Hands Tied on Service Cuts
By now, you’ve probably read the coverage regarding last night’s decision by the RTD Board to accept most of the staff proposed transit service cuts. If not, you can catch two of the stories here:
- Daily Camera: RTD holds firm on bus route cuts in Boulder County; and,
- Denver Post: RTD board approves transit cuts but keeps some service for blind riders.
The Daily Camera article, in particular, carries two quotes from my comments during our discussion regarding the service cuts. Specifically, it notes that I said, “[O]ur hands are tied” and “We find ourselves with our backs against the wall.” All that is true, but it is important to clarify the context for these comments to fully understand the predicament that the RTD Board wrestled with during last night’s debate.
From the very outset of our conversation regarding the 2012 budget, it was clear that RTD was facing a very challenging year. Staff explained that we could only balance the 2012 budget with either significant fare increases, service reductions or a combination of both. Since we raised fares almost every year I have been on the RTD Board prior to 2012 and further fare increases would seriously jeopardize access for the transit dependant, let alone drive away discretionary customers, the focus for balancing the 2012 budget fell on service cuts.
This is where I get on my soap box regarding RTD finances. As I have explained in previous posts, RTD is mired in a funding model that primarily ties our fate to sales tax, a revenue source that is highly volatile and has very little connection to the demand for transit service. Thus, when the economy is in the tank and sales tax receipts drop, RTD is forced to cut service (or raise fares) during a period when the public often is more heavily dependant on transit and has less capacity to absorb increased transportation costs.
The goal of the Long Range Fiscal Sustainability Task Force that I chaired this year was to identify operating efficiencies and revenue enhancement that would provide RTD with a more diverse financial base. The Task Force discovered many promising opportunities, as outlined in its report (which you can read here: Fiscal Sustainability Task Force Report). As I said last night, I will be riding staff to make sure we follow-up on all of these options. We need to break out of the paradigm that limits our budgeting options during poor economic times to either cutting service or raising fares!
Unfortunately, most of the opportunities that the Fiscal Sustainability Task Force identified will take a year or more to implement due to the need for legislative authorization and/or further policy analysis. So, for 2012, we were stuck with limited choices for balancing RTD’s budget. After holding down employee costs and other discretionary spending, the final budget gap was roughly $10 million, a wide chasm representing about a 9 percent cut in RTD transit service. It was in this context that I spoke last night of having our hands tied and our backs against the wall.
I could wax eloquently regarding the undeserved hit that Boulder County is taking in the service cuts that RTD staff ultimately proposed to cover the $10 million budget gap. As I said last night, the staff proposal has terrible consequences for routes that are both heavily patronized and highly popular. This includes reduced service on route 203 and the BOLT as well as complete elimination of the Superior call-n-Ride and the CC route. Each of these adjustments is painful and I share many of the sentiments that my constituents offered in opposition, either through their direct e-mails to me or in their public hearing comments.
Of course, my fellow Board members and their own constituents offer similar appeals on behalf of service cuts in their respective districts. In truth, when you are staring down the barrel of $10 million in service cuts, everyone feels the pain and staff did not spare any corner of the RTD district in its recommendations concerning the most appropriate adjustments to meet the budget target. I felt fortunate that we were able to reverse a few initial staff recommendations for cuts on such routes as the SKIP and elimination of the DD routes. Those bright spots aside, it was impossible to attract support from my RTD Board colleagues for sparing further routes in Boulder County while they accepted painful service cuts in their own districts.
As other Board members noted, last night’s vote was one of the most painful they ever cast. Knowing that we were upholding our fiduciary responsibility to balance the RTD budget did not make it any easier to accept. The charge now, as I suggested above, is to immediately get to work on building a more stable financial footing for RTD so we can begin to restore the service cuts we were forced to make last night and to meet the growing demand for transit service across the Denver region.
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to Email Updates
Subscribe to RSS Feed
john@johntayer.org
I am extremely disappointed in the changes made to the 203/225 route. I hope RTD is prepared for the complaints it will get as riders are stranded along Baseline due to buses that are too full to accommodate the numbers of passengers that want to ride. Short-sighted thinking as usual when it comes to mass transit and public infrastructure.
Although I am by no means an activist, I wrote you after the East Boulder Rec Center meeting, the first RTD meeting I’ve ever attended. My interested was piqued enought that I managed to attend last evening’s Board Meeting. Although we couldn’t stay for the vote, the citizen participation period was an eye-opener. From my business experience, it appears to me (from my very limited observations) that RTD is suffering from two somewhat philosophical problems. Both seem to be a case of the proverbial not seeing the forest for the trees. The mission of RTD appears to be muddled. Great cities have stable transit systems that serve the various segments of the population, cover the population centers and provide commuter service during all appropriate times, and such service can be relied on in urban and personal planning (e.g. in deciding what neighborhoods to live and work in). Secondly the staff, management, and board all have to share both the above as the district’s mission and also an understanding of the specifics of each route and its users. From the proposals and final vote, it appears both the overall vision and implementations were faulty. Was yesterday’s attendance by the large group–who appeared to have a legitimate beef–a manifestation of overall frustration with RTD or poor planning on staff’s part? Thanks for your service at this difficult time. MB.
In his article for the Denver Post, Jeffrey Leib quotes “RTD officials” as saying, “the routes targeted for elimination or curtailment are the least productive, with weakest ridership and/or highest subsidy cost per boarding.” This is largely true – but for still unexplained reasons, RTD chose to target productive, relatively high-ridership and low-subsidy service during rush hour in the Boulder area. These ultra-high-impact cuts targeted the productive SKIP, 203, 209, HX and S services during rush hour. All other portions of the transit District were spared this drastic approach of cuts to high-productivity rush hour service. RTD staff failed to respond to both my written and verbal requests for explanation of these cuts that appear to run counter to RTD’s rationale as reported by Leib and as quoted from AGM Abel on 9News.
Dave: Your comments and analysis, as usual, are well reasoned. I share similar concerns regarding cuts to high productive routes, which are contrary to my goal of truly optimizing RTD’s transit service. At the same time, I know that RTD staff is balancing other competing values, like providing a reasonable level of transit service across the entire district. This addresses both political and equity considerations that are inherent to such a large regional transit district. Having said that, I will continue push for service distribution decisions that preserve Boulder County’s high performing routes.
Michael: I sincerely appreciate the attention you gave to this round of service adjustments. The truth is, when faced with about a nine percent service cut, we can expect to hear anger and frustration from those who depend on the impacted services. Ultimately, as I indicated, the best hope for satisfying the true transit needs for our region is to increase the available resources for service, through further operational efficiencies and/or revenue enhancements. I am working hard to make progress on both of those fronts. In the meantime, I think you would be pleased to know that we were able to preserve a great deal of the service for folks from the Center for the Blind who addressed us at last Tuesday’s public meeting, something that staff explained prior to our final vote. Regards! – John
Sabrina: All I can say is . . . I have the same concerns with this service cut, which is why I vigorously opposed it. I will continue to work with RTD staff and local transportation officials to ensure that we effectively meet ridership demand along the 203/225 route. Please make sure to share your own observations when the service adjustments go into effect so I can provide it to RTD’s planning staff and use it to advocate for any necessary adjustments. Thanks! – John