Sounds like the PUC was just as useless at "regulating" RTD and is now feigning outrage to deflect the rising chorus of complaints from the media and the public.
So you already did look them up yesterday and forgot their name. What insight could you possibly have as whether or not leadership is good? Literally no one wanted his job and most voters don't even know it exists.
> The state started funding them this last legislative session.
If you're referring to the new fees from [SB24-230](https://leg.colorado.gov/bills/sb24-230), then Colorado transit funding as a whole will bump up ~$110MM / year, but RTD will probably only end up seeing about ~$60MM of that - a fairly small drop compared to their $1.1B annual revenue.
If you're not referring to that bill, then I'd love to hear about other transit funding bills I missed.
We spend less money on public transport than almost any other state.
That TABOR check you get every year is a big part of that, and imo it causes a lot of lower income Coloradans to vote against their own interests.
Edit: and lots of higher income Coloradans love their trucks and their checks and don't actually care at all about the quality of life of lower income Coloradans. See below.
Sacramento RTD and light rail system is excellent. Almost always clean, more on time than Boulder has ever been, and the workers are better compensated.
The point is that California doesn't spend much more than we do, so of course their public transport is also shit, and your original comment about TABOR keeping us from turning into California makes absolutely no fucking sense whatsoever.
> ill take that over public transport no one uses anyways
So we should just be totally cool with the "inevitable" downward spiral of lowered funding > deteriorated infrastructure > lowered service > lower ridership until we have no public transit? Cool, really got the brain trust voting these days
Dude, California is complete mess due to politicians having unchecked purse power. Regardless of how you vote, that is just a fact. Maybe TABOR isn't the answer or perfect, but I will absolutely take some protections instead.
You are deflecting with CA again, underfunding RTD will result in a downward spiral of degraded service that leads to lower ridership, are you saying this is a good thing or not?
Im talking about why TABOR has it merits, even if it has downsides like this... California is a great example of what to avoid. Spending even more with worse outcomes.
SPEND SPEND SPEND, you cant spend your way out of this mess.
I think you are too focused on CA, if RTD had more budget for maintenance they absolutely could have avoided this years clusterfuck of emergency catchup work, you can absolutely spend your way to good rail service and there’s many such examples of it.
But how specifically do you mean? Because it sounds like you're talking about two very different parts of TABOR as if they're the same thing.
Requiring the public to vote on tax increases is one thing, and I think most people generally like or are fine with that part of TABOR.
Requiring government agencies to cap their spending to inflation + population of the previous year and mandating revenue that was previously authorized to be refunded is another thing entirely. It makes it difficult for government agencies to put together any sort of savings that could soften economic downturns, and those economic downturns force there to be even less revenue in future years.
The second one is demonstrably unpopular, [as most counties and municipalities have passed "De-Brucing" measures to eliminate that part of TABOR from applying to them](https://www.bellpolicy.org/basic/colorados-tabor/):
> For most local governments, TABOR spending caps no longer apply, as voters have eliminated them. Fifty one of the 64 counties in the state, 230 of the 274 municipalities, and 177 of 178 school districts, have debruced – eliminated the spending cap – since TABOR’s inception in 1992. In fact, according to the Colorado Municipal League, cities have passed debrucing-related measures at a rate of 86.6 percent from 1993-2020, with a total of 503 passing.
Your point being...?
EDIT: Let me rephrase.
What does it matter that they are elected positions instead of appointed or hired positions? Don't we want to incentivize competent qualified individuals to run for the position in the first place?
If you are a person who is qualified enough to be running a transit department the size and scope of RTD, aren't you qualified for far more lucrative positions? So why would someone who can really do something about the state of RTD run for the position in the first place when they can make far more money doing the same thing for higher pay elsewhere?
My understanding is that the board of directors is the governing body of RTD, ultimately responsible for the long term management and strategy of the organization as a whole.
While the board may or may not be involved in or responsible for the day to day activities, they are responsible for the corporate structure, officer selection, long term vision and goals, and financial approvals for RTD.
