With much fanfare, the group of community representative and transportation officials that have been evaluating options for transit, road and bike improvements inthe US 36 corridor, the Preferred Alternative Committee (PAC), agreed on a package to take through the Final Environmental Impact Analysis (FEIS) process.  The agreement, known as the US 36 Combined Alternative Recommendation, was memorialized two weeks ago in a formal signing ceremony which featured speeches by RTD General Manager Cal Marsella and CDOT Director Russ George, as well as individual statements from each of the signing PAC members.   Everyone applauded the collaborative spirit that characterized the PAC’s work together and they all pledged to try to move the improvements along as quickly as possible.

Why all the hoopla?  Well, the final package of proposed improvements truly represented a negotiated compromise amongst the participants.  Each community came to the table with different priorities and infrastructure goals.   After years of evaluation and wrangling, it became clear in recent months that the funding was not available to fully meet the different vision that each community had for the corridor.  Instead, recognizing the limited resources available for the project and in the interest of “digging dirt” as soon as feasibly possible, the parties came together around a package of transit, roadway and bikeway improvements that best satisfied the region’s transportation needs within available resource constraints.

I will not detail all of the recommended improvements, as they are explained in the attached document.  Most critical, from RTD’s perspective, is the agreement to build an HOV lane all the way from Boulder to Denver to support the bus rapid transit system (BRT).  It was determined that, at vastly reduced cost and with a minimal travel time penalty, the best path forward is to incorporate side-loading stations (v. the original vision of median stations).  The BRT system also will be supported by such features as queue jump lanes at intersections along the corridor, special stylized buses, and enhancement to key bus stops in Boulder.

The RTD Board accepted the US 36 Combine Alternative Recommendation at its July Board meeting.  The final FEIS steps will now proceed toward a final Record of Decision.  This is a significant milestone toward implementing the mobility improvements for the US 36 corridor that were promised in the FasTracks program.

US 36 Combined Alternative Recommendation

In case you didn’t see these in the Daily Camera, both Steve Pomerance and Bob Greenlee responded to my opinion piece, “Rising Above the Transit Paradox.”:

FasTracks derailed (Greenlee): http://www.dailycamera.com/news/2008/jul/13/fastracks-derailed/

Funding transit with market forces (Pomerance): http://www.dailycamera.com/news/2008/jul/06/funding-transit-with-market-02/

You will notice that Bob takes the opportunity to offer another criticism of the FasTracks program, tying the tax revenue for that program to RTD’s current operations funding challenges.  He says: “One solution is to eliminate the Northwest heavy rail plan.”  Bob and I have our differences over the FasTracks plan, that’s for sure.  However, I am very certain it is not appropriate to group revenues from the FasTracks tax with RTD’s general operating revenue.

Steve Pomerance, on the other hand, recommends that RTD raise farebox rates to align them with actual service costs at the same time that drivers are forced to pay the real cost of supporting our roadway system:

Rather than immediately thinking about increasing taxes, our Legislature, RTD, and CDOT officials need to make the cost of driving more accurately match the miles driven and fuel used — in other words, they should help the market work.  Without changing the total cost and tax burden, travelers would save even more by not driving, and RTD could increase its farebox collections without negatively impacting demand, thereby simultaneously reducing its need for a tax subsidy and allowing it to expand service.

I am sure such a strategy will take a long time to institute, and RTD has immediate budget challenges to overcome.   However, Steve raises some very interesting concepts that are worth exploring further. 

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. 

The Unlimited Access Pass Working Group continues to make progress in an effort to resolve long-standing disputes between RTD staff and pass advocates. 

Attached are the minutes from the May Working Group meeting.  As you can see from the minutes, a key focus of Working Groups discussions continues to be Eco-Pass pricing.  It is critical to come to some resolution on this issue, as RTD staff and the Board are not likely to support further expansion of the unlimited access pass programs, like the Eco-Pass, unless they believe these passes are equitably priced.

As the meeting minutes indicate, both RTD and Boulder County staff presented information indicating that “pricing of EcoPass do not deviate greatly from cost recovery.”  I have attached some of the documents that support this conclusion and the detailed analysis of Boulder County staff, based on RTD’s data. 

