Steve does make a strong argument for preserving Route 201, a cut that I voted against, and concludes, “The way out of RTD’s bind is ultimately to ask for more money.”

One of my concerns about FastTracks is that we are compromising the utility of the system. I have long thought that the Boulder line is poorly designed in that it should run to the University so that students who do not live in Boulder can take it to classes. This of course means running it down the US36 corridor and not out to some station on Valmont where students will have to transfer to a bus that will take some 20 minutes to get to campus. Multiple bus routes thru the city could funnel Boulder residents to say Table Mesa Park & Ride where there would be a station. Similiar routes in Louisville and Superior could funnel residents to a station at McCaslin. This would be more expensive than the existing plan because new track would have to be laid, rather than using existing tracks.

Similiar shortsightedness is being planned on the Golden route, where I here there is talk of only one track being laid into Golden. That of course would put a limit on the number of trains that could be routed to Golden, because a train into Golden would have to clear back before a second train could be routed in.

We MUST build a system that will be used. Thus it must be convenient for as many riders as possible. So don’t skimp on this system. If necessary, go back to the voters for more money. I would hope the public would be smart enough to understand if you explain what has happened to increase costs. This mass transit system will be a great gift to future generations of the Front Range if done right! It will be underused if done wrong.

The long term benefits of increased transit ridership are so great that it is extremely important to find ways to provide increased transit services at a time when high fuel costs are pushing more people toward transit. The use (or non use) of mass transit tends to become a habit. Now is the time to get more people habituated.

City, county, state and federal funds should be pursued vigorously. If enough people are converted to transit, other transportation costs, such as roadway construction and maintenance can be expected to decline (or at least to grow less rapidly).

There is one aspect of your article that may have been confusing to many readers. You write: “Adding insult to injury, the fares transit riders pay only cover a portion of the cost of each bus or train trip. Thus, the unprecedented 9 percent increase in transit ridership that RTD is welcoming into the system is actually creating a substantial additional financial burden.”

In many cases, the reverse will be true. The cost of operating a half-empty bus is nearly the same as the cost of operating a full bus. In addition, the full bus generates more revenue at the fare box. There may be a little extra cost from the greater weight carried and from more stops and starts, but this should be relatively minor.

Thus, major increases in cost only occur in cases where it is necessary to increase the number of buses operating on a particular route. In all other cases, increased ridership should improve the financial balance.

In any case, it is important not to give the general public the impression that taking the bus has a negative effect.

I agree with the concept suggested in another response that households that already have an eco-pass should not be counted as negatives in attempts to set up neighborhood eco pass systems. I have a pass as a member of the University faculty (now retired) and as a result I have in the past declined participation in a neighborhood program that I would have had to pay for from personal funds. Counting me as a negative unfairlly penalizes my neighbors.

Also, for routes with low ridership, it is important to determine why the bus is not being used. In some cases, a route that looks good on a map does not serve the needs of a neighborhood because it does not take them where they need to go.

For example, the SKIP on Broadway in Boulder is popular because it takes a lot of people where they want to go and runs often enough so there is no concern about scheduled times. I used it regularly while I was active at the University. On the other hand, if I want to go to the 29th Street center, I am likely to drive because of the transfers that would be involved.

In summary, I urge you to seek every possible means to maintain full service and increase ridership where it is inadequate.

Director Tayer,

Only because you asked for comments do I give the following.

Survivor: Borneo first aired on TV in 2008 with a jackpot of $1 Million. Today at only 80% of its original value, the prize is still the same. While most taxes are on a % of sales, fuel tax is on a non-indexed rate. That means that every year the value of this “user” tax goes down about 3%. So every year auto users pay 3% fewer taxes at the pump. So since some time in the 90’s both state and federal fuel taxes have actually had annual tax cuts due to inflation. Hence the Federal and State transportation fund crisis.

If municipalities are able to enjoy a sales tax on motor oil, tires, and auto parts – all transportation products – why is there local sales tax on fuel? If there were, RTD would likely find itself in a much more reasonable situation. A March 13, 1995 Passenger Transport article “Budget Cutters Looking at Wrong Subsidies” showed that the actual subsidy per gallon was between $2.86 – $7.08. So it isn’t really a user tax as many proponents would like to contend.

[personal comment withheld]

Please let me know if there are any questions.

