DENVER | Transportation Thread

[glowrock]

Originally Posted by Octavian

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.

No way, Octavian. Given $1 Billion in Federal Funding and $900 Million in P3 partnerships, you're looking at only 1.8 billion in sales tax receipts, which has GOT to be wrong.

Something's not right here. Everyone's confused, and unfortunately, noone's been able to clear up that confusion.

Aaron (Glowrock)

[Octavian]

I'm going to quote from this conversation wong and I had a few months back:

Originally Posted by Octavian

4.7 billion includes the new starts money and the PPP.

Originally Posted by wong21fr

Nope, check page 59 of the 2008 FasTracks DRCOG Report:

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

FasTracks Estimated Capital Sources of Funds Through 2017
( Thousands of Year of Expenditure Dollars)
Source Amount Percentage of Total Cost
Revenue Bond Proceeds 2,085,768 29.8%
COPs Proceeds 77,155 1.1
TIFIA Loan Proceeds 308,086 4.4
Pay-as-you-go Capital 1,824,087 26.1
Federal New Start Grants 1,339,126 19.1
Other Federal Grants 277,791 4.0
Local Match Funding 140,591 2.0
Other Local Funding¹ 32,257 0.5
Public-Private Partnerships 897,807 12.8
Total FasTracks Program Funding 6,982,668 99.8%
Third Party Funded Projects² 17,097 0.2
Total FasTracks Financial Plan 6,999,765 100.0%

¹Other local funding includes state Senate Bill 1 funding and reimbursements from DUSPA for work to be done by RTD at
Denver Union Station.
2This represents third-party-funding for four projects in the West Corridor that are not a part of the base FasTracks plan:
o Federal bridge replacement = $12.9
o Bike bridges at Wadsworth and Kipling = $4.2

Originally Posted by Octavian

Read the section above this. The financial plan assumes voters will approve another 4 cent tax increase.

Originally Posted by Octavian

Rtd estimated 5 to 6% revenue growth (because of population growth and economic growth). That 5% was compounding year over year. Since 2004, it has never been that high and this year there could be a 10% decline. Play around with a compound interest calculator to see what that does to revenue.

Also, RTD uses part of the four cent tax in the out years for operations, because RTD only has a farebox recovery rate of around 20%. the more operations they have, the more money they lose. They also have to make interest payments on their bonds. Also, rail capital needs to be maintained and has a life of about 30 years, so by the time 2030 rolls around, RTD will need to replace the oldest parts of the light rail network. The four cent fastracks tax will be with us indefinitely.

So their original revenue estimates were for approximately 14 billion and now they are at 9 (from memory so correct me if I'm wrong) for the projected period (till 2030 I think). It's an open question as to whether doubling the tax wouldproduce enough revenue.

The Post is now reporting that the growth rate will be cut from 4.8% to 3.7%, significantly below that used for these these estimates.

[SnyderBock]

The $4.7 billion included the feds and P3 funds. RTD was already using the lowered sales tax projection at the time of that report Octavian. the best I can tell, this new report has $3.7 billion as including all local and federal funds, but not the P3. Add the $900 million from P3 and you get $4.6 billion which means this report just released is claiming RTD is short an additional $100 million than what was reported this summer. It's gone down only by $100 million.

As I said, RTD already knew about these lower sales tax collection and already made adjustments. This new report just came out with a move conservative estimate; RTD wanted a more conservative projection, since they have been accused of being too optimistic.

In reality, this new report is likely too conservative. There is likely to be a stronger recovery in the next 18 months, than being projected here. If there is, projections can get back on course earlier and have a lessor longterm impact on total collections.

[glowrock]

As I said, way too much confusion...

Aaron (Glowrock)

[EngiNerd]

I refer you back to what I posted above, the report in April from RTD.

• 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).

This means that a further $1 billion shortfall will put total revenue of $3.7 billion WITH PPP and Federal Funding. So the shortfall, based on the projected cost of $6.9 billion, would be $3.2 billion.

Based on the projected revenue of $4.7b by 2017 in April, the revenue from sales receipts (4.7b - .9b for PPP - 1b from Feds) is $2.8b. But that article now says that that number is potentially $1b lower now.

