DENVER | Transportation Thread

[TakeFive]

Originally Posted by bunt_q

They'd better hurry because the plan to extend the tolled ExpressLanes northward isn't waiting, it's moving right along.

Planning is a good thing,

Doing a little digging I see where Texas between 2004 and 2013 spent $114 billion on major roads. (I assume) that includes the $18 billion that was borrowed to be paid back through some type of toll. That $18 billion is about 16% of total spending.

What will be most interesting is to see how the politics plays out. If Republicans were in control I have no doubt they'd cut the budget for many things and redirect the savings to CDOT, Would they want to wait until 2018 to see if they could gain control? While it's not improbable that it could happen it's a very dicey bet to make. Plus that would mean changing the budget in 2019 which means dirt wouldn't move until 2020/21.

Let's assume that a bipartisan voice arises to raise the gas tax by one thin dime a gallon for voters to decide in 2016. That (if passed) should raise about $250 million per year. If 60% were to go to CDOT and the other 40% to cities and counties that may be salable. With an extra $150 million per year presumably CDOT could accomplish a few of their major priorities. It's nothing ventured nothing gained to give voters the choice.

[bunt_q]

When I say we can't wait, it really means the decisions need to be made now. If we are moving ahead with using private dollars to construct tolled lanes, often times we will be limited in our legal ability to expand the general purpose lanes after that. Because there are investors relying on toll revenues, there is often a covenant not to expand free lanes, which could diminish pledged revenues.

I guess what I'm saying is that in a lot of corridors, that ship has sailed. It doesn't matter what gas tax you put on the ballot, general purpose widening is probably not going to be a thing in a lot of corridors.

Also, it is probably already too late for 2016. Particularly if it was to be a referred measure, bills for the legislative session that starts in January are already being identified. Also, you'd never get that referred in a general election year, neither party wants it. So 2017 at the earliest.

[TakeFive]

In the video I watched no one even hinted at using toll lanes.

Weld County Commissioner Barbara Kirkmeyer, chairwoman of the North I-25 coalition spoke as did Weld County Commissioner Sean Conway, head of the Northern Front Range Metropolitan Planning Organization (NFMPO). Business owner Carl Maxey also put in his two cents. Senator Bennett also spoke. It was mentioned that both Senators, Bennett and Gardner are working with Congress to get I-25 expanded.

Whether the various northern Colorado stakeholders are willing to cede all future control of an Interstate highway without voter input is a good question. Color me skeptical.

[bunt_q]

Originally Posted by TakeFive

Whether the various northern Colorado stakeholders are willing to cede all future control of an Interstate highway without voter input is a good question. Color me skeptical.

Legislators don't control that in Colorado, the Transportation Commission does. And whatever happens, it will most certainly not involve a vote. I can also promise you there will not be a gas tax vote in the next two years unless it's from a citizen initiative. Federal money is the wildcard, but we are already extending the HOT lanes on I-25 North - that's not a maybe, that is already happening. Where the HOT lane stops is the only question left. It might not make sense from a congestion standpoint not to extend it farther north, even if it can work financially.

EDIT: More likely is another attempt at legislation to move the hospital provider fee into an enterprise. That would free up a ton of money, reinstate Senate Bill 228 funds, etc. Surely that is more palatable to conservatives than an actual tax increase, since it's only a theoretical increase to move things out from under the TABOR calculation.

[seventwenty]

Originally Posted by bunt_q

EDIT: More likely is another attempt at legislation to move the hospital provider fee into an enterprise. That would free up a ton of money, reinstate Senate Bill 228 funds, etc. Surely that is more palatable to conservatives than an actual tax increase, since it's only a theoretical increase to move things out from under the TABOR calculation.

That was my understanding when I read the Post yesterday.

Hickenlooper wants to exempt the hospital provider fee from state revenue collections under TABOR because it pushes Colorado over the constitutional cap, prompting taxpayer refunds next year even as the state struggles to adequately fund priority areas.

If the fee were removed from TABOR, Colorado's revenues would fall under the cap and the state would have $200 million more to spend on road projects and classrooms, the governor said.

"People love rebates. You're a hero when you send out tax refunds," he told a crowd of 50 at the theater. But "the refunds have to come from the general fund, so they have to come out of education, they have to come out of transportation."

