DENVER | Transportation Thread

[TakeFive]

Chaos and Crisis
Just another day at RTD.

Last week Streetsblog Denver had a 'hit piece' on RTD managers, specifically the ones responsible for scheduling/managing drivers. I'm not sure if it qualifies as one of The Dirt's memes but a tenet for writing with Streetsblog is to find/identify a Bogeyman, anything to stir passion among the natives. While I couldn't say for certain, a couple of the reader comments sure felt like 'plants' or comments that were scripted.

One of the more interesting points was this:

Since January 2017, RTD hired nearly 1,000 drivers. In that time, nearly all of its train operators have turned over and a majority of its bus drivers, have too, according to Laurie Huff, a spokesperson for RTD. Of train operators, 201 of 216 quit, a 93 percent turnover rate. For bus drivers, 710 of 1,083 left their positions, a 66 percent turnover rate.

The better retention among bus drivers likely is due to longer-time drivers who's pay, benefits and seniority make it easy to stay and difficult to quit.

The Streetsblog piece was followed by an article in Westword a few days later that offered more balanced feedback from the public (See article). Westword also solicited and received feedback from RTD. https://www.westword.com/news/denver...rvice-11521109

“The feedback we’re getting is that mandating is the number-one issue,” said Heather McKillop, RTD’s chief financial officer, when we spoke to her about the driver shortage last week. “We do exit interviews, and we hear that repeatedly — that it has to do with not being able to go to doctor’s appointments, not being able to attend their children’s functions on a regular basis, having to cancel functions with their family.”

It's not that the many complaints via the Union aren't worthy points but they don't (really) point to a fix.

Under normal conditions new drivers being at the bottom of the food chain are like a 'rite of passage' that everybody goes through. The problem is that with new drivers having no priority they get the shit routes, the shit shifts and when it comes to 'mandating' overtime to cover routes, new drivers are first in line. Given that times are not normal but rather a time of constant driver shortage, the chaos and stress is too much (understandably) for new drivers. Unfortunately, managers have no flexibility given the Union Rules.

Can we all agree this is a serious problem for RTD?
It's certainly worse than what I assumed and it has been ongoing.

The biggest issue is NOT pay but the work environment. I have to agree with RTD's strategy of cutting back service as the first place to start. Deeper cuts are likely best as merely cutting at the margin is unlikely to instill sanity into the workforce and that is what's needed. Back to Westword:

Mandating is not only making the agency’s staffing problems worse, it's harming drivers and possibly leading to increased safety risks, RTD general manager Dave Genova told RTD boardmembers at last week's meeting.

[TakeFive]

Originally Posted by Cirrus

Thanks. So here we go:

STATION			RIDERSHIP	PERCENTILE
38th/Blake		 2,051		48
40th/Colorado		 2,185		52
Central Park		 5,080		86
Peoria			 7,233		91
40th/Airport		 4,792		82
61st/Pena		 1,419		33
DIA			14,133		97

We can be confident the ridership is not just the airport. The airport is the 2nd busiest station in the entire RTD system, but 5 of the 7 stations on the A line are above the median, and only 1 is really notably below the peak of the bell curve. All the stations are contributing.

Next it would be nice to see origin-destination. How many of those riders at, say, Central Park are going to DIA versus downtown?

Good stuff; you are seriously smart when it comes to digging into the weeds. Peoria Station could have, probably does have more riders going into downtown than the airport?

Quick math shows an average day at DIA has 176,700 passengers so it's no surprise ridership is growing nicely. Once TOD arrives at 38th and Blake those numbers should blow up.

[wong21fr]

Originally Posted by bunt_q

Ha, yeah, no, that is not apples to apples. See if you can deconstruct the $112,457,343 figure from this service payment schedule: http://www.rtd-fastracks.com/media/u..._EXECUTION.pdf And then tell me if you think the figures for the other rail lines are consistent.

I'm not going to back into the performance bonus metrics or the special service. Nor am I even going to touch and the power recoupment formula. Nor the CPI adjustment. But adding Base Annual Non-Indexed Service Payment for theEast Corridor in Base Date prices in year n and Base Annual Indexed Service Payment for the East Corridor in Base Date prices in year n gets me within $5.5m of the cost. Which is totally not apples to apples as the Annual Service payment includes the concessionaires financing to the tune of $450M and RTD's repayment of said financing. Nor is it even close to being accurate as repeating the same steps for the B Line should see money flowing back to RTD. The operating calcs should be using the Aggregate Base Annual Indexed Service Payment for the relevant Commuter Rail Services in Base Date prices in year n.

