DENVER | Transportation Thread

[TakeFive]

Conservative versus Liberal - or maybe not?

If you're unfamiliar with the transit rap of conservative think tanks, they hate on rail transit but love bus transit. Their motivation is simply to avoid the high capital costs for rail so that those infrastructure costs are available for 'other things'.

Interestingly, many among the Streetsblog crowd would agree. This would go to the tension between serving the suburbs versus better serving the city center. Of course in Denver that horse left the barn long ago.

Disadvantages with RTD light & commuter rail

Conservatives would point out the higher costs (or subsidies) needed to operate rail transit as apposed to bus transit. In Denver, this is amplified by the disappointing ridership on certain lines. Given that FasTracks was 'visionary' and that the G Line only recently opened and the N Line is yet to open (but soon), it will be much more indicative how things look a decade from now. Generally, commuter rail has a much higher farebox recovery rate than buses. Many choice riders will happily take light rail but have no interest in riding buses.

[SirLucasTheGreat]

I'm not sure how much you all have looked into the Rocky Mountain Rail proposal for finishing the B Line. In addition to allegedly pulling it off for $1.1 billion by 2025, they plan on adding ten stations beyond RTD's proposal with infrastructure for express lines. How difficult is it to build a rail system with express lines? If the southeast corridor and the W line had express lines, I imagine the ridership would have been much improved.

[Cirrus]

Originally Posted by TakeFive

If you're unfamiliar with the transit rap of conservative think tanks, they hate on rail transit but love bus transit. Their motivation is simply to avoid the high capital costs for rail so that those infrastructure costs are available for 'other things'.

Interestingly, many among the Streetsblog crowd would agree.

Conservative think tanks hate both buses and trains. They say they love buses when trains are proposed, but when buses are proposed, they say they hate buses. No matter what transit is proposed, their position is always to not do it.

The Streetsblog crowd is the exact opposite. They love all transit including both buses and trains, but are often put in the position of advocating for buses and against trains because of specific bad train proposals that don't work as well as bus alternatives. But this isn't because of hatred for trains; in most cases, if you put a train on the bus alternative, they would like it better. For them, going to the right place and having features like dedicated lanes is more important than mode. (The Boulder train/bus line in FasTracks is a perfect example of this.)

The surface message may be the same, and I agree this is a notable oddity, worth following. But don't mistake that for being the same position.

[TakeFive]

Originally Posted by Cirrus

Conservative think tanks hate both buses and trains. They say they love buses when trains are proposed, but when buses are proposed, they say they hate buses. No matter what transit is proposed, their position is always to not do it.

The Streetsblog crowd is the exact opposite. They love all transit including both buses and trains, but are often put in the position of advocating for buses and against trains because of specific bad train proposals that don't work as well as bus alternatives. But this isn't because of hatred for trains; in most cases, if you put a train on the bus alternative, they would like it better. For them, going to the right place and having features like dedicated lanes is more important than mode. (The Boulder train/bus line in FasTracks is a perfect example of this.)

The surface message may be the same, and I agree this is a notable oddity, worth following. But don't mistake that for being the same position.

Fair enough; adding clarification is fine.

Yes, favoring buses is their rap which isn't the same as actually liking them. The catch is that they don't prefer government funding for transit. Still saving the high cost of rail infrastructure is why they argue for bus transit.

Originally Posted by SirLucasTheGreat

I'm not sure how much you all have looked into the Rocky Mountain Rail proposal for finishing the B Line. In addition to allegedly pulling it off for $1.1 billion by 2025, they plan on adding ten stations beyond RTD's proposal with infrastructure for express lines. How difficult is it to build a rail system with express lines? If the southeast corridor and the W line had express lines, I imagine the ridership would have been much improved.

Color me very skeptical.

I will say that sometimes the private sector can accomplish things that the public center is not so good at. First and foremost I'll be curious to see how they solve ROW issues.

I have considered the SE Corridor. It's really long with lots of stations. If they had the physical ability to say have the E and F Lines stop at every other station that could make a huge time difference. The obvious catch is that they have different destination so depending on where you got on one may need to make a transfer. If there were only one line in that corridor then alternating stopping at stations would be much easier.

[Cirrus]

Originally Posted by TakeFive

The catch is that they don't prefer government funding for transit.

