DENVER | Transportation Thread

[TakeFive]

Originally Posted by Cirrus

That's not going to produce the kind of infusion CastleScott seemed to be asking about.

Agreed. You might have missed:

But I would agree that to make a significant difference funding would need to be doubled or increased by 50 percent at a minimum, especially when you consider inflation.

Originally Posted by Cirrus

Yes! That is a very doable project. 18 other states do projects exactly like it. There would be some up-front capital costs this article doesn't mention, to bring stations up to the point where they can handle passengers, but it would be a few million dollars.

Yeah

Sounds like a winner and wong adds some good points too.


The pot is starting to simmer

Colorado business leaders push for $3.5B road-funding measure
Dec 11, 2015 by Ed Sealover, Denver Business Journal

A statewide coalition of Colorado business groups Friday fired the first salvo in what is expected to be a multi-front discussion of transportation solutions, calling on the Colorado Legislature to put on the 2016 ballot a $3.5 billion bond measure to fix the state’s most problematic roads.

Is this really necessary?

“Economic competitiveness is essential for Colorado. And if we don’t invest, we are going to be that much further behind economically,” Solin said. “And in order to do that, we have to get serious about roads.”

I'd agree.

It may not seem so but if you look at the metrics and recent trends states like Arizona, Nevada, Utah and even Idaho are starting to or are in a position to kick Colorado's butt when it comes to economic development.

A new trend among decision makers is to do actual drive-a-longs for various routes of how their potential workers would get to work in making a site selection. They also look closely at needed movement of goods and services. It's why DIA is such a strong asset but surface transportation is important too.

[bunt_q]

I'm not entirely clear what projects (or lack of projects) you think are holding Colorado back in terms of economic development. What projects would you do tomorrow that are not already in the works?

Other than the mountain corridor... - everyone knows that's a problem, but is also not happening anytime soon. And not only because of money, but because nobody can agree on what should happen.

[Zmapper]

I'd rather see improvements to the FLEX and Bustang routes before spending a dime on the curvy BNSF route. Imagine how much more useful transit would be if both FLEX and Bustang ran every 30 minutes or better, throughout the day, seven days a week, instead of one trip per day on a slow train.

[Cirrus]

Originally Posted by Zmapper

I'd rather see improvements to the FLEX and Bustang routes before spending a dime on the curvy BNSF route. Imagine how much more useful transit would be if both FLEX and Bustang ran every 30 minutes or better, throughout the day, seven days a week, instead of one trip per day on a slow train.

I dunno. I'm skeptical there's a market for every 30-minute buses on that corridor. There could be, but my guess is there's a pretty low ceiling on the number of people in Fort Collins who'd even think to take a bus to Denver. It's probably about half the college students, and not many others. It's not like Boulder where there are thousands of commuters. At least, I don't think so. Maybe it's changed a lot in recent years. Bustang right now makes 6 round trips per week day (12 total one-way trips), which is probably about in line with demand. If you ran them every 30 minutes, your operating costs would skyrocket and I'm doubtful you'd get that many more riders.

I'm sympathetic to the argument that we could build a bunch of BRT all over the region for the cost of one rail line. That can make sense. But that whole argument is predicated on the dual assumption that rail is expensive, and you have existing high-ridership bus corridors that would do better with improvements. Neither of those things are the case here.

Like, if you're trying to justify a streetcar on Colfax instead of a bus by saying "people don't ride buses," that doesn't work because tons of people on Colfax do ride buses. But Fort Collins-to-Denver is different. There's no existing transit culture. Very few people up there even think to check a bus schedule if they're coming to Denver. That makes me suspect a lot more Fort Collinsites would consider a train to Denver than a bus.

Don't get me wrong, Bustang is great. I love Bustang. It was absolutely the correct first step. And if we were talking about a billion dollar train then I'd agree with you (just as I agree the expensive train plan for Boulder doesn't make any sense). But if we're only talking a $50 million up front investment then I think it's worth it. That's not *that* much more than what it would cost to run empty buses every half hour.

[TakeFive]

Originally Posted by bunt_q

I'm not entirely clear what projects (or lack of projects) you think are holding Colorado back in terms of economic development. What projects would you do tomorrow that are not already in the works?

Other than the mountain corridor... - everyone knows that's a problem, but is also not happening anytime soon. And not only because of money, but because nobody can agree on what should happen.

I recall reading recently that Colorado's road spending was in the bottom quintile for the last nine years. It's not a problem though since Colorado's economy has been very stagnant.... Oops.

I wouldn't doubt that Colorado's needs aren't as great as Georgia or Washington state where both states just added a $billion per year for road and bridge spending.

In May Shailen Bhatt summed up Colorado's road system as "Terrible."

I assume that “Framework for Progress,” the statewide coalition of Colorado business groups has their own list and ideas for what is needed so I won't try to speak for them.

