Official SSP Denver Transit Plan - Comment on final routes now

[bunt_q]

Originally Posted by Cirrus

So we need to know what kind of revenue is politically palatable, and at what level. If it's only reasonable to raise $500 million over 30 years then we need to chop our plan in half if we want to say it's practical. On the other hand, if it turns out a palatable tax plan might raise $2 billion then we can beef up some of those bus lines.

Really back of the napkin, let's say we want $1.2 billion in bond proceeds, my guess is we'd need about $80 million per year average in debt service, assuming we got no help at all from other sources.

That is almost as much as the City's entire present debt service payments. The City's general fund mill levy (13 mills over the whole city) only generates about $150 million per year. For comparison, the Stapleton metro districts (and their huge 56 mills) only generate $18 million per year over the whole of that development.

So the short answer is, I think, no, we could not reasonably fund the complete capital costs for this system on our own, using local taxes alone. I can not see the City of Denver supporting a 6 mill hike citywide for this.

Now, Ryan and I looked at what you could do with 6-8 mills if you were willing to be patient, go after other funds and use these as matching, and create a broader transportation funding source, say 1 mill for bike/ped, 2 mills for roadway maintenance projects, 4 mills for implementation of a city transit system - share the wealth, broaden the base. Maybe that would be politically tenable, but it's still a very substantial tax hike.

We could, however, fund it incrementally and generate enough taxes for a local match, and rely on federal funds. Which is where I go back to needing assessor data - so I could look at how much revenue could be generated within discrete areas, and look at discrete lines, and see how much we might be able to fund that way on a line by line basis.

[Cirrus]

So we need a new funding source above and beyond what's currently happening, presumably targeting properties along the corridors on which we're proposing lines. Makes sense to me.

[wong21fr]

Originally Posted by bunt_q

Really back of the napkin, let's say we want $1.2 billion in bond proceeds, my guess is we'd need about $80 million per year average in debt service, assuming we got no help at all from other sources.

Pretty close. Denver appears to command a 4.5% coupon rate on it's bonds which results in about $75 million in debt service. That's assuming that the issue costs are included in the $1.2 billion.

Considering we are targeting some of the highest ridership corridors in RTD, than Federal funding should absolutely be considered the in funding mix.

[RyanD]

If we are going to do a post on this stuff we should also give projected ridership numbers as well. (Have we already done this?) To really hit it home we should compare those projections to the lines being built in the Fastracks project.

[Cirrus]

We don't have the capacity to do ridership modeling forecasts. That would take a months long, $100,000 study. We could cite existing bus ridership numbers for the corridors we're talking about.

[Cirrus]

Regarding federal funding: It's reasonable to assume we'll get some, but that can't be a panacea. $200-300 million in federal funds is probably the most we could assume. And whatever we assume federally, we'll need to match it at least 1-to-1 locally. In any event, the more we can account for locally, the better.

[wong21fr]

Originally Posted by Cirrus

Regarding federal funding: It's reasonable to assume we'll get some, but that can't be a panacea. $200-300 million in federal funds is probably the most we could assume. And whatever we assume federally, we'll need to match it at least 1-to-1 locally. In any event, the more we can account for locally, the better.

Assuming $200 million in federal funds means that we would/could need $1 billion in local capital, which lowers debt servicing to $60 million per year. Per Bunt's numbers it appears that each mils results in $11.5 million per year. So a 5 mil hike would get the job done in this scenario.

What if we assume that 25% of the project cost is funded through federal/state funding and that 75% will come from the city? This doesn't seem wildly optimistic.

[phatfish]

Hi Guys,

I read through most of this and there are some great ideas! Building off of other suggestions, here is what I would suggest.

Lets focus on connecting the streetcar network to existing LR.

Colfax line: Auraria west to I-222 rail. At the Auraria end (one stop at Auraria west, and one at Colfax and auraria) we get transfers to all existing LR lines. At the I-222 end we can go north to the east rail, and south to mineral.

Broadway line. 38th and blake station to broadway and I-25 station. I love the idea of running this up Brighton and having pedestrian bridges over to blake! Let fast tracks extend the LR from 30th up to 38th.