I'm wondering if the RTD analysts are using the TABOR Secured Payments and are prorating the payment per line. That would make sense, but it's screwed up because even more financing costs are being mixed in with operating costs.

[SnyderBock]

Originally Posted by PLANSIT

The lanes are primarily for inbound buses. It’s a 42% travel time savings in this section.

It is exciting, especially during the same period of time overall bus ridership was down.

“Due to the fact that traffic doesn’t exist in downtown Denver outside of two 15 minute periods/day, this bus lane is borderline pointless,” he wrote.

This dude doesn't drive downtown much. I drive downtown everyday almost. Different times too, 7:00 AM, 8:00 AM, 10:00 AM, 1:00 PM, 3:00 PM and 5:00 PM. And sometimes in the evening (though I normally take the train downtown after 6:00 PM, but I still see traffic levels as a pedestrian.

In the 1980's and 90's, yes this man is correct. Today's Downtown Denver, however, is much different. There are periods of high traffic volume throughout the day and evenings. Yes, the time around 4:30-5:30 PM, is the worst and from 7:00-8:00 AM is second worst, there is still heavy traffic an hour before or after those rush hours. There is also a noticable lunch time increase in traffic from 11:00-1:00. Of course also after 6:00 PM, when there are events as well on EVERY Friday and Saturday night.

It is definitely not just congested for 15 minutes in the morning and 15 minutes in the evening. This is not factual information and should not have even been included in this news article.

[TakeFive]

Originally Posted by wong21fr

I'm not going to back into the performance bonus metrics or the special service. Nor am I even going to touch and the power recoupment formula. Nor the CPI adjustment. But adding Base Annual Non-Indexed Service Payment for theEast Corridor in Base Date prices in year n and Base Annual Indexed Service Payment for the East Corridor in Base Date prices in year n gets me within $5.5m of the cost. Which is totally not apples to apples as the Annual Service payment includes the concessionaires financing to the tune of $450M and RTD's repayment of said financing. Nor is it even close to being accurate as repeating the same steps for the B Line should see money flowing back to RTD. The operating calcs should be using the Aggregate Base Annual Indexed Service Payment for the relevant Commuter Rail Services in Base Date prices in year n.

I'm wondering if the RTD analysts are using the TABOR Secured Payments and are prorating the payment per line. That would make sense, but it's screwed up because even more financing costs are being mixed in with operating costs.

So my wild idea was in the ballpark. It includes repayment of construction-related costs. Ya think the bump in 'A Line' ticket prices from $9 to $10.50 is related? And why not, it didn't negatively impact ridership.

Chances are the G Line will lag projections. At least early, that line is all about Olde Town Arvada although in time there's great potential for 41st and Fox and Pecos Junction?

Interestingly, DTP borrowed that $450 million from Lloyds Bank of London - shorter term; I think they paid it back by the end of construction. Also interesting is that Flour has had an awful financial performance over the last couple of years and their stock is waaay down.

The B Line, IIRC, was not part of the P3 construction contract. Rather it was paid for out of a different RTD account.

[TakeFive]

Transportation in America - What's wrong with this picture?

A) We have the all-American vehicle in its various iterations. Love my SUV and for the young guys and working class nothing beats the all-American truck. Don't forget the 'family' van which allows soccer moms to carry the neighborhood kids 'to and fro'. Ride-share is merely a high tech use of these existing forms to include live navigation, GPS tracking and easy payment.

B) Then there's the classic Big Bertha Urban Bus that carries ~50 passengers.

Anything in between these opposite ends of the spectrum - that's useful and readily available?


Source

[wong21fr]

Originally Posted by TakeFive

So my wild idea was in the ballpark. It includes repayment of construction-related costs. Ya think the bump in 'A Line' ticket prices from $9 to $10.50 is related? And why not, it didn't negatively impact ridership.

