DENVER | Transportation Thread

[SnyderBock]

I'm not interested in government operations being profitable. The fact is AmTrack has existing service between Denver and Chicago. The fact is, if that existing service were re-routed through Kansas City and Saint Louis, it would pick up ridership from two major metropolitan areas between Denver and Chicago (at the loss of Omaha and Des Moines) and decrease the travel time from about 15 hours down to about 9 hours (estimate, please do not argue over exact times +/-2 hours).

And doing so by simply upgrading existing rails, this could be done by AmTrack at very reasonable cost. Sure, eventually it would need to be upgraded again to 150+mph service. A great place to start would be upgrading to 110mph service and integrate it with Chicago's planned HSR hub. A Denver-KC-STL-Chicago 110mph service should generate anywhere from two to three times more ridership than the existing Denver-Omaha-Des Moines-Chicago conventional rail service.

[bcp]

2-3x? where do you get that?

[wong21fr]

Originally Posted by SnyderBock

A great place to start would be upgrading to 110mph service and integrate it with Chicago's planned HSR hub. A Denver-KC-STL-Chicago 110mph service should generate anywhere from two to three times more ridership than the existing Denver-Omaha-Des Moines-Chicago conventional rail service.

Why would I ride this? If I'm headed from Denver to KC, why would I take this train instead of driving or flying? It certainly wouldn't be the time savings. And how much would you estimate a ticket should cost?

[bcp]

if it's 4 hours or less i'd be all over it rather than flying

[SnyderBock]

I would rather take a train than fly any day, so long as the train goes faster than 70-80mph. Denver to KC at 110mph with not many stops along the way would be much faster than driving, shouldn't cost any more than the three tanks of gas it would take to drive it (round trip) and I would never even consider flying that short of a distance.

I say two or three times the ridership, because Omaha and Des Moines are small cities. Kansas City has well over 2 million and Saint Louis is about the size of Denver. That's more ridership right there. Then include the increased ridership from faster trains (which make it more desirable) and there is no reason ridership wouldn't be at least twice as much as current Denver-Chicago AmTrack service.

Think about it...

-What kind of conventional speed AmTrack ridership is there between Denver and Omaha? How much ridership would there be between Denver and KC with 110mph service in comparison?

-What kind of ridership on conventional Amtrack is there between Omaha and Des Moines? Whaw kind of ridership would there be between KC and St. Louis on 110mph service in comparison?

-What kind of ridership on conventional Amtrack is there between Des Moines and Chicago? What kind of ridership would there be between St. Louis and Chicago on 110mph service in comparison?

[Octavian]

I agree with electricron on this matter. Why try and compete with DIA. With the Front Range and the Mountains, rail can offer a superior product relative to other transportation options. Not the case with rail to Kansas. Even if it could get you to KC faster than a car, it certainly won't get you there faster than a plane, and since the population densities between here and there are so low, investing the money to do it is not cost effective.

Here's a story from today:

http://www.denverpost.com/breakingnews/ci_11740886

RTD, unions present their cases on arbitration
By Jeffrey Leib
The Denver Post
POSTED: 02/19/2009 01:27:24 PM MST
UPDATED: 02/19/2009 01:46:25 PM MST

The transit workers union and members of metro Denver's disabled community sparred with RTD officials today at a state labor department hearing over whether a possible strike by the union would interfere with public peace, health and safety.

The contract between the Regional Transportation District and Amalgamated Transit Union 1001 expires Feb. 28. The union has filed a "Notice of intent to strike" with the Colorado Department of Labor & Employment if it and RTD cannot reach agreement on a new contract and the transit agency refuses to submit unresolved issues to arbitration.

In filings with the labor department, Local 1001 said it believes a strike would threaten public peace, health and safety and for that reason it wants state officials to deny strike authorization to the union and instead rely on binding arbitration to settle unresolved disputes between the parties.

Three years ago, the administration of Gov. Bill Owens made it clear that it would not invoke the arbitration provision to forestall a strike by transit workers.