[CastleScott]

[QUOTE]Pieces in place for Fort Collins to Denver Amtrak route[/QUOTE

Interesting read and yes the BNSF does go by the downtowns of Longmont, Berthoud and Loveland the higher populations of northern Colorado and yes its curvy but that can be mitigated in some spots (with modern CTC-centralized traffic control signal system and possibly PTC could over come that). Another route is the fast Union Pacific main to Greeley-a short line freight line that runs from Greeley to Fort Collins or a UP branch to Fort Collins could be upgraded to 79 mph speeds, I remember that when I was an active member of the Colorado Rail Advisory Committee which we had a study commissioned back in 1997 to look into this. This study also looked at running commuter rail to Pueblo and even towards New Mexico and to Cheyenne on the north. Remember trains can run in rather bad weather which slows buses and Colorado is known for rough weather (heck I miss chasing tornadoes in my younger years even-ruining a nice pickup truck from hail damage).

Since I live in Sacramento now I can say that Amtrak California and local commuter agencies are quite success full around here and CALTRANS continues to look into speeding up those lines even with the construction of the high speed line between LA and the Bay Area. Just my thoughts on this.

[bunt_q]

Originally Posted by TakeFive

I recall reading recently that Colorado's road spending was in the bottom quintile for the last nine years. It's not a problem though since Colorado's economy has been very stagnant.... Oops.

I wouldn't doubt that Colorado's needs aren't as great as Georgia or Washington state where both states just added a $billion per year for road and bridge spending.

In May Shailen Bhatt summed up Colorado's road system as "Terrible."

I assume that “Framework for Progress,” the statewide coalition of Colorado business groups has their own list and ideas for what is needed so I won't try to speak for them.

We're in the bottom in a lot of areas - we are quite effective at doing more with less around here. I was just wondering if you had any actual ideas, or if "more money" is the answer in itself to you. You sound like a teachers union talking about how to fix public schools. Sure seems like there's a serious problem, and we know more money will fix it, but we can't identify the problem or what exactly we'd spend the money on.

Also, it is very unclear whether that proposal would include new revenue. If not, it's just another bad bond proposal like last year's, and should be killed.

[wong21fr]

Originally Posted by bunt_q

We're in the bottom in a lot of areas - we are quite effective at doing more with less around here. I was just wondering if you had any actual ideas, or if "more money" is the answer in itself to you. You sound like a teachers union talking about how to fix public schools. Sure seems like there's a serious problem, and we know more money will fix it, but we can't identify the problem or what exactly we'd spend the money on.

Also, it is very unclear whether that proposal would include new revenue. If not, it's just another bad bond proposal like last year's, and should be killed.

It's pretty clear that it doesn't. Rather it would require a general fund transfer to cover a large portion of the debt servicing meaning that someone else would get screwed- most likely meaning higher education.

[TakeFive]

Originally Posted by bunt_q

We're in the bottom in a lot of areas - we are quite effective at doing more with less around here.

Famous last words or essentially non-responsive.

Originally Posted by bunt_q

You sound like a teachers union talking about how to fix public schools. Sure seems like there's a serious problem, and we know more money will fix it, but we can't identify the problem or what exactly we'd spend the money on.

- Priceless.

In a well written piece in The Durango Herald by Peter Marcus on 12/11:

...at least $100 million in immediate transportation priorities have been identified for Southwest Colorado. Target corridors include U.S. Highway 160, U.S. Highway 491, U.S. Highway 550, Colorado Highway 151 and Colorado Highway 172.

One of my most favorite parts of Colorado. You want to start here and we'll just work our way around the state?

On 12/4 the Editorial Board of the Gazette ran on about how they're being neglected and abused.

Originally Posted by bunt_q

Also, it is very unclear whether that proposal would include new revenue. If not, it's just another bad bond proposal like last year's, and should be killed.

Yes and no but I share your concern.

In today's Coloradoan, Miles Blumhardt reports:

"It's time to come together to put the issue of transportation funding in the legislative fast lane where it belongs,'' said David May, president and CEO of the Fort Collins Area Chamber of Commerce.

wong is dialed in.

The coalition said the fix is needed because the state devotes no permanent and reliable general-fund dollars to transportation, unlike states such as Texas and Utah that compete for Colorado business.

The coalition points to the need for permanent and sustainable general-fund revenue to address the growing frustration of motorists over highway congestion and impacts on businesses.

Take for example, I-70 from say Tower Road to the Kansas border. Over the next 8-10 years what will need be done including improvements? Then take I-76 to the Nebraska border and do the same. Rinse and repeat. Is this not the basis for why CDOT claims to be short $800 million annually in necessary funding?

[TakeFive]

Originally Posted by wong21fr

It's pretty clear that it doesn't. Rather it would require a general fund transfer to cover a large portion of the debt servicing meaning that someone else would get screwed- most likely meaning higher education.

Here's what is interesting.

Arizona using the backdrop of the recession took a hatchet to their spending. Still wanting to cut taxes they're holding to a general fund of about $9.1 billion while Colorado's has grown to about $10.3 billion. Then consider that Arizona has 24% more population.

