thread. Everyone just needs to settle down and stop overreacting and understand that these things will get worked out.

[pablosan]

I think many civic leaders, and the general populace understands the importance of FastTracks. One way or another FastTracks will be built.

[Octavian]

Just to clarify. A billion dollar reduction in revenues means that, including private and federal funding, there is only 3.7 billion of revenue to cover 6.9 billion of cost.

[Pizzuti]

Originally Posted by Giovoni

RTD needs to go to the legislature and ask that the restrictions on commercial development be erased for them. There has got to be a way to get more money from leasing commercial space for food, coffee or whatever else that commuters actually want/need at transit stops to take SOME of the pressure off this financially. There should also be a way RTD can partner with private developers to build residential units to profit from as well - another thing that is currently illegal for them as I understand it.

This, to me, sounds like a great idea, and one to push for. We still have a Democratic-controlled state house and Senate but there's a chance it won't be that way for long. And since state-level politics are fairly local, representatives might actually be open to public input in the form of individual letters and phone calls.

Originally Posted by SnyderBock

And I still think the DMU to Boulder and Longmont should be removed from FasTracks altogether and placed into a new state project for a Front Range commuter rail line from Fort Collins to Pueblo. This would cut FasTracks cost be nearly $1 billion and probably lead to even better commuter rail service for those communities (and more communities), in the long run. This would allow RTD to focus on getting extra funding to build the North Metro EMU and I-225 LRT lines in a phased build out by 2034 and also extend the Boulder BRT to Longmont.

Acknowledged Ken's response to all this, but I do think if it came to it, something like this could provide a better way to frame a public ballot item asking for funds.

Instead of saying "We need more sales tax to fund FasTracks because we royally effed up our estimates" (which would really play into the narrative of the Independence Institute), they could instead say "We want to build a Front Range Corridor from Colorado Springs to Fort Collins and as part of the deal we are going to help RTD build it's Denver-Boulder line." But Denver-Boulder would still be part of RTD. I DO think that RTD can drop Boulder-Longmont if they have a good Denver-Longmont line instead coming from another agency but supported by services from RTD.

That might be a pipe-dreamy scenario, something that wouldn't happen for a long time (and I should point out that a 2034 finish date REALLY makes me cringe) but if the right things came together at the right time, it might be a good idea.

[SnyderBock]

Originally Posted by Octavian

Just to clarify. A billion dollar reduction in revenues means that, including private and federal funding, there is only 3.7 billion of revenue to cover 6.9 billion of cost.

Which is exactly what RTD has been saying for nearly a year now. This is not new information. The $1 billion in sales tax revenue drop was an already known factor in FasTracks and this new study simply confirms it and pinpoints down more precisely just how much sales tax projected revenue drop has occurred.

What I'm annoyed by, is how this new report and article were written about as if it were a new development. They made it seem like yet another setback, when it was in fact still the one main setback they've been facing all along.

This summer, RTD reported that FasTracks cost estimate had gone down from $7.9 to $6.9 billion, because of material costs going back down from those extreme highs. But they reported FasTracks remains the same amount over budget, because the recession reduces sales tax collections significantly and it was expecting now that they might only have $3.7 billion to pay for FasTracks instead of $4.7 billion. This new report just confirms RTD's earlier findings. The budget gap remains the same, as RTD had already included this into their last update this summer. So FasTracks is not in worse condition now, than before this new report. This report gives people the impression it is now once again in even worse condition. This was written in this way, intentionally by a well trained, professional journalist.

In addition to the $3.7 billion, RTD is also expecting $900 million from the Eagle P3 agreement. This puts FasTracks at $2.3 billion short and RTD's summer report had FasTracks at $2.3 billion short. The article then goes to say that one individual involved in the report thinks (the economy) will not improve at the medium projections, but remain closer to the low projections. This should give you perspective of the pessimism of the people involved in this report. If we do in fact have a significant economic recovery over the next 18 months, sales tax growth may well hold strong at the medium projections and could grow closer and closer to the high projections. This new report disregards population growth as a primal factor, yet last I check Denver's population was still growing rapidly and most these people do purchase things. This report uses lower than anticipated population growth and gives lower value to population growth to sales tax collection ratios.

With the Eagle P3, RTD is expecting ~$4.6 billion for FasTracks, using medium sales tax collection growth. Using last summer's cost report, FasTracks will cost $6.9 billion. The new cost report is to be released in January and it is expected costs to be slightly lower than this summer. It is also expected that on a corridor by corridor process, RTD can make innovative refinements and changes in the actual design phases (which most corridors are not yet in), to reduce costs further. The total cost of fasTracks could very well eventually be brought down to near $6.0 billion.

[SnyderBock]

Originally Posted by Pizzuti

...but I do think if it came to it, something like this could provide a better way to frame a public ballot item asking for funds.