These new numbers in that article means that projected sales tax revenues would indeed be $1.8b as Glowrock said above. That is assuming the increase in sales taxes is not passed.

[SnyderBock]

The article is not saying there is an additional $1 billion shortfall in sales tax revenue in addition the the $1 billion shortfall in sales tax revenue reported this summer when the numbers posted by EngiNerd were released. RTD had already deducted the $1 billion shortfall that this new report is reporting now.

These are still are still roughly the correct financial numbers:

• 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).

If I am wrong, I do apologize, but I am extremely certain that this is just a formal announcement for the already known sales tax shortfall which RTD already penciled into their summer report. Like I said, the writer of this article made it sound like it was a new shortfall, in addition to the $1 billion sales tax shortfall already reported. Nothing has indicated that sales tax collections will be $2 billion less than just 12 months ago.

If they are saying sales tax collection will be $2 billion less now, I question their accuracy. I think we are on the heals of a solid economic recovery. The US might well be stronger than it's been since 1998, with in the next 5 years. I do not share these doomsday projections and hopeless economic projections.

[glowrock]

All I know is that something is VERY wrong here, guys... When there are such questions with the whole financial situation with regards to FasTracks, someone really needs to set the record straight, and it's got to be someone from RTD sitting down and agreeing to be interviewed for an in-depth article about the budget situation. I fail to see how projected sales tax revenues have dropped by $2 billion (Octavian's assertion), and I'm not sure SnyderBock is entirely right, either, by asserting that RTD has already taken the updated sales tax projections into account in their current budget predictions for FasTracks.

This is a complete financial confusion, and someone official has to step up and finally explain everything so we can all understand it!

Aaron (Glowrock)

[EngiNerd]

Originally Posted by SnyderBock

The article is not saying there is an additional $1 billion shortfall in sales tax revenue in addition the the $1 billion shortfall in sales tax revenue reported this summer when the numbers posted by EngiNerd were released. RTD had already deducted the $1 billion shortfall that this new report is reporting now.

These are still are still roughly the correct financial numbers:


If I am wrong, I do apologize, but I am extremely certain that this is just a formal announcement for the already known sales tax shortfall which RTD already penciled into their summer report. Like I said, the writer of this article made it sound like it was a new shortfall, in addition to the $1 billion sales tax shortfall already reported. Nothing has indicated that sales tax collections will be $2 billion less than just 12 months ago.

If they are saying sales tax collection will be $2 billion less now, I question their accuracy. I think we are on the heals of a solid economic recovery. The US might well be stronger than it's been since 1998, with in the next 5 years. I do not share these doomsday projections and hopeless economic projections.

I hope you are correct that the $1b shortfall was already taken into account in those numbers....which also means that article is very misleading. RTD will probably have updated numbers in the coming months where we will be able to see where they stand as of 2010.

[SnyderBock]

Due to be released {RTD's new financial report} in January...
This report wasn't even an official RTD report.

[Pizzuti]

Has anybody seen this yet? Democrats now outnumber Republicans in Colorado, as of August.

http://www.coloradopols.com/diary/11045/colorado-democrats-finally-outregister-gop

It was interesting because I'd expect the Obama momentum that helped even the score leading up to the 2008 elections would sort of wane afterward (and as of the election the Democrats were short of Republican numbers), but it looks like Democrats continue to gain, probably (my guess) is that it's from young people coming of age.

The reason why it's of interest here is because it somewhat changes my call on how RTD would fair in an election asking for more funds, or for an expanded program. I don't think it's controversial to suggest that Democratic voters are more likely to be pro-transit and support a transit tax than Republicans.

[Giovoni]

That assertion is not controvertial at all. I thought I read that an initial poll actually showed 63% support for an additional tax - which I would think is a good sign. Which I was shocked by. I still think they should explore legislative remedies for breaking some barriers to development for them though.

[SnyderBock]

In the 2008 DNC in Denver, it was said that Colorado had 1.1 million Democrats, 1.0 million Independents and 980,000 Republicans. This was reported so on CNN, I very clearly remember this. So Republicans have been outnumbered by both Independents and Democrats in Colorado for longer than since this August (2009).^^

In fact, this article you linked actually indicates that republicans have grown more than Independents and Democrats and actually closed the gap in Colorado. This new article now says there is slightly over 1 million of each. This would indicate republicans gained about 50,000, Democrats lost about 50,000 and Independents stayed the same.

