DENVER | Transportation Thread

[DenverInfill]

The overwhelming majority of RTD folks are not inept. It is a professional organization made up of dedicated, well-meaning, educated people that are doing a job. But sometimes--particularly in a bureaucracy that is heavily influenced by politics and externalities--shit happens, some of it within their control, some of it outside of their control. It is easy to criticize any organization's performance when sitting on the outside, but if you were in there doing your best and the same thing happened to your organization, you'd probably understand, unless you specifically knew that you and all of your coworkers were actually inept.

Why can't the reality be that:

1. RTD based their future revenues on assumptions that, in hindsight, were probably too optimistic, but not to any degree that could be considered criminal or incompetent. After all, the original projections were made in 2003/2004 when the economy was booming. Now, they are dealing with an economic environment not too far short of the Great Depression that was certainly never expected.

2. RTD based their construction costs on historic averages that had been accurate for decades. How would they know that in a few years, the cost of construction materials would increase at a rate orders of magnitude beyond anything that had been known before.

Maybe it is just an unfortunate coincidence of several factors that would have been difficult to anticipate many years ago when the FasTracks plan was conceived. Humans are not perfect; therefore, organizations made up of humans are not perfect either, but that does not mean they are "inept."

[EngiNerd]

It is unfortunate that RTD has dug this hole for themselves, especially after the SE LRT line went so smooth, because it does have people saying they are inept. The problem was they were overly optimistic on both the Cost of Construction and sales tax revenues, and now they have to find a way to dig themselves out of this hole...which now looks like it is going to be thrown back on the tax payers to bail them out. They have a long uphill battle ahead of them, but I am sure they will figure something out. I personally would say just let them extend out the timeline to 2034...a lot can happen in that time, and mostly likely they will find a way to come up with the money in that time to get it finished earlier.

[Strange Meat]

overly optimistic? i dunno, it just seems that they didn't really plan on the economy taking a dump in the bed.

[Giovoni]

Originally Posted by EngiNerd

It is unfortunate that RTD has dug this hole for themselves, especially after the SE LRT line went so smooth, because it does have people saying they are inept. The problem was they were overly optimistic on both the Cost of Construction and sales tax revenues, and now they have to find a way to dig themselves out of this hole...which now looks like it is going to be thrown back on the tax payers to bail them out. They have a long uphill battle ahead of them, but I am sure they will figure something out. I personally would say just let them extend out the timeline to 2034...a lot can happen in that time, and mostly likely they will find a way to come up with the money in that time to get it finished earlier.

(EngiNerd all of my responses to your posts aren't to try to counter your points, all of which I agree with - they are mostly to hopefully put ideas out there that RTD can maybe catch or that we can use when we're trying to get our families and friends to vote on these things)

I think it's important to note that all of the people at RTD are taxpayers too. And I don't see how they have dug any hole for themselves. As you pointed out this IS the agency who had completed every other light rail project before this one on time and under budget. They didn't fire and replace everyone there, and I think they need to REALLY get that message out when/if they decide to put the additional tax on the ballot. I have my problems with RTD at Union Station(ish), but other than that I've been very impressed with every project I've ever watch them be involved with.

[DownhomeDenver]

Too bad RTD didnt have a crystal ball. I'm sure every person that has quoted here made the effort to plan for a the Great Recession??? I doubt it.

I would vote for another tax increase!

[Giovoni]

Originally Posted by DownhomeDenver

Too bad RTD didnt have a crystal ball. I'm sure every person that has quoted here made the effort to plan for a the Great Recession??? I doubt it.

I would vote for another tax increase!

I would too.. if I was in Colorado I'd also try to write or get some sort of legislation or amendment that untied RTD's hands from development at ALL of their stations/stops. That could make a HUGE HUGE difference to RTD in the long run.

[EngiNerd]

Originally Posted by Giovoni

(EngiNerd all of my responses to your posts aren't to try to counter your points, all of which I agree with - they are mostly to hopefully put ideas out there that RTD can maybe catch or that we can use when we're trying to get our families and friends to vote on these things)

I think it's important to note that all of the people at RTD are taxpayers too. And I don't see how they have dug any hole for themselves. As you pointed out this IS the agency who had completed every other light rail project before this one on time and under budget. They didn't fire and replace everyone there, and I think they need to REALLY get that message out when/if they decide to put the additional tax on the ballot. I have my problems with RTD at Union Station(ish), but other than that I've been very impressed with every project I've ever watch them be involved with.

That is very true...I meant dug a hole in terms of asking the voters for more money. People voted for it the first time because of the want/need to get some alternate transportation to commuting in the Metro area. However, now they have to really convince people that the shortfall was not their fault, and that this time around, if they are given another tax increase, they will get it right....which I think will be difficult for them to do.

