[bouldercouncilhotline] Hotline: FasTracks / US36 update -- Agenda Item 8A

[cmosupport at bouldercolorado.gov]

Sender: Appelbaum, Matt

Colleagues,

Sorry for the lateness of this memo, but I was waiting for the final version of one of the attached memos.  Both attachments are from the US32 MCC, one to the HPTE and the other to RTD; I think both fairly clearly spell out the MCC's positions.  Since our last council meeting and update on both FasTracks and the US36 managed lane, there have been quite a few additional meetings with RTD, the HPTE, and the US36 MCC, and I've also discussed these issues with some key members of the Metro Mayors Caucus.

Regarding the US36 managed lane and the HPTE, the attached letter provides the current position of the US36 MCC.  The key element, as I believe I noted last time, is that any additional revenues that might accrue from the management of the lane - particularly related to changing from HOV 2+ to HOV 3+ for non-tolled access - must largely remain in the corridor and be made available for transit and TDM.

Regarding RTD and FasTracks, it is rather certain that the RTD Board will approve the construction of the I-225 light rail corridor.  That will, according to recent estimates, leave little or no RTD funds for other FasTracks projects for many years to come (into the 2030's).  RTD states that $15M will still be allocated to US36 BRT in the near term, but the latest information indicates that the remainder of the supposed $92M "due" the corridor may not be available for quite a while.  I've been making the argument - now seemingly supported by most at the MCC and acknowledged by RTD - that BRT must be seen as a "project," not just a fixed, and maximum, pot of money still due.  Given that BRT is the only NW corridor project likely to be constructed, my goal has been to implement and operate "true" BRT within the next five to, at most, ten years - but even that now is at great risk.

I should add that some on the MCC still want us to pursue NW Rail.  There is simply no question that NW Rail would provide additional mobility to our corridor, particularly to some key locations that are not well served by BRT.  Nor is there any question that it is part of FasTracks, or that regional equity requires its construction; even "true" BRT in our corridor, up to Longmont, is very inexpensive relative to the costs of all the other corridors, and returns to us a very small fraction of the corridor's FasTracks tax contributions.  That said, there is realistically no chance that NW Rail will be in RTD's 2035 plan, and no currently viable funding source.  However, I do strongly agree with the MCC's position that RTD must fund a thorough study of transit needs in the NW Corridor, which would include the possibility of constructing NW Rail via "segmenting," as well as, in my opinion, other forms of transit that would serve the entire corridor.

As to potential, new FasTracks funding, I continue to believe - as does most everyone else at this point - that once I-225 is funded there will be no realistic chance of having another FasTracks ballot issue to finish the remaining corridors (which are mostly our NW corridor and the long-ignored North corridor).  There may well still be potential for some sort of joint CDOT-RTD regional ballot issue, or a broader statewide effort - but either of those brings with it many, many other considerations and concerns, and I personally would find it difficult to believe that either would fund NW Rail.

To end on a somewhat positive note, I think that "true" BRT could serve our corridor and certainly the City of Boulder exceptionally well.  The trick is finding the funding to make that happen in a fairly short time frame.  There are some new opportunities with the new federal transportation bill, and as the corridor has done successfully in building the managed lane, there may well be ways  to cobble together sufficient funding.  That said, it seems quite clear that RTD should be ensuring the completion and operation of true BRT given its relatively very low cost, but even that very modest (and by no means "equitable") request is still far from being satisfied.

--Matt
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: July 17 2012 MCC Letter to RTD with signature.pdf
Type: application/octet-stream
Size: 361819 bytes
Desc: July 17 2012 MCC Letter to RTD with signature.pdf
Url : http://list.ci.boulder.co.us/pipermail/bouldercouncilhotline/attachments/20120717/fe908fb4/attachment.obj 
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: MCC HOV Policy Letter July 14 2012 Signed.pdf
Type: application/octet-stream
Size: 336630 bytes
Desc: MCC HOV Policy Letter July 14 2012 Signed.pdf
Url : http://list.ci.boulder.co.us/pipermail/bouldercouncilhotline/attachments/20120717/fe908fb4/attachment-0001.obj