DENVER | Transportation Thread

[wong21fr]

Not looking to good to Prop 110:

Poll: Voters favor no-new-tax transportation fix over tax-hike plan

Colorado voters aren’t in the mood to raise the state sales tax to pay for transportation solutions, a new poll indicates.

Just 35 percent of likely voters said they would support Proposition 110, billed by supporters as “Let’s Go, Colorado,” to hike the sales tax by 0.62 cents for state, local and alternative transportation projects, according to the poll by Louisville, Colorado-based Magellan Strategies.

A counter proposal on the Nov. 6 ballot, Proposition 109, touted as “Fix Our Damn Roads,” was more popular, with 52 percent support, the survey indicated. It would order the state legislature to borrow $3.5 billion and repay it over 20 years with money already in the state budget. All the money would go to roads and bridges.

[TakeFive]

Originally Posted by wong21fr

Not looking to good to Prop 110:

Poll: Voters favor no-new-tax transportation fix over tax-hike plan

Considering the source... so far The Journal is the only other news agency to pick up this "polling news."

The poll was commissioned by the Fix Our Damn Roads issue committee with the business coalition Colorado Concern, which has endorsed Caldara’s measure. The organization is neutral on the Let’s Go, Colorado proposal.

The method appears legit on the surface ie "35 percent said they were a Republican, 33 percent identified as Democrats and 32 percent said they were unaffiliated" - but it could have been a Push Poll which according to Wikipedia.

A push poll is an interactive marketing technique, most commonly employed during political campaigning, in which an individual or organization attempts to manipulate or alter prospective voters' views/beliefs under the guise of conducting an opinion poll.

For example: "would you rather improve roads without raising taxes or would you rather raise taxes to improve roads?" D'uh

“We’re happy to trust the voters to understand that Prop 110 is the only viable solution... We are concerned that the sample in this poll appears to be skewed toward voters who would be more inclined to support the competing ballot measure.

Still, among low-information voters it's a concern. I'm counting more on local politicos to clarify the choice. Not sure how that's going?

Should 109 pass while 110 fails things could get interesting. It would be unfortunate but do I care? Not really. It would be a real eye-opener if the state were forced to slash education and health care funding. Eh, politics is a real trip and it wouldn't be the first time that 'silly-season' brings fascinating results.

[wong21fr]

Originally Posted by TakeFive

Considering the source... so far The Journal is the only other news agency to pick up this "polling news."

The method appears legit on the surface ie "35 percent said they were a Republican, 33 percent identified as Democrats and 32 percent said they were unaffiliated" - but it could have been a Push Poll which according to Wikipedia.

For example: "would you rather improve roads without raising taxes or would you rather raise taxes to improve roads?" D'uh

The Denver Post picked it up today with more nuance. Doesn't sound as if it's a case of a push poll. But it shows that 110 has a tough road to climb and snake oil always sounds better versus anything sound. 110 proponents might have to wait five years or so after the juice of 109 wears off and congestion problems have only gotten worse. Which will make it even more difficult because I'm betting that 109 passes, Amendment 73 passes, and Denver will do it's own transportation sales tax fund in 2020 to take care of itself. The rest of the metro are can get f**ked at that point. Central 70 will be fixed, 25 will be taken care of, , 270 get expanded, the hicks will get their roads taken care of, and 70 will be band-aided in the mountains. At that point I'm good.

Should 109 pass while 110 fails things could get interesting. It would be unfortunate but do I care? Not really. It would be a real eye-opener if the state were forced to slash education and health care funding. Eh, politics is a real trip and it wouldn't be the first time that 'silly-season' brings fascinating results.

If 109 passes it automatically rescinds the $1.5 billion in bonding that the Legislature approved in 2018. So there's only a $2B increase in transportation spending, versus the immediate $6B and overall $21B of Prop 110. It's another band-aid that Caldera can claim as a feather in his hat while ultimately kicking the can down the road for the long-term fix that is needed.

If I was a political player with an axe to grind I'd immediately push for the Caldera proposition to defund special needs education funding specifically for his daughter. Few understand that this libertarian advocate sucks at the public teat in Boulder County because that's where he can get the best subsidized education and treatment for his special needs daughter. Hell, the shit probably uses Medicaid to care for his daughter (which he contstantly bemoans about as an every increasing portion of the state budget). Gotta hit him where it hurts and show the hypocrisy in action.