[Pizzuti]

Originally Posted by SnyderBock

In the 2008 DNC in Denver, it was said that Colorado had 1.1 million Democrats, 1.0 million Independents and 980,000 Republicans. This was reported so on CNN, I very clearly remember this. So Republicans have been outnumbered by both Independents and Democrats in Colorado for longer than since this August (2009).^^

In fact, this article you linked actually indicates that republicans have grown more than Independents and Democrats and actually closed the gap in Colorado. This new article now says there is slightly over 1 million of each. This would indicate republicans gained about 50,000, Democrats lost about 50,000 and Independents stayed the same.

????? Where are you coming from, Snyder?

I worked for a political action committee in 2008 which had the very purpose of registering likely Democrats (as in, registering people from communities that are likely to be Democratic), then targeting and persuading swing voters. Every Monday morning we looked at the numbers of registered Republicans, Independents, and Democrats in Colorado reported by the Secretary of State's office, watched Democrats steadily gain, and I can guarantee you that at no time before November 04, 2008 did Democrats outnumber Republicans; Democrats significantly closed a 100,000-voter gap (from 2006) to be within 10,000 votes, but that's where we were on Election Day 2008; 10,000 voters behind.

I don't expect you to have memorized that or to know where I worked in 2008, but I AM confused why you are seeing this information I posted, originally quoted from a 2-day old Denver Post column, stating that Democrats were about 10,000 registered voters behind on 2008 Election Day and you're thinking that something you remember hearing on CNN from over a year ago overrides it.

*edit* here are the Sec'y of State's official public numbers for November 2008, showing the Republicans about 9,000 voters ahead, if you want to fact-check it. They were around 10K behind in Nov'08, they're around 10K ahead now, representing a 20K gain and were even-match this August. But I'll hand it to you that if you really 'very clearly' remembered those numbers to the exactness you provided, I'd give you props.

http://www.elections.colorado.gov/Conten...rs/November%202008/VR_Stats_by_Party.pdf

[SnyderBock]

Do I just have the numbers flipped around?

Was it 1 million Republicans, 980,000 Democrats and 1.1 million Independents in November 2008?

[Pizzuti]

Originally Posted by SnyderBock

Do I just have the numbers flipped around?

Was it 1 million Republicans, 980,000 Democrats and 1.1 million Independents in November 2008?

That's what I thought at first, but the Nov numbers were:

1,056K Republicans, 1,065K Democrats, 1,069K Independents.

I don't think there were ever 1.1 million Independents in CO unless you round to the nearest 100,000. But the numbers in August might have been closer to what you were guessing when registration levels were lower for Dems and Republicans. I'm not sure where you got the number of Independents from, unless "all other" (including Green Party and Libertarian) were factored into the number of Independents when you heard those numbers... I dunno, the numbers never really line up the way you posted at any time that I know of, and they don't work unless you're willing to, say, take the Republican number from August, the Dem. number from January and the Independent number from 2009.

[SnyderBock]

That latest sales tax projection report was indeed claiming that the medium projection would collect $1 billion less than the already significantly reduced projections from earlier this year. So I was incorrect in assuming it was re-verification of the reduced projections already released.

The problem is, the earlier projection was done by RTD, using more commonly used factors and more realistic population growth numbers. The new report is done by another group entirely, using both pessimistic population growth and extremely pessimistic economic projections. The people who did this report are probably associated with the anti-rail movement. I say this, because from what I hear, the only people that think we are in this poor of condition economically, are the people that want the economy to fail, so as to push the Democrats out of office and pump new life into the Fundamentalist Anti-progressive Republican Movement. FARM for short? ;-)

The RTD report due this January is the report to take seriously. That report will paint a clear picture of where FasTracks stands financially and where it can proceed to next.

[rds70]

FasTracks gets $4.5M from feds
Denver Business Journal - by Cathy Proctor

It’s just $4.5 million, embedded in the $447 billion federal spending bill that the U.S. Senate approved this week.

But it’s the first federal financial support for two major lines in the Regional Transportation District’s troubled FasTracks transit project, agency officials said.