Chances are the G Line will lag projections. At least early, that line is all about Olde Town Arvada although in time there's great potential for 41st and Fox and Pecos Junction?

Interestingly, DTP borrowed that $450 million from Lloyds Bank of London - shorter term; I think they paid it back by the end of construction. Also interesting is that Flour has had an awful financial performance over the last couple of years and their stock is waaay down.

The B Line, IIRC, was not part of the P3 construction contract. Rather it was paid for out of a different RTD account.

Your wild idea was as correct as a broken clock-just once. It includes all financing and construction costs of the A, G, and B lines, rolling stock procurement, as well as the CRMF. So the ~$12/boarding subsidy is pretty much a total cost subsidy while all the other lines exclude financing and construction and are therefore way lower.

So it's not an apples to apples comparison. But it does illustrate that the R Line is a real dog of line.

[TakeFive]

Originally Posted by wong21fr

So it's not an apples to apples comparison. But it does illustrate that the R Line is a real dog of line.

Courtesy VetStreet.com

Here's the problem. Running the A Line from RidgeGate made no sense.

If you look at what should have been a project limited to the I-225 corridor from Southmoor all the way around to Peoria then that corridor would have the 3rd best ridership out of six corridors.

If Florida Ave is the dividing line between north and south Aurora, I've never bragged about north Aurora. That said, it was entirely reasonable to build the northern half of the route to include the Fitz area and connect to Peoria.

Looking down the road even the north half of that corridor likely has as much potential as suburban legs of the SW corridor, the W and G Lines and if you think of the whole corridor as one long line then there's not even a concern about ridership.

[Cirrus]

Originally Posted by TakeFive

Anything in between these opposite ends of the spectrum - that's useful and readily available?

Sure there is:




The problem is these cost 95% as much to operate as a full-size bus, so there's little incentive for a transit agency to want to run them, unless they're such a small transit agency that these are the only thing they need at all.

Vanpools are more common, although there's a fairly narrow niche where it makes sense to run a lot of these, but not to run real bus service:


image by lillypix on flickr


There was even a techy start up a few years ago that used big vans for an Uber/bus hybrid that failed miserably because it was bad at both:




And don't forget the little golf cart shuttle buses from a couple of years ago that also failed miserably. I think I recall hearing something about one in Denver?

[TakeFive]

Originally Posted by Cirrus

The problem is these cost 95% as much to operate as a full-size bus, so there's little incentive for a transit agency to want to run them, unless they're such a small transit agency that these are the only thing they need at all.

Vanpools are more common, although there's a fairly narrow niche where it makes sense to run a lot of these, but not to run real bus service:

https://www.theurbanist.org/2014/11/...w-bus-in-town/

The average cost for these new buses are $900,000 for a 40′ ETB and $1,200,000 for a 60′ ETB. In comparison, the equivalent hybrid buses are approximately $650,000 and $1,000,000 each. The order for the new fleet was determined when it seemed that service cuts were unavoidable.
Nov 10, 2014

A Ford 12-passenger Van costs ~$45,000



Both have a life expectancy of about 250,000 miles.

[wong21fr]

Originally Posted by TakeFive

https://www.theurbanist.org/2014/11/...w-bus-in-town/
Both have a life expectancy of about 250,000 miles.

So capex is higher, but opex is about the same. That's not including additional logistical costs such as additional maintenance materials and support facilities that you'd have to add to support an additional pool of vehicles added to the fleet.

Capital cost for 40' bus: $440K (RTD Average)

Capital cost for 12-passenger van: $45K (probably not ADA compliant)

Operating cost using RTD's Suburban Local annual opex average per hour average over average passenger boarding per hour:
Da' bus: $8/pax
Da' van: $25/pax (at 95% of opex average)

Number of passengers to carry before capex gap closed: 23,000.


So how many passengers does a 40' bus carry yearly versus a 12-passenger van? How many over the roughly decade-long operational lifespan that a transit agency uses for vehicles? Also, I think that a bus operational life is more along the lines of 1 million miles.


Now if you can slash the opex costs... maybe require senior citizens to drive in order to received Medicare?