Instead of saying "We need more sales tax to fund FasTracks because we royally effed up our estimates" (which would really play into the narrative of the Independence Institute), they could instead say "We want to build a Front Range Corridor from Colorado Springs to Fort Collins and as part of the deal we are going to help RTD build it's Denver-Boulder line."...

That's exactly what I was thinking. If the 2nd FasTracks tax is not passed, the following year they could try for a state HSR bill. It would route the HSR through Boulder and Longmont using the RTD ROW. RTD would hand over this corridor to the new state-level HSR transit agency, in exchange for being allowed to use the future line to provide Boulder/Longmont with more frequent service than the rest of the corridor is likely to have. Boulder and Longmont would get their commuter rail line and instead of 79mph max speeds, it would be 110mph (or perhaps greater depending on technology used).

FasTracks cost would be reduced by nearly $1 billion by not having to build this line and the remaining budget gap would be small enough to close by a two phase build out of a couple lines (phase 1 by 2020, phase 2 no later than 2034).

[Pizzuti]

^I'd explore the option of an expanded transit project BEFORE FasTracks asks for more money. Don't even plant the seeds in peoples' minds that the current plan is failing; say that gas prices are going up, our population is growing and we need to continue to push for ambitious transit infrastructure. Then proactively promise to avoid any problems with this plan that plagued in the FasTracks plan; use the most conservative funding estimates when you're asking for money, and write the sales tax plan continue for a given maximum amount of time but that plan leaves lots of breathing room, and the tax will terminate early if the funding is complete before that date.

The problem with asking for more money now is that it's sort of an admission of failure, and you know many people will think is "it's not raising money because it's too expensive and not enough people use it," not realizing that rider fares could not possibly pay for FasTracks. The second thing you'll get is senior citizens (and anyone over 50, really) saying, why am I paying for this shit when I'm never going to use transit and I won't even live to see it built if they're too incompetent to stay on schedule and within budget.

The second thought I had was that it would be very unfair to Boulder and Longmont to completely cancel the entire $1BN project and pay for it with something funded by the state. They paid for the plan with sales tax revenues, and would essentially have to pay for it again if another regional tax base overlapping RTD paid to patch RTD's holes. The only fair compromise I can imagine would be to let the other agency build most of it, but then turn it over to RTD to run, and also have RTD contribute. I'd say you could shave off 1/2 to 2/3 of the cost but RTD still needs to play a major role.


Anyway. I wonder if one of the reasons RTD seems to be overly optimistic is that they're counting on inflation to help them pay off the construction loans of rail that has already been built, which may not be considered when it comes to the economic growth they accounted for and could paint a more optimistic picture, in this case, when it comes to revenue.

[Octavian]

Originally Posted by SnyderBock

Which is exactly what RTD has been saying for nearly a year now. This is not new information. The $1 billion in sales tax revenue drop was an already known factor in FasTracks and this new study simply confirms it and pinpoints down more precisely just how much sales tax projected revenue drop has occurred.

What I'm annoyed by, is how this new report and article were written about as if it were a new development. They made it seem like yet another setback, when it was in fact still the one main setback they've been facing all along.

This summer, RTD reported that FasTracks cost estimate had gone down from $7.9 to $6.9 billion, because of material costs going back down from those extreme highs. But they reported FasTracks remains the same amount over budget, because the recession reduces sales tax collections significantly and it was expecting now that they might only have $3.7 billion to pay for FasTracks instead of $4.7 billion. This new report just confirms RTD's earlier findings. The budget gap remains the same, as RTD had already included this into their last update this summer. So FasTracks is not in worse condition now, than before this new report. This report gives people the impression it is now once again in even worse condition. This was written in this way, intentionally by a well trained, professional journalist.

In addition to the $3.7 billion, RTD is also expecting $900 million from the Eagle P3 agreement. This puts FasTracks at $2.3 billion short and RTD's summer report had FasTracks at $2.3 billion short. The article then goes to say that one individual involved in the report thinks (the economy) will not improve at the medium projections, but remain closer to the low projections. This should give you perspective of the pessimism of the people involved in this report. If we do in fact have a significant economic recovery over the next 18 months, sales tax growth may well hold strong at the medium projections and could grow closer and closer to the high projections. This new report disregards population growth as a primal factor, yet last I check Denver's population was still growing rapidly and most these people do purchase things. This report uses lower than anticipated population growth and gives lower value to population growth to sales tax collection ratios.

With the Eagle P3, RTD is expecting ~$4.6 billion for FasTracks, using medium sales tax collection growth. Using last summer's cost report, FasTracks will cost $6.9 billion. The new cost report is to be released in January and it is expected costs to be slightly lower than this summer. It is also expected that on a corridor by corridor process, RTD can make innovative refinements and changes in the actual design phases (which most corridors are not yet in), to reduce costs further. The total cost of fasTracks could very well eventually be brought down to near $6.0 billion.

This is new information, because although we've known that tax revenues were below RTD's expectations, we didn't know by how much. The 3.7 billion dollar figure I cited includes both federal funding and revenue from the P3.