[bouldercouncilhotline] Hotline: Update on FasTracks and state/regional transportation issues

[cmosupport at bouldercolorado.gov]

Sender: Appelbaum, Matt

Colleagues – This is an update on several related transportation issues: FasTracks, a statewide gas tax, and the creation of a Denver metro regional transportation district.  I’ve mentioned some of this during our discussions with the Louisville city council and also during our legislative breakfast, but I’d like to provide a somewhat more detailed report.  As you know, all of these are works-in-progress, with quite uncertain outcomes – but it is important for us to remain involved since we may be significantly affected by those outcomes.
 
FasTracks
Obviously the work on US36 BRT Phase One to 88th St. is underway.  We still hope that Phase Two to Table Mesa can be funded by early 2013 and construction completed by 2015, assuming the federal TIFIA loan comes through and an agreement on tolling with CDOT’s HPTE will provide the remaining funds as well as ongoing operational dollars for transit in the future.
 
However, there are of course still some key issues related to how FasTracks will provide transit mobility in the NW Corridor.  Much work has been done to further the resolution of these issues, memos and letters sent, numerous meetings held, often with RTD representatives, etc.  I’ve attached several documents, but be aware that some are still in draft form and may well change.  Some issues:
 
-- RTD claims that they intend to create “true” BRT, and have generally agreed to provide a number of key BRT elements when the managed lanes are opened, as well as creating a funding mechanism to provide new BRT-specific buses in a reasonable timeframe (we need insure that vehicles are specified, purchased, delivered and operated as a dedicated BRT fleet for US 36).  These are very welcome promises, but there remains some uncertainty in the details, however, and I remain concerned with the concept that RTD’s “commitment” to BRT is capped with only ~$75M still “due” will reemerge at some point.  While we certainly want that money in the short-term (and thus some of our corridor colleagues still refer to it), I’m afraid that it will be seen as final payment, which is absurd given that BRT is almost certainly the corridor’s only transit option for many years to come.  I’ve attached an RTD status report on BRT, as well as correspondence between RTD’s GM Phil Washington and a US36 MCC (Mayors and Commissioners Coalition) delegation of Commissioner Toor and Mayor Quinn (I also met with Phil, discussed many of the same issues with him, and found him to be quite supportive of completing “true” BRT).
 
--As previously noted, the agreement with HPTE is essential and still being worked on.  The most significant remaining negotiation is an agreement on how excess revenue from tolling (and the inevitability of going from HOV2 to HOV3-free for managing congestion) will be reinvested in the US 36 corridor.  We have been in agreement with our corridor colleagues that 1) all revenues stay in the corridor (rather than fund other state projects), 2) the majority of additional toll revenues support transit and TDM operations, and 3) that the revenues do not offset existing O&M for the corridor. 

 
-- The MCC and RTD have generally agreed that RTD must engage in a thorough study of transit options for the NW Corridor given the apparent cost of NW Rail and the complete lack of FasTracks funding for it.  This effort, the Northwest Area Mobility Study, will involve corridor communities/stakeholders.  The statement of work for the study will be released through a request for proposals in early December.  The hope is that the study would begin in early 2013 and evaluate a range of options including segmenting of NW Rail, extension of the North Metro line to Longmont, and BRT connections serving the Northwest area travel shed(s).  RTD would like to have an MOU signed by the corridor communities and a statement of good faith in participating in this process.  I’ve attached a draft MOU with RTD regarding the study.
 
-- As you all know, given the current realities of NW Rail along the BNSF alignment, I’ve generally taken the position that BRT – and extensions to serve Longmont and the east county – is our top priority given the large number of people it will serve.  The Mobility Study will of course inform this issue much better, but it’s unlikely the cost of rail will decrease substantially in the near future.  One particularly troubling issue is whether RTD would consider BRT extensions as outside the scope of FasTracks – even though such facilities are clearly replacements (consider them “interim” if necessary, although they’re likely to last a rather long time) for the lack of NW Rail, which of course is a key component of FasTracks.  Conversely, it appears to be acceptable to delay NW Rail into some quite indefinite future (and frankly, once something is decades away without any clear and specific funding source, it simply no longer exists in reality) and not consider that outside the scope of FasTracks.  This isn’t just some arcane concern; funding for whatever comes out of the Mobility Study may well depend on such considerations.

