DENVER | Transportation Thread - Page 418

TakeFive · #**8341** Posted **Apr 20, 2015, 3:08 AM**

Thankfully, Colorado isn't Texas.

In order to keep up with growth, just the Dallas metroplex alone has a list of 15 road projects totaling about $24/25 billion that's needed with a small portion actually under construction.

TakeFive · #**8342** Posted **Apr 21, 2015, 1:59 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by seventwenty

EXCLUSIVE: Bill to raise $3.5 billion for highways coming to Colorado Legislature

I didn't realize when I first saw/posted about this that the proposal doesn't include a revenue stream to pay for it. They just want to rob Peter to pay Paul. Not fiscally conservative or smart.

Ed Sealover in today's Denver Business Journal has Hickenloopers response, echoed by
"Shailen Bhatt, Hickenlooper’s recently appointed director of the Colorado Department of Transportation, expounded on his concerns about losing maintenance money in an interview Monday."

Quote:

Bhatt instead backed a plan that Hickenlooper had unveiled Thursday to leaders of the Legislature that would remove the hospital-provider fee from under the Taxpayer’s Bill of Rights revenue cap...

That would give the state a good base of money to work with while it discusses whether or not it should seek a tax hike for highways as other states have done, he said.

“Yes, I realize that is more difficult in Colorado if you have to take something to the ballot,” Bhatt said. “But if you want projects, you have to pay for it. You can’t just bond for it."

Other than Iowa which is a purple state, several red states have raised their fuel taxes this year. Simply put, the tea party crowd will follow their leaders knowing that if you want better roads you need to pay for them.

wong21fr · #**8343** Posted **Apr 21, 2015, 3:35 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by TakeFive

I didn't realize when I first saw/posted about this that the proposal doesn't include a revenue stream to pay for it. They just want to rob Peter to pay Paul. Not fiscally conservative or smart.

Other than Iowa which is a purple state, several red states have raised their fuel taxes this year. Simply put, the tea party crowd will follow their leaders knowing that if you want better roads you need to pay for them.

Not in Colorado. The current GOP party is too scared of primary challenges to offer any kind of proposal that would dedicate increased revenue for transportation- they prefer gimmicks that "create" additional funding.

The GOP's proposal would cut road maintenance in Colorado from $750M per year to $500M for the next 20 years. So a loss of $5B in maintenance funding for $3.5B in bond revenues. Of that $3.5B, $1B would go back to maintenance so the loss of maintenance funding is only $4B while new construction gets $2.5B. Let's put another headline on the GOP proposal, "GOP proposes cutting road funding by $1.5B over the next 20 years." That should play well.

TakeFive · #**8344** Posted **Apr 21, 2015, 4:34 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by wong21fr

Not in Colorado. The current GOP party is too scared of primary challenges to offer any kind of proposal that would dedicate increased revenue for transportation- they prefer gimmicks that "create" additional funding.

The GOP's proposal would cut road maintenance in Colorado from $750M per year to $500M for the next 20 years. So a loss of $5B in maintenance funding for $3.5B in bond revenues. Of that $3.5B, $1B would go back to maintenance so the loss of maintenance funding is only $4B while new construction gets $2.5B. Let's put another headline on the GOP proposal, "GOP proposes cutting road funding by $1.5B over the next 20 years." That should play well.

Well the good news is that they've got the hospital provider fee pot that they can move into an enterprise fund. This "scheme" is totally rational since it's not related to taxes at all. That would allow for the full $200 million transfer per year, for 5 years to CDOT as TABOR issues are avoided.

That change should enable moving forward with both the I-70 project through Denver and the C-470 project which are at the top of the priority list. If "others" want to fund the many other desired projects they'll have to step up and raise the gas taxes. The idea of some bonding is fine if there's a designated revenue stream.

On the Federal level things are looking up although details are unknown as they're still seeking a consensus. Even prosperous Texas is pushing for a fix, understandable given my comment above.

bunt_q · #**8345** Posted **Apr 21, 2015, 4:38 PM**

I-70 through Denver is moving forward anyways. That's my job. The actual funding gap is pretty small at this point.

RyanD · #**8346** Posted **Apr 21, 2015, 5:15 PM**

Freeway caps are cool. They're keeping the cap right?

TakeFive · #**8347** Posted **Apr 21, 2015, 5:49 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by bunt_q

I-70 through Denver is moving forward anyways. That's my job. The actual funding gap is pretty small at this point.

Perhaps you need time to get up to speed?

The more assured the funding the better it is.

I assume also that a good federal bill (rumored to be for 6 years) would improve the odds of federal participation?

TakeFive · #**8348** Posted **Apr 21, 2015, 10:26 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by lumos

If I read RTD's update yesterday correctly they will be announcing the East Rail Line's opening only 6 months beforehand, and that they expect that announcement to be at the end of the year. If that is true then we should be anticipating a June launch.

Dang, I thought it would start service closer to January. The tracks are done obviously so they must be slow getting all the stations finished.

lumos · #**8349** Posted **Apr 21, 2015, 10:39 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by TakeFive

Dang, I thought it would start service closer to January. The tracks are done obviously so they must be slow getting all the stations finished.