[TakeFive]

Yes, moving the hospital provider fees into an enterprise fund was originally proposed by Kelly Brough, president and CEO of the Denver Metro Chamber of Commerce and various business groups. Hickenlooper carried the ball for this. It was and still is a great idea.

bunt... You're not asserting that the Transportation Commission, which is a part of CDOT has no master are you? Aren't you describing a job function as apposed to actual power and control? Otherwise someone might want to inform the legislature and the Governor.

This is interesting. According to Fox Business (and other sources) the State of Washington gas taxes went up by 7-cent-per-gallon Saturday to a total of 44.5 cents a gallon. That compares to Colorado's 22 cents per gallon.

Next summer, the tax will increase an additional 4.9 cents a gallon, putting the total state tax at 49.4 cents a gallon. The state increase was part of a $16 billion, 16-year transportation revenue package approved by the Legislature and signed by the governor earlier this summer.

So Washington State joins Georgia in raising this year a fresh $billion per year for roads and bridges.

I understand that in Colorado because of TABOR that voters get to make the ultimate decision regarding tax increases. It would seem a dereliction of duty to not give voters their choice in what they want with respect to critical road and bridge infrastructure.

[TakeFive]

With most states' legislatures having wrapped up their business it's time to check the results. In addition to Washington and Georgia stepping up and increasing their transportation funding by a billion dollars a year there's also:

Iowa - increased their gas tax by dime a gallon to a total of 32 cents per gallon.
South Dakota - raised their gas tax by 6 cents to a total of 30 cents a gallon.
Nebraska - increased thier gas tax by 6 cents to a total of 31.6 cents.
Idaho - increased their gas tax by 7 cents for a total of 32 cents per gallon.
Utah - raised its gas tax by 5 cents to a total of 29.5 cents a gallon. It's actually a 12% sales tax and is capped at 40 cents per gallon.

Some states rely less on a gas tax than other means for their transportation funding. For example Texas and Oklahoma raise a lot from oil & gas taxes, Arizona from a sales tax.

[bunt_q]

All states without TABOR.

[bunt_q]

Originally Posted by TakeFive

bunt... You're not asserting that the Transportation Commission, which is a part of CDOT has no master are you? Aren't you describing a job function as apposed to actual power and control? Otherwise someone might want to inform the legislature and the Governor.

I understand that in Colorado because of TABOR that voters get to make the ultimate decision regarding tax increases. It would seem a dereliction of duty to not give voters their choice in what they want with respect to critical road and bridge infrastructure.

If you want to have the first discussion with me, we do it over a beer.

On the TABOR point, it's not dereliction of duty so long as voters have the ability to put their own issues on the ballot via initiative, which we have. No politician has a duty to expend political capital on lose-lose issues; to end their own jobs, which is what support for putting a gas tax hike on the ballot amounts to.

[TakeFive]

Originally Posted by bunt_q

If you want to have the first discussion with me, we do it over a beer.

On the TABOR point, it's not dereliction of duty so long as voters have the ability to put their own issues on the ballot via initiative, which we have. No politician has a duty to expend political capital on lose-lose issues; to end their own jobs, which is what support for putting a gas tax hike on the ballot amounts to.

IMO the ball is primarily in the Republicans court. They understandably want more revenue for their neck of the woods. Moving the hospital fees to an enterprise fund is the easiest trick. Whether they're likely to acquiesce is a good question. Even if they would the bulk of the extra $100 million a year is likely to be needed for the I-70/C-470 projects in the near term.

What is needed is additional dedicated revenue. Like the growing states of Washington and Georgia I'm sure Colorado could use an extra $billion a year. An additional $250 million wouldn't go that far but it's way better than nothing.

One option for 30 mile I-25 north project between Longmont and Fort Collins would be to vote on a sales tax increase in Weld and Larimer counties plus Longmont. Another option would be to make the whole trip a toll road. In either case the revenue would sunset when the bonds are paid off. Add in 40% Federal matching funds and the lift wouldn't be all that heavy at all.

[bobg]

Originally Posted by TakeFive

One option for 30 mile I-25 north project between Longmont and Fort Collins would be to vote on a sales tax increase in Weld and Larimer counties plus Longmont. Another option would be to make the whole trip a toll road. In either case the revenue would sunset when the bonds are paid off. Add in 40% Federal matching funds and the lift wouldn't be all that heavy at all.

Weld county voters haven't allowed their county to take on long term debt or have a sales tax. What makes you think they might be receptive to a sales tax and debt issuance to expand I25?

By "..make the whole trip a toll road." do you mean turn I25 into a toll road in every lane? There's a limited pilot program that allows something like that, and all the slots are taken. Otherwise the feds don't allow it.

