DENVER | Transportation Thread

[EngiNerd]

It's because it is still not a finished product...and there is no timeline yet for the reconstruction of the stretch between Santa Fe/Alameda and 6th Ave. I still for the life of me don't know why they couldn't have built all of this in to the TREX project. Would have been so much less painful for the city.

[TakeFive]

Originally Posted by wong21fr

They did and it's an absolute cluster. This is for a couple of reasons but the biggest contributor is probably the I-25/6th Ave reconstruction and the Santa Fe onramp to I-25 having merge lanes that are inadequate.

Ah, so modern engineering and new surfaces that encourage drivers to GET OFF of I-25.

EngiNerd... I'd assume it was partly the cost but primarily because the focus was the southern end. In fact, TREX didn't even include the Broadway Bridge replacement either. That was added later as an "earmark" and a not inexpensive earmark at that.

Give the Republicans credit; they "earmarked" a ton of road & bridge work back then. Pretty sure the lane expansion from Lincoln south to Castle Rock came via earmarks also. Not really sure what all came via earmarks but those were good times for state DOT's.

[TakeFive]

So it's TABOR's fault. (I knew that) There was a discussion on I-70 west into the mountains. Ed Sealover has the story HERE.

"This year was the year we thought we'd be able to invest more thoroughly in transportation throughout Colorado," Hamner said. "But because we're hitting the TABOR [revenue] cap, it looks like we may be issuing refunds instead."

But isn't politics also the problem?
Yes, of course it is.

House Minority Leader Brian DelGrosso, R-Loveland, has authored a bill that would increase the amount of funding that the Legislature would put toward transportation, potentially by $100 million or more in the coming years. That bill is scheduled for its first committee hearing Wednesday, but a similar effort to up road-construction dollars died in a House committee last year.

Apparently a difference of political priorities as well - surprise. I'm almost inclined to side with Republicans but my opinion matters not and I know some prioritize education and other things.

There's always a solution but it's a question of whether both political parties can agree on a fix. Same at both the Federal and State levels for that matter. Try to get it together guys and gals.

[bunt_q]

Originally Posted by TakeFive

Apparently a difference of political priorities as well - surprise. I'm almost inclined to side with Republicans but my opinion matters not and I know some prioritize education and other things.

Better roads are an investment in education. I think giving parents an extra 30 minutes per day with their children will do more good than anything pumping another trillion into public schools will do. And if those parents waste that time, that's their problem.

(Alternatively, we can leave the highways jam-packed and extend the school day by three hours, and go to year round school. I'd be fine with that too. American children are weak; we need to toughen them up and prepare them for their future 60 hour work weeks.)

[TakeFive]

^^ Taking a break from watching/blogging the NBA tonight, I did a little digging instead. Education Week released new state grades in January for K-12 HERE. They have a rather dim view of things in comparison to their expectations. It's hard for me to make heads or tails of their ratings w/o a subscription. I'm much more impressed with "Leaders and Laggards" by the US Chamber of Commerce which is HERE. Their only low grade for Colorado is for "Fiscal Responsibility" which is based on the underfunded pension system... /sigh.

Here's where it gets more interesting. There is also a Leaders and Laggards version for post-secondary schools HERE. Grade for Colorado is a 'D'. Looking over the map it gives a good visual how Colorado lags behind states it is trying to compete with economically.

I've figured out that Arizona is trying to follow the "Texas Model." Texas provides only modest funding for K-12 education but spends much more aggressively on post-secondary schools. I've also concluded that Arizona has gotten ahead of themselves in that their economy doesn't provide enough opportunities to take advantage of the extra spending at the college level. Maybe eventually it will? In Texas it may be paying off nicely.

In summation I'd say Colorado does reasonably well supporting K-12 schools but could definitely do more at the college level.

[TakeFive]

Here's where it gets a bit confusing. Recalling and then double-checking Hickenlooper's proposed budget as reported by Ed Sealover on Nov. 3rd HERE.

For the first time since 2008, the budget proposal also includes general-fund money for roads and transit — a $102.6 million allocation that is being triggered by a 2009 law that dictates that when personal income grows more than 5 percent in one year, as it is expected to do in 2014, 1 to 2 percent of the general fund must be given for road funding.

Presumably Hickenlooper disregarded TABOR in making his budget proposal.

I wouldn't be opposed to making some "Republican style" fat trimming. For example "Leaders and Laggards" points out that Colorado's "most recent pension contribution was 85%." Not sure if that was typical or "catch-up" or what? In reality so long as Dems have any leverage I'd guess you could say one person's fat is another persons muscle.

