DENVER | Transportation Thread

[the1wags]

For the $1.7B price tag on BNSF's right of way, surely they could just build the NW corridor on an alignment along 36, right? There's plenty of room along most of it. It works fine for the I25 corridor, so why not here?

Negotiate with the BNSF to get to right of way to 88th, have the line go through Westminster Center, and then over to the 36 alignment to Boulder.

[Cirrus]

Steeper slopes, and it wouldn't really solve the big problem, which is that no alignment that doesn't directly serve CU and downtown Boulder will ever produce enough riders to be worth the cost, even if it's a lot cheaper than the current plan.

[Wizened Variations]

Originally Posted by Cirrus

Steeper slopes, and it wouldn't really solve the big problem, which is that no alignment that doesn't directly serve CU and downtown Boulder will ever produce enough riders to be worth the cost, even if it's a lot cheaper than the current plan.

Image of Groucho Marx flicking his cigar:

"Well, my dame, just depends on how fast I get there..."

If you cannot go direct, get there fast (how about the 110 mph standard north of the old north Rio Grande Yards.)

Do serious speed and 25 minute travel times, end to end, and, people will start taking it. Give them a big, yet safe, place to park their cars, and, good bus connections.

It would work very well.

On the hand if they failed to sell the package as very modern and quick, then Boulder would remain agitated politically about continuing to need improvements, etc., and, the fiscal conservatives would be yelling about it being a waste of money (at least for the next ten years ).

A very fast line to (near) Boulder by US standards (Canada will have at least one HSR line between Union Station in Toronto and London by 2024 or so, IMO) would enhance Boulder's "reputation."

Boulderites, like the rest of us, want reasons to brag about their piece of the Denver metro area.

[Cirrus]

Faster is more expensive. So no.

[Cirrus]

Boulder is hiring a transit planner.

[Wizened Variations]

Governor Hickenlooper's veto of SB 197 set off a different train of thought than I expected.

Does the civil engineering community believe that some mix of passable bond issues, tax levies on gasoline, and, general funds will force major highway rejuvenations to be financed via 50 year obligations underwriten by third party agents such as Goldman Sach's approved without transparency? ?

My concerns relate to the fears on the part of those in the industry who feel that the state and the federal government will not have the available money or have the desire to provide money at sufficient levels to fund major highway infrastructural improvements.

What model of the future prompts such wariness? I respect them, as a group, too much to discount worrying about the future not being the primary factor.

I have had no respect for Goldman Sachs since 2008, so I am not concerned with their greed.

Instead I am concerned with those reasonable minded members of the civil engineering community that believe Colorado has no other choice.

see page 4a and 6a 06/05/14, article titled "Governor vetoes highway deals bill", Denver Post.

[Wizened Variations]

Originally Posted by Cirrus

Faster is more expensive. So no.

Far less than you think. Far less.

Speeds of 110mph can have railroad crossings.
Rails can be banked and tilt trains can be used.
An EMU train can accelerate quickly.

We are talking about maybe a 10% premium over the cost of those improvements which must be made anyway on a line that will have no freight rail traffic during construction (and hopefully thereafter)

Of course, this will not be done, because the object is to get such a line built, rather than to get it built right for a low extra cost premium.

The 110mph standard is not HSR.

[Cirrus]

10% more expensive is huge on a project that's already vastly too expensive to justify.

[bunt_q]

Originally Posted by Wizened Variations

Does the civil engineering community believe that some mix of passable bond issues, tax levies on gasoline, and, general funds will force major highway rejuvenations to be financed via 50 year obligations underwritten by third party agents such as Goldman Sach's approved without transparency?

Apart from your comment about transparency, which is just nonsense - there were plenty of opportunities for the public to be heard had they been paying attention, and also, we do not live in a direct democracy - I would say the answer is yes. As somebody whose job is to finance public infrastructure, within our current legal and tax framework at the state and federal levels - you cannot build a sidewalk without a developer advance and/or a 30-year bond, and you most certainly cannot build a major transportation infrastructure project without some sort of private money, that money has to be repaid, and 30-years will not currently get it done.

We voted to privatize government. And guess what we got? Privatized government. You could put an initiative on the ballot to repeal TABOR tomorrow and this all goes away. Of course, that initiative would get trounced. And you can't realistically expect CDOT to put every project on the ballot? They are doing exactly what the voters told them to do, and I think by and large, the state is pleased with the result. (Hickenlooper isn't exactly know for taking bold stands - he wouldn't veto if he didn't know it was completely safe to do so.)

[Wizened Variations]

Originally Posted by bunt_q

Apart from your comment about transparency, which is just nonsense - there were plenty of opportunities for the public to be heard had they been paying attention, and also, we do not live in a direct democracy - I would say the answer is yes. As somebody whose job is to finance public infrastructure, within our current legal and tax framework at the state and federal levels - you cannot build a sidewalk without a developer advance and/or a 30-year bond, and you most certainly cannot build a major transportation infrastructure project without some sort of private money, that money has to be repaid, and 30-years will not currently get it done.