Yes they do. They absolutely do prefer governing funding for transit.

But given the choice between building 10 corridors serving 200,000 bus trips versus building 1 corridor serving 10,000 rail trips for the same amount of government funding, they will pick the former.

They are also acutely aware that the US spends more to get less than other first world countries. Their position is that if Spain can build subways for what it costs the US to build BRT, failing to get US costs under control prevents more transit from being built.

[TakeFive]

Originally Posted by Cirrus

Yes they do. They absolutely do prefer governing funding for transit.

But given the choice between building 10 corridors serving 200,000 bus trips versus building 1 corridor serving 10,000 rail trips for the same amount of government funding, they will pick the former.

We can agree to disagree. Conservatives always, always want less over more taxes. That they acknowledge some funding for transit will happen then they argue for the least expensive needing the lowest tax support.

Originally Posted by Cirrus

They are also acutely aware that the US spends more to get less than other first world countries. Their position is that if Spain can build subways for what it costs the US to build BRT, failing to get US costs under control prevents more transit from being built.

That's a whole other kettle of fish. That goes to your friends piling on layer after layer of red tape or analysis paralysis and added years of time and money. Not saying the regs are 'all bad' but they do run up the costs dramatically. Certainly conservatives would prefer less to more regulation; they recognize what is driving up the costs.

[Cirrus]

lol you are making assumptions again.

First of all, I agree the red tape surrounding transit projects needs to change. The NEPA process is important but it's been corrupted to the point of uselessness, and needs a top-down remake. Most planners agree with this, actually, because it's even more obvious once you know all the ways to game the process.

Secondly, while regs do drive up costs a meaningful percentage, as do unions, there are just as many "conservative" reasons for high transit costs (and long timelines) as "liberal" ones. These include frequent budgetary delaying tactics, insistence on consultants (and associated subconsultants) for work governments could do themselves if allowed, and private partnerships that sell off long term assets for immediate infusions of cash. I can't say with any authority which side sums to a bigger problem, but they both contribute big parts to what is basically a perfect storm, and saying the conservative side "recognizes what's driving up costs" is just hilariously ignorant of the many ways they are actively driving up costs.

[TakeFive]

Originally Posted by Cirrus

lol you are making assumptions again.

First of all, I agree the red tape surrounding transit projects needs to change. The NEPA process is important but it's been corrupted to the point of uselessness, and needs a top-down remake. Most planners agree with this, actually, because it's even more obvious once you know all the ways to game the process.

Secondly, while regs do drive up costs a meaningful percentage, as do unions, there are just as many "conservative" reasons for high transit costs (and long timelines) as "liberal" ones. These include frequent budgetary delaying tactics, insistence on consultants (and associated subconsultants) for work governments could do themselves if allowed, and private partnerships that sell off long term assets for immediate infusions of cash. I can't say with any authority which side sums to a bigger problem, but they both contribute big parts to what is basically a perfect storm, and saying the conservative side "recognizes what's driving up costs" is just hilariously ignorant of the many ways they are actively driving up costs.

I try hard to make observations as apposed to assumptions but you add valid observations as well.

Did you notice how well my guy Mayor Pete is doing in Iowa? Not sure he can go the distance buy I'm gratified.

[wong21fr]

Originally Posted by TakeFive

The conservative take is provided by Joshua Sharf with the Independence Institute.
The one thing worth noting:

I had assumed this. I just wasn't aware it had been studied.

It would have been nice if the II sourced the study as I don't remember reading this one and would really like to take a look at it. But that requires actual scholarly work which is not something that the II is known for anymore, their libertarian credentials as a think than are pretty tenuous at this point and it''s more about separating saps from their money.

[TakeFive]

Originally Posted by wong21fr

It would have been nice if the II sourced the study as I don't remember reading this one and would really like to take a look at it. But that requires actual scholarly work which is not something that the II is known for anymore, their libertarian credentials as a think than are pretty tenuous at this point and it''s more about separating saps from their money.

The study was commissioned by the (RTD) board or at least that's what I assumed.

[wong21fr]

Originally Posted by TakeFive

The study was commissioned by the (RTD) board or at least that's what I assumed.