Arizona appears to be gravitating to a Texas model of miserly support for K-12 but supporting and enhancing higher education. Texas does in fact have a very good to excellent university system. In effect, K-12 funding needs are pushed more towards property taxes. I'm not sure if Arizona knows what they're doing but Texas is actually quite "business progressive."

I do think that Colorado often finds a budgeting happy medium which likely results in lower overall crime and other benefits. But infrastructure needs should not be neglected.

[TakeFive]

Photo credit to RTD - on twitter.

Dave Genova, the temporary, interim CEO and general manager for the Regional Transportation District, got the nod Friday to keep the job.

RTD’s board of directors on Friday voted unanimously to enter into contract negotiations with Genova as the mass transit agencies new general manager and CEO.

http://www.bizjournals.com/denver/bl...-s-gm-ceo.html

[CastleScott]

^ I believe public-private partner ships work as RTD's P3 to attest, perhaps a combination of some highway tolls and leases of ROW for utilities along corridors could add some $$$. The public will have to become more accustom to this-I remember as a kid my parents paid to use US36 which we knew back then as the Boulder Turnpike. In these times we've got to look into innovative financing, maybe we should look at how some European counties and China does this stuff and learn from them..

Oh btw one area that CDOT could save some long-term $$$ is the use of more concrete pavement, sure concrete is expensive in the short term it lasts longer and is easier to maintain. The Truck lobby seems to get more weight loads which doesn't help and adds to a faster wear.

[TakeFive]

Nice positive sign.

Denver Transit Partners, LLC (Eagle Project)
According to BusinessWire, Fitch has raised the ratings from BBB- to A- for Denver Transit Partner's $493 million issuance of PAB's by RTD on behalf of DTP primarily due to Fluor Corporation's current A- rating. That's a move of three notches up from the current lowest investment grade rating.

[Denver Dweller]

https://trackvia-customer-documents....ngs_LowRes.jpg

[Denver Dweller]

http://www.denverpost.com/news/ci_29...6-construction

[TakeFive]

The Two-Step?

Prominent Denver business groups urge legislators to tweak hospital provider fee, fund roads
Dec 18, 2015 Ed Sealover, Denver Business Journal

Colorado business groups are ramping up the debate over the state’s hospital provider fee, warning that if lawmakers don't change how the state accounts for the money the fee generates, they'll “almost certainly force” a tax increase to address Colorado’s crumbling roads instead.

The letter was sent to leaders of both chambers of the Legislature on Wednesday, calling on lawmakers to set revenue from the hospital fee aside in a so-called "enterprise fund" that wouldn't be subject to limitations imposed by the Taxpayers' Bill of Rights

Nothing personal but clearly political.

The business groups constitute a crucial support sector for GOP-sponsored legislation. The letter to leadership on the hospital fee is meant to give cover to Republican leaders who are feeling pressure from more conservative elements of the party that want to block the enterprise fund idea — or who want to repeal the fee altogether.

It's nice to see the Business Community get involved towards such a common sense fix.

“Republicans are certainly sensitive to the needs of the business community. The Senate Republicans have a track record of fighting for businesses,” said Tony Milo, executive director of the Colorado Contractors Association, one of the organizations backing the request. “We want to point out this is something important to businesses.”

Not a total fix IMO but if they can get this much done in 2016 it's a very good start.

[TakeFive]

Originally Posted by Denver Dweller

https://trackvia-customer-documents....ngs_LowRes.jpg

I notice they're giving the presentation in Denver before Aurora. Doesn't 'A' come before 'D'?

With the passage of the recent federal FAST Act, they need to put this project on the FAST Track.

[Denver Dweller]

http://www.denverpost.com/news/ci_29...nver-area-just

[TakeFive]

Originally Posted by Denver Dweller

http://www.denverpost.com/news/ci_29...nver-area-just

POSTED: 12/20/2015 By Jon Murray, The Denver Post

The same recurring budget pressures, as well as the long-standing lack of political will to buck anti-tax sentiment and raise the money needed at the state and federal levels, could restrain the region for decades to come.

And so planners are faced with the prospect of spending most of the dwindling money available to maintain a system that can grind to a halt anytime there's a traffic accident or mildly inclement weather.

But we did T-REX. That was supposed to solve all our problems.

After big projects such as T-REX, "the challenge is that a lot of these improvements in a typical state would have fixed the problem," said Shailen Bhatt, CDOT's executive director since February. "The challenge is that Colorado is not a typical state. We're a growth state, and we've been growing and we're going to continue to grow."

How timely... and well written. Nice to see the Denver Post joining what looks to be a full court press. They do give an obligatory paragraph for Randal O'Toole and the article also discusses the benefits of RTD/Fastracks. The good news is that they do have money; the bad news is that without more money they're looking at a completion date of 2070.

Interestingly, checking out the comments I quickly noticed John Galt. I used to go round and round with him at azcentral.com and could have sworn he lives in the desert. I'm sure he's paid to post his vile; by whom I don't know but it happens. The comments quickly degenerated into political nonsense although some were more thoughtful.

[Denver Dweller]

http://www.denverpost.com/editorials...treet-mall-its