I think these two lines (connecting at Civic center) and these initial 4 points should be our top priorities. Yes, I think cherry creek and/or the highlands need a line as well. And I think it would make a lot of sense to extend the colfax line further west to the sloans lake area, and to extend the broadway line further south as well. Replacing/supplementing the mallride/metroride with a SC would be great too...but lets start with this. We already have a good colfax streetcar study. How would we go about pushing for a proper broadway one (or better yet, one considering both as one network)?

[wong21fr]

Originally Posted by phatfish

I think these two lines (connecting at Civic center) and these initial 4 points should be our top priorities. Yes, I think cherry creek and/or the highlands need a line as well. And I think it would make a lot of sense to extend the colfax line further west to the sloans lake area, and to extend the broadway line further south as well. Replacing/supplementing the mallride/metroride with a SC would be great too...but lets start with this. We already have a good colfax streetcar study. How would we go about pushing for a proper broadway one (or better yet, one considering both as one network)?

The Highlands doesn't need a streetcar, there's not enough ridership along the existing bus lines to justify it. After Colfax and Broadway the corridors that should be focused on are Federal, Colorado, and Speer to Cherry Creek. Streetcar isn't necessary on these corridors, or probably warranted, but upgraded bus service is absolutely called for.

[phatfish]

Another idea: why not combine the 11th street car idea with the cherry creek one?

10th and osage station to 1st and university in Cherry creek.

This would go north/south on santa fe/kalamath and east/west on 8th/6th to north/south on Josephine/York. ...I should actually map this.

This would connect LR, santa fe arts, cherry creek shopping all while cutting through the dense capitol hill neighborhood!

[bunt_q]

11th is too close to Colfax. Ken and I did the Cherry Creek streetcar as a project for one of his graduate studios at CU Denver. I think everybody wanted 11th to work, but if you assume there's a line on Colfax, every team ended up using the 6th/8th couplet. Two reasons, mainly. First, the longer you're on Broadway/Lincoln, the more of the Golden Triangle you catch, and while Cap Hill is dense, it isn't growing. The potential density in GT is ridiculous. Second, Cherry Creek is really quite far for a streetcar line - it's a lengthy trip, 45-minutes+. You need the speed that 6th/8th bring to haul through the low-density neighborhoods in between downtown and Cherry Creek to make it worthwhile. If you do too much ducking and weaving, you're looking at an hour ride.

[jimluk]

Originally Posted by bunt_q

11th is too close to Colfax. Ken and I did the Cherry Creek streetcar as a project for one of his graduate studios at CU Denver. I think everybody wanted 11th to work, but if you assume there's a line on Colfax, every team ended up using the 6th/8th couplet. Two reasons, mainly. First, the longer you're on Broadway/Lincoln, the more of the Golden Triangle you catch, and while Cap Hill is dense, it isn't growing. The potential density in GT is ridiculous. Second, Cherry Creek is really quite far for a streetcar line - it's a lengthy trip, 45-minutes+. You need the speed that 6th/8th bring to haul through the low-density neighborhoods in between downtown and Cherry Creek to make it worthwhile. If you do too much ducking and weaving, you're looking at an hour ride.

Any reason a route that followed went 10th east to kalamath, south on kalamath to 6th east to Josephine with a return path following York, 8th, sante fe, 10th wouldn't work? Obviously there are disadvantages to couplets and I am no sure that sante fe has enough ROW. I guess I somewhat answer my own question there, but how would the time work out.

Then again if getting from downtown to cherry creek requires a transfer at 10th/Osage or Broadway streetcar then a line from the Alameda station would probably be more direct.

What we really need is to Carmen Sandiego those tunnel boaring rigs from Seattle an put one at US and the other in CC and let them go at each other. In money is no object land, 17th street lines up just perfectly. Now back to realm of possibilities.

[PLANSIT]

Just an FYI, City of Denver applied for TIGER Planning Money for:

1. Update to Blueprint Denver: An Integrated Land Use and Transportation Plan (Areas of Change/Stability)
2. DenverMoves: Citywide Strategic Transit Plan

This might make a few folks on here pretty happy.