That's obvious, but as they linked to sources for the other claims in the editorial it would be nice if they also linked to this one. But that's something that a reputable scholar would do.

Not that I'm suggesting that the author is stretching the findings of the study....

[TakeFive]

Originally Posted by wong21fr

That's obvious, but as they linked to sources for the other claims in the editorial it would be nice if they also linked to this one. But that's something that a reputable scholar would do.

Not that I'm suggesting that the author is stretching the findings of the study....

Gotcha

One thing that crossed my mind (later) is that they didn't mention Arapahoe Co. If not an oversight it might be that they get their fair share of transit?

[TakeFive]

Interesting RTD guidelines and stuff

SERVICE CHANGES – FIGURING OUT THE PUZZLE THAT KEEPS THE SYSTEM ROLLING SMOOTHLY
02.05.2020 - RTD Service Changes

They’re not just throwing darts.

So how do they start? Let’s take a look, in a discussion with RTD’s Jeff Becker, a civil engineer with a 25-year career in transportation planning.

A crucial fact to start with in all RTD planning is that every single rider, on every single trip, on every form of RTD transportation, is subsidized by taxpayers. No route or line pays its own way with fares. It’s a shock for many people to learn: Some routes come closer to breaking even than others, but subsidies range up to $15 per rider and beyond.

How 'bout some nitty gritty?

...the amount of subsidy per line or per rider is only one of many factors planners consider. Others include:

• Title VI of the federal Civil Rights Act of 1964, which requires that agencies relying on federal funding avoid discriminating against people based on race, gender, disability and, more recently, income status. In practice, that means RTD must make sure that altering a service won’t disproportionately affect lower-income residents in the metro area.
• Duplication or isolation. If a line’s frequency has to be reduced, or the route eliminated altogether, is there another RTD service nearby that residents can use?
• Relative effectiveness of service. Twenty boardings per vehicle hour on a downtown bus is relatively poor performance, while 20 boardings on a suburb-to-suburb bus is not bad. Then again, while 30 boardings per hour on a bus route is good, 100 boardings per hour on a train line is too low given the high expense and capacity of rail cars.
• Scheduling. Once a route and its frequency are established, that work is put out to bid among operators three times a year, following rules set in the collective bargaining agreement for all of the agency’s union-represented employees. One bus route might operate for 20 hours a day, meaning three or four operator shifts cover just that route. Runs that are crucial to the public may not be popular for bidding among operators with the most seniority.

A few rambling impressions.

Whenever the feds are involved things get complicated fast. That said, you can't pass on those nice grants.

Union rules are always fascinating. So long-timers have 1st choice on all the plum routes. Actually this sounds reasonable to me. But perhaps the 'shit' routes could carry a per hour premium for drivers?

I see where RTD does account for differences in operating costs between buses and light/commuter rail. Makes sense.

Lastly, given the recent increases in wages/benefits in an effort to attract more drivers, there now is less money for operating all of the routes. Since this was necessary, it is what it is.

[TakeFive]

Graphical representation of where people traveled using the Ride Bend via Bend Source

Public Transit Of The Future?
February 07, 2020 BY LAUREL BRAUNS - Bend Source

The program was part of a study by the OSU-Cascades Mobility Lab to see if more people would chose to use a ridesharing system as opposed to a fixed bus route.

The Ride Bend experiment began in partial thanks to the pioneering spirit of Casey Bergh, the Transportation & Sustainability Program Manager at OSU-Cascades who spearheaded the program. The lab collaborates with a variety of public agencies (including Cascades East Transit) to implement and study the latest transportation technology trends.

How's it doing so far?

The experiment worked. The data demonstrated that the on-demand version of Ride Bend had more than twice as many riders than the old buses which had run on fixed routes in a similar area. It also saved money: services cost $20,000 less than the total operational cost of running buses on fixed-route schedules, while also expanding the boundaries of the service area.

What about they naysayers?

Meanwhile, Streetsblog.org—a news site that reports on how people can reduce their dependence on cars—reports that ridesharing is nothing more than a glorified Dial-A-Ride, and is not as efficient as proponents argue.

Well we know that Streetsbloggers are a rabid bunch of stuck-in-the-mud types. Any other collaborating info for more of a ride-share approach?

