"The first step in the county initiative process is to have the form and content of the petition reviewed by the county clerk," writes Post blogger Jeffrey Evans about the entrance to Aspen. "Despite three separate attempts, the Pitkin County clerk has refused to approve the content of a local tax initiative, citing a provision of the Pitkin County Home Rule Charter that prohibits petitions on the 'levy of taxes.' County clerks take an oath of office that they will uphold the state and federal constitutions, and yet we have a letter from Pitkin County clerk Janice Vos Caudill in which she says that 'as an elected official, one is sworn to uphold the Home Rule Charter…!' A county charter cannot override a state constitutional right, just as a state law cannot violate our rights secured under either the state or federal constitution."
Glenwood Canyon is half-open, according to TV Aspen Channel 19 News Director Jim Laurence, with one lane of traffic now moving in either direction.
TV Aspen Channel 19 News Director Jim Laurence is all over the story of the boulders that destroyed the commute between Glenwood and points east, including Denver.
Posts filed under 'Transportation'
The Colorado state constitution provides “we the people” with the power of the initiative petition so that private citizens can propose legislation to be placed on the ballot. This power extends to the state as a whole, municipalities, and “home rule” counties such as Pitkin, and tax issues are legislative questions which are subject to the initiative process.
So, in Pitkin County, the circulation of a petition on a question of taxation is a state constitutional right.
The first step in the county initiative process is to have the form and content of the petition reviewed by the county clerk. Despite three separate attempts, the Pitkin County clerk has refused to approve the content of a local tax initiative, citing a provision of the Pitkin County Home Rule Charter that prohibits petitions on the “levy of taxes”.
County clerks take an oath of office that they will uphold the state and federal constitutions, and yet we have a letter from Pitkin County clerk Janice Vos Caudill in which she says that “as an elected official, one is sworn to uphold the Home Rule Charter…”!
Continue Reading March 16th, 2010
This just in from Aspen activist Jeffrey Evans on the entrance to Aspen.....
Continue Reading December 19th, 2009
It was in 1970 that an Aspen city council first asked the State of Colorado to hold off on the expansion of Highway 82 to four lanes so that they could study mass transit as an alternative to highway construction. Forty years later there will still be a traffic jam at the entrance to town - despite tens of millions of dollars in annual transit spending.
In 1984 a group called the “Traffic Committee”, organized by the City of Aspen, recommended a new four lane entrance to town which was later approved by Aspen voters in 1990. The Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the project was nearing completion, and Scott McInnis had secured a special appropriation from the state to begin construction.
What happened next, the history of why the new entrance was not completed either then or over the next 19 years up to today, is a microcosmic example of just about everything that currently doesn’t work in the governing process of the United States.
Understanding this one example of the total breakdown of our system serves as a primer for why so much cynicism exists regarding the point or purpose of participation, and provides a crystal clear example of why our country is bankrupt.
Beginning with their refusal to honor the clear outcome of that perfectly reasonable 1990 electoral decision, and continuing through the corruption of federal oversight processes designed to protect the public from waste and mismanagement, transportation planning throughout the Roaring Fork Valley is totally compromised by the original sin of the Aspen city council in 1991.
Anyone interested in the failure to reach a solution for the Entrance to Aspen, the current condition of state transportation planning - or why the United States is bankrupt - may not be surprised to learn that these subjects are closely related.
The letter below was recently sent to members of the Colorado Transportation Legislation Review Committee (TLRC). The TLRC is made up of members of the Colorado legislature, and they have the responsibility to provide, “guidance and direction” over all phases of the operation and planning of state transportation projects.
The report mentioned in the letter is available online at: http://www.entrancesolution.com/History.htm
Dear [TLRB Member],
The enclosed report is directed to your attention as a member of the Transportation Legislation Review Committee.
Though the context of the report is an analysis of the planning and funding process for one section of a Colorado state highway, the findings are significant for transportation projects throughout the state.
As you know, most major state highway and transit projects rely on federal funding, and as a consequence are subject to federal oversight and review. That oversight and review is intended to provide protections to taxpayers in all jurisdictions from waste, fraud, and mismanagement in the application of public funds.
Based on the example of the various federal processes which have failed to protect the public in the Roaring Fork Valley, and the near certainty that these failings are far more widespread, the State of Colorado needs to take action.
It is not sufficient to say that federal oversight of transportation spending has been lacking; federal oversight has collapsed to the degree that there is none.