The union did strike RTD, sharply curtailing transit service for a week before a settlement was reached.

At today's labor department hearing, Julie Reiskin, of the Colorado Cross-Disability Coalition, a disability rights organization, said the strike three years ago showed that the loss of bus and train service for many transit-dependent people met the standard of interfering with public peace, health and safety.

For that reason, the labor department should reject the strike option, Reiskin said.

She noted that all light rail service is expected to halt during a strike and for many disabled riders, "if light rail goes away, they have nothing."

In response to Reiskin and testimony from ATU representatives, RTD General Manager Cal Marsella said his agency "does not want a strike and is committed to doing whatever it can to avoid one."

But if state labor officials deny Local 1001 the strike option and impose "third party" arbitration on the negotiations instead, it will "undermine the confidence of both sides to negotiate" and "put a chilling effect on the ability to negotiate in good faith."

Bruce Abel, another RTD official, told the labor department panel that the transit agency has plans to continue to operate 45 percent of its fixed-route bus service by private contractors in the event of a strike and all of RTD's access-a-Ride and call-n-Ride service.

Abel agreed that a strike would be an "inconvenience" to transit users, but not meet the standard of disrupting public health and safety.

But transit user Dave Childs, who arrived at Thursday's hearing in a wheelchair, told labor officials RTD is "a lifeline" for him and said, "My health and safety depends on public transportation."

Michael McArdle, director of the department's labor division, said a decision on whether to bar a strike by the transit union will be made on Friday.

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

If the union want to strike, contract out the remaining 50% of the bus service. Fastracks is over budget, you need money from somewhere.

Here's what Cal Marsella said about this topic in an earlier interview:

According to numbers attained from RTD, the costs for the privatized portion of its fleet are $63.55 an hour while the unionized fleet costs are $85 an hour. And Marsella states that this $22 an hour savings is also without fuel tax, property tax, sales tax and vehicle registration fees, all of which the private companies pay for.

"We've been able to make tremendous strides in being able to make our contracts more business like. And we've been able to extract great cost savings because we have a private sector counterpart," says Marsella.

RTD has three fixed-route contractors — First Transit, Laidlaw and MV Transportation — and five paratransit contractors. Marsella says that having these other options for its service minimizes risks because if any one fails the others can back it up.

[SnyderBock]

They are spending tax payer's money, I think it's clear they need to go with a 100% non-union fleet. All unions have done in this country is drive thousands of jobs to third world nations and drive businesses and agencies which did NOT outsource, into budget problems. I suppose it's the employers own fault for not firing all union workers the moment they started demanding pay hikes. If you give them an inch, they will take a mile.

I'm not anti-union, but I think modern day unions no longer serve the purpose they were once intended to serve. They were to prevent labor exploitation and unfair labor practices. Unions were not designed to milk employers for everything they could with the blackmail threat of strike if they don't comply.

I'm not anti-union, I am pro-union. I just think there needs to be major union reform and government regulation over unions. Government regulation centered around new laws which limit unions power and influence over employers, to the extend they simply protect employees from unfair labor environments and treatment, but not able to threaten strike as retaliation for non-compliance to pay hike demands. I see that as in a blurry area also occupied by words such as extortion and blackmail.

Ultimately, the less profits companies make, the fewer employees they will have. The more agencies pay for employees, the less service they will be able to provide. It is in everyone's best interest, for their to be a more symbiotic balance between employers' profits/costs and employees' wages.

Do you guys agree with this at least to some extent?

[Octavian]

Originally Posted by SnyderBock

They are spending tax payer's money, I think it's clear they need to go with a 100% non-union fleet. All unions have done in this country is drive thousands of jobs to third world nations and drive businesses and agencies which did NOT outsource, into budget problems. I suppose it's the employers own fault for not firing all union workers the moment they started demanding pay hikes. If you give them an inch, they will take a mile.

I'm not anti-union, but I think modern day unions no longer serve the purpose they were once intended to serve. They were to prevent labor exploitation and unfair labor practices. Unions were not designed to milk employers for everything they could with the blackmail threat of strike if they don't comply.

