[bouldercouncilhotline] Hotline: RTD BRT fare and schedule proposals

[cmosupport at bouldercolorado.gov]

Sender: Appelbaum, Matt

Colleagues – At this Tuesday’s (March 17) meeting I’ve asked that an update on RTD’s proposed schedules and fares for US36 BRT and related services be added as an item under Matters.  In advance of that discussion, here are some useful
 documents and some thoughts from me.
 
First, I’ve attached two documents:
-- a memo from the US36 MCC and 36 Commuting Solutions regarding RTD’s proposals
-- a short memo from our staff summarizing the meeting the MCC had with RTD last Friday
 
And here is a link to a relevant editorial in the Sunday Denver Post from 3/7:
http://www.denverpost.com/Opinion/ci_27661968/RTD-needs-to-revise-fare-plan
 
Also, I hope you have read the op-ed in today’s (Sunday) Camera by George Gerstle.
 
While these memos and opinion pieces cover most of the ground, here are some of my thoughts:
 

·   At the MCC – RTD meeting last Friday, I think it’s safe to say that all of the MCC cities were in agreement that the proposed BRT schedules and fares were neither equitable nor appropriate.  While RTD pushed back on some of our
 concerns, I think they clearly heard and understood our strong disagreement with their proposals.  Whether that will translate into revised recommendations to the RTD Board isn’t at all clear, however.

·  We all know that BRT is the only FasTracks project we’re likely to get for many decades to come, and I don’t think we need to dwell on the obvious inequities.  More useful is to fight hard for two key outcomes.  First, we need
 to ensure that BRT is as good and attractive as it can be, which means improved schedules for everyone along the corridor, a full set of promised amenities preferably including BRT-like buses, a fare structure that encourages ridership and allows for appropriately-priced passes and ease of use, solutions to the first and final mile problems, and a path toward fixing the unidirectional transit/HOT lanes along I-25.  Second we need to ensure that RTD, along with CDOT, actually implements BRT-lite along several of our arterial
corridors within the next 5 – 7 years.

·  Regarding the proposed fares, there is much more to them than just the very obvious inequity of charging a rail rider $2.60 to go from Lone Tree to DUS (Union Station) while charging a bus rider about twice as much to go from Boulder/Louisville to DUS.  Yes, RTD’s implementation of rail means that it is very difficult to have distance/zone-based fares for rail.  But that doesn’t mean that bus riders – who already heavily subsidize rail (even ignoring the huge capital costs) should be further punished.  RTD claims that express bus riders should pay more for the convenience, noting the speed advantage over driving
but conveniently ignoring that same speed advantage for rail users.

There are several ways to set up transit fares: one fare for everything; based on distance; based on cost to RTD.  Each could be reasonable if implemented district-wide; what is not reasonable is using different approaches in different sub-areas or for different transit modes since people don’t get to choose what is available to them.  While express BRT does skip a few stops and saves a little bit of time over an all-stop bus, BRT in either form is our rail replacement, and the difference in routes minimal --- certainly far too minimal for a doubling of the fare.  Furthermore, as noted elsewhere, a ride from Boulder to Louisville could cost one of three different fares depending on the name of the bus you happen to take, even though all of them would run identical routes. And given that we are spending hundreds of millions of dollars on the managed lanes, one would think we’d want to greatly encourage more riders on the express/regional bus routes that will actually use those lanes.

RTD also claims that a major goal is to simplify their fares, and this is surely the case with the one-fare proposed for rail.  But for US36, there would be three fares and it would be largely incomprehensible since riders typically take the next bus that arrives, particularly in off-peak times and in bad weather.  And there would need to be multiple pass products, with, presumably, up-charging if one had an all-stop pass and got on an express bus (but, alas, no down-charging for the opposite occurrence
).  Needless to say, this will also have a huge impact on the cost of Eco Passes.

·  Regarding the proposed schedules, RTD acknowledges that better schedules can encourage people to ride, which is exactly what we want to do as BRT is rolled out and we get a chance to entice those who currently don’t take the bus. 
 But they claim they’d rather “undersubscribe” initially and add service later as needed, although agreeing that such an approach might not entice as many new riders.  Yes, it is a chicken-and-egg type of problem, but other FasTracks routes clearly run more trains that they can come close to filling, and the proposed fare structure clearly is intended to entice more rail riders.

In addition, also as noted, it is not acceptable to reduce other service in our area.  As usual, it looks like RTD continues to treat BRT as a “budget item” and not as a project.  Phil Washington actually beat me to it by noting that is not the case (I’ve been hammering on this for well over two years), but it sure seems like it regardless – and, again, no other FasTracks route is treated like this.  While our bus routes do need to meet RTD’s basic service standards, they also should be given time to grow as BRT
 comes on line, and as we need better service to East Boulder and also to handle the first and final miles.

·  All of this is rather more critical than most people might assume.  This is not just about US36 BRT.  This sets the stage for BRT-lite and other transit services in our area, all of which will be bus service.  If we get this onewrong, it will make it extremely difficult if not impossible to attract riders to transit for many years to come since it will be overly expensive and not nearly as convenient and attractive.

·  Finally, we’ve been receiving a slew of emails regarding the revenue and expense inequities that we see in our area.  Yes, it is quite obvious that FasTracks funding is exceptionally inequitable and will remain so for a very long
 time, probably permanently.  For me, given that NW Rail is simply not appropriate given its extremely high cost and low ridership, “equity” would entail “mobility equity” and not funding equity.  That is why additional routes, better schedules, and BRT-lite are so essential, whether they are funded via FasTracks or not.

As for non-FasTracks equity, that is very hard to calculate, both because of the many regional routes and the lack of good data.  We know that Boulder’s routes provide the best farebox recovery (apparently by far), but it isn’t quite obvious to me how one would allocate costs on regional routes.  Further, the entire district subsidizes service in Denver, particularly DUS and the downtown core, something I happen to think is quite reasonable.  A critical component of this discussion – and one that really matters – is how to set a price for Eco Passes.  You can be certain that will be a huge debate/battle, since we believe we are paying too much and RTD is certain we are paying far too little.  Perhaps some overall revenue/benefit analysis would help here, but what is really needed is good data on pass usage and, of course, equitable pricing of bus rides.
 
So
next steps?  We need to make sure our corridor’s united front stays very active.  The fare proposal is supposed to go to RTD’s Board in April; I’m not sure when the schedules will be set.  We will be working on connecting with allies in the business community and at CU, among others.  I think our council should consider sending in a letter that is as specific and direct as possible, and I’ll encourage our neighboring cities to do the same (I’ll be seeing representatives from all of them during our trip to DC later this week).  We certainly need to acknowledge that these RTD staff proposals are just that, proposals, and that RTD seems willing to listen to concerns.  I offered to work with them on better solutions and I hope they will take us up on that.  At the MCC/RTD meeting at least one RTD Board member, Lorraine Anderson from Arvada, made it clear she understood our issues and wanted to work with us; we will obviously communicate with other RTD Board members.  Please attend the RTD hearings
 if you can and encourage others to do so, but let’s try to send a coherent, compelling, and consistent message.
 
--Matt
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: MCC and 36 Commuting Solutions	Comments on BRT Operating Plan and Fare Study.pdf
Type: application/octet-stream
Size: 362578 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://list.ci.boulder.co.us/pipermail/bouldercouncilhotline/attachments/20150316/e14e97f8/attachment.obj 
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: Summary MCC RTD meeting 031315.docx
Type: application/octet-stream
Size: 15882 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://list.ci.boulder.co.us/pipermail/bouldercouncilhotline/attachments/20150316/e14e97f8/attachment-0001.obj