The recommendations for your committee contained in the report are modest in relation to the magnitude of the problem. However, any increase in the awareness of the void left by federal malfeasance, and the need to fill that void with greater local and state diligence, will provide immediate benefits to the citizens of Colorado.
The TLRC can be contacted through:
Kurtis T. Morrison
Colorado Legislative Council Staff
Room 029, State Capitol
Denver, CO 80203
(303) 866-3140
kurt.morrison@state.co.us
September 14th, 2009
It was in 1970 that an Aspen city council first asked the State of Colorado to hold off on the expansion of Highway 82 to four lanes so that they could study mass transit as an alternative to highway construction. Forty years later there will still be a traffic jam at the entrance to town - despite tens of millions of dollars in annual transit spending...
Continue Reading September 13th, 2009
In recent years much ado has been directed towards "earmarks", expenditures which members of Congress insert into spending bills without going through the normal review and evaluation process.
The premise seems to be that spending proposals that do go through the normal review and evaluation process are proven to be a good and sensible use of our money.
It turns out that you need look no further than Aspen and the Roaring Fork Valley to find an example of the complete collapse of the oversight which should be provided by the established federal appropriations system.
The following letter takes a new approach to the problem. Since you can't get anyone to take responsibility as part of their professional duty, this is an experiment to see if this federal bureaucrat has a conscience.
Continue Reading May 8th, 2009
I suffer from an illness of which there is no known cure. I can’t say for sure that there is even a treatment for this disease. You may not be familiar with it, so I would like to bring this to the public’s awareness, in hopes that dozens of sufferers like myself might find some relief and hope for our future. I have grandchildren who I would hate to see grow up with this same problem. It’s called AAADD – or Adult Automotive Attention Deficit Disorder.
I believe I contracted it when I was sixteen or seventeen. My first car was a hand-me-down. It was a white ’55 Chevy Belair my dad gave to my brother. Back in those surf days of the mid-60’s in Southern California it was very cool to have a “surf blue” ’55 Chevy. This was achieved with an Earl “I’ll paint any car for $19.95” Scheib paint job, which my brother eagerly paid for as soon as the car became his.
Continue Reading January 13th, 2009
Colorado motorists are paying an average of $1.81 per gallon, a full $2.28 lower than the year’s peak of $4.09 on July 16 and the lowest prices Colorado has seen since February of 2005. The statistics reported by the American Automobile Association’s (AAA) Weekly Fuel Gauge Report indicated that the average price per gallon of regular unleaded dropped 25 cents in one week.
We’ve been given no satisfactory explanation for this phenomenon. What’s your theory? Here’s your chance to weigh in and tell us what you think is going on.
Quick questionnaire:
1. Why were gas prices so high last summer?
2. Did your driving habits change due to the higher prices?
3. Why are gas prices so low now?
4. Did your driving habits change due to lower prices?
5. Where do you think gas prices are headed?
November 28th, 2008
Now that the voters have approved the $180 million capital expansion of RFTA, and the associated doubling of annual expenses to $40 million, public officials are obliged to honor this mandate and move forward with the creation of the full Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) system. The opportunity for the public to influence the priorities by which additional sales tax collections are spent, beginning with a projected $6 million in new revenues next year, has come and gone.
Then again, there is reality.
Responsibility for RFTA is diluted amongst 8 different jurisdictions administered by 43 elected officials. Each board and council sends one representative to serve on the RFTA board, but the RFTA board does not ask any tough questions of their management team. The Executive Director of RFTA is a perfectly nice guy with a missionary zeal which makes him incapable of professional detachment. The public is bombarded by the local print media with a pro transit mantra, and we dutifully approve new funding requests almost automatically.
If RFTA is about to drive off a fiscal cliff, nobody will notice until we hear the crash.
Memo to all 43 elected officials in the RFTA service area:
Wake up and start paying attention!
However politically expedient it may be, or whatever your personal bias, the abandonment of your fiduciary responsibility while you ride on the transit bandwagon is a luxury we can no longer afford. Except for the freshly elected, all of you share responsibility for a $650,000 BRT planning effort which left out the basic information needed to determine if BRT should ever have been proposed. You didn’t bother to find out what the average occupancy is on valley bus routes, the actual number of bus runs currently at capacity, or whether recent service improvements have already addressed whatever overcrowding exists. You didn’t ask for ridership projections on the routes affected by the plan, or whether BRT will leave the existing local bus route along Highway 82 running virtually empty. The entire process was a massive malfeasance of oversight and due diligence.