And to the, the economic downturn is really not the big problem here...it hurts some of their revenues of course....but the big disparity in budget came from the construction materials skyrocketing...where the cost of the project went from $4.7b in 2004 to $7.9b in 2008, and now back down to $6.5b. That is where the budget shortfall came from. I am not saying they should have known this either though, no one knew that construction materials would inflate that much.

Look at the numbers in the budget press release, sales tax revenue annual growth is down 2.3% from what they estimated, and that just doesn't make that big of a dent...except for long term operations, it will definitely affect that. From the graphic below, if the const. costs remained at $4.7b, the shortfall would not be that overwhelming.


Anyone know how long the .4% tax increase runs? Is it permanent?

[wong21fr]

^^Apparently it would be phased out following the completion of the program and will be used solely for the completion of the program. No using it for another phase of transit improvements.

[Giovoni]

So the very worst case scenario is that the tax just runs until the project is paid for no matter what the cost ends up being? Meaning the project DOES get completed just way longer out. Assuming the tax isn't repealed in some worse than worst case scenario.

[wong21fr]

^That's sunset clause on the tax is for the .4% proposed increase. The current tax remains in place to pay for the upkeep of the system once it's completed. I believe it never goes away.

[EngiNerd]

Originally Posted by wong21fr

^That's sunset clause on the tax is for the .4% proposed increase. The current tax remains in place to pay for the upkeep of the system once it's completed. I believe it never goes away.

Thanks! That's what I figured.

[SnyderBock]

so do you want to pay 0.4% extra sales tax until after 2035 and have FasTracks built out over all that time and in barebones lines? OR...

Pay 0.8% extra tax for half as long and have all of FasTracks built and operational and restored to all it's full potential before 2017?

This is how RTD needs to campaign for this new tax hike....

Vote YES and it will be more sales tax for the short term, but it will be completed fast (over the next 7 years) and it will be full service and the tax will go away sooner.

Vote NO and FasTracks gets cut back more and more, until it's barely serviing it's purpose of moving people and most lines don't get built for another 10, 15 or 20 years and meanwhile you have to keep paying the existing FasTracks tax all that time.

[rds70]

I wonder how this change might help Fastracks funding?


Obama Administration Proposes Major Public Transportation Policy Shift to Highlight Livability

01-13-10
Contact: Paul Griffo
Telephone: (202) 366-4064

Changes Include Economic Development and Environmental Benefits

In a dramatic change from existing policy, U.S. Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood today proposed that new funding guidelines for major transit projects be based on livability issues such as economic development opportunities and environmental benefits, in addition to cost and time saved, which are currently the primary criteria.

In remarks at the Transportation Research Board annual meeting, the Secretary announced the Obama Administration’s plans to change how projects are selected to receive federal financial assistance in the Federal Transit Administration’s (FTA) New Starts and Small Starts programs. As part of this initiative, the FTA will immediately rescind budget restrictions issued by the Bush Administration in March of 2005 that focused primarily on how much a project shortened commute times in comparison to its cost.

“Our new policy for selecting major transit projects will work to promote livability rather than hinder it,” said Secretary LaHood. “We want to base our decisions on how much transit helps the environment, how much it improves development opportunities and how it makes our communities better places to live.”

The change will apply to how the Federal Transit Administration evaluates major transit projects going forward. In making funding decisions, the FTA will now evaluate the environmental, community and economic development benefits provided by transit projects, as well as the congestion relief benefits from such projects.

“This new approach will help us do a much better job of aligning our priorities and values with our transit investments” said FTA Administrator Peter Rogoff. “No longer will we ignore the many benefits that accrue to our environment and our communities when we build or expand rail and bus rapid transit systems.”

FTA will soon initiate a separate rulemaking process, inviting public comment on ways to appropriately measure all the benefits that result from such investments.

[EngiNerd]

I think this has the potential to help FasTracks immensely...even though ridership is low on some of these lines and does not meet Federal minimums...they might be able to qualify for Federal funding with these new guidelines.

However, I wonder if lines like the North Line, where RTD did not do an federally mandated EIS (they did their own) would have to go back and have an EIS done? Could still delay some of the projected opening of these lines.

[SnyderBock]

It could open up federal funding to lines previously thought to be non-qualifying. Especially the North Metro EMU line; very likely could qualify under these new rules, if I'm not mistaken. But also the I-225 LRT extension, it will increase the quality of life, development opportunity and livability of Aurora along I-225 immensity from what it has now. Both these lines (being electric) could also benifit from these new rules, because they would be envirnmentally friendly, especially if RTD commited to purchase x percentage of electricity for these lines from renewable sources such as solar or wind.

Now about the Environmental Impact Studies, it might delay these project some but not a lot. RTD did something fairly unprecedented, by conducting its own Environmental Evaluation (EE) studies on the non-federal assistance eligible corridors and conducted these evaluations up to the same exact standards as the actual federal Environmental Impact Studies (EIS). So I guess it depends on how much the feds worked with RTD and allow existing EE data to be used to expedite the EIS. I would assume 12 months would be all it would take, perhaps 18 months at the most. The North Metro, I-225 and other potential corridors not currently federal assistance eligible are not scheduled to start construction in the next 18 months. In fact, they are not currently fully funded at all. So it is definitely worth a close look and consideration.