New toll lanes are going to be the path of least resistance for CDOT on that corridor given the political and fiscal realities of CO.

[TakeFive]

Originally Posted by bobg

Weld county voters haven't allowed their county to take on long term debt or have a sales tax. What makes you think they might be receptive to a sales tax and debt issuance to expand I25?

By "..make the whole trip a toll road." do you mean turn I25 into a toll road in every lane? There's a limited pilot program that allows something like that, and all the slots are taken. Otherwise the feds don't allow it.

New toll lanes are going to be the path of least resistance for CDOT on that corridor given the political and fiscal realities of CO.

Couple of things:

It's a different thing when you're looking to toll a primary commercial and travel interstate corridor such as this. With express lanes you're only partly adding to the existing capacity. Obviously it's not the same as a normal 6-lane freeway. The next consideration is turning over full control of the corridor to a private party for such a long period of time.

It's also worth noting that there is interest in Congress - bipartisan interest - in boosting the Federal dollars for transportation. What may happen is a total unknown though for now. In any case if this part of I-25 would qualify for Federal funds then it's a matter of finding matching funds which is much less daunting.

Lastly, I think it's important to engage the taxpayers rather than make assumptions for them; they may not like the idea of passing "ownership" over the whole freeway to a private toll collector.

While I understand that a P3 may in the end be the best answer it's not on me to decide. I'm not sure that the various stakeholders are agreeable to the idea though just yet. Just a guess they wish to look at all the options before proceeding.

[bobg]

Originally Posted by TakeFive

Couple of things:

It's a different thing when you're looking to toll a primary commercial and travel interstate corridor such as this. With express lanes you're only partly adding to the existing capacity. Obviously it's not the same as a normal 6-lane freeway. The next consideration is turning over full control of the corridor to a private party for such a long period of time.

It's also worth noting that there is interest in Congress - bipartisan interest - in boosting the Federal dollars for transportation. What may happen is a total unknown though for now. In any case if this part of I-25 would qualify for Federal funds then it's a matter of finding matching funds which is much less daunting.

Lastly, I think it's important to engage the taxpayers rather than make assumptions for them; they may not like the idea of passing "ownership" over the whole freeway to a private toll collector.

While I understand that a P3 may in the end be the best answer it's not on me to decide. I'm not sure that the various stakeholders are agreeable to the idea though just yet. Just a guess they wish to look at all the options before proceeding.

Let's say congress agrees on something and finally stabilizes the trust fund; matching funds implies some sort of match from the state and local areas, at 1.2 billion dollars it's going to require a pretty large match for CDOT to come up with. CDOT has the bridge enterprise fund and SB 228 for I70 east. Depending on the timeline SB 228 may not be available, and although I am sure they can use the CBE on a few bridges it won't get close to a needed match.

Just because there's not an expensive ballot measure it doesn't mean they aren't engaging the stakeholders. They've already held several meetings on this, done polling etc. What they found in the meetings is that people don't like tolls, but they hate taxes more. They want CDOT to become "more efficient" and pay for the expansion that way, or borrow more money without raising taxes. Those of us living in the real world know CDOT operates on a shoestring budget and -though possible- it's hard to squeeze more efficiency out of it, and any further borrowing will hinder basic maintenance.

The stakeholders are currently unable to coalesce around a realistic solution, so nothing is written in stone. Additionally right now north of Longmont the traffic counts aren't large enough -yet- to justify even adding toll lanes without a substantial contribution from elsewhere. So there's time for the political winds to change, but it's pretty clear if things remain constant that toll lanes will eventually be part of the equation up there -private or otherwise-.

BTW when did a 6 lane freeway become normal? Did I miss something?

[TakeFive]

Originally Posted by bobg

BTW when did a 6 lane freeway become normal? Did I miss something?

Nicely said; can't disagree. Still, it may become feasible in say 2019/20 to start on that project other than maybe replacing a few bridges beforehand.

Average might be a better word than normal. In metro Phoenix eight lanes are normal (10 lanes in busier stretches) with an HOV lane on the inside but no tolling. Many modest sized metro areas more likely have 6 lanes with stretches of 8 lanes I assume or 4 lanes with stretches of 6 lanes depending on traffic counts.

I still trust the voters. I think random surveys may underestimate their willingness to step up if push comes to shove. Especially with a gas tax increase that would be shared amongst the state, cities and counties. When something is put to a vote the various arguments can be made from car maintenance and repairs to idling in traffic, potholes etc plus the escalating cost to repair roads if you let them deteriorate. It can triple the ultimate cost. It's too hard to get full consideration from a random poll. Being a busy guy I know I'd likely say I'd rather not pay more tax; what's there to lose by me saying such over the phone?