I'm not anti-union, I am pro-union. I just think there needs to be major union reform and government regulation over unions. Government regulation centered around new laws which limit unions power and influence over employers, to the extend they simply protect employees from unfair labor environments and treatment, but not able to threaten strike as retaliation for non-compliance to pay hike demands. I see that as in a blurry area also occupied by words such as extortion and blackmail.

Ultimately, the less profits companies make, the fewer employees they will have. The more agencies pay for employees, the less service they will be able to provide. It is in everyone's best interest, for their to be a more symbiotic balance between employers' profits/costs and employees' wages.

Do you guys agree with this at least to some extent?

I agree that the government's responsibility is to perform its function at the lowest possible price.

[SnyderBock]

I think I am willing to lighten up on my stance towards unions, some. I would like to think unions and employers can come to a more balanced understanding, free of government regulation. But if there was government regulation of unions, it should be soft regulation consisting of no more than a new modern law or two.

As for RTD, I see no reason they have to hire union employees at those much higher rates. I'm am sure there are plenty of unemployed ready to work at those non-union wages. Bottom line, that would save tax payer money and allow RTD to make fewer cutbacks than planned currently.

[Octavian]

http://coloradoindependent.com/22027/federal-stimulus-wont-give-colorados-transit-projects-much-of-a-boost

Federal stimulus won’t give Colorado’s transit projects much of a boost
By DAVID O. WILLIAMS 2/20/09 7:19 AM

Denver's historic Union Station. (Photo/Bettinche, Flickr)

Local rail and public transit enthusiasts are in for a cold slap of reality after the historic signing of the $787 billion economic recovery plan.
During Tuesday’s visit to Denver with President Barack Obama, Vice President Joe Biden said the federal stimulus bill will be a big boost to mass transit in the United States, with funding impacts for commuter rail projects from Colorado to Amtrak’s Northeast Corridor.

“We should have the best transportation system in the world, and we don’t,” said Biden.

But many mass transit advocates are disappointed with the funding disparity between the money pegged for bridge and road repairs ($29 billion) and the funds for passenger rail and other mass-transit improvements ($17.7 billion). To break it down, that means $8.4 billion for transit, $8 billion for high-speed rail and $1.3 billion for Amtrak.

Colorado’s Front Range and the Denver metro area were used as shining examples of the “New Energy Economy” during Tuesday’s event. But the stimulus legislation’s funding realities mean that only $103.5 million will be coming to state’s way for transit projects.

How the money is spent remains to be seen, but it’s clearly not enough to meet the needs of the Regional Transportation District’s FasTracks light and commuter rail network, funded by a sales tax increase in 2004. The network is now $2.1 billion short of the $7.9 billion needed to build the system promised to voters.

RTD is weighing taking another sales tax hike to the voters, and metro area mayors – feeling shortchanged by service reductions – are looking for assurances RTD will deliver this time if it gets another sales tax bump. Some political analysts, though, citing the same economic collapse that’s hitting RTD and transit systems nationwide, say this is the worst possible time to ask voters for more money.

Of the $103.5 million in transit stimulus funds coming to Colorado — with 90 percent of it dedicated to the Front Range and the Denver metro area — it’s clear a huge chunk of it will go to the RTD, which submitted a $274 million list of “shovel-ready’ projects, according to RTD FasTracks spokeswoman Pauletta Tonilas. What’s unclear is how the stimulus money will be divvied up.

“The short story really about the stimulus funds is that it’s just really too early for us to tell what we’ll get, how much money we’ll get and what can be applied specifically to FasTracks and Denver Union Station,” Tonilas said, referring to the renovation of Denver’s historic downtown rail station, which is being touted as the central hub of the FasTracks network.

One of the most expensive aspects of Union Station’s redevelopment, which includes condos, restaurants and retail, is the FasTrack plan to build an intermodal bus station beneath the complex.

“We submitted a request specifically for Denver Union Station to DRCOG (the Denver Regional Council of Governments) for $18.6 million that would be part of the [stimulus] funds that get dispersed to DRCOG,” Tonilas said.