We voted to privatize government. And guess what we got? Privatized government. You could put an initiative on the ballot to repeal TABOR tomorrow and this all goes away. Of course, that initiative would get trounced. And you can't realistically expect CDOT to put every project on the ballot? They are doing exactly what the voters told them to do, and I think by and large, the state is pleased with the result. (Hickenlooper isn't exactly know for taking bold stands - he wouldn't veto if he didn't know it was completely safe to do so.)

You are speaking "we" in the sense that the TABOR vote implies universal approval.

Using hindsight as justification for something like the US36 50year fiasco that had never occurred before is not a valid argument.

People do not have to accept "unforeseen consequences" of a publicly approved (majority +1) policy. In such a case, the issue is not whether a consequence Y could have been, or should have been foreseen, but whether an consequence Y would have been inevitable based upon publically voted propositions, IMO. This is not a valid argument.

[bunt_q]

What are you talking about? Things like this were CLEARLY contemplated by TABOR, from the outset. It's why we have exceptions for things like enterprises - hey you, government agency, if you can get 90%+ of your revenues from non-tax sources, TABOR won't apply. Private partnerships aren't new, there were early adopters - prisons being the most obvious example. How is a private correctional facility any different from a highway? It's not - we've been doing this for decades now. It just took a little while to figure out how to capture the revenues from a transportation facility with the same ease (10 years ago, before toll booths went the way of the dinosaurs, you couldn't have done what they are doing on US 36).

Until people are willing to reverse a 50%+1 decision, then yes, they do have to live with the consequences. And we're not ready to reverse it. Maybe Boulder is, but Boulder is butt hurt about everything. Any other highway and nobody would've said a word. Good for Hick vetoing a bad bill.

[Wizened Variations]

Originally Posted by bunt_q

What are you talking about? Things like this were CLEARLY contemplated by TABOR, from the outset. It's why we have exceptions for things like enterprises - hey you, government agency, if you can get 90%+ of your revenues from non-tax sources, TABOR won't apply. Private partnerships aren't new, there were early adopters - prisons being the most obvious example. How is a private correctional facility any different from a highway? It's not - we've been doing this for decades now. It just took a little while to figure out how to capture the revenues from a transportation facility with the same ease (10 years ago, before toll booths went the way of the dinosaurs, you couldn't have done what they are doing on US 36).

Until people are willing to reverse a 50%+1 decision, then yes, they do have to live with the consequences. And we're not ready to reverse it. Maybe Boulder is, but Boulder is butt hurt about everything. Any other highway and nobody would've said a word. Good for Hick vetoing a bad bill.

So it was the intent of the Tabor Amendment to have CDOT negotiate privately with a third party for a 50 year agreement that had no public input?

Really?

[bunt_q]

Originally Posted by Wizened Variations

So it was the intent of the Tabor Amendment to have CDOT negotiate privately with a third party for a 50 year agreement that had no public input?

Really?

It was the intent to have state agencies negotiate with private parties to provide government services, yes, absolutely. Not the sole intent, but certainly one of many preferred outcomes. Less government is better; the more that can be handled privately, the better. Live in denial all you want, but this is what we voted for. If you were asleep at the wheel, that's nobody's fault but your own.

The without public input part is just a lie.

Frankly I think there's a solution in this (whether I like it or not) for our voter-sanctioned public education funding crisis as well. Let a private company run schools for 50-years. They receive all of the local and state funding that would've otherwise gone to the schools, negotiated with the district and state. That covers the bare minimum "free" mandated schooling for everybody (like a free highway lane). Anything above the minimum - the company can charge fees for services. AP classes. Non-required classes. Sports. Prom. Want any of those, you pay extra to the concessionaire. We have to be creative when the voters give conflicting mandates - you'll provide x, but we won't approve taxes for x. Folks gotta pay to play.

[Brainpathology]

It was possibly the intent of the authors of the amendment to have these sorts of outcomes; if you believe their intent wasn't actually to eventually gut state government nearly entirely. I think you give the voters way too much credit for foreseeing some of the things we are seeing now.

I can't imagine most of the people who voted for TABOR had anything on their minds besides "I'll never have to pay higher taxes again!!! WHEEEEEEE!"

[bunt_q]

And we're getting a brand new Boulder Turnpike for FREEEEE...WHEEEE! You're exactly right about what the voters thought they were voting for, Doug Bruce stood up and said, "READ MY LIPS - same services, no new taxes!" And that's exactly what we're getting. We're just selling the goose to get those eggs leased back to us.

[Wizened Variations]

Originally Posted by bunt_q

It was the intent to have state agencies negotiate with private parties to provide government services, yes, absolutely. Not the sole intent, but certainly one of many preferred outcomes. Less government is better; the more that can be handled privately, the better. Live in denial all you want, but this is what we voted for. If you were asleep at the wheel, that's nobody's fault but your own.