[bunt_q]

Originally Posted by PLANSIT

Just an FYI, City of Denver applied for TIGER Planning Money for:



This might make a few folks on here pretty happy.

Yay, on both counts. Of course, the chances of winning a TIGER grant (let alone two) are slim, but it's a start.

I think the "DenverMoves: Citywide Strategic Transit Plan" should win.

"Update to Blueprint Denver, Areas of Change/Stability" is just as important.

But you might as well rename that: Grant to Dig Ourselves Out of a Stupid Self-Made Hole; Oops, We Should've Known Better than to Use Such Black/White Language, and It Was Completely Foreseeable That NIMBYs Would Read "Stability" to Mean "No-Growth Here," So Again, Oops, We Need a New Study to Ease the Public Into Another 5-Year Process to Re-affirm the Last 5-Year Process.

[PLANSIT]

Originally Posted by bunt_q

Yay, on both counts. Of course, the chances of winning a TIGER grant (let alone two) are slim, but it's a start.

I think the "DenverMoves: Citywide Strategic Transit Plan" should win.

"Update to Blueprint Denver, Areas of Change/Stability" is just as important.

The application was a package deal. It's all or nothing.

To note: This is the first TIGER cycle since 2010 to have "Planning" specific money. That's what Denver is going after. Not to be confused with "Capital" money which happens every year. Also, Denver won "Planning" money in 2010 for the Denver Livability Partnership and its studies - a very successful grant program.

[bunt_q]

Originally Posted by PLANSIT

The application was a package deal. It's all or nothing.

To note: This is the first TIGER cycle since 2010 to have "Planning" specific money. That's what Denver is going after. Not to be confused with "Capital" money which happens every year. Also, Denver won "Planning" money in 2010 for the Denver Livability Partnership and its studies - a very successful grant program.

Cool. On both counts. Smart to package up the "groan" with the "awesome."

[Cirrus]

UPDATE:

Since we still don't have good info on likely tax revenue, I'm moving forward anyway. I'm putting what we have into a short, graphics-heavy pdf report. It'll be about 8 pages cover to cover. When I have a draft, I'll share it here and ask for comments (on everything, including the final map, layout and prose of the report, data, etc).

THINGS I NEED NOW:

1. A nice high-res photo of a MetroRide bus in action. Preferably a few photos so I have options.

2. Some graphic representation of existing transitship in central Denver. A dot map that shows riders clustering along Broadway and Colfax would be perfect, but a bar chart showing ridership of bus routes might be an acceptable backup.

3. Thoughts on a title. I don't want to call it the "SSP Transit Plan," since "SSP" is meaningless to most people. I'm thinking instead "People's Transit Plan" but would like to hear other suggestions.

4. A list of contributor names. Unless people hate the idea, somewhere near the front of this report I will include a list of the names of people who have contributed. If you've commented in this thread that means you. I do not want to use forum names because that looks amateur. Should we do this or not? If we should, please respond here or PM your real name, so I can include it.

That's all for now. Probably there will be more later.

HERE'S A FUN PICTURE FOR YOUR TROUBLES:

[RyanD]

Originally Posted by Cirrus

1. A nice high-res photo of a MetroRide bus in action. Preferably a few photos so I have options.

I have a lot of these from the other week. I'll give them to you! I have stations, bus pulling up, inside the bus, etc!

[wong21fr]

Originally Posted by Cirrus

. Some graphic representation of existing transitship in central Denver. A dot map that shows riders clustering along Broadway and Colfax would be perfect, but a bar chart showing ridership of bus routes might be an acceptable backup.

Here's a little something I came up with from an old report, it uses RTD's 2009-10 Ridecheck Plus data. I'm sure that there are better maps floating around somewhere on the web. Or someone might have a contact at RTD's Service Development Division where they have dot maps for every single route. :

WSTES_ServicePlanAssessment_Final 22
by Wong21fr, on Flickr

[CharlesCO]

If you need someone with InDesign experience to put it all together with a nice layout and typography, I'd be more than happy to help. I also have Muni Metro pictures that you could use, if that's anything you would be interested in.