[bouldercouncilhotline] Hotline: Agenda Item 8D:Regional Transportation Issues Update

[cmosupport at bouldercolorado.gov]

Sender: Appelbaum, Matt

Colleagues,

Agenda Item 8D at Tuesday's council meeting is an update on regional transportation issues.  As usual, there have been quite a few discussions and meetings on these issues, specifically relating to FasTracks, RTD's Regional Transportation Plan (RTP), DRCOG deliberations and decisions, and ongoing efforts regarding a potential statewide or regional transportation ballot issue.  KC will update all of us about the activities at DRCOG; here are some highlights (lowlights?) on the other topics:

FasTracks and the RTP: There have been additional discussions at the US36 MCC, including a recent one with a number of RTD staff regarding BRT.  We still don't have even the basic information we need about costs to implement the various remaining components (prepaid fares, real-time information, bus branding, real BRT buses and platforms, etc.), although it appears that RTD intends to provide some of these (smaller) items within a "reasonable" timeframe (preferably in conjunction with the opening of the managed lane to Boulder in 2015, assuming that gets final funding). We've also discussed the need for a study of transit options in the corridor, including "segmented" rail and additions/extensions to the US36 BRT, something that RTD claims it will do (and originally wanted the corridor cities to chip in on!).

You no doubt noticed the recent op-ed by our RTD rep John Tayer and Commissioner Toor.  I actually contributed to that article but in the end felt I could not sign on.  Simply put, I agree with almost everything they said - notably the need for "true" BRT, the difficulty in justifying rail due to its cost, scheduling, and low ridership, and the need for a corridor study.  But I've been focusing for some time now on a couple of key requirements (which have been supported in large part by most MCC members; perhaps they've just gotten tired of hearing me repeat these...):
               -- BRT must be treated as a "project," not as some very limited amount of money that is due to the corridor.  For years (from the beginning, essentially), RTD has been clear that BRT would get a certain amount of funding from them (of which about ~$90M is left to be paid).  So each time any money, directly or indirectly is spent on BRT, that amount is subtracted from the total "due."  Of course, there is no analysis of what it will actually cost to provide "true" BRT.  No other corridor is treated like this; they are all projects that have defined attributes and which will be funded through completion.  Perhaps this approach made some small sense when NW Rail was going to be built, but since rail is now decades away (and very doubtful even then), leaving BRT as the corridor's sole transit facility, it is essential - and frankly non-negotiable - that BRT be treated and funded as a project.  RTD sometimes seems to agree that this makes sense, then invariably comes back with the usual "we're going to spend x million on such and such for BRT so we'll subtract that from the ~$90M".
               -- "True" BRT must be completed by 2020.  This concept is included in the attached memo from the MCC to RTD.  Of course there is no money for this as it has all been spent on the other corridors, most recently on I-225, even though we have been promised for a long time that the infamous $90M would be provided "soon."  And this can't depend solely on hoped-for federal funding, although I certainly don't care where the money comes from so long as we can count on it.  You'll notice in the attached RTD presentation on their RTP that there is no (as in none at all) money scheduled for our corridor until after 2030.  In fact, even if some federal funding should be available - as might be possible with the new federal MAP-21 legislation - it is very unclear how RTD would find any necessary matching funds.
               -- Additional transit service to meet the needs of off-corridor locations (such as extensions to US36 BRT) must be determined now and funded within a "reasonable" timeframe, but certainly before 2030.

Statewide/regional transportation ballot issues:  There continue to be serious conversations about whether, when, and how some form of statewide or regional revenues could be raised for transportation.  Rumor is that a decision must be made by Nov. 15 if something is to be on the 2013 ballot.  I've heard all sorts of theories about whether the goal is a 2013 ballot issue or 2015.  There are also talks about having a statewide issue first followed by regional issues; in theory if regional votes went first and passed then it would be almost impossible for something to later pass statewide.  (And regional votes are pretty scary for us, since we'd be placed into a Denver metro region where priorities would likely be set by road-building county commissioners.)  I'm a representative from the Metro Mayors Caucus on a discussion group with reps from the three main, non-metro area county organizations; we had a meeting in Frisco recently and heard about the governor's TBD process (not very enlightening...) and also from a CDOT rep about their concerns and ideas for moving forward.  Whether those groups can reach any sort of consensus, let alone all of the other groups that will be at the table (the US36 MCC will be meeting, for example, with the Denver Chamber about this and related issues) isn't at all clear.  Not surprisingly I've been clearly stating our interest in regional equity, an emphasis on multi-modal projects, a requirement that all new highway lanes be managed/tolled (and in fact that some existing lanes, like those built as part of T-REX, be tolled as well), etc.  We've discussed this with our county colleagues and much more work will be done in this area, including discussions with Don Hunt, who is the very fine director of CDOT.

One final ongoing issue of considerable importance is getting an agreement - as I've previously discussed - with CDOT's HPTE, which will build and set the rules for the US36 managed lanes.  It remains essential that any "extra" revenue from this venture (due to moving to HOV-3 and/or other techniques that will provide for free-flowing bus traffic as well as raise money) be kept in the corridor, preferably for use in transit operations, and that CDOT provide its previously agreed-to contributions to the project.

--Matt
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: MCC 36 CS Letter to RTD August 28 2012.pdf
Type: application/octet-stream
Size: 292430 bytes
Desc: MCC 36 CS Letter to RTD August 28 2012.pdf
Url : http://list.ci.boulder.co.us/pipermail/bouldercouncilhotline/attachments/20120904/bdb14dc6/attachment.obj 
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: RTD Board Pres 8_7_12_Final.ppt
Type: application/octet-stream
Size: 1558528 bytes
Desc: RTD Board Pres 8_7_12_Final.ppt
Url : http://list.ci.boulder.co.us/pipermail/bouldercouncilhotline/attachments/20120904/bdb14dc6/attachment-0001.obj