The without public input part is just a lie.

Frankly I think there's a solution in this (whether I like it or not) for our voter-sanctioned public education funding crisis as well. Let a private company run schools for 50-years. They receive all of the local and state funding that would've otherwise gone to the schools, negotiated with the district and state. That covers the bare minimum "free" mandated schooling for everybody (like a free highway lane). Anything above the minimum - the company can charge fees for services. AP classes. Non-required classes. Sports. Prom. Want any of those, you pay extra to the concessionaire. We have to be creative when the voters give conflicting mandates - you'll provide x, but we won't approve taxes for x. Folks gotta pay to play.

Your comment about "Not the sole intent, but certainly one of many preferred outcomes." is an assumption, not the truth. IMO, you are doing permutations assuming that the public knows that the result of the manipulations is also true.

Not so. I would not say this is a lie, but, I would say that you are assuming implied implications between what the public voted for when the TABOR amendment was passed and the US 36 fiasco, which is a titanic stretch.

Public versus public schools. I think that the public K-12 system has grown grotesque since the teachers unions strangled the concept of teach liability. I, however, question that private education on a massive scale, would work. The best primary, middle, and secondary school systems in the world as measured by math, sciences schools and overall literarcy, IMO, are in Japan, France, Germany, Poland, Hungary, Switzerland, and the Scandinavian nations, which, to my knowledge are neither privately operated nor profit driven.

[wong21fr]

Originally Posted by Wizened Variations

Not so. I would not say this is a lie, but, I would say that you are assuming implied implications between what the public voted for when the TABOR amendment was passed and the US 36 fiasco, which is a titanic stretch.

The public voted for no more taxes and the same level of service in 1992 because that was what the measure was advertised as since the individual citizen knows better than the government in how to allocate their money. Meanwhile, the law is doing exactly what the crafters intended: to destroy the ability of the government to effectively govern.

TABOR is a beautiful piece of legislation that works slowly to implement the actual goal: the removal of government from as many walks of life as possible. The sooner that CDOT exits the transportation business and sells off the assets to private enterprise, who are vastly more efficient due to free-market fundamentals, the better. All done in the name of taxpayer accountability.

[Wizened Variations]

Originally Posted by wong21fr

The public voted for no more taxes and the same level of service in 1992 because that was what the measure was advertised as since the individual citizen knows better than the government in how to allocate their money. Meanwhile, the law is doing exactly what the crafters intended: to destroy the ability of the government to effectively govern.

TABOR is a beautiful piece of legislation that works slowly to implement the actual goal: the removal of government from as many walks of life as possible. The sooner that CDOT exits the transportation business and sells off the assets to private enterprise, who are vastly more efficient due to free-market fundamentals, the better. All done in the name of taxpayer accountability.

I agree with the intent. However, I do not believe that the private negotiation of a 50 year contract without an up or down legislative approval on an agreement involving foreign parties of unknown fiscal health brokered by a Goldman Sachs was necessary the legislative intent of the Tabor Amendment.

I like what the Tabor Amendment has done over all, but, I do not believe that the requirement concerning how the money has been borrowed, under what conditions of public disclosure an agreement was made, nor the 50 years time frame is a conclusive presumption of TABOR.

[bunt_q]

Originally Posted by Wizened Variations

I like what the Tabor Amendment has done over all, but, I do not believe that the requirement concerning how the money has been borrowed, under what conditions of public disclosure an agreement was made, nor the 50 years time frame is a conclusive presumption of TABOR.

How the money is borrowed and the timeframe are products of TABOR and bond markets. Take away TABOR and you might have some flexibility. But with revenues being capped as they are, the rest is just a function of what it costs. I don't know if you've ever actually read the constitutional and statutory provisions with respect to public finance, but it's very clear that this is how it was always intended to be.

You may want somebody to sell you a car for $250 per month for 3 years, but they're not going to; you're going to pay $500 for 6, like it or not, or you're not getting a car. In CDOT's case, they couldn't afford $500, so they found somebody who'd take $300 for 12 years. That's how it works. And there are additional provisions because CDOT can't even really guarantee the $300 per year without an election, so there's added risk, and that means the company actually is going to demand $300 for 15 years, in case you don't pay.

As for the conditions on public disclosure, you're just complaining. Of course, nobody would oppose a bill requiring more public comment, but you can't get a deal if you need legislative approval, because legislators have to respond to the whining, uninformed public, who want the car for $250 for 3 years. That bill, if allowed to go into law, wouldn't have meant a better deal for the state. it would've just meant there wouldn't be deals done at all. That's not fearmongering - I have plenty of projects that I can't get financed right now until revenue projections look up.

[Speculator]

please post current images of the rail stop at dia. tia