[trubador]

Originally Posted by wong21fr

The Denver Post picked it up today with more nuance. Doesn't sound as if it's a case of a push poll. But it shows that 110 has a tough road to climb and snake oil always sounds better versus anything sound. 110 proponents might have to wait five years or so after the juice of 109 wears off and congestion problems have only gotten worse. Which will make it even more difficult because I'm betting that 109 passes, Amendment 73 passes, and Denver will do it's own transportation sales tax fund in 2020 to take care of itself. The rest of the metro are can get f**ked at that point. Central 70 will be fixed, 25 will be taken care of, , 270 get expanded, the hicks will get their roads taken care of, and 70 will be band-aided in the mountains. At that point I'm good.



If 109 passes it automatically rescinds the $1.5 billion in bonding that the Legislature approved in 2018. So there's only a $2B increase in transportation spending, versus the immediate $6B and overall $21B of Prop 110. It's another band-aid that Caldera can claim as a feather in his hat while ultimately kicking the can down the road for the long-term fix that is needed.

If I was a political player with an axe to grind I'd immediately push for the Caldera proposition to defund special needs education funding specifically for his daughter. Few understand that this libertarian advocate sucks at the public teat in Boulder County because that's where he can get the best subsidized education and treatment for his special needs daughter. Hell, the shit probably uses Medicaid to care for his daughter (which he contstantly bemoans about as an every increasing portion of the state budget). Gotta hit him where it hurts and show the hypocrisy in action.

wow this is a low blow. Punish a child for the sins of the father.

[wong21fr]

Originally Posted by trubador

wow this is a low blow. Punish a child for the sins of the father.

Aren't we all punishing our children for the choices that we make now?

This is more to show the hypocrisy of Caldera's positions than anything else. He uses public funding where convenient to him, but rails against it overall in order to make a living.

[TakeFive]

Originally Posted by trubador

wow this is a low blow. Punish a child for the sins of the father.

Just expressing understandable frustration. It's not like he actually thinks he alone has the power... besides if '73' passes then it would nix that idea anyway.

Originally Posted by wong21fr

I'm betting that 109 passes, Amendment 73 passes, and Denver will do it's own transportation sales tax fund in 2020 to take care of itself.

I had just guessed that '73' would be too heavy of a lift but I knew nothing. So I took a crash course, read Westword and checked out Tax Foundation's data. Now, I'd be Okay with the tax structure IF it were about tax policy but alas this is only about education.

I've always supported education but my philosophy has changed. I'm very impressed with Arizona copying the Texas model which was created to compete with California. The idea is to aggressively support higher education. It's been a slow 15-year trek from being ordinary but now AZ, specifically ASU is getting noticed and earning acclamations. ASU's collaboration with Mayo Clinic is newer and growing but that too should ultimately be recognized for medical education and research.

I see where the Denver Post came out against '73.' I agree with what they have to say.

Ultimately our desire to support K-12 education was outweighed by all the flaws in this proposal, and by competing measures that could raise taxes in a way we consider to be better for this state moving forward.

Checking media pieces it's not just the anti-tax crowd that opposes '73.' There some general concern and confusion. Should be interesting.

[TakeFive]

Originally Posted by wong21fr

The Denver Post picked it up today with more nuance. Doesn't sound as if it's a case of a push poll.

Denverite carried the story today as well. All I had to hear was that Magellan Strategies conducted the poll; they also explain the specific process so it's legit. That fact that Joey Bunch was they only one to originally report the poll gave me a head fake. There is a lot of undecided voters so the end push could make a difference.

I also forgot that federal tax cuts means better revenue for the state beyond this year's Big Bump. It may be that most(?) of that increase will need go to Prop 109 if it passes but it's not as bad as I 1st thought.

[TakeFive]

One more thought

DBJ has a piece about Props 109, 110 and 73 suggesting that to a degree they all compete with each other. That had also crossed my mind.

The direct comparison between the transportation tax-hike proposal and the education tax-hike proposal is more distant, but business leaders, particularly those who favor Proposition 110, are campaigning against it still, arguing it is bad for small businesses in particular and essentially gives educational systems a blank check rather than the specific list of projects that would be addressed in the $6 billion bond sale (in 110).

I could also see many saying I don't like higher taxes but I'll pick out the one issue I care most about and support that - this could apply to local Denver initiatives too.

Then there is likely 'urbanists' that prefer your idea of a Denver-only based transit tax because they hate CDOT - unless they want help with Federal Blvd, then CDOT is their BFF. Transit guru Jarrett Walker has stated it's not advisable (most of the time) to let the "perfect be the enemy of the good" but when it comes to ideology people often vote their passions.

With respect to Denver, $30 million a year from Prop 110, I would hope is hard to pass on. Who knows when or how much a Denver specific transit issue will be created. I'd assume Denver Moves/Transit would prefer finishing their downtown-streets focused study before decisions are made.