 
--Regarding funding, there may be some additional RTD revenue available in the near-term.  Clearly that needs to be directed to both the NW and North corridors – and those are indeed RTD’s priorities, with North rail being constructed to 72nd St with the goal of then obtaining considerable federal funding to help complete the project.  But how much might be available to the NW Corridor, and how it might be allocated, isn’t clear pending the Mobility Study among other things – and I remain concerned that the issues of RTD’s “commitment” to BRT as well as their defining certain components as outside of FasTracks may create significant complications.
 
-- CU President Benson has agreed to lend his considerable energy toward helping us get BRT finished.  I met with him several weeks ago (about BRT and a number of other CU-related issues) as had a group of us from the MCC previously.  His efforts will be very much appreciated.
 
-- The MCC received important information and understanding about the BNSF during a meeting with one of their prior executives.  Not surprisingly, it would seem that at some future date it is fairly likely that BNSF would seriously consider mostly or fully abandoning the portion of their line that NW Rail would require.  Should that happen, the cost of implementing NW Rail would of course be greatly reduced and might well be quite cost-effective.  It would be very good not to preclude this connection
 as it could become quite feasible in the future as freight rail markets change.  This former executive thought that the best timing for such a change would be in five to ten years.  We’ll continue to study and be open to this possibility.  It will be important to recognize this potential in the NW Area Mobility Study.
 
Statewide gas tax ballot issue
CDOT has been talking with many groups about the possibility of putting some form of gas (more properly, “fuel,” so it includes all forms) tax increase on the statewide ballot in 2013.  The Metro Mayors Caucus (MMC) has been quite involved in this issue, specifically as part of a committee consisting of representatives from the MMC (including me) and three organizations representing all of the counties outside the Denver metro area.  Discussions have also included groups such as CML, various
 business groups, and other interested parties.  All of these conversations have been quite collegial and informative, and should help the MMC maintain good relations with these county groups regardless of the outcome of this particular issue.
 
There is considerable agreement that CDOT needs additional funding for basic road maintenance and safety improvements (shoulders, passing lanes), the latter mostly to non-urban roads.  CDOT also has a huge list of “capacity” improvements that are “needed,” but those are considered not to be affordable via this sort of tax increase (although I would want any ballot issue to make it very clear that new capacity won’t be funded directly or indirectly).  Current considerations are for either a 10 cent gas tax increase (indexed to inflation) or subjecting gas purchases to the existing state sales tax (which would thus not compete with local sales taxes).
 
It is unclear if an attempt would be made to petition this onto the ballot or go through the state legislature.  As we know, the legislature may well be considering many other revenue issues, particularly for education.  In fact, it is unclear at this point whether this will actually move forward, whether it has the unanimous support it will need (or at least no significant opposition), and, of course, whether it will have the governor’s support.  The non-metro counties are in strong support of getting a shot at a statewide gas tax before any Denver regional district tax might be considered, since if the latter passed first it would be quite unlikely that the former would then succeed.
 
We met with some environmental leaders in order to get them up to speed on this issue and discuss its potential.  One suggestion, which we have been working on for a while, is that as part (directly or indirectly) of such a measure the legislature would finally allow HUTF (highway users trust fund) revenues that are allocated to cities and counties to be used for all transportation purposes, including transit, bikes, and peds, and not just roadways.  Such a bill is likely to be introduced this year.
 
Clearly we need to continue to take part in the discussions on this issue and try to ensure that, if it gets on the ballot, it is structured appropriately.  Just as clearly it faces an uphill battle.
 
