[bouldercouncilhotline] Hotline: Re: Update on Two Transportation Matters

[cmosupport at bouldercolorado.gov]

Sender: Young, Mary

Suzanne,


Thank you for the update on this matter and for forwarding the position letter of the Metro Mayor's Caucus.


The letter aptly makes reference to residents' support of transit for seniors and people with disabilities. However, it fails to mention the needs of people with low incomes. Granted, there is overlap among this three groups.


I wish to stress that this is an important issue and, with people spending an increasingly higher proportion of their income on housing, the transportation needs of those with low incomes becomes even more significant.


Please make low income metro area residents an important component of the conversations in Washington D. C.


Thank you.


Mary Dolores Young
Mayor Pro Tem
Boulder City Council
303-501-2439

"All ethics . . . rest upon a single premise: that the individual is a member of a community of interdependent parts . . ." - Aldo Leopold



________________________________
From: Jones, Suzanne
Sent: Saturday, April 9, 2016 8:48 AM
To: Council; HOTLINE
Subject: Update on Two Transportation Matters


Dear colleagues—



I wanted to give you an update on two transportation matters.



1) The US 36 Mayors & Commissioners Coalition trip to DC: US36MCC formed over a decade ago to promote Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) along US 36, and to work to ensure the northwest corridor gets its fair share of FasTrack funding. Next week, as every year, a group of US36MCC representatives—including myself—will travel to Washington, D.C. to make the case for our corridor, specifically to:

·       provide an update on US36 BRT/Managed Lane/Bikeway and proposed BRT regional network expansion; and to

·       lobby for full funding of

o the FTA Capital Investments Grants Program in the FY2017 Transportation Appropriations Bill,

o Small Starts Grant funding (2018-19) for capital improvements to arterial BRT/enhanced bus service along six essential corridors,

o grant opportunities to implement recommendations of the US36 First & Last Mile Study,

o support  TIGER grant for the N-125 Bus on Shoulder implementation, and

o funding for safety improvements (including quiet zones) for passenger/commuter rail service and transit oriented development, and incentivizing railroads to work with local governments.

We will be arriving in DC next Wednesday evening, have meetings all day Thursday and Friday morning, and fly home Friday afternoon – and in between in have a whirlwind of meetings with everyone in our congressional delegation, the House and Senate transportation committees, the Federal Highway Administration, Federal Transit Agency, and Federal Railroad Administration.



If anyone wants more background on these issues – such as the Northwest Area Mobility Study, which outlines the vision for US36—please let me know.



2) The Colorado Contractors’ Association transportation funding proposals: There have been, and continue to be, many different conversations in transportation circles and at the state legislature about how to increase funding to address the growing funding gap needed to maintain and enhance CO’s transportation infrastructure—e.g., the current Hospital Provider Fee debate at the state legislature is driven in part by transportation funding needs. Importantly, the previous two-year MPACT64 process, in which Matt Appelbaum led Boulder’s participation, led to an important consensus compromise concluding that any new statewide funding mechanism, among other things, would need to allocate 33% of all dollars generated to transit (and ideally a significant portion of those funds to the NW Corridor, which is still waiting for its share of transit dollars).



A new effort has emerged, driven by the Colorado Contractors Association, to craft a statewide ballot measure to provide more transportation funding. Unfortunately the CCA proposals fall far short of the compromise position arrived at via MPACT64. Consequently, the CCA effort was opposed by the Metro Mayors Caucus earlier this week.



Our City Council should be aware to this proposal in case it continues to progress and we consequently need to take more formal action. Below/attached is information from MMC that describes the proposal and MMC’s response.



Please contact me--or City staffer Kathleen Bracke or Matt, who has been working on these issues for many years--if you want more information on either of these matters.



Cheers,

Zan

***************************************************************************************************
Begin forwarded message:



From: Marinelli Catherine <catherine at metromayors.org<mailto:catherine at metromayors.org>>

Subject: MMC Response to CCA Ballot Titles

Date: April 6, 2016 at 12:56:31 PM MDT



Mayors -



The attached set of ballot titles submitted by the Colorado Contractors Associatio- led coalition was a primary topic of discussion at our full MMC meeting today. Last night, staff circulated a summary of concerns expressed by the MMC Executive Committee that focus on the lack of adequate funding for transit and the prohibition on tolling in several versions.



While MPACT64 reached a compromise of allocating 33% of all dollars generated to meeting statewide transit needs, CCA's proposals range from $0 for transit in four versions, to 6% for transit (10% of CDOT’s 60%) in five versions, to a high of 12% for transit (20% of CDOT’s 60%) in proposed version six. Six of the versions also prohibit tolling on any funded projects. This provision was equally troubling for the membership and is in direct contradiction to CDOT’s statewide policy, the Transportation Principles adopted by MPACT64 in October 2012, and the Transportation Principles of the Denver Metro Chamber adopted in May 2015.



Twenty mayors were in attendance today and Mayors Paul of Lakewood, Ahrens of Broomfield and Muckle of Louisville who were absent weighed in via email prior to the meeting. It is clear from the discussion and email exchange that the concerns outlined by the Executive Committee are shared by a majority of our membership and that the Metro Mayors Caucus is therefor unable to support any of CCA's proposed versions.



Please feel free to use the attached document should you receive questions about the proposed measures from your fellow elected officials, staff or constituents. While we are disappointed that the two years of work that was done by our statewide MPACT64 coalition to put together a workable compromise was not reflected in any of the measures, we remain committed to advancing a solution that recognizes and addresses the comprehensive mobility needs of our metro region.



Thank you all for your contributions to this discussion.



Catherine Marinelli

Executive Director

Metro Mayors Caucus

720.280.3358

catherine at metromayors.org<mailto:catherine at metromayors.org>