The federal omnibus spending measure included $2.5 million for FasTracks’ East corridor from downtown to Denver International Airport. It also included $2 million for the Gold line from downtown to Wheat Ridge, according to Colorado Sens. Mark Udall and Michael Bennet, both Democrats.

RTD seeks up to $1 billion in federal funding to help pay for the East and Gold lines. The spending bill must be signed by President Barack Obama, which a White House official on Monday said is likely.

“It’s very important to us,” said Sherry Ellebracht, head of government relations for RTD. “It’s the signal that it sends that the federal government is interested in those corridors, that they believe in those corridors and that an FFGA [Full Funding Grant Agreement] will be in the works.

“Even though it’s a small amount in the grand scheme of things, it’s the intent. That’s why we’re so thrilled to get the money.”

The spending bill also included $90 million for FasTracks’ West Corridor, part of the $308 million FFGA in place between RTD and the Federal Transit Authority.

Also, the federal legislation has $2.6 million for the Colorado Association of Transit Agencies to expand services, Udall and Bennet said.

The U.S. House of Representatives version of the federal spending measure didn’t include money for FasTracks’ East and Gold lines, Ellebracht said.

But in the U.S. Senate, Udall and Bennet pushed to include funding for the two lines. Their effort survived a conference committee between the House and Senate to eliminate differences between the two versions, Ellebracht said.

“Denver-area voters spoke up when they supported FasTracks,” Udall said in an announcement. “I was proud to fight for the funding that is now headed to the president’s desk — it will help expand regional mass transit, create jobs, reduce traffic and provide commuters with cleaner, more-efficient ways to get to work every day.”

Said Bennett in the statement: “Coloradans expressed their overwhelming support for more light-rail service several years ago, and this funding will help meet their demand for greater choice in their transportation options.”

The East and Gold lines combined are estimated to cost about $2.3 billion. RTD has said it hopes to pay for the lines through up to $1 billion in federal funding, plus an additional nearly $1 billion from a team of private companies that will design, build, operate, maintain and finance the lines. The companies’ bids are due in March 2010.

Two companies are working on bids: Denver Transit Partners, which includes the internationally known Fluor Corp. engineering firm and the Australian Macquarie bank; and Mountain Air Transit Partners, which has companies ranging from the Denver office of Peter Kiewit and Sons to London-based HSBC bank.

A third team, called Mile High Transit, which includes Englewood’s CH2M Hill Cos. Ltd. and Longmont’s Flatiron Corp., has dropped out, telling RTD it couldn’t complete a competitive bid by the deadline.

FasTracks is a 12-year, $6.9 billion construction project to lay more than 100 miles of rail lines throughout the Denver area. In 2008, RTD estimated there was a $2.2 billion gap between expected revenue and skyrocketing costs. The agency expects to present updated cost and revenue projections in early January.

[email protected]

[ski82]

Originally Posted by SnyderBock

That latest sales tax projection report was indeed claiming that the medium projection would collect $1 billion less than the already significantly reduced projections from earlier this year. So I was incorrect in assuming it was re-verification of the reduced projections already released.

The problem is, the earlier projection was done by RTD, using more commonly used factors and more realistic population growth numbers. The new report is done by another group entirely, using both pessimistic population growth and extremely pessimistic economic projections. The people who did this report are probably associated with the anti-rail movement. I say this, because from what I hear, the only people that think we are in this poor of condition economically, are the people that want the economy to fail, so as to push the Democrats out of office and pump new life into the Fundamentalist Anti-progressive Republican Movement. FARM for short? ;-)

The RTD report due this January is the report to take seriously. That report will paint a clear picture of where FasTracks stands financially and where it can proceed to next.

The recent sales tax revenue projections come from a group commissioned by RTD, not some anti-rail movement. You are obviously very knowledgable on the project, but sometimes I wondere where you hear some of the things you hear.

[EngiNerd]

Yes, the numbers quoted in that article were from a group commissioned by RTD

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.

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

[SnyderBock]

It's so freakin' pessimistic. Is the economic outlook so poor, that sales tax collections by 2035 will be $2 billion less for RTD? That's a lot of change. It would seem a correction over the next 18 months could get it back on target.