Metropolitan transportation district
Along with a statewide gas tax increase, CDOT has suggested that a companion element for funding projects in the Denver metro area also needs to be created.  This would take the form of a metropolitan transportation district (MTD) of some
 sort.
 
Cities and counties are already able to create Regional Transportation Authorities, and the Colorado Springs area has done just that.  But it requires each governmental entity’s approval; in the Denver region that would mean unanimous support from 50 or more governments, which is simply impossible.  However, the state legislature could create an MTD, specifying the regional boundaries, the governance mechanism, and perhaps some principles/requirements.
 
For us, I think there are two types of critical considerations.  First is the practical issue of just how an MTD would be created, its rules, etc.  Second, frankly, is whether it is likely, or even conceivable, that such an entity could be helpful to us in attaining our (and the region’s) transportation goals.
 
On the practical side, a committee of members from the MMC and the MACC (Metro Area County Commissioners), plus some other relevant people, has been meeting for a few months.  I attended the most recent meeting earlier this month.  This is clearly a work-in-progress, with discussion continuing on all the major issues.  However, some ideas that seem to be in the mix include:

· The boundaries would include all of the metro counties (but perhaps not all parts of each county), plus some Weld county cities near I-25.  It seems likely that some locations at the edges, or those that believe they will get little in return (which might include Boulder) may not be thrilled at being included.

· The District would be governed by a group of city and county officials, possibly along the lines of the Urban Drainage District.  When the full MMC was asked to offer opinions there were many concerns – which I share – about this type of governing structure, particularly about the need for much greater city representation.

· Obviously some sort of funding source is needed, so the District would need the authority to go to the ballot (in 2014?).  Whether this would be a sales tax or a property tax or something different isn’t clear yet.

· At least in time for the ballot issue, and perhaps at the time of the District’s creation, a specific list of projects would be formulated.  This would give voters a clear understanding of what they are being asked to support. And, in theory, it would give the governing body little control over expenditures (thus making the battle over its makeup less important).  But this of course begs the question of who creates the project list in the first place?  The existing committee seems to be working on a project list, but I have to assume (and have stated) that anything recommended by this committee must be taken to both the MMC and MACC.  At the MMC, action is taken by “consensus,” a term usually taken to mean that there is no (or very little, perhaps) opposition.  So, in fact, the project list would need support from essentially all MMC and MACC members, with one vote per governmental entity.  Or, perhaps, the state legislature would decide.  Or, perhaps, it would be put off until the District is formed and then the governance mechanism will be crucial.  Of course, FasTracks had a specific list of projects, and we know how well that worked and how critical the decisions of the governing body turned out to be.

· Project funding might be divided in a variety of ways.  One such concept suggests that capital roadway projects would get a chunk, transit would get an equal chunk (which in theory could be used for operations as well as capital, although that raises the issue of what happens when the tax expires), bikes/peds would get a small chunk, and a final piece would be returned directly to each community (based on population? tax contribution?).

· Road projects typically included in any project list include widening C-470 and north I-25, and rebuilding the I-70 viaduct.  C-470/I-25 of course raise the issue of tolling, which I’ll cover next.  I-70 is obviously necessary, but I have a very significant problem with some/much of its funding coming from a regional tax – when that same region already pays very disproportionately into outstate projects, including, of course, the rest of I-70.

· It is widely assumed that any new lanes on C-470 would be managed/tolled, but that would need to be made clear.  Not surprisingly, some in the north metro area, who want I-25 widening to be on this project list, chafe at the concept that those lanes might need to be managed, while the T-REX lanes in the south metro area are of course not.  Equally unsurprising is my view that allowing unmanaged new lanes is unacceptable, and that the real solution is to toll the existing T-REX lanes.

· Finally, what would the transit projects look like?  This is where we come back to the NW Area Mobility Study, since it is the NW Corridor that is the big unknown.  Unless we see very unexpected results, I find it difficult to believe that a full NW Rail implementation is likely to be funded, given its huge costs and limited benefits.  Perhaps a partial (segmented) implementation might make the cut – but for now it seems unlikely that would be good for Boulder (or the corridor) since there almost certainly would be alternatives that would move far more people.  Again, the Mobility Study will be key here, but it still may be difficult to reach consensus.
 