The critical issue on the table is the RTD staff concern that small companies appear to pay an excessively low price for the Eco-Pass as compared to their average higher rate of use.  RTD staff believes it is easier for these small companies to determine whether or not they will save by purchasing Eco-Passes for everyone in the office (v. subsidising monthly passes only for the employees who use transit).  Reaching a consensus position on how to address this concern will be a key focus of the next Working Group meeting. 

It is worth noting that the Working Group’s activities are occurring amidst RTD’s current financial tribulations.  Check-out ”Rising above the Transit Paradox” that you can access from the home page of this web site for more details on RTD’s budget woes: www.johntayer.org.  Suffice to say, RTD staff and the Board are searching for solutions to the current budget crisis . . . and Eco-Pass pricing is in the cross-hairs.  (One Director quote in the following story hints at the scrutiny Eco-Passes are likely to receive: http://www.denverpost.com/headlines/ci_9470072).  

With this in mind, the Working Group is scheduled to meet twice in July.  The purpose of the first meeting will be to respond to RTD budget balancing concepts that include Eco-Pass pricing adjustments.  It is hoped that the Working Group’s discussions will inform the final proposal that RTD staff presents to the Board, particularly if the Working Group members can arrive at a consensus position on pricing issues.

In summary, after a slow start, the Working Group appears to be on the cusp of addressing some historic juggernauts.  Resolving these issues will have important short and long term implications for how to equitably price Eco-Passes and other unlimited access passes.  Ultimately, it is hoped that the Working Group can move beyond this critical issue and begin to consider measures for expanding unlimited access pass offerings.

Stay tuned . . . and please feel free to share your own insights on the Working Group’s efforts or on Eco-Pass issues, generally.

Meeting Summary Document: Unlimited Access Pass Working Group: May 26 Meeting Summary

RTD Staff Presentations:

Business Eco-Pass Trends

UAP Boarding Data

Eco-Pass Pricing and Small Employers

City of Boulder and Boulder County Staff Analysis:  Analysis of 2006 Eco Pass Boardings and Revenue

Newsletter >> Best News: Phentermine online Adipex online Cars Building materials Xanax online Sport Betting Cheap drugs online shop ya.by Best Ringtones auto-moto Medicine news Download Ringtones Sale Auto Free Ringtones Online notebook shop Free Ringtones Intimate goods Trousers Sportswear Get ringtones online Replica Rolex Ambien online Cheap pharmacy shop mp3 music for mobile Credit Dating Top auto-moto Fashions Tramadol online Credits Tunings Cigarettes Rolex Replica Valium online Ear rings Chairs Cialis online Evening dress Boats Loan Online Cigarette Fioricet online Suits Free mp3 ringtones Ornaments Green Card Information Underwear Autos Bracelets Hydrocodone online Soma online

Everywhere I go these days, I am beseeched by friends and neighbors who ask me why, at a time when transit demand is rising, RTD is considering service cuts. Instead, shouldn’t RTD be increasing service? That certainly sounds like a logical model for meeting human mobility needs in the face of rising gas prices and other economic hardships.

But, therein lies the terrible Transit Paradox. It turns out the same factors that are driving a spike in demand for transit services are having an unfortunate negative impact on RTD finances.

Fuel costs, roughly 9 percent of the RTD expenditure budget, have risen 47 percent over last year’s rates. At the same time, sales and use tax income, which accounts for approximately 66 percent of RTD operations revenue, is coming in at about 5 percent below projections. The cumulative impact of these two economic factors, alone, is expected to be a hit of about $23 million to RTD’s total operations budget.

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.

RTD staff is still processing all the numbers, but the writing is on the wall: We will have a significant budget deficit to overcome in 2008, with even more red ink predicted for 2009.

So, at a time when we desperately need to get more transit service on the roads and the rail lines, RTD Board members are presented with a draconian list of optional measures for addressing the current budget deficit. Everything from cuts in discretionary expenditure items to hiring controls are on the table. But, most painfully, the one option that rears its head as having the greatest budget impact is service cuts.