Although the perception exists that a tough economy will increase bus ridership as individuals seek ways to save money, the one example we have for guidance does not support that view. In 2002, after the economic downturn caused by 9/11, ridership on RFTA’s fare producing routes declined by 11 percent.
From the $6 million sales tax increase voters just approved, $2.76 million per year could go to paying off bonds if RFTA issues the full amount authorized. That will leave another $3.24 million in new sales tax revenue for other expenses. Using 2007 costs and proposed 2014 service increases, we find that the additional $3.24 million income projected for next year will need to grow to $10.65 million in five years to cover the 2014 expenses. However unlikely that income growth seems, try the same exercise with an assumption for a recessionary 10 percent drop in fare and sales tax revenues, and RFTA is broke at whatever point they put their new bus service on the road.
The way forward is abundantly clear for any group of government officials concerned with honoring the public trust, making sound fiscal decisions, and working from solid information rather than ideological faith.
Take heed of the note in RFTA’s 2007 audit that, “The Authority's long-term plan has indicated a need to build reserves,” and do so.
Do not bond for any money beyond the $10 million expansion of maintenance facilities which RFTA claims they need regardless of the BRT plan. Consider bonding in the second year for an automated ticketing system and some bus stop improvements if tax income isn’t sufficient for outright cash purchase. Automated ticketing is one of the most obvious efficiency improvements, and could also be designed to provide the precise Boarding and Alighting ridership data needed to determine what other upgrades are warranted.
Delay any bus acquisition for the purpose of implementing the BRT system until you have gathered the ridership data you need to assess the value of the proposal. It is simply incredible that any public agency could propose hundreds of millions of dollars in expenditures based on the quality of the information currently available – and not be challenged by elected officials.
All of the above pales to insignificance compared to the need to look at transportation planning as a whole. BRT is a wildly extravagant luxury at a time of national economic crisis and critical local need. Even after the construction of a new maintenance facility, the remainder of the RFTA bonding authority is nearly enough to construct a new Entrance to Aspen. That such a basic infrastructure need could go unfunded in favor of a lavish transit plan intended to benefit a small fragment of the traveling public – a fragment that may not even exist – is very nearly criminal.
November 12th, 2008
The use of percentages for analysis can reveal much that is valuable, but even when the math is correct it is the context which determines whether the results are more misleading than informative.
If you sold two widgets last year, and four this year, you’ve gotten a 100 percent increase in sales! Unfortunately, you’ve still only sold four widgets.
If you go to a new area that’s never seen a widget, initially you may have a huge percentage increase in sales, but that will level off as you fill the demand for widgets. In a recent letter to the editor, the executive director of RFTA suggested that we need to go all the way back to 1987 to generate statistics with a broader perspective. That would allow us to find bus ridership growth percentages that actually exceed population growth percentages. The problem with this idea is that in 1987, valley service only extended as far as El Jebel.
The entire area from El Jebel to Glenwood Springs obviously had an untapped segment of the population whose transportation needs are suited to a bus, and they provided a fresh source of new ridership when the service was first introduced. In contrast, the current Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) proposal will be an incremental service increase in an area where most of the transit clientele has been well served for over a decade.
The decade from 1997 to 2007 is the appropriate base period to determine what we might achieve with a major expansion in bus service, and whether the cost is proportional to the benefit, because the area served has been relatively constant during that time. We have previously established that during this period population in the RFTA service area grew by about 38 percent, bus ridership by 21 percent, and Operating and Maintenance (O&M) expenses increased by about 130 percent.
O&M expenses are generally as much as 80 to 90 percent of the total transit budget, and represent the nuts and bolts of getting the rubber on the road. Consequently, there is a close relationship between miles driven and O&M costs. During the same period in which O&M costs increased by 130 percent, RFTA reports increasing their total miles driven by 6 percent. Let’s call that a ratio of 21 to 1 between increases in costs and miles, and move on to what little we know about RFTA’s future assumptions.
The first full year of BRT system operation is expected in 2014, and RFTA projects that O&M costs will increase 100 percent, to about $40 million per year. However, RFTA also estimates that they will have increased their total miles by 53 percent, resulting in a plummeting ratio of 2 to 1 between costs and miles in the years before the full BRT plan kicks into high gear.
RFTA may be expecting some stunning reversal in recent trends in O&M costs, but the source of these savings is unknown. When asked for a pro forma of projected income and expenditures, RFTA provided a financial plan that ends in 2014, just at the point when the complete costs of the new system need to be known.