Even if some fat trimming could occur you're still only playing at the margin. IN order to address I-70 west and through Denver as well as other critical needs, the state needs more transportation specific revenue. Knowing that Republicans more typically support CDOT I can only assume that the poker hand the Dems are playing is to wait it out until Republicans decide to join in the effort for more funding from more/designated revenue.

[bunt_q]

Originally Posted by TakeFive

Here's where it gets a bit confusing. Recalling and then double-checking Hickenlooper's proposed budget as reported by Ed Sealover on Nov. 3rd HERE.

Presumably Hickenlooper disregarded TABOR in making his budget proposal.

Why would you think that? I feel like I am missing something.

[wong21fr]

Originally Posted by TakeFive

Presumably Hickenlooper disregarded TABOR in making his budget proposal.

He certainly didn't. This budget proposal includes $136.6M in TABOR refunds. But hitting the TABOR ceiling merely means that any additional revenue that comes in for 2014 is going to a larger TABOR refund and not to the government agencies.

Personally, I'm all for getting rid of TABOR's revenue restrictions and just keeping the voter approval of taxes. Give it five years and let's see if that works in righting Colorado's fiscal ship. If not, addressing the tax approval issue should then considered.

[bunt_q]

There seems to be a misconception that TABOR restricts all growth in government spending. That is not accurate. It caps revenue increases at a rate of inflation plus a growth factor.

[wong21fr]

Originally Posted by bunt_q

There seems to be a misconception that TABOR restricts all growth in government spending. That is not accurate. It caps revenue increases at a rate of inflation plus a growth factor.

Which is what the proposed budget already has factored in. Unless inflation and population growth are drastically higher than the forecasts, the budget amount is pretty much set so any additional revenues would end up in the TABOR refund.

Or am I mistaken?

[TakeFive]

Originally Posted by bunt_q

Why would you think that? I feel like I am missing something.

My original 1st quote under the TABOR comment suggested there wouldn't be much increase for roads. The quote under Hickenlooper's November proposal said there would be an additional $102 million which sounded like a healthy amount to me.

[seventwenty]

Here's the official November FY 15-16 budget proposal

Originally Posted by Gov. Hickenloop's Budget

Transportation
The budget request also reflects anticipated General Fund transfers to the State Highway Fund pursuant to S.B. 09-228, which requires transfers of 2.0 percent of General Fund revenue in each of five consecutive fiscal years following the first calendar year in which Colorado personal income grows by more than 5.0 percent. OSPB projects that Colorado personal income will grow more than 5.0 percent in 2014, which will cause these transfers to go into effect in FY 2015-16. However, S.B. 09-228 included certain exemptions to the transfer. Because TABOR refunds are projected to occur in FY 2015-16, the amount of the mandatory transfers will be reduced by half, to $102.6 million. In the event that the required TABOR refund exceeds 3.0 percent of General Fund revenue in FY 2015-16, there would be no transfer of General Fund evenue to the State Highway Fund.

And SB 09-228 as a whole. Since I don't wanna summarize it, read CDOT's summary. Pay close attention to CDOT's section entitled "Possible SB 228 Transfer Reductions Due to a TABOR Surplus".

Not seeing how this violates TABOR, TakeFive.

[bunt_q]

Originally Posted by wong21fr

Which is what the proposed budget already has factored in. Unless inflation and population growth are drastically higher than the forecasts, the budget amount is pretty much set so any additional revenues would end up in the TABOR refund.

Or am I mistaken?

No, that's right. I wasn't sure if TakeFive was tracking.

[TakeFive]

Originally Posted by seventwenty

Here's the official November FY 15-16 budget proposal

And SB 09-228 as a whole. Since I don't wanna summarize it, read CDOT's summary. Pay close attention to CDOT's section entitled "Possible SB 228 Transfer Reductions Due to a TABOR Surplus".

Not seeing how this violates TABOR, TakeFive.

That was a great link and read. Thanks. Seems pretty clear aside from the TABOR limitations. Looks like you are correct to me.

"This year was the year we thought we'd be able to invest more thoroughly in transportation throughout Colorado," Hamner said. "But because we're hitting the TABOR [revenue] cap, it looks like we may be issuing refunds instead."

That was the quote that had me confused. Still not sure?

I do seem to recall reading somewhere that roughly $100 million was already reserved for the I-70 tunnels project through Denver as well as a significant amount yearly going forward. Perhaps the context of Hamner's quote was meaning $'s over and above what is already reserved for I-70 through Denver?

