DENVER | Transportation Thread

[seventwenty]

You talk about leadership as if it's in a vacuum. There are political realities and political constraints. It's nice if other states can do it, but each state is unique in what they can and cannot do.

[TakeFive]

Originally Posted by seventwenty

You talk about leadership as if it's in a vacuum. There are political realities and political constraints. It's nice if other states can do it, but each state is unique in what they can and cannot do.

So has Colorado suddenly become a backwater state? Normally, historically, road and bridge needs are the easiest thing to sell taxpayers. Of course it is important to 'splain things to the people so they get a good picture.

The extra $180 million that I guestimated isn't even all that much nor would it go that far. Not familiar with the formulas but say that Denver (County) got an extra $10 million per year; they could easily use that and five times more than that.


I found this on Bill McBride's Calculated Risk blog.
"DOT: Vehicle Miles Driven increased 2.7% year-over-year in May, Rolling 12 Months at All Time High"

People are driving more! Travel on all roads and streets changed by 2.7% (7.3 billion vehicle miles) for May 2015 as compared with May 2014.

Gasoline prices aren't the only factor - demographics is also key. However, with lower gasoline prices, miles driven - on a rolling 12 month basis - is at a new high.

These are national numbers of course.

[seventwenty]

It was easy, Ref Dwould have passed in 2005.

[TakeFive]

Originally Posted by seventwenty

It was easy, Ref Dwould have passed in 2005.

Dang, I don't even recall that; wonder if I voted that year.
That one was obviously a bit convoluted as it was tied in with Ref. C?

Correction: TABOR was passed in 1992 so the gas tax increase in 1991 was prior to that.

Point of Clarification: T-REX was a vote to approve a property tax increase to pay back the bonds which I hadn't remembered even though I voted for the dang thing.

[wong21fr]

Originally Posted by TakeFive

Point of Clarification: T-REX was a vote to approve a property tax increase to pay back the bonds which I hadn't remembered even though I voted for the dang thing.

Which means that it wasn't a statewide tax increase. Once again, Colorado has not raised taxes statewide since TABOR passed and no one has yet found a convincing way to convince the masses to approve a statewide tax increase- especially an open-ended one.

[bunt_q]

Originally Posted by wong21fr

Which means that it wasn't a statewide tax increase. Once again, Colorado has not raised taxes statewide since TABOR passed and no one has yet found a convincing way to convince the masses to approve a statewide tax increase- especially an open-ended one.

Originally Posted by TakeFive

Point of Clarification: T-REX was a vote to approve a property tax increase to pay back the bonds which I hadn't remembered even though I voted for the dang thing.

No, it wasn't, that is completely incorrect. I think you might have pulled that from wikipedia, which is also incorrect.

There were two votes in 1999.

The first was RTD's, which was bonding authorization and extending a TABOR override that allowed it to keep excess revenues. No increase in taxes. (And by the way, RTD doesn't even have a property tax.)

The other measure was a statewide vote - the TRANS Bonds initiative. Was a pure bonding authorization for 24 projects statewide. Also no tax increase - it was bonding of existing state transportation revenues (gas tax). (Not unlike the proposal from Republicans in the legislature in this last session - their proposal was based entirely off of the 1999 initiative. The difference was that money is tighter now than it was in 1999. So the likely impact on CDOT revenues available for maintenance was much worse, which is why CDOT opposed it.)

Folks in Colorado have short memories, jeez, 1999 wasn't THAT long ago. That was also about the time I started working for RTD, though, so I might have been paying closer attention than most.

Folks will remember, that was also Bill Owens first year in office, and he won big getting that measure approved statewide. Governor Romer had tried the year before and got trounced. (The 1998 measure was my first ever election, if I recall. )

[TakeFive]

Originally Posted by bunt_q

No, it wasn't, that is completely incorrect. I think you might have pulled that from wikipedia, which is also incorrect.

There were two votes in 1999.

LOL, Yup, that's where I got that. No wonder I didn't recall voting on a property tax increase. I did recall there were separate approvals. Seems like Light Rail had the more favorable vote.

I assume that being able to utilize P3's allows for more dollars to flow to maintenance/preservation; believe I read 58% of their current budget. Sooner or later though they're going to need more money. That will require both sides of the aisle to work it out. I don't doubt that with a good bipartisan effort, there's a strong probability of getting the voters to buy into a gas tax increase. When voters know what bang they're getting for the buck it usually results in affirmative votes.

[Cirrus]

Originally Posted by bunt_q

I think you might have pulled that from wikipedia, which is also incorrect.

You've since fixed it, right? I mean, that's how wikipedia works.

[Cirrus]

All images from RTD via Flickr

Pena Blvd station:




Testing!

[bunt_q]

Originally Posted by Cirrus

You've since fixed it, right? I mean, that's how wikipedia works.

I have not. Easy to take a minute for a quick reply on the ol' forum. That seems like a lot more work.

[TakeFive]

_____"From the Blog"_____

Maggie Bedwell, blogger supreme, has your answers on "Why the 'A' Line to the airport needs one year of testing."