Staff recently provided the RTD Board with a list of bus and train routes that have the lowest ridership. Fortunately, relatively few of these routes are in Boulder County due to our high transit use. Even so, any service cut will mean a loss of convenience for some and, worse, a real mobility hardship for others.

I opposed the first round of recommended service cuts due to last-minute changes in the staff proposal that I felt deviated from a fully objective assessment of route productivity. That does not mean RTD should carry under-performing bus and train routes.  Fiscal prudence demands that RTD deploy its limited resources in areas that will have the greatest mobility benefits.

But, we need more transit service now, not less… which returns us to the Transit Paradox and the need to craft a sound funding model for our public transit system.

Discussion of this issue is timely, as the state is currently wrestling with options to address the funding gap for all of its transportation functions. We need to make sure that the needs of transit passengers are well represented in this debate.

In the coming weeks, I will be reaching-out to my fellow RTD Board members, state and local elected leaders, and the citizens of Boulder County in a search for the best short and long-term solution to overcome the Transit Paradox.

Ultimately, we must arrive at solutions that help transit keep pace with the growing public need for this mobility option.

Thank you in advance for sharing your suggestions and ideas via the comments form below.

Trip Planner is a web-based service that is designed to help RTD customers design the most efficient transit trip to their desired destination.  Unfortunately, the old Trip Planner program had many weaknesses, directing customers along exceptionally long and convoluted routes.  The problems appeared to be most acute when reaching the planned destination entailed a transfer between two transit routes.  

Aside from my personal experience with the shortcomings of the old Trip Planner function, I also heard numerous complaints regarding the system from District O constituents.  After hearing these complaints from me and other dissatisfied customers, and recognizing that the old Trip Planner program was beyond repair, RTD staff took a different tack.  Working with Google, they developed a completely new program for the Trip Planner system.  At first blush, this new Trip Planner program appears to provide much more accurate and efficient route information.

You can find the Trip Planner service on the RTD web site, www.rtd-denver.com.  If you get a chance, please give the new system a test-drive and let me know how it performs for you.  Staff is still working-out a few kinks and would appreciate receiving customer feedback, good and bad, during this initiation phase.

Democracy is best practiced by an educated public. 

One means of public education is ensuring that citizens have convenient access to the information that policy leaders employ in their deliberations.  This includes access to staff policy memorandums and other supporting materials.

Having worked at he city of Boulder for six years, where all non-confidential materials that staff prepares for Council meetings and most advisory board meetings are posted on the public web site, I assumed this was the norm for most government entities.  It turns-out that is not the case.

Until recently, it was the practice of RTD only to post its Board and committee meeting agendas on the public web site.  This provided citizens with minimal notice of issues that the Board planned to discuss because the listed agenda topics often are couched in broad terms (e.g. ”Special Services Fare Update”).  Without access to the supporting materials for each agenda item, citizen are often unaware of Board debate concerning matters that impact them, let alone insufficient opportunity for them to prepare their advocacy positions.

Fortunately, after enduring my appeals for more convenient public access to Board meeting materials, RTD staff has responded.  A new link, “WIP Information & Financial Packets,” under the “Board of Directors” section of the RTD web site, www.rtd-denver.com, contains all of the preliminary agenda materials for each RTD Board meeting and Finance & Administration Committee meeting.

This web link is an important new convenience for citizens who are interested in tracking RTD Board business and a significant demonstration of RTD’s commitment to open government.  

Last evening, the RTD Board initiated the 2009 Budget Preparation Process.  As a charge to my fellow Board members, I offered the following thoughts:

Tonight we embark on the long process for pulling together RTD’s 2009 budget.  We know the budget preparation process is always difficult, balancing competing priorities in an effort to best serve the public’s transit needs.  However, there is reason to believe that we will face many more challenges in preparing the 2009 budget.

 

The record-breaking rise in gas prices, alone, is putting an enormous pinch on our resources.  It is not surprising, either, that rising gas prices have increased public demand for our transit services.  Ridership on the RTD system has never been higher, both because we are providing a comfortable and convenient travel alternative, and because citizens are recognizing that transit is a much more affordable commute option.  This increased demand, though, has further stretched RTD’s budget resources. 