Overall, though, the governor’s blue-ribbon panel on transportation has recommended the state increase its transportation funding for all projects, including roads, bridges and mass transit, by $1.5 billion a year.

State lawmakers are currently wrangling over increasing vehicle registration fees, a move that could provide about $250 million a year in emergency road and bridge fixes, but a statewide vote on tax increases to create a permanent funding source looms on the horizon.

Though it is unlikely in the current economic climate, most state lawmakers say such a tax increase is inevitable given declining gas taxes to fund road projects.

“Unlike the federal government that prints money, all of this stuff costs money, too, so eventually Colorado voters will be asked to say, ‘Hey, would you be willing to support this or that for Colorado?’” said State Sen. Dan Gibbs, D-Silverthorne, sponsor of the FASTER vehicle registration bill currently in the House.

Although he’s particularly troubled by periodic gridlock on Interstate 70 between Denver and the Western Slope, Gibbs said any discussion of expanding passenger rail beyond the Denver metro area needs to include the Front Range.

“We need to have a statewide perspective, because if it’s just on I-70, folks in Denver or Colorado Springs will say, ‘Hey, what do I get out of this?’” Gibbs said.

“We’re doing what we can do at the state level with FASTER, and I would say this is just a small step in the right direction as far as what our real needs are, but then all of you will have the opportunity to vote on the future of transportation and transit in Colorado.”

Stimulus dollars will have virtually no impact on a long-term fix for I-70 aside from some repaving and bridge repairs, said Flo Raitano, executive director of the intergovernmental I-70 Coalition, because final long-term plans are years away from being realized. However, Raitano said rail along I-70 needs local transit to supplement it, and some of those agencies could see stimulus dollars for new buses and other infrastructure.

“[Stimulus] will help ultimately the transportation solution for the corridor because we’re looking at the stimulus having some benefit for our local transportation authorities,” Raitano said, but which local transit agencies will see funding remains a question mark.

The Rocky Mountain Rail Authority, another intergovernmental organization, is currently conducting a $1.5 million high-speed rail study for both the I-70 and I-25 corridors. Funding for that study, slated to be completed in June, came from the Colorado Department of Transportation and local governments along both corridors.

Harry Dale, a Clear Creek County commissioner and executive director of the rail authority, said many of the questions about capital costs, potential routes, ridership and funding will be addressed at a Feb. 27 steering committee meeting in Golden.

“It will answer some of the questions that are coming up with regards to sharing rights of way with freight railroads and highway improvements that we assume will happen within the study period and what that means in terms of what kind of travel demand will be met or will be left unmet that we can accommodate,” Dale said.

The rail study envisions high-speed trains along the I-25 corridor from the southern border with New Mexico to the northern border with Wyoming, as well as along I-70 from the eastern border with Kansas to the western border with Utah. Its price tag would be in the billions.

“You talk about it being statewide, and what’s nice is the RMRA is an I-25 and I-70 corridor solution,” said Vail Town Councilman Mark Gordon, who sits on the authority. “It will go from state border to state border on all four sides.”

[Octavian]

http://www.rockymountainnews.com/news/2009/feb/19/riders-caught-middle-rtd-union-negotiations/?printer=1/

RTD fight seems topsy-turvy; disabled in middle

By Kevin Flynn

Thursday, February 19, 2009

Thursday's hearing on a possible RTD drivers and mechanics strike might seem straight out of Alice in Wonderland unless you understand the politics of labor relations in Colorado.

With about 70 people, most of them blind or wheelchair users, crammed into a small hearing room, representatives of the Colorado Division of Labor heard public pleas to deny the workers their right to strike if contract talks between Amalgamated Transit Union Local 1001 and the Regional Transportation District reach an impasse.

Local 1001, which filed the notice of intent to strike that prompted the hearing, asked that its request be denied. And RTD officials asked the state to allow a strike, saying that while the public might be inconvenienced by losing half its daily bus service and all of light rail, it wouldn't be bad enough to call off a strike.