I recall that RTD always wanted the whole of 2015 to run trains and test the systems. As they have only just started running trains at the Eastern end of the line, and power and signals have not yet arrived in Union Station (near the skyscrapers, tall buildings, proposed tall buildings and other things to allow this thread to remain here) I suspect that the 12 month clock has not yet started. The stations seem to be advancing quickly but Airport Boulevard seems to be plonked down in the middle of nowhere.

EngiNerd · #**8350** Posted **Apr 22, 2015, 6:55 PM**

It's almost Bustang time!

https://www.codot.gov/travel/bustang/assets/schedule-and-fares-brochure

seventwenty · #**8351** Posted **Apr 22, 2015, 8:10 PM**

Oh wow. No Castle Rock stop like I hoped.

EngiNerd · #**8352** Posted **Apr 22, 2015, 9:07 PM**

Yeah, strange that they stop at Monument but not Castle Rock.

wong21fr · #**8353** Posted **Apr 22, 2015, 9:44 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by EngiNerd

Yeah, strange that they stop at Monument but not Castle Rock.

It's CDOT's subtle hint to Castle Rock to join RTD.

Scottk · #**8354** Posted **Apr 23, 2015, 3:20 AM**

Dear god is the Santa Fe / I25 merge ever not a complete 🞵🞵🞵🞵🞵🞵🞵🞵🞵🞵🞵?

I commute to Littleton regularly for various reasons and that merge is the bane of my existence.

I think It was actually better before CDOT updated the on ramp.

EngiNerd · #**8355** Posted **Apr 23, 2015, 2:45 PM**

It's horrible...and it won't be fixed for several years until they can widen the highway from 6th to Alameda.

All they did was take the back-ups that used to happen where I-25 crosses over Santa-Fe and move it half a mile up the road.

TakeFive · #**8356** Posted **Apr 23, 2015, 5:23 PM**

Ed Sealover does a nice job in today's Denver Business Journal with a photo presentation of the top ten highway projects that would be covered by the bonding proposal HERE.

First on the list is I-25 from Hwy 7 up to Fort Collins for $1 billion. The total for these ten projects is a little over $2 billion and it appears that only $300 million wouldn't automatically qualify for federal participation. Most of the top ten are along I-25 and I-70.

My how time flies.
If I assume that my Republican (and Dem) friends were to step up and ask for a dime increase in the gas tax along with some amount of bonding to speed up the construction time table to be voted on in next year's election, my guess is that it would pass. If so you probably couldn't start, say I-25 to Ft. Collins until maybe 2018. If it takes 5 years to complete that's 2023, of course.

Times a wasting.

TakeFive · #**8357** Posted **Apr 24, 2015, 6:17 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by TakeFive

Here you go

www.newflyer.com

Same manufacturer as the Free MetroRide downtown, these New Flyer circulator size buses could run from LRT Colorado Station and the Auraria LRT Station along Colorado and Speer Blvds. Whether one or two routes, whatever.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cirrus

I mean, the bus model really does not matter. There are tons of great-looking bus models out there.

Admittedly I wasn't familiar with manufacturers but I was looking for more of circulator style and size bus, not the big old lumbering buses.

I like the Charm City bus but last I heard Design Line was out of business. The LA NX40 bus and the DC Circulator XDE40 buses are both from New Flyer's Xcelsior series as are RTD's new Flatiron Flyer buses and their new Free metroRide buses. RTD also has a contract with New Flyer for up to 192 diesel 60-foot Xcelsior heavy-duty transit buses. Also mentioned is that New Flyer has acquired NABI.

But none of that matters because I like those new New Fyler MiDi buses.

Zmapper · #**8358** Posted **Apr 24, 2015, 9:42 PM**

TakeFive, the 40-Colorado and 79L/83L-Speer already have standing peak-hour loads with 40 and 60-foot buses. Where will RTD's customers go if you replace the full large buses with 30-foot coaches that don't save RTD any money in operating costs?

Zmapper · #**8359** Posted **Apr 24, 2015, 9:58 PM**

Double post for separate topics:

RTD considering a revised fare structure; three levels (Local, REX, Airport), with rail fare zones reduced from four to two.

http://rtd.iqm2.com/Citizens/FileOpen.aspx?Type=1&ID=2258&Inline=True

TakeFive · #**8360** Posted **Apr 24, 2015, 10:30 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zmapper

TakeFive, the 40-Colorado and 79L/83L-Speer already have standing peak-hour loads with 40 and 60-foot buses. Where will RTD's customers go if you replace the full large buses with 30-foot coaches that don't save RTD any money in operating costs?

Fair point but to give it proper context:

Quote:

Originally Posted by RyanD

This is where good branded transit and / or rail really needs to start happening. Cherry Creek is not far from Downtown Denver by any means and connecting the two would have a huge / great impact on your typical visitor.

There is a stupid amount of density going up in Cherry Creek to not have a great connecter to downtown... (not my drone photo but I need to get out there and take some!)

RyanD's comment was made along with an awesome aerial photo of Cherry Creek. So that was the context of my response.

I'm not talking about replacing anybody but rather creating circulator routes that could run from say 9:00 am to 2:30 pm and from 7:00 pm to midnight on a frequent schedule. You could schedule drivers to work longer shifts or work a peak/circulator schedule for example. I can't believe there wouldn't be any savings of a smaller bus over a bigger bus? What about original capital costs?

Not as sweet as streetcars would be but there's no budget for those any time soon. At some point Denver needs to address first mile/last mile issues also. These buses could be great for doing that.