In any event, SB 228 funds are to go into Pot 7 which is essentially strategic projects as opposed to being divvied up around the state. That's the noteworthy part of SB 228.

I sure hope that project receives customary matching Federal funds. Hopefully we'll get good news when the new Transportation Bill is done this spring.

[bobg]

Originally Posted by TakeFive

That was the quote that had me confused. Still not sure?

I do seem to recall reading somewhere that roughly $100 million was already reserved for the I-70 tunnels project through Denver as well as a significant amount yearly going forward. Perhaps the context of Hamner's quote was meaning $'s over and above what is already reserved for I-70 through Denver?

In any event, SB 228 funds are to go into Pot 7 which is essentially strategic projects as opposed to being divvied up around the state. That's the noteworthy part of SB 228.

I don't think anything was reserved from SB 09-228 for I70. I think it was identified as a potential funding source in the EIS for I70, but the revenue from that state bill looks like it will be less than CDOT estimated it would be when it signed of on the supplemental EIS.

The larger revenue stream for I70 through Denver is FASTER. The faster fee generates about 100 million a year so that could be where you are getting that number from, but I don't believe they are planning on using all the yearly revenue from that fee for I70.

About 271 million for I70 in Denver was anticipated to come from SB 09-228. How much of that 271 million CDOT can now allocate to I70 through Denver in light of this shortfall -and with the other strategic corridor needs throughout the state- I am sure is being discussed by the higher ups.

[TakeFive]

bobg...Yup, that sounds correct. It was the FASTER money. $271 million fits as I recalled something in the neighborhood of $300 million. If I understand SB 228, then $102 million should come each year for 5 years so they could find $270 million from that. In any event it was as if they'd worked on this project for so dang long that it was time to put away the display boards and meetings and get started before costs escalated.

[Brainpathology]

Originally Posted by bunt_q

Better roads are an investment in education. I think giving parents an extra 30 minutes per day with their children will do more good than anything pumping another trillion into public schools will do. And if those parents waste that time, that's their problem.

(Alternatively, we can leave the highways jam-packed and extend the school day by three hours, and go to year round school. I'd be fine with that too. American children are weak; we need to toughen them up and prepare them for their future 60 hour work weeks.)

What I wouldn't give for a 60 hour work week! (Probably nothing.. I'd only earn as much as I could bill in that 60 hours)

[EngiNerd]

This is one of those "no shit" stories...but who the heck is ITDP? Anyone ever heard of them? Also, anyone know if they still plan on keeping the HOV lanes for 3+ occupants, instead of 2+ (which is just so asinine in my opinion, how is this helping out traffic in that case)?

U.S. 36 bus transit plan is not what it seems, group says
By Monte Whaley
The Denver Post

BROOMFIELD — That Bus Rapid Transit system being installed as part of a $438 million retooling of U.S. 36 from Denver to Boulder isn't what local transportation officials say it is.

At least that's according to a nonprofit group that helps develop sustainable transportation efforts across the globe. The New York-based Institute for Transportation and Development Policy promotes Bus Rapid Transit efforts and certifies projects deemed truly BRT.

What's being developed on U.S. 36 and being promoted by the Regional Transportation District is not truly BRT, said Annie Weinstock, the institute's regional director for the U.S. and Africa.

"I would urge them not to call it BRT," Weinstock said.

The problem for Weinstock is that specially made BRT buses will share an express lane on U.S. 36 with High Occupancy Vehicles and motorists willing to pay a toll.

....

http://www.denverpost.com/News/Local...ems-group-says

[bobg]

Originally Posted by EngiNerd

This is one of those "no shit" stories...but who the heck is ITDP? Anyone ever heard of them? Also, anyone know if they still plan on keeping the HOV lanes for 3+ occupants, instead of 2+ (which is just so asinine in my opinion, how is this helping out traffic in that case)?

ITDP is a BRT advocacy/standards organization based in NYC. I believe that mayor from Bogata is still leading it. RTD even brought them in to discuss the advantages of BRT at a public meeting when the expanded BRT options were being discussed.

I haven't heard anything about HOV 3+ being dropped. Personally I don't mind the 3+, 2+ is biased towards couples who just happen to be going the same direction more than it is actual carpoolers who would otherwise drive alone.

On a side note good to see the DP finding an actual valid criticism against the BRT, as opposed to the ones they ran earlier in the month where BRT was replacing the rail and RTD was trying to pull a fast one on everyone.

[TakeFive]

bobg... rather than hunt for the info would you know if CDOT has received a ROD for I-70 through Denver or is that the last piece needed?