At least if voters are given the option and say no then they've got no one to complain to about all the potholes and bad stretches of roads.

[bobg]

Originally Posted by TakeFive

I still trust the voters. I think random surveys may underestimate their willingness to step up if push comes to shove. Especially with a gas tax increase that would be shared amongst the state, cities and counties. When something is put to a vote the various arguments can be made from car maintenance and repairs to idling in traffic, potholes etc plus the escalating cost to repair roads if you let them deteriorate. It can triple the ultimate cost. It's too hard to get full consideration from a random poll. Being a busy guy I know I'd likely say I'd rather not pay more tax; what's there to lose by me saying such over the phone?

At least if voters are given the option and say no then they've got no one to complain to about all the potholes and bad stretches of roads.

Yes but how will those busy voters get that message so they can give it the proper consideration?

Businesses that could benefit would finance the effort to advocate a yes tax vote IF it had a realistic shot of passing. Which goes back to the polling.

Additionally you want prominent politicians behind it so they can explain it and convince their constituents that it makes sense. You are not going to get that support for a tax increase in certain parts of the state (including Weld county). For the rest of the state's politicians -unless it's for political posturing- no politician will want to attach themselves to an effort with zero chance of winning. Which goes back to the polling.

Without that financial and political support to get a message out there voters tend to give a measure the same consideration they give those phone surveys.

[bunt_q]

Nice summary bob.

I suppose 6-lane highways became normal when even our mid-sized metros started having 3 million people. The 1960 version of the United States only had 180 million people, even in 1980, only 225 million, and correspondingly smaller cities.

[TakeFive]

Originally Posted by bobg

Yes but how will those busy voters get that message so they can give it the proper consideration?

Businesses that could benefit would finance the effort to advocate a yes tax vote IF it had a realistic shot of passing. Which goes back to the polling.

Additionally you want prominent politicians behind it so they can explain it and convince their constituents that it makes sense. You are not going to get that support for a tax increase in certain parts of the state (including Weld county). For the rest of the state's politicians -unless it's for political posturing- no politician will want to attach themselves to an effort with zero chance of winning. Which goes back to the polling.

Without that financial and political support to get a message out there voters tend to give a measure the same consideration they give those phone surveys.

Eh, you totally disregard the difference between "who wants to pay more taxes, duh," to a proposal that will impact their daily lives. Unless we're talking about different things... with respect to a generic gas tax ballot proposal they will then give it more deliberative consideration.

We're not talking about decorating the roads; we're talking about keeping them drivable. Assuming not many have access to good transit options in Weld County then such a proposal would very much affect the roads they drive on. Darn tootin' they'd pay attention. Nobody trying to impose a tax they don't want; they're the deciders.

There isn't a good reasons for politicians and business leaders to not support such a proposal. All it is doing is giving citizens the right to decide for themselves what they want. As a voter I may not agree or be in favor but why would I be insulted for being given the choice?

One of the biggest arguments in favor is simply economics. Given the low inflation environment states should be building and repairing at a fever pitch pace. Or they wait until things have gotten dire and the costs have doubled? The states of Washington and Georgia are the smart investors by finding a billion more dollars a year to meet their growing transportation needs.

With respect to any specific I-25 vote that's a more dicey proposition admittedly. The irony perhaps, is that in Maricopa County (Phoenix) the half percent sales tax has easily passed, first in 1985 and more recently in 2005 - obviously for twenty years at a time.

[bunt_q]

What is your obsession with giving voters a choice they haven't expressed any desire to be given? Why don't you think an initiative is good enough? Let voters ask themselves.

[TakeFive]

Originally Posted by bunt_q

What is your obsession with giving voters a choice they haven't expressed any desire to be given? Why don't you think an initiative is good enough? Let voters ask themselves.

That's silly. Voters aren't sophisticated enough to know what is best or how to craft what is needed. That's what leadership is for. It seems to be showing up in a bipartisan way in many states; the only difference is that in Colorado the citizens get the final vote. Given a well reasoned proposal they've proven to be very astute voters.

[bunt_q]

Ha, you trust voters, just not enough to think that they know what's good for them. Doesn't seem to me like a $0.10 gas tax increase requires a whole lot of sophistication to come up with.

Has it come up in any states that aren't dominated by a single party? (Serious question.)