[BoulderCouncilHotline] Re: Responses to Mary Young

[Young, Mary]

Mr. Genova, thank you very much for your prompt response. It is appreciated.


Mary Dolores Young
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: Aragon, Tina <Tina.Aragon at rtd-denver.com>
Sent: Tuesday, September 18, 2018 9:10 AM
To: Young, Mary
Cc: Anderson, Lorraine; Archuleta, Bonnie "Ernest"; Broom, Bob; Carey, Nicole; Catlin, Peggy; Deadwyler, Barbara; Folska, Claudia; Hoy, Larry; Lubow, Judy; McKay, John; McManus, Barbara; Menten, Natalie; Mihalik, Ken; Parish, Tai-Shrae; Sisk, Charles; Solano, Paul; Tisdale, Doug; Walker, Jeff; Williams, Kate; Washington, Michael; McKillop, Heather; Reed, Scott; John Tayer (john.tayer at boulderchamber.com); smccarey at bouldercounty.org; david.cook at colorado.edu
Subject: FW: Responses to Mary Young


Sent on behalf of Dave Genova, RTD General Manager and CEO:



See responses highlighted in yellow.





Dear Mr. Genova and Honorable Board of Directors,



First of all, thank you for convening the Pass Program Working Group (PPWG). As a member of the group, I know that it was a collaborative, fair and transparent process that achieved consensus among 25 diverse individuals of widely varying opinions. Thank you as well for staffing the group, it was very beneficial to have Heather McKillop and Michael Washington there to clarify and witness all of the discussions, agreements and recommendations.



With that, it was concerning to read Mr. Reed’s statement: “Other fares needed to be increased in order to afford this extensive low-income program.” A more accurate statement would have pointed out that, regardless of any new youth or low-income programs, RTD was already proposing fare increases for January 2019 in order to prevent up to 10% cuts in service. Based on this needed increase in fare box revenue, the RTD staff recommendation was to increase local fares from $2.60 to $2.90; regional fares from $4.50 to $5.00 and the airport fare from $9.00 to $10.00. In order to cover the two new programs the fare would only need to increase an additional $0.10 for local, $0.25 for regional and $0.50 for airport from the level proposed by RTD staff.



Yes, the proposed increase stated above would have been the staff proposed increase just to cover inflationary costs.  The other changes to EcoPass/NecoPass/ and CollegePass, as well as the elimination of discounts on the FlexPass were needed in addition to the fare increase to allow the PPWG’s recommendation to move forward and reach the SBP/APE revenue targets.   In other words, RTD would not be able to implement the low-income program without all of the other changes in the PPWG’s recommendation.  This was discussed at length during the PPWG meetings.



Said another way, 75% of the local fare and 2/3 regional fare increase was already planned and completely independent of the youth and low-income programs.



The recommendation to include Downtown Boulder in the same SLA as Denver is a decision with many consequences. As such, it was not studied or included in the PPWG recommendations. It is a decision of immense magnitude. At the very least, RTD should consult and vet it with those affected. To my knowledge neither has occurred.



The PPWG’s recommendation was to the update the SLAs.  The methodology for determining SLAs is listed below and has been the policy since 2003.



SLA-A:  Areas with 1-24 trips between the peak hours of 7:00am-8:00am

SLA-B:  Areas with 25-64 trips between the peak hours of 7:00am-8:00am.  There is a 1/3 of a mile buffer around each stop/station.

SLA-C:  Areas with 65 or more trips between the peak hours of 7:00am-8:00am.  There is a 1/3 of a mile buffer around each stop/station.

SLA-D:  DIA airport terminal only



As was discussed at the PPWG meetings, the SLA areas have not been updated since the opening of the West Line in 2013.  Downtown Boulder has 65 or more trips between the peak hours of 7:00am-8:00am therefore they fall into SLA-C.  The PPWG made it clear that they didn’t want any special pricing for any particular area.  We are following the same methodology to determine the correct SLA for all of RTD.  Downtown Boulder would have been moved to SLA-C regardless of whether or not we implement utilization pricing.



With respect to the College Pass, if utilization pricing is to be implemented (as agreed to by the PPWG,) it should consider the category of students that will fall into the low income category, under 18 or both. Their fares should reflect what they would have paid at the farebox, consistent with a utilization pricing scheme.



The PPWG recommendation for CollegePass did not include low income.  This is an entirely different program which will require those that are eligible to go through a means testing process.  There was a statement that “RTD examine the applicability of the youth fare to the pricing of College program.”  Staff did examine this and staff doesn’t recommend including a youth discount.  There are no similar discounts currently offered in the CollegePass or EcoPass programs.



 The PPWG widely acknowledged the importance of RTD’s revenue from EcoPass, Neighbordhood EcoPass and College Pass (please see the attached document.) That revenue was estimated at $52 million or 30.3% of RTD’s total fare revenue in 2021. Not an insignificant amount.



We agree.   EcoPass/NecoPass/ CollegePass accounted for 30.9% of all fare revenue in 2017.



The administrative proposal deviates perilously from the PPWG recommendation. The level of increases for the EcoPass and College Pass programs threatens their future sustainability as well as RTD’s. It is a foolhardy proposition and I urge you to please reconsider.



EcoPass



Part of the PPWG’s recommendations was to update the Service Level Areas (SLAs).  These SLAs had not been updated to account for new and updated service since the West Line opened in May 2013.  SLAs apply to the EcoPass program only.  In addition to updating the SLAs based on new and updated service, the staff eliminated the Call-n-Ride boundaries, a suggestion by Boulder County which RTD staff endorsed.  RTD staff made three other recommendations to the EcoPass program:  (1) RTD staff analyzed and modeled the impacts of all SLAs on pricing.  It became apparent that keeping large employers (3,000+) was disproportionately affecting those smaller employers (1,000 – 2,999), so staff recommended pulling all 3,000+ employers out of the SLA matrix and price those employers individually.  (2) Combine employers with multiple SLAs into one SLA based on where the most amount of employees are located.  This will result in easier account management for coordinators. (3) Streamlining of contract minimums from three in each SLA to one minimum in each SLA.



The only change to the master contracts was allowing some or all of the cost to be passed on to employees which was prohibited in the past.



CollegePass



There were no changes made to the CollegePass program other than pricing based on utilization.



NecoPass



The staff recommendation keeps the current applicable discounts, lowers the contract minimum, eliminates the survey, and makes it easier to add blocks.



When you look at the EcoPass/ NecoPass/ and CollegePass programs across RTD, costs for some employer/colleges/ neighborhoods are going up, however, for many of the participants in these programs costs are going down, staying the same, or only increasing slightly.  For example, the EcoPass costs for the City of Boulder and Boulder County are going down.



In addition, the staff is recommending reinstating the MyRide and 10 Ride Ticket book discount, although at a lower amount than the current discount.  This recommendation came through the public outreach that staff conducted as well as input from RTD Board members.



It is also profoundly critical that RTD staff present the proposed fare changes clearly and accurately. A decision without such information could irreversibly harm our entire region.



Thank you.



Sincerely,

Mary Dolores Young
Boulder City Council
303-501-2439






-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://list.ci.boulder.co.us/pipermail/bouldercouncilhotline/attachments/20180918/8cf0f8ec/attachment.html