 

What else?  I could go on about the flagging sales tax revenues and escalating construction costs, but you get the picture.  We have an enormous job ahead of us as we confront the 2009 budget.

 

Fortunately, this is also a year that all of us said we wanted to take a different approach to formulating the RTD budget.  At our Board retreat, many of you expressed concern about the inability to affect budget policy at the front-end of the process.  Instead, it seemed we were always relegated to making less substantive tweaks at the back end of the process.  It is very difficult to institute significant policy change when staring at the fine print of the thick budget document and a tight approval deadline.

 

That is why, working with staff, we have made substantial changes to the budget preparation process.  The emphasis, this year, will be in two primary areas:  1) Transparency and openness; and, 2) Board input at the front-end of the process. 

 

This is a significant paradigm shift and it begins tonight.  Staff will walk us through the mysterious black box where they blend the cost assumptions and operation policies to arrive at the draft budget documents we review every year.  It is critical that we all understand, along with the public, how these elements work together so we know how best to influence the outcome. 

 

Down the road, we have scheduled greater opportunities for input on each of the budget policy elements and to challenge financial assumptions.  Early-on, as well, is when each of us is encouraged to advocate for the specific initiatives and services we want staff to consider as it prepares the preliminary budget documents.  This includes everything from the type of buses RTD purchases to a new route in your district. 

 

Again, these are not simple times for RTD.  We are facing significant financial hurdles.  But, I know each of you joins me in the goal of providing the most effective and efficient transit service to our customers and working to protect the promise of FasTracks.  I am confident that the approach we are taking to the 2009 budget preparation process will help us to achieve these goals while upholding our fiduciary responsibilities to RTD and the public. 

 

Let’s get at it!

At the end of February, RTD staff and US 36 corridor officials got cross-wise over portions of a FasTracks report concerning the implementation of the bus rapid transit (BRT) system. Corridor officials identified a number of instances in the FasTracks report that appeared to indicate RTD was back pedaling on its commitment to important elements of the BRT system, such as center-line median stations and distinctive BRT vehicles. They also expressed concern about the apparent lack of an inflationary adjustment in BRT construction costs.

The following Daily Camera story details some of the charges corridor officials leveled against RTD along with RTD’s response: http://www.dailycamera.com/news/2008/feb/28/full-fare-for-bus-rapid-transit/. As the story notes, I am satisfied that RTD staff is committed to our BRT system. However, I also am sensitive to the concerns that the US 36 corridor officials raised. A fully functioning BRT system, as envisioned in the FasTracks plan, is contingent on adherence to specific design standards.

RTD staff recently issued the attached memorandum in response to each of the charges the US 36 corridor officials issued. I know that corridor staff will scrutinize this memorandum and all future RTD actions concerning implementation of the BRT system. I welcome this scrutiny (and will collaborate in that effort), as I know it will keep all of us focused on the ultimate goal, a fully functioning BRT system for US 36.

RTD Response to Concerns about BRT Report

Every year, at this time, RTD commences its budget preparation process.  

It is through the budget process that RTD allocates resources across its various transit activities, from bus and train operations to implementation of the FasTracks program.  Aside from a general fiduciary responsibility to ensure that RTD resources are deployed efficiency and effectively, it is through the budget process that Board members help to set the agency’s priorities.  In lean years, such as these, setting the priorities entails difficult trade-offs between RTD’s many worthy transit endeavors. 

It is because the budget is such a critical tool in defining the direction of RTD that, in my role as Board Treasurer and Chair of the Finance Committee, I have sought to incorporate greater transparency in the preparation process.  This includes the institution of enhanced opportunities for Board member input at the front-end of the process, before staff begins to formulate their own recommendations.  The opening study session on April 22 is the first of these new input opportunities, focusing almost exclusively on the assumptions and procedures staff proposes to employ in crafting the draft budget document. 

Attached is the complete calendar for the 2009 budget preparation process.  I urge you to consider attending some of the open Board meetings where we will discuss budget topics.  That is one of the best means of learning about the full range of RTD’s transit activities and the organization’s financial challenges.  I also invite you to tell me, throughout the budget preparation process, about the transit program you want RTD to prioritize in 2009.

2009 RTD Budget Preparation Process Calendar