Quote:
Originally Posted by ddvmke
At a quick glance, it looks like more than half of the money allocated here is for deferred maintenance,
|
If I assume you're talking only about Transportation then the $101 million is what's designated for deferred maintenance. Before Hancock organized all the various (sub)committee meetings there was an extensive list (like $2 billion) of unfunded projects which had been identified, qualified and many estimated as a part of the Elevate 2020 CIP program. That has been updated since I first studied it but in any case there were many projects that had been on the list for years many of which were considered high priority projects.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ddvmke
which seem like things that should really have an ongoing funding source rather than the GO Bond,
|
That's certainly the Streetsblog - urban crowd argument.
Sorry, it is what it is.
The last bond issuance
The Better Denver Bonds had more signature type projects IMO and also included a lot of deferred road maintenance and city owned properties being updated including energy efficient upgrades. Additionally they asked for a mill levy increase for the purposes of keeping up better. IIRC it started out with an extra $25/26 million per year. Guess it wasn't nearly enough.
I suspect RiNo projects are one reason.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ddvmke
Is the $20m (I think?) expansion of transpo funding in the budget expected to continue and satisfy these needs on an ongoing basis rather than taking portions of more lump some borrowings to catch up in the future?
|
I assume that's the intent but my crystal ball broke as soon as I asked it that question. I hope that doesn't mean....
Quote:
Originally Posted by ddvmke
I am all for bus improvements and faster frequency along this corridor, but a bus lane that is dedicated only for part of the route and part of the time seems like a real weak attempt at some true rapid transit only aimed to stave off complaints around current vehicle traffic rather than building toward their projected future demand.
|
I've used more Americanized sites/definitions for BRT but what I can tell you about RTD's use of BRT was defined well enough on your linked presentation. I know as BRT-hopeful fans we would ask "why not all-day dedicated lanes?" The answer to that is within the
Colfax Alternatives Analysis Chapter 6 Screen 3 Analysis and Results Focus on the
Total Person Trip Analysis. IIRC, the upshot was that all-day dedicated lanes made only a very minor benefit to bus ridership while the difference in total person trips was noticeably higher with only rush hour dedicated lanes. The decision was made easy with this analysis (seems like thinking in percentages versus nominal differences made it more clear) not to mention the merchant stakeholders were much happier.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mr1138
I'm very curious about the current status of the Colfax BRT plans too. I believe that within the last year, the possibility of a center-running "true BRT" alternative was at least considered - though I don't know if that scenario was a serious one, or if it is still on the table.
|
I heard the same rumor but don't know nothing.
It's also important to realize that this project is heavily dependent on getting FTA funding. Without that you can expect much of Cirrus' now famous
"BRT Creep."