[TakeFive]

Originally Posted by wong21fr

Also, I think that a bus operational life is more along the lines of 1 million miles.

https://www.liveabout.com/buses-and-...fetime-2798844

The United States. In general, most American transit systems expect their buses to have a useful life of 12 years and 250,000 miles.
Jan 16, 2019

Is the rest of your data off by a factor of four?

Originally Posted by Cirrus

Vanpools are more common, although there's a fairly narrow niche where it makes sense to run a lot of these, but not to run real bus service:

There was even a techy start up a few years ago that used big vans for an Uber/bus hybrid that failed miserably because it was bad at both:

But did they get a $4 subsidy for every passenger $?
How about $2 for every passenger $?
Actually, I want a system that has a recapture rate of 50%

Second, I want something that works better for the Working Poor who I've grown fond of; they're generally the nicest people in the world. They typically have larger families and they can't afford to live in (downtown) Denver nor in Scottsdale. Instead they live in lower cost suburban neighborhoods. Poor or not they love their neighborhood schools just as much as people who live in upscale neighborhoods. I've also learned that time and convenience is just as important to the Working Poor as anybody else.

Around 11:00 pm, I've also driven a number of waitresses, cooks etal whether from Denny's or other restaurants that may have taken transit to work but prefer the security of ride-share after work. I can think of a couple of guys with obvious 'learning disabilities' that followed the same pattern. At night they felt more secure (or even special) taking ride-share home. They may be simple people with simple lifestyles but their job brings them meaning and joy. I wasn't about to tell them how to spend their money.

[TakeFive]

Originally Posted by wong21fr

...maybe require senior citizens to drive in order to received Medicare?

I swear. Most senior citizens on Medicare do drive themselves. There are those who are too old and not capable of driving or post-surgery patients who temporally can't drive themselves.

What I don't have the data for is how many suburban routes have the ridership to justify their existence - and would that be JUST during rush hour?

[spr8364]

Originally Posted by TakeFive

Transportation in America - What's wrong with this picture?

A) We have the all-American vehicle in its various iterations. Love my SUV and for the young guys and working class nothing beats the all-American truck. Don't forget the 'family' van which allows soccer moms to carry the neighborhood kids 'to and fro'. Ride-share is merely a high tech use of these existing forms to include live navigation, GPS tracking and easy payment.

B) Then there's the classic Big Bertha Urban Bus that carries ~50 passengers.

Anything in between these opposite ends of the spectrum - that's useful and readily available?

I always liked the Toyota Coaster bus. Reliable, efficient, and seats 17 people. Also makes for a good schoolie conversion.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toyota_Coaster

[TakeFive]

Originally Posted by spr8364

I always liked the Toyota Coaster bus. Reliable, efficient, and seats 17 people. Also makes for a good schoolie conversion.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toyota_Coaster

That is so cool and I wasn't even aware of the Coaster. Admittedly, it's not available in the U.S. but what a perfectly sized vehicle.

The 4th generation Coaster holds up to 30 passengers. Something with half that capacity may often be better though.


Image courtesy Toyota

[Cirrus]

Originally Posted by TakeFive

But did they get a $4 subsidy for every passenger $?
How about $2 for every passenger $?
Actually, I want a system that has a recapture rate of 50%

Second, I want something that works better for the Working Poor

Half the operating cost of any transit vehicle is the driver's salary, which is the same no matter the size of the vehicle. Thus the fewer passengers there are in a vehicle, the more each passenger has to pay to cover that half of the operating cost.

There is no escaping this mathematical fact. You can subsidize rides, but not matter how much you subsidize, the math of cost per rider doesn't change. Let's say you have a billion dollars to subsidize ridership: You stretch that billion dollars further--providing more trips for more people--if you can get more people into the same vehicle with the same driver. So this incentive towards larger vehicles never goes away, no matter how much subsidy you have. Even Uber tries to do this with UberPool.

Thus, if you're starting from the position of everyone using single-occupant cars, then sure it makes sense to step up to carpools or vans or jitney buses. But once you do that, you quickly pass the point where regular buses make more fiscal sense. It's not that there's no market for jitney buses. There is. It's just that it's small, and mostly for last-mile trips.

[wong21fr]

Originally Posted by Cirrus

Half the operating cost of any transit vehicle is the driver's salary, which is the same no matter the size of the vehicle. Thus the fewer passengers there are in a vehicle, the more each passenger has to pay to cover that half of the operating cost.