[The Dirt]

Anyone know which model of LRT vehicle RTD has been purchasing lately to augment their fleet? According to the RTD fact sheet (http://www.rtd-fastracks.com/media/u..._Sheet_611.pdf), their fleet is mostly old SD-100s and some SD-160s, however, Siemens appears to only be selling the new S200. So, is RTD buying used SD-160s from other trasit operators that are phasing them out, or finally buying modern rolling stock? Additionally, is RTD planning in sticking with the high floor vehicles across every line or converting at least the Central Corridor line to a low floor streetcar like the S70?

[TakeFive]

Originally Posted by The Dirt

Anyone know which model of LRT vehicle RTD has been purchasing lately to augment their fleet? According to the RTD fact sheet (http://www.rtd-fastracks.com/media/u..._Sheet_611.pdf), their fleet is mostly old SD-100s and some SD-160s, however, Siemens appears to only be selling the new S200. So, is RTD buying used SD-160s from other trasit operators that are phasing them out, or finally buying modern rolling stock? Additionally, is RTD planning in sticking with the high floor vehicles across every line or converting at least the Central Corridor line to a low floor streetcar like the S70?

http://www3.rtd-denver.com/elbert/ne...x.cfm?id=10965

RTD has purchased 29 new cars being delivered through next Spring, their 8th order of LRT cars from Siemens. Doesn't say which model;
maybe PLANSIT knows?

[bunt_q]

Originally Posted by wong21fr

If 109 passes it automatically rescinds the $1.5 billion in bonding that the Legislature approved in 2018. So there's only a $2B increase in transportation spending, versus the immediate $6B and overall $21B of Prop 110. It's another band-aid that Caldera can claim as a feather in his hat while ultimately kicking the can down the road for the long-term fix that is needed.

It’s actually much less, because the 2018 bonding did not have CDOT paying the entirety of the debt service. Only a portion came from existing funds. So this larger bonding capacity potentially takes a much larger chunk out of existing transport funds. So no guarantee health care and education suffer. As long as you’re okay with potholes.

[bunt_q]

Originally Posted by TakeFive

http://www3.rtd-denver.com/elbert/ne...x.cfm?id=10965

RTD has purchased 29 new cars being delivered through next Spring, their 8th order of LRT cars from Siemens. Doesn't say which model;
maybe PLANSIT knows?

RTD purchased 29 for Spring 2019 delivery. In fact, they will pay for 33 but receive 17, with delivery scheduled for Fall 2019, but realistically expected in Spring 2021. Oh, and the 17 they get won’t work half the time.

I mean, why expect an iPhone XS when you can get a fax machine (and a busted ass dot matrix monochrome sign at your light rail station).

[Cirrus]

The 29 new light rail cars are SD-160s. I don't know but assume they're identical to existing cars, although there is an updated styling option for SD-160s that you do see in some cities.

[Agent Orange]

My apologies if this has been discussed before, but what are the chances our light rail will be converted to low floor in our lifetimes? Our rail cars are butt ugly and the whole stairs & handicap ramp set up just seems too clunky for 2018.

If we have to spend tons of money to replace aging cars anyway, why not convert?

[DenverInfill]

Originally Posted by Agent Orange

My apologies if this has been discussed before, but what are the chances our light rail will be converted to low floor in our lifetimes? Our rail cars are butt ugly and the whole stairs & handicap ramp set up just seems too clunky for 2018.

If we have to spend tons of money to replace aging cars anyway, why not convert?

You're talking about an organization that has had the same brand ("The Ride") for decades despite the fact that not a single person on earth has ever referred to Denver's transit system as such. I think they have made it fairly clear they have no intent on changing anytime soon.

[wong21fr]

Originally Posted by DenverInfill

You're talking about an organization that has had the same brand ("The Ride") for decades despite the fact that not a single person on earth has ever referred to Denver's transit system as such. I think they have made it fairly clear they have no intent on changing anytime soon.

RTD probably won't consider a low-floor vehicle replacement until the majority of the 200-vehicle LRV fleet is ready to be replaced. Given that a light rail vehicles life is at least 40 years we're probably talking the late 2020's to early 2030's when RTD will look at going low-floor followed by a phased replacement with some lines going low-floor before others. But nearly all the stations are set up to accommodate such a change now that the wheelchair ramps are metal structures that can be removed relatively easy.

[TakeFive]

Originally Posted by bunt_q

I mean, why expect an iPhone XS when you can get a fax machine (and a busted ass dot matrix monochrome sign at your light rail station).