It currently costs about $31 million per year to operate both the RFTA and Snowmass Village transit systems, making this the second largest public expenditure in the area behind the school system. (The Aspen and RE-1 school districts = $42 million)
The 5 million passengers on the two bus systems replace something in the range of 2-4 percent of the private vehicle trips made in the RFTA service area each year. The disproportion between person trips made in private vehicles and those in mass transit means that to achieve just a further 5 percent reduction in vehicle trips would require bus ridership to increase by 2 to 3 times over current levels.
A 100 to 200 percent increase in bus ridership is not an achievable goal for such a mature service, and it seems doubtful that we are prepared to spend more on transit than we commit to education - just to make a negligible reduction in traffic volumes. But neither does there seem to be any awareness that this is the real context of support for expanded transit service.
Next: Part X
Where do we go from here?
October 29th, 2008
The information collection process for this series of articles began more than a year ago, and RFTA has been very patient and generally responsive to our requests. However, the data which has been most difficult for them to produce is the information which is most critical to our analysis.
After several unanswered requests for the average trip length of bus riders on the Highway 82 corridor, it was assumed that RFTA did not have such an estimate. They finally supplied their version of this statistic last week, only after our independent estimate was published in Part VII. The difference between the two is minor.
Having the trip length estimate provides us the opportunity to calculate the answer to one of the most fundamental questions regarding current conditions. What is the average occupancy of buses currently running along the corridor? Despite this being a core question which would presumably be among the first things asked by the RFTA board before proceeding with the Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) expansion plan, RFTA has not determined average occupancy.
Using RFTA’s trip length estimate, and tinkering with the figures to account for such things as variations in the number of bus seats on a particular style of bus, the occupancy percentage could move a few points one way or another. Regardless, our basic conclusion from last week still stands - buses on the corridor route are, on an annualized average basis, running about one third full.
According to RFTA the important factor is that riders during peak hours in peak season are experiencing standing room only conditions, but they have not reported the number of runs affected or what portion of the entire service this number represents. Perhaps this information will be available next week in response to this article?
RFTA purchased or leased 17 buses in the last two years, but has not, in the space of three months of questioning, been able to quantify how much of this rolling stock represents new and additional seats which are now available to respond to the increased peak ridership demand. Perhaps this information will be available next week?
Whatever the status of the peak period situation, its relevance to the planned BRT system is extremely tenuous because BRT calls for increased service throughout the day. This point seems to have been missed even by the Federal Transit Authority (FTA), which is reviewing RFTA’s grant request. The FTA commented that “a few references are made to increases in supply that would result from the project, e.g. 17 bus trips per morning peak hour to 28 bus trips per morning peak hour, but no explicit mention of how demand meets this supply is provided.” If the FTA is skeptical about peak demand, the realization that the remainder of the proposed service expansion overwhelms any discernable need is probably not far behind.
RFTA’s response to the FTA was to cite the Corridor Investment Study (CIS) from 2003, perhaps the least credible source for ridership projections ever produced.
Just before last week’s article went to press, RFTA also provided the statement that “the last estimate of ridership that our consultants have provided specifically for Highway 82 corridor commuter ridership for 2017 is 3.12 million.” However, this new number was also preceded by the caveats that, “our consultants determined the travel demand model is not calibrating accurately and more effort would need to be expended so we can use it to realistically project ridership,” and “the Board of Directors decided to wait on expending any more effort on the model development until we hear back from FTA”.
The 3.12 million ridership figure, aside from being labeled inaccurate, is problematic as a means to determine what is being predicted for a ridership increase on the BRT route. The number is a composite which lumps in routes such as Snowmass Village/Aspen and Woody Creek/Aspen. While the Snowmass to Aspen route may indeed experience ridership growth as the result of making it a free service, it is not part of the BRT expansion plan.
If we borrow the basic assumption consultants made in their “last estimate” to calculate the percentage gain in riders for the next nine years, and apply it to the routes specific to BRT, we come up with about a 50 percent increase by 2017. Coincidentally, that percentage also happens to be about what the average occupancy would be on the existing bus service if it were to absorb that ridership increase.
RFTA doesn’t believe it can achieve its ridership goal without BRT, but the down side will be that the full schedule nature of the expansion will push average occupancy down to a point where buses will be running around about one quarter full.
The effort required to produce this analysis is absolutely without explanation. For the $650,000 the public paid for the BRT planning process, this information should be available on a summary page at the front of the report.
Next: Part IX
More things that make you go hmmmm.
October 22nd, 2008
Previous Posts
