[bouldercouncilhotline] Hotline: Transit comments from Matt

[cmosupport at bouldercolorado.gov]

Sender: Appelbaum, Matt

Colleagues – Hi from 45 degrees south latitude.  Some comments on the Renewed Vision for Transit that will be discussed at the SS Tuesday:

-- generally excellent initiatives that capture essentially all of the work that needs to be done

-- HOP: interesting alternative routes.  I especially like the idea of heading further east to Flatiron Park area (since I worked out there for many years).  But I doubt we can really predict which routings will actually attract the largest ridership, so I simply think that we need to try something and be ready and willing to adjust as needed.  In addition, I would like to suggest that we put this service out for competitive bid (and we should do the same for all our transit services, and, in fact, many of our other “purchased” services).  I also think we should seriously consider using TNCs to provide mobility services, whenever possible, for those who are mobility impaired, since that might well be much more cost-effective – and provide better service – than our current approach.

-- US36 MCC: having served on the MCC for many years, I generally agree with their priorities, particularly new BRT-light in the key corridors, and much-increased service levels on US36 BRT (and the airport bus, I would add).  However, it’s long past time to recognize that NWRail is simply not going to get built, not just for another few decades, but ever, due to its huge cost and very low ridership.  That is not something the MCC will ever agree on of course, but, unfortunately, that lets RTD forever underfund our corridor since, they would note, we’re getting rail.  My other comment relates to any sort of statewide or, more likely, regional transportation funding.  When I served on the MPACT64 committee, we got a “commitment” that a big chunk – at least 30% -- would go to transit, even more in the metro area, AND that our NW corridor would be a very large portion of that.  I doubt very highly that any such deal could still be made, so it’s very, very hard to imagine that any funding approach wouldn’t result in yet more money leaving Boulder than we get in service
and at this point we’ve more than done our part in providing service elsewhere in the metro area and now need to focus on our needs.  I think the same could be said even with just a countywide structure.

-- Transit service delivery model analysis: absolutely, but

-- we unfortunately need to assume that our bus services will continue to be “robbed” by RTD (yes, it’s legal) to service the budget-busting rail lines.  Although RTD “promised” that they wouldn’t take money from the base system to fund rail, they are indeed doing just that, and as new rail lines come onboard, it seems highly likely that the subsidies will only need to grow.  While rail does indeed provide service to many riders, it does so at an unsustainable cost of at least $6/ride subsidy (and the way RTD calculates this is highly suspect).
-- there is simply no chance we can leave RTD.  It would take a legislative act, and why would they allow us out when we subsidize everyone else?  Further, how would all the capital items be allocated after the fact?  So while it’s nice to dream, it’s not gonna happen.
-- as noted above, some sort of subregional taxing district would almost certainly only make things worse
-- yes, we should certainly consider taking over the operations of some/all of our local transit service if we can do so, and certainly the ones we pay for.  We should definitely partner as much as possible with CU.  And, also as noted above, we should go out for competitive bids on operating services.
-- finally, please speed up the timeline for this essential project.  I realize there is a lot to deal with here, but there may well be an effort to create a taxing district, and/or we may decide to put a head tax on the ballot – either of these, or other possibilities, need to be informed by the work of this project sooner rather than later.

-- Community-wide Ecopass: I remain as skeptical as ever even as we finally, and very belatedly, see the start of RTD’s working group on pass pricing.  It’s simply hard to imagine that such an option would be cost-effective, at least compared to providing better service along key routes, or passes specifically for employees.  The working group will clearly be too large to be effective, but the key is **finally** getting at all the data (I hope) from the smartcards.  I’m delighted that Mary was asked to serve on this group, but I think she is theoretically expected to represent both the city and Via, which is not possible since the two entities do not always share the same goals and priorities; I hope she represents the city.

--Matt



--Matt from my phone; pls xcuse typos