With that long background, let’s consider whether such a District might be good for Boulder.  Of course, not knowing the key details, this is hard to determine now, but here are some considerations:

· No doubt more funding is needed for regional transportation projects, although it certainly isn’t clear that is a priority for voters
or the state legislature.

· There must be a very significant set-aside for transit, including operations, and probably that portion of any tax must be permanent.

· There must be some sort of regional equity, perhaps partially implemented via a set-aside for each community (based on tax revenue, preferably).  However, this would no doubt only consider this new tax revenue, and not the previous funding for T-REX and FasTracks, where Boulder got back pennies on its dollar.

· There must be clear rules regarding which projects may be included and how they can be constructed.  At minimum, new capacity must be tolled.  Even better would be to finally link transportation and land-use planning, requiring for example, that modeling show significant reductions in VMT (this has been a suggestion of mine for some time, but it is just an example and there may be much better mechanisms to accomplish similar goals).

· Projects that are truly of statewide concern – including I-70 – should not be funded regionally.  Far better would be tolling, particularly of the trucks that cause virtually all of the road damage.
 
So, could this be useful to Boulder?  Or to the NW Corridor?  Or the metro area?  From my very initial perspective, such an authority could conceivably have merit.  But it would need to have exceptionally clear requirements regarding transit, VMT, tolling, etc.  The governance structure must give far more weight to cities.  It would need to effectively “complete” FasTracks for the NW Corridor, whatever that might turn out to mean.  And we would need to accept that, as always, Boulder would get a return of pennies – well, perhaps nickles or even dimes – on our tax dollars, on top of our FasTracks losses, although with the right conditions and constraints this could still provide significant improvements to metro mobility.  For those who suggest these concerns indicate we’re not thinking “regionally,” I’d suggest that it is rather easier to be “regional” when one is getting back far more than they pay in, not far less.  Regardless, this District concept is worth pursuing – and certainly closely following – with the appropriate level of guarded support and healthy skepticism.
 
As always, if you have any questions or concerns, whether positive or negative, please let me know.  If you think that a short council discussion of any of these items would be useful we can schedule it on an upcoming agenda under Matters. 

And my thanks to Tracy Winfree, Carl Castillo, and Suzy Ageton for helping me with this memo.
 
--Matt
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: 110712_Washington_MCC_BRT.pdf
Type: application/octet-stream
Size: 294865 bytes
Desc: 110712_Washington_MCC_BRT.pdf
Url : http://list.ci.boulder.co.us/pipermail/bouldercouncilhotline/attachments/20121127/ed5b1aab/attachment.obj 
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: RTD FasTracks BRT Nov 12.pdf
Type: application/octet-stream
Size: 405753 bytes
Desc: RTD FasTracks BRT Nov 12.pdf
Url : http://list.ci.boulder.co.us/pipermail/bouldercouncilhotline/attachments/20121127/ed5b1aab/attachment-0001.obj 
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: Toor Quinn ltr from Phil Washington re FasTracks Moving	Fwd.pdf
Type: application/octet-stream
Size: 2130623 bytes
Desc: Toor Quinn ltr from Phil Washington re FasTracks Moving
	Fwd.pdf
Url : http://list.ci.boulder.co.us/pipermail/bouldercouncilhotline/attachments/20121127/ed5b1aab/attachment-0002.obj 
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: NW Area Mobility Study MOU - 36 MCC Feedback 11-12-12	final.docx
Type: application/octet-stream
Size: 324174 bytes
Desc: NW Area Mobility Study MOU - 36 MCC Feedback 11-12-12
	final.docx
Url : http://list.ci.boulder.co.us/pipermail/bouldercouncilhotline/attachments/20121127/ed5b1aab/attachment-0003.obj