The reason for the seemingly contradictory requests is binding arbitration, the union's real goal.

Under the Colorado Labor Peace Act, if the state determines that the strike would interfere with public peace, health and safety, it can prohibit a strike and put the negotiations into arbitration.

Caught in the middle are the transit-dependent riders, such as the dozens who showed up to plead with Mike McArdle, director of the Division of Labor, to prohibit a strike.

"This is beyond an inconvenience," Julie Reiskin, of the Colorado Cross Disability Coalition, said of a strike. Reiskin relies on a wheelchair for mobility and on RTD for transportation.

She said the privately operated buses that ran during the weeklong April 2006 strike often were so crowded that people in wheelchairs were passed by at bus stops.

The disabled who rely on RTD need it for access to their jobs, their doctors, their groceries and all sorts of errands that would be a hardship in a strike, she said.

But RTD officials said that people adapt to loss of transit during a strike.

Cal Marsella, RTD general manager, said arbitration would give decision-making over RTD to outside parties.

"Preventing a strike would strip the union of incentive for good-faith bargaining." Marsella told McArdle. A binding settlement that costs RTD more money would hurt riders because it would force even more bus and light-rail cutbacks, RTD said.

RTD and ATU last went to arbitration in 1997, and the settlement cost the transit agency more than it had bargained for.

Marsella said RTD is preparing to operate in the event of a strike. But it would be very different than three years ago. In 2006, only one of the three private companies under contract to run half of RTD's bus service was unionized. Those drivers couldn't be used to fill in on routes normally driven by RTD's own workers.

But Local 1001 went on an organizing drive after that and now represents drivers at all three - First Transit, Laidlaw and Veolia. That means if RTD drivers go on strike, the agency wouldn't call in the private companies to pick up slack, as it did in 2006.

That would idle some of the busiest routes in the city.

© Rocky Mountain News

[bcp]

how much do they get paid?

[Octavian]

Originally Posted by bcp

how much do they get paid?

Unknown. This from a 2006 article linked to above:

According to numbers attained from RTD, the costs for the privatized portion of its fleet are $63.55 an hour while the unionized fleet costs are $85 an hour. And Marsella states that this $22 an hour savings is also without fuel tax, property tax, sales tax and vehicle registration fees, all of which the private companies pay for.

Since then, the 3 private contractors have also been unionized. However, RTD has contingency plans that would allow them to continue operating 47% of services.

If I had to guess, Ritter, being a friend of the unions, forces RTD to accept binding arbitration and the unions get a wage increase. The union does not want to strike, they just want to force RTD into arbitration because the economy is bad and they know they'll get a better deal.

[SnyderBock]

Why aren't there any non-private non-union workers? Why is it either privatized or unionized? I don't see why RTD can't hire non-union workers too. The Unions are rapping them. At this rate, they might as well fire all Union workers and privatize with leases, 100% of their system.

[Octavian]

Not surprising that Ritter sided with the unions . . . he just made RTD's budget problems worse:

http://www.denverpost.com/breakingnews/ci_11776258

RTD union barred from striking
The Denver Post
POSTED: 02/24/2009 05:31:29 PM MST
UPDATED: 02/24/2009 06:11:21 PM MST

By Jeffrey Leib

The Denver Post

State labor officials ruled today that the transit workers union will not be allowed to strike RTD when its contract expires Saturday.

The decision of the Colorado Department of Labor & Employment means if the Regional Transportation District and Amalgamated Transit Union Local 1001 fail to reach agreement on a new labor contract, unresolved issues will be submitted to binding arbitration.

The union delivered a "Notice of intent to strike" to the labor department, but at a Feb. 19 hearing, union officials said such a walkout would impact the "public peace, health and safety" and strike authorization should be denied in favor of arbitration.

RTD officials argued the opposite — that a strike would be an "inconvenience" to transit users, but not rise to the level of threatening public health and safety.

A number of advocates for disabled transit users supported the request to prevent a strike.