Susan Shaheen, a professor of civil and environmental engineering at the University of California, Berkeley, authored numerous studies documenting how ridesharing services are part of a larger generational trend and could be the future of public transit. Millennials are moving away from personal car ownership because of the cost as well as the convenience of Uber and Lyft.

Isn't really all about CONTEXT?
Yes, I would think so.

[TakeFive]

2020 Transit Trends: It’s All About the Customer Experience
Jan 06, 2020 By Paul Comfort - Trapeze Group

Customer-centricity is the new trend for our industry.

The public transportation business is for the public. It's vital to want to improve your riders' mobility and access to all that life has to offer. To do that, we must allow their needs to become foremost in our minds as we create and recreate our services.

Ridership has declined across most bus services for the first half of this past decade, and many people began to question the relevance of regular public transportation buses to today's rider.

Can we aggregate this or boil it down to the street level?

So, other options have sprung up to meet customer demand, such as Uber or Lyft, microtransit, and more.

Customer-centric trends are also popping up when it comes to allowing riders to use their smartphones to plan and pay for trips. This involves changing the primary role of transit agencies from mobility providers (bus, light rail, subway) to mobility aggregators (to include taxis, TNCs, e-rental cars, bikes, scooters, and other private micro-mobility providers) in a new mobility paradigm called Mobility as a Service.

[TakeFive]

As RTD ‘Reimagines’ Itself, Staff Warn ‘There Will Be Winners; There Will Be Losers’
February 12, 2020 By Nathaniel Minor - CPR

I continue to be impressed by Nathaniel's writing on transit. Another good article which is worth the read.

Nathaniel also links to a pdf by RTD which is easy to scroll through and read.

• Leverage the experience of nationally-recognized transit
experts and best practices from other transit agencies

This is good so far as it takes RTD off the hot seat by relying on what others who are experts claim. This can also be good or bad depending...

Bus ridership since 2014 has had a rather abysmal ridership performance. Experts tend to drink the same kool-aid that's existed for decades. Following their advice is tantamount to - "Just double the budget so we can do what we want to do". Problem solved; easy peasy.

Edit: One interesting thing I found in the pdf is that rail service operating costs are virtually half as much as metro bus service. Ridership on rail is also virtually half of what metro bus ridership is. Not that it matters but I can't say I understand what all goes into these operating costs figures.

[TakeFive]

Boulder County OKs $2 billion transportation master plan

[mhays]

Ridesharing generally pays poverty wages and it's extremely inefficient the bigger/denser an area gets. Good for some users, but for cities a mixed bag at best. (Gotta respond to the lobbyist here.)

Pre-robot, the ride share companies don't have a clear sustainable model anyway.

[TakeFive]

Originally Posted by mhays

Ridesharing generally pays poverty wages and it's extremely inefficient the bigger/denser an area gets. Good for some users, but for cities a mixed bag at best. (Gotta respond to the lobbyist here.)

Pre-robot, the ride share companies don't have a clear sustainable model anyway.

Not sure which post you're responding to.

I've posted at length about rideshare so just briefly.

Uber's ride-share business was cash-flow positive in the latest quarter - but not the whole company including autonomous vehicles etc etc.

Experienced drivers make ~$25 an hour or more but say $20-$25 to cover more drivers. It's generally NOT a good full time job except for those who know the game - like anything that's performance based. As much as 80% of rideshare drivers are part-time. For part timers it's a great side-hustle, no different than many who pen articles on a free-lance basis or other types of free lance work. Biggest benefit is no withholding unless you'll make more than the 57.5 cents per mile deduction allowed by the IRS. Second, you can work anytime you want to.

Just for grins, when the recent golf tournament was held in Phoenix, the pros made $5-$6 thousand $'s that week. A Pro is one who has a 'black car' quality vehicle, a commercial license and insurance. He'll fill in with 'black car' rides with the Uber or Lyft apps but where he makes bank is with his own private clientele. The week of the golf tournament they make up to $150 an hour.

[mhays]

That's the company line, but the internet doesn't agree. This source says $8.55 to $11.77, and that the company has been fined for its $25 figure being fraud.

For a city, it's also a huge problem for traffic, losing some transit riders (without reducing transit costs), and of course not raising people out of poverty except maybe as a second job.