[Giovoni]

Originally Posted by rds70

“Our new policy for selecting major transit projects will work to promote livability rather than hinder it,” said Secretary LaHood. “We want to base our decisions on how much transit helps the environment, how much it improves development opportunities and how it makes our communities better places to live.”

The change will apply to how the Federal Transit Administration evaluates major transit projects going forward. In making funding decisions, the FTA will now evaluate the environmental, community and economic development benefits provided by transit projects, as well as the congestion relief benefits from such projects.

“This new approach will help us do a much better job of aligning our priorities and values with our transit investments” said FTA Administrator Peter Rogoff. “No longer will we ignore the many benefits that accrue to our environment and our communities when we build or expand rail and bus rapid transit systems.”

This sounds nebulous, touchy feely, and wouldn't stand a chance of surviving a new administration if Obama were to lose re-election. There are at least 10or 11 phrases that conservatives would have a field day attacking. We all know that transit makes better cities in the long run but they have GOT to be able to come up with a formula that makes it obvious in terms of money. How about dollars spent per unit time for ALL commuters in each project. would $1 Billion for light rail cost less per unit time saved for all people who use the roads (which would be less congested if built right) and the buses now that the route serves. I imagine it would be less. Especially if you could factor maintenance over the lifetime of the mode (road vrs rail).

I know that modality wouldn't survive either but at least you could maybe have a more substantial argument for keeping them than terms which are notoriously HARD to quantify.

[seventwenty]

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/14/us/14streetcar.html?ref=us

Mr. LaHood said the administration would establish new guidelines that take what he called “livability” into account — evaluating projects not only by how much they shorten commutes but also by their environmental, community and economic benefits.

[Pizzuti]

Originally Posted by Giovoni

This sounds nebulous, touchy feely, and wouldn't stand a chance of surviving a new administration if Obama were to lose re-election. There are at least 10or 11 phrases that conservatives would have a field day attacking. We all know that transit makes better cities in the long run but they have GOT to be able to come up with a formula that makes it obvious in terms of money. How about dollars spent per unit time for ALL commuters in each project. would $1 Billion for light rail cost less per unit time saved for all people who use the roads (which would be less congested if built right) and the buses now that the route serves. I imagine it would be less. Especially if you could factor maintenance over the lifetime of the mode (road vrs rail).

I know that modality wouldn't survive either but at least you could maybe have a more substantial argument for keeping them than terms which are notoriously HARD to quantify.

I don't think that Republicans are automatically anti-transit or anti-sustainability, livability, walkability, etc. There are Republicans on this forum who are pretty much on board when it comes to the value of transit.

The problem is that lately the whole Republican identity (on the national party level) has been based solely on the idea of opposing everything liberals like or want. It's more cultural than ideological, and more antagonistic than pragmatic. I honestly don't think there's a cry in the world that could get the Republican Party as an entity to start backing transit or start viewing transportation on a holistic level. We already know that Republicans support the idea of waste (as long as makes their constituents happy) because of the way they opposed cost-saving measures in healthcare reform -purely for symbolic reasons - like the public option.

I think our stake is pretty much with the Democrats on this issue, regardless of what numbers we could ever pull. I try to be balanced and nuanced about politics as I can and that's honestly what I think the landscape is right now.

[Eeyore]

Originally Posted by Pizzuti

I don't think that Republicans are automatically anti-transit or anti-sustainability, livability, walkability, etc. There are Republicans on this forum who are pretty much on board when it comes to the value of transit.

The problem is that lately the whole Republican identity (on the national party level) has been based solely on the idea of opposing everything liberals like or want. It's more cultural than ideological, and more antagonistic than pragmatic. I honestly don't think there's a cry in the world that could get the Republican Party as an entity to start backing transit or start viewing transportation on a holistic level. We already know that Republicans support the idea of waste (as long as makes their constituents happy) because of the way they opposed cost-saving measures in healthcare reform -purely for symbolic reasons - like the public option.

I think our state is pretty much with the Democrats on this issue, regardless of what numbers we could ever pull. I try to be balanced and nuanced about politics as I can and that's honestly what I think the landscape is right now.

Not so sure I agree with you. Just look what is going on in Colorado Springs and how they are losing service because of the budget or lack there of. Thus, anything that requires them to vote for it will require other cities to over come the loss their, IMO.

[Pizzuti]

Originally Posted by Eeyore

Not so sure I agree with you. Just look what is going on in Colorado Springs and how they are losing service because of the budget or lack there of. Thus, anything that requires them to vote for it will require other cities to over come the loss their, IMO.

Meant to say "stake" not "state"