Sincerely,
(name withheld)

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/transportation/jan-june08/denvertransit_06-20.html

I’m particularly interested in the comments above from the Philadelphia poster. It does seem like the increasing demand presents an opportunity for RTD to begin to reduce its reliance on subsidy, or at least to offset the rising fuel costs via fares. I have concerns about maintaining the accessibility of the service to poor and working-class populations, which have the least flexibility in their budgets, but overall I think it’s an idea worth exploring.

A couple of different ways of partially accomplishing this would be: fares which are higher during peak demand periods, especially for regional routes at rush hour; and fares which are tied to the price of fuel, adjusting automatically on some set schedule (this would be much more easily handled, of course, if RTD had some kind of modern electronic fare-box system).

Again, thanks for helping get this issue the attention it needs.

What about charging a nominal fee to use the park and rides? $0.25/day or $50 for an annual pass…

How about “route sponsors”? A driver could recite (or play a recording of) something like, “Route B Denver Local is brought to you by [insert company name here]. Blah blah blah something about the company and its products/services.” A throwback to 1950s television.

Sell naming rights to stations and park and rides.

Ask the voters for…more money.

Hold a bake sale.

Speed up Fastracks. Let’s get this stuff rolling sooner rather than later so it doesn’t cost $30 billion.

Some of these ideas may not raise a lot of money, they all add up.
Keep up the good fight!

You might find it interesting that SEPTA, Philadelphia’s transit company, is running a surplus for perhaps the first time in its history:

http://www.philly.com/inquirer/home_top_stories/20080628_SEPTA.html

How?

Most of the government share of operations costs comes from the state (instead of a local tax), and this money was recently increased and stabilized. But it is also important to note that fare revenue is up significantly.

SEPTA recently increased fares. Usually, when fares increase, ridership sags a little. This time, it jumped. Essentially, SEPTA is enjoying market power where it can increase prices and still maintain its overall customer base. This is indicative, I think, of how enmeshed transit has become in Philadelphia.

A couple of years ago I traveled to Buenos Aires, which has an excellent subway and extensive bus network, as well as a commuter rail system. All the modes are privately contracted, I think. In particular, privatization probably saved the subway. A large infusion of capital was needed to modernize and repair the system, and this was provided by the concessionaire. I am not sure of the amount of annual subsidy, or if the concessionaire, Metrovias, is making a profit, but the system seems to be thriving, and is being expanded for the first time in many years. The buses, while a bit frantic by North American standards, are very efficient and extremely well used. This approach seems to work well in that city. The government remains active in planning and service quality monitoring, but service delivery is accomplished through a variety of vendors.

I share these observations because I had been thinking about transit finances even before your column, as I shared with Will Toor a while back. If transit’s subsidy remains very large, this means that it cannot easily scale up to meet demand (because it would require even more subsidy). Ideally, transit growth would reduce the subsidy required (at least to a more favorable proportion) in order to allow transit to expand to fill the void left by shrinking automobile use. I am not sure exactly how to get there, especially in some regions, but I do think that gas prices may continue to climb for several years, so it would be nice to be able to expand transit to blunt some of the impacts.

When I was active in selling transit in the Denver/Boulder region, we were almost giving the service away. Perhaps as the price of auto travel increases, paying more of the true cost of transit through the farebox will become palatable — especially if we use a touchless credit card system instead of paper money — tied to annual family pass plans that incentivize daily use and minimize marginal costs.

Cheers,
(name withheld)
Philadelphia

Hello,

I read your interesting article about the challenges of public transit under the current fuel cost situation.

I would suggest increasing efforts for improvement ridership — revamp the Neighborhood EcoPass program so that the inequities that prevent so many of my neighbors from riding the bus–I think all you have to do is REMOVE homes from the calculation where residents are already participating in some bus pass program — either at work or through the government or through the University. We are, after all, a University town and to include some ridiculous figure like $800 per home where the family is already getting a pass is patently unfair.

I live in a very active neighborhood where hours and hours of volunteer labor goes into the EcoPass program to no avail because of the constraints of the calculations necessitated by RTD (i.e., your board).

When you can add $$$ to your budget to fill empty seats on the bus, I think you are remiss in not doing it. While the EcoPass program offers a bargain rate to the customer, it the seats are empty, this is a win-win.

If you think the seats are not empty all day, offer a pass for non-peak hours. Do something.

Thanks for your efforts and for stimulating the conversation.

Sincerely,
(name withheld)