Many District O residents e-mailed me concerning the proposal to cut Route 201.  Unfortunately, only one of my fellow Board members joined me in opposition to the final package of staff recommended service cuts.  The Board approved the staff recommended package of service cuts that included the 201 while providing a reprieve for one route, the U, in the face of organized opposition at the Board meeting from residents in the 285 corridor.

The following is my statement, as recorded in the adopted minutes from the June Board meeting, in opposition to the final service cuts:

“I hate to be here in this position.  At a time when public demand for transit has never been higher, it is a travesty that we are confronted with service cuts as the only option on the table for balancing the budget.  Call it a paradox, a conundrum, whatever … it is a terrible disservice to our customers.  We need to position RTD financially to meet rising service demands.  This includes options for increasing RTD’s commitment to alternative fuel vehicles that wean us from reliance on fossil fuel costs and work to secure funding that is proportionate to our region’s transit need. 

Having said that, I was prepared to support a universal position from the staff’s recommendation.  However, given the chain of events that have occured here tonight, I must state that I will be voting against this recommendation. 

I will argue that the route 201 citizens in my community wish that they were as organized as the US 285 citizens tonight.  The number one criticism that they brought to me was the public notice was insufficient and came at the last minute and during a time when an adjustment in the school schedule. 

201 has higher ridership on boarding per service vehicle hour than the U (17.3 versus 12.8).  The savings on the 201 is $177K versus the U of $400K.  I say this to argue that if the 201 folks were here, they would be placing just as compelling an argument as the folks from the U route. 

For this reason, I will be voting against this recommended action and to ask that we re-consider all these cuts in light of all citizens who are affected by these service cuts to be able to come back with options for consideration.”

Not very artfully stated (or, maybe it was the tape recording ( : ). . . but that is why I opposed the Route 201 cuts.    

As I noted in my recent Daily Camera piece, “Rising Above the Transit Paradox” (http://www.johntayer.org/2008/06/26/rising-above-the-transit-paradox/), it is appropriate for RTD to make adjustments in under-performing transit routes.  But they should only take such steps after efforts have been made to increase ridership and the affected customers have received sufficient notice.  Further, all proposed service cuts should be based on the objective analysis of RTD staff, not the whim of political pressure.