You've heard of Amway? This is RTDway.


2 of Denver largest suburbs seek transportation funding on November ballot
Oct 19, 2018 By Ed Sealover – Reporter, Denver Business Journal

The initiatives are part of more than a half-dozen local transportation questions that voters will have to consider ... as an August survey from the Colorado Municipal League found that cities and towns have an aggregate $3 billion shortfall for needed transportation improvements and another $750 million in maintenance needs.

With respect to Arvada and Lakewood:

Lakewood is asking voters if it can retain excess revenues under the Taxpayer’s Bill of Rights cap through 2025 and put them toward public safety, transportation and open space and parks purchases. And Arvada is asking residents for permission to sell $79.8 million in bonds to improve two of its major corridors.

Here's the local tie-in to Prop 110

there is more of a focus on transportation now as citizens across the state debate what they are willing to do to improve that sector — and as many city leaders ask voters specifically to back the statewide transportation sales-tax hike in addition to local ballot questions.

“I think this election is huge,” Bommer said in regard to the future of transportation in the state. “Municipalities are always going to go to their voters and ask for support for whatever they need ... If we want to look past that and see where we want to be, we’ve got to do something different.”

Bommer heads up the Colorado Municipal League.

Does communities asking for local tax increases for roads help or hurt the cause of Prop 110?

Paul (Lakewood Mayor) in particular is embracing a strategy of asking city residents to support both the statewide sales-tax increase and the local measure, saying they work hand-in-hand.

I'm also seeing support and endorsements coming from the I-70 West corridor all the way to Grand Junction.

Two problems: normally a tax-increase issue needs to be poll ahead at this point in the election cycle as historically many voters get 'buyers remorse' on the way to voting. 2nd, this year's ballot is so heavily cluttered with initiatives it can dampen 'approval enthusiasm.' That said, this is when many voters are just dialing in and thinking about their voting preferences.

The biggest advantage of Prop 110 should be that it includes local funding. Everybody complains about congestion. Now's their chance to do something about it.

[TakeFive]

Image courtesy of King Co via Curbed Seattle

King County Metro will experiment with ride-hailing app
Oct 17, 2018 By Sarah Anne Lloyd - Curbed Seattle

This is what I've been talking about.

As the Seattle area grows, it’s become increasingly difficult to find parking at park and rides, making taking the bus or train a little difficult for people living off transit corridors. Efforts to address these challenges are often referred to as first and last-mile solutions—or micromobility or microtransit.

King County's experiment:

The shuttle, called Ride2, is operated by Chariot and Ford Smart Mobility.

Later this month... Eastside commuters within two or three miles of the Eastgate Park and Ride will be able to summon a shuttle service—with wheelchair-accessible shuttles available upon request—to carry them to and from their transit connections.

To see a visual representation of the area Click Here.

[TakeFive]

Transit in Seattle - An overview
as opposed to Denver Transit

From an overview it's fair to say that Seattle has had a very checkered past with plenty of missteps relative to transit - like any place does. Fortunately for Seattle that is now ancient history.

Do you prefer First Class fare or a Value fare?
At this point Seattle goes First Class with respect to their transit. Any value engineering goes to trimming excess Wish Lists piled on by communities. Denver, otoh, tends more towards a value proposition. Being a value kind of a guy, I can see and appreciate - wait for it - the value of that.

Initiating light rail in Seattle
Seattle's initial light rail (according to Wikipedia) was 13.9 miles and opened in 2009. IIRC ridership went from mid-20,000 to over 30,000 between 2012 and 2015.

Then this happened
The line was expanded to 20.4 miles with the most recent extensions including a tunnel to the University of Washington on one end and to SeaTac (airport ) and Angie Lake on the other end in 2016. This opened up the ridership floodgates with an updated weekday ridership of currently over 80,000 - compared to RTD's ridership of ~25,000 on both the SW and SE corridors.

In one respect Seattle is more like Phoenix than Denver
Phoenix also had one obvious transit corridor that was converted from bus to light rail. It runs between two urban centers (Phoenix and Tempe) with an airport stop in between. From an original line of 20 miles to now 26 miles weekday ridership is currently at 48,000. Phoenix light rail is primarily an Urban Line as I assume is Seattle's Central Link light rail.

Denver on the other hand
didn't have an that one obvious transit corridor other than East Colfax which didn't have priority appeal among decision makers. Denver's initial light rail ran from Broadway Station through downtown Denver which made total sense and still does.

[mhays]

Sea-Tac was more like 2010. Angle Lake was 2016.