In today's ruling, senior labor department official Michael McArdle agreed with the position of the union and those representing the disabled community.

"I have concluded that a strike by the ATU would in fact interfere with the preservation of the public peace, health and safety," McArdle wrote. The union's "request to strike against the Regional Transportation District is denied."

McArdle ordered RTD and ATU to submit names of arbiters who might decide unresolved contract issues between the parties.

"I'm just glad that they gave us this option," Local 1001 President Holman Carter said of the labor department ruling.

"We really want to sit down at the table with RTD," said Carter, whose union represents about 1,900 RTD employees. "This saves our riders the concern and worry of a potential strike."

The union had said it was looking for a "modest increase in wages" while RTD management proposed a three-year freeze in wages.

The transit agency's finances are suffering from a falloff in sales tax revenues in eight-county metro Denver. That tax source is used to fund to bulk of RTD's operations.

In a statement on the labor department's ruling, RTD board chairman Lee Kemp said, "We remain hopeful that we will come to a negotiated agreement working directly with the ATU leadership. In these tough economic times, we need to work together and remain focused on delivering our service to the residents of the RTD district."

Carter said the union and RTD have put three days of bargaining on their schedules beginning Thursday.

In 2006, the administration of Gov. Bill Owens refused to similarly ban a strike by ATU and order arbitration of a labor dispute. The union struck the transit agency, affecting transit service for a week.

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

[wong21fr]

This has some benefit for FasTracks, plus this will alleviate pressure on the CO general fund benefiting some other programs:

Rocky Mountain News
Faster bill passes

By a vote of 34-31, the $265 million transportation-funding bill that has been the center of legislative attention for the past month passed the House today.
Four Democrats joined Republicans in voting against it: Dennis Apuan of Colorado Springs, Wes McKinley of Walsh, John Soper of Thornton and Paul Weissmann of Louisville. No Republicans supported Senate Bill 108.
The bill raises vehicle-registration fees for most Coloradans $41 by 2012 in order to repair roads and most of the state's 126 structurally deficient bridges. It also makes it easier to toll already built roads and imposes a $2-a-day rental-car fee.
SB108 now heads back to the Senate, which can either accept or reject amendments made in the House. If they are rejected, a conference committee will meet to work out the differences.

FASTER Amendments:Two roads diverged

House members offered nearly two dozen amendments to Tuesday's "FASTER" transportation-funding bill. Here's a look at what stuck and what didn't.

PASSED

* Phase in bridge fee over three years.

* Allow the Regional Transportation District to ask voters for a tax hike without first obtaining approval of the legislature.

* Increase from $10 million to $15 million the amount of money in the bill designated for transit.

* Allow tolling revenues to be used for bike-path or transit needs.

FAILED

* Ban the Colorado Department of Transportation from studying a potential vehicle-miles-traveled fee.

* Ban the tolling of existing roads.

* Require state roads contractors to verify that employees are not illegal immigrants.

* Limit condemnation powers of a new tolling enterprise.

* Eliminate new $2-a-day rental-car fee.

* Waive the rental-car fee for Colorado residents.

[1Post2]

looks like a winner.

on a side note, somehow polling is showing the public favoring raising the sales tax again for fastracks, although i doubt will see that in a ballot for a while.

[bcp]

how is a new tax on CO residents (without voter approval) a winner?

bring it...let's hear the attacks :-)

[bunt_q]

I know you're just trying to start a TABOR fight, but there's a clear difference between a tax and a fee. You know that...

You don't have to register your car if you don't want. You have two legs, you are free to use them, and nobody will throw you in jail if you choose not to pay.

If dear Mr. Bruce had wanted TABOR to cover taxes *and* fees, than he should have drafted it that way. It isn't like this is some brilliant work of lawyer wizardry.... rest assured, they knew of the difference between taxes and fees at the time, and chose to exclude fees. The distinction isn't a new one

[glowrock]

I still say dear Mr. Bruce needs to be run over by one of the fee and tax-supported trains that he hates so very much! Same with Caldara, of course!

Aaron (Glowrock)