[Brainpathology]

Originally Posted by TakeFive

_____"From the Blog"_____

Maggie Bedwell, blogger supreme, has your answers on "Why the 'A' Line to the airport needs one year of testing."

The way people talk about the line on here that's really only enough time for 20 or so round trips anyway.

[TakeFive]

How interesting; how timely.

Bad roads cost car owners billions: Report
John W. Schoen | @johnwschoen, CNBC

....as of 2013, the latest data available, according to TRIP, which published the report Thursday. The cost of repairing the resulting broken axles, blown tires and battered shock absorbers cost the average urban driver $516 a year.

Photo credit: RJ Sangosti | The Denver Post | Getty Images via CNBC

A man walks his bike across the street in front of a large pothole at Eighth Avenue and Kalamath Street in Denver.

The average repair cost in Denver, CO is reported to be $676.

Now consider the over 9,000 miles of roads that CDOT has to maintain; all the roads & streets that counties and cities must maintain. A nickel a gallon increase in the gas tax is no more than a band aid, a dime a gallon a nicer band aid.

[TakeFive]

Originally Posted by Brainpathology

The way people talk about the line on here that's really only enough time for 20 or so round trips anyway.

What does it mean when over the last four years Orlando International Airport increased flights by 71.4% while Colorado Springs Airport has lost 41.9% of their flights?

[CherryCreek]

Originally Posted by TakeFive

How interesting; how timely.

Bad roads cost car owners billions: Report
John W. Schoen | @johnwschoen, CNBC

Photo credit: RJ Sangosti | The Denver Post | Getty Images via CNBC

The average repair cost in Denver, CO is reported to be $676.

Now consider the over 9,000 miles of roads that CDOT has to maintain; all the roads & streets that counties and cities must maintain. A nickel a gallon increase in the gas tax is no more than a band aid, a dime a gallon a nicer band aid.

Everyone seems enamored with pay as you go and private solutions for what used to be a public responsibility.

Maybe we can develop "pothole free" privately managed "toll lanes" on our public streets and the tax haters can drive for "free" on the ever worsening public roads!

[bunt_q]

Originally Posted by CherryCreek

Maybe we can develop "pothole free" privately managed "toll lanes" on our public streets and the tax haters can drive for "free" on the ever worsening public roads!

We can, and folks are looking at that. VMT-based pay-as-you-go basically. It might be the future. I'm not opposed to the idea. If folks don't want general taxes, at least it ends up being the actual users who pay.

I would never want to drive a little car around here. Good ground clearance and beefy truck tires are a necessity. Some of our paved roads are actually rougher than gravel roads these days.

[Cirrus]

Originally Posted by TakeFive

What does it mean when over the last four years Orlando International Airport increased flights by 71.4% while Colorado Springs Airport has lost 41.9% of their flights?

Orlando is the largest airport for hundreds of miles in any direction, serves a major metropolitan area with 2.3 million residents, and is the primary gateway to one of the world's most famous tourist destinations, while even Colorado Springs residents prefer to fly out of DIA?

[bunt_q]

Originally Posted by Cirrus

Orlando is the largest airport for hundreds of miles in any direction, serves a major metropolitan area with 2.3 million residents, and is the primary gateway to one of the world's most famous tourist destinations, while even Colorado Springs residents prefer to fly out of DIA?

And next year, you'll be able to Bustang to Union Station and transfer to DIA in only 3:15 from Colorado Springs.

Now granted, that's compared to a 1:15 drive. But it's still possible.

[Brainpathology]

Originally Posted by TakeFive

What does it mean when over the last four years Orlando International Airport increased flights by 71.4% while Colorado Springs Airport has lost 41.9% of their flights?

I don't know that it's related at all. Tourism has been recovering as fast or faster than the rest of the economy since the great recession so I'd expect MCO to be increasing. Even so that's very impressive. Especially given the competition that the Sanford Airport has been putting on it (or seem to be putting on it).

As for COS losing so much is it because the City won't pay for the lights to be on after dark? Or is it that the city just sucks so very very hard that the only flights they need are people leaving? Or a combination of the two.

Anyway comparing Orlando and COS is just an exercise in entertainment at best. COS has literally nothing to offer that people can't get in multiple places in the state of Colorado. Orlando has almost exactly the opposite situation with duplicate attractions in this country only existing in Los Angeles, or in the case of the Harry Potter attractions not anywhere in the entire world.

[TakeFive]

Originally Posted by Brainpathology

As for COS losing so much is it because the City won't pay for the lights to be on after dark? Or is it that the city just sucks so very very hard that the only flights they need are people leaving? Or a combination of the two.

I'll take the Combo.

Originally Posted by bunt_q

We can, and folks are looking at that. VMT-based pay-as-you-go basically. It might be the future. I'm not opposed to the idea. If folks don't want general taxes, at least it ends up being the actual users who pay.

How low can you go? I dunno, what's below ugly.

You bring up polls. Get a look at the polling done by Colorado counties on VMT's.