There is no escaping this mathematical fact. You can subsidize rides, but not matter how much you subsidize, the math of cost per rider doesn't change. Let's say you have a billion dollars to subsidize ridership: You stretch that billion dollars further--providing more trips for more people--if you can get more people into the same vehicle with the same driver. So this incentive towards larger vehicles never goes away, no matter how much subsidy you have. Even Uber tries to do this with UberPool.

Thus, if you're starting from the position of everyone using single-occupant cars, then sure it makes sense to step up to carpools or vans or jitney buses. But once you do that, you quickly pass the point where regular buses make more fiscal sense. It's not that there's no market for jitney buses. There is. It's just that it's small, and mostly for last-mile trips.

Or you cut your operational costs by slashing driver salaries. That seems to be what TakeFive is slowly bumbling towards. Deregulate the transit industry, remove CDL requirements, kill ADA requirements, and make it a system of the working poor for the working poor.


Is it realistic? Hell no. But it sounds nice.

[wong21fr]

Originally Posted by TakeFive

https://www.liveabout.com/buses-and-...fetime-2798844

Is the rest of your data off by a factor of four?

Nope. Everything else is pretty damn accurate. But thanks for the clarification on the mileage. Interestingly, the article also says that 40' buses have a 12 year operational life while the smaller buses, built with less durable materials, only have a seven year life. So the capex payoff calculation changes as the small vehicle capex nearly doubles.


Gotta slash those operating costs for the quasi-Uber transit system to be feasible.

[TakeFive]

Originally Posted by Cirrus

Half the operating cost of any transit vehicle is the driver's salary, which is the same no matter the size of the vehicle. Thus the fewer passengers there are in a vehicle, the more each passenger has to pay to cover that half of the operating cost.

Presently, half the driver costs for RTD go towards training and since drivers turnover rapidly training costs are through the roof.

Originally Posted by Cirrus

There is no escaping this mathematical fact. You can subsidize rides, but not matter how much you subsidize, the math of cost per rider doesn't change. Let's say you have a billion dollars to subsidize ridership: You stretch that billion dollars further--providing more trips for more people--if you can get more people into the same vehicle with the same driver. So this incentive towards larger vehicles never goes away, no matter how much subsidy you have.

Since half of RTD buses are running around with a handful of passengers it's no wonder the recapture rate is 18.5%. I want to minimize the subsidy not grow the stupidity.

Wish I had the time but Las Vegas RTC has over a 50% recovery rate. If a driver is paid $20 per hour it shouldn't take that many paying passengers to cover that cost. That is simple math.

Originally Posted by Cirrus

But once you do that, you quickly pass the point where regular buses make more fiscal sense. It's not that there's no market for jitney buses. There is. It's just that it's small, and mostly for last-mile trips.

Where the demand and ridership justify Big Bertha buses I'm all for using them. As the new Mayor of Westminster tell me how my residents are currently using RTD?

Part of metro Denver's problem is growing light & commuter rail ridership which is, as you point out, significantly a first and last mile issue. Tell me how Big Bertha buses help to do this? Certainly, over time light rail ridership will grow organically but there's tons of potential riders even now that aren't interested in long hikes to the station.

[TakeFive]

Originally Posted by wong21fr

Or you cut your operational costs by slashing driver salaries. That seems to be what TakeFive is slowly bumbling towards. Deregulate the transit industry, remove CDL requirements, kill ADA requirements, and make it a system of the working poor for the working poor.

As the new Mayor of Westminster my sole purpose is to do what's best for my citizens. I don't have ALL the answers in my back pocket - like you do .

My best guess is that some of those nice Toyota Coaster buses should be a part of the mix. If that means needing CDL licensed drivers, so be it. Rush hour would be my biggest priority so that is where I'd start. And if those 30-passenger buses are only needed for Rush then park em when they're not needed. If they then last twice as long that would cut your capex and opex figures in half - which you haven't calculated for nice Toyota reliable buses.

A lot of my residents work at one of the three King Soopers, one of the three Walmart Supercenters, or one of the two Target stores, 7-eleven's or one of the many restaurants etc. A nice reliable 12-passenger Dodge van should suffice for most of these trips, no?