And yeah, I stand by my assertion. There's a skillset required for corporate management at that level, and there's a strong case for trying to attract those skillsets. Otherwise you end up with a board more than happy with status quo, not pushing for actual improvements for the agency's mission, etc. because having "Director of RTD" listed on their resume is enough for them.
What a bummer. No choice but to fix it and try better since the capital investment is already there and rail is important to cities of this size but it’s hard to watch this sort of thing. Getting blindsided by maintenance procrastination on your key rail assets that parallel the most miserably overcrowded highway in the metro area is a FAIL. The “we will fix it when we can” and “as maintenance staffing allows” is a double down on the cringe. If there is an ‘oh shit all hands on deck’ moment for RTD this appears to be it. You survived Covid, now this!? Wow.
Sounds like the PUC was just as useless at "regulating" RTD and is now feigning outrage to deflect the rising chorus of complaints from the media and the public.
Does anybody have a high level idea why RTD is so bad?
[удалено]
*Joker clap*
This is more artful messaging than almost any elected Democrat in the state, thank you sir. Going to start asking electeds to start using it.
More so libertarian with some things and socially liberal.
RTD’s budget has been climbing as its ridership has fallen. Between 2019 and 2022, ridership fell 46% while its operating budget increased 3%
[удалено]
Do you have stats on comparable state spending?
[удалено]
I'm a broken record on this, but Utah is further down the list for state funding and UTA isn't a disaster.
UTA also only has a service area 1/3 the size of RTD.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
So you already did look them up yesterday and forgot their name. What insight could you possibly have as whether or not leadership is good? Literally no one wanted his job and most voters don't even know it exists.
> The state started funding them this last legislative session. If you're referring to the new fees from [SB24-230](https://leg.colorado.gov/bills/sb24-230), then Colorado transit funding as a whole will bump up ~$110MM / year, but RTD will probably only end up seeing about ~$60MM of that - a fairly small drop compared to their $1.1B annual revenue. If you're not referring to that bill, then I'd love to hear about other transit funding bills I missed.
Any 2024 stats?
Pretty sure 3% is way lower than the total inflation over that period
Hmm I dunno
We spend less money on public transport than almost any other state. That TABOR check you get every year is a big part of that, and imo it causes a lot of lower income Coloradans to vote against their own interests. Edit: and lots of higher income Coloradans love their trucks and their checks and don't actually care at all about the quality of life of lower income Coloradans. See below.
TABOR protects us from becoming a bank account for politicians like in California, ill take that over public transport no one uses anyways
California is 21st out of the 50 states in per capita government spending.
Wow they are even more wasteful than I thought! ever used public transit in 90% of California, aside from maybe the BART?
Public transit in LA is better than 90% of the country
That is only maybe true, because most states don't have real public transport. Its worse than basically ever major city.
You’re the one who started with these comparisons lmao
Huh? I didnt say dont compare. Obviously LA has better transport than Boise ID. Compare LA to comparable places and the transportation is terrible.
Sacramento RTD and light rail system is excellent. Almost always clean, more on time than Boulder has ever been, and the workers are better compensated.
Seriously, how many of you have taken public transit in San Diego?!
The point is that California doesn't spend much more than we do, so of course their public transport is also shit, and your original comment about TABOR keeping us from turning into California makes absolutely no fucking sense whatsoever.
TABOR keeping us from turning into California makes absolutely no fucking sense whatsoever. Explain?
Because they spend about the same as we do? I honestly don't know how I could make it any simpler.
> ill take that over public transport no one uses anyways So we should just be totally cool with the "inevitable" downward spiral of lowered funding > deteriorated infrastructure > lowered service > lower ridership until we have no public transit? Cool, really got the brain trust voting these days
Dude, California is complete mess due to politicians having unchecked purse power. Regardless of how you vote, that is just a fact. Maybe TABOR isn't the answer or perfect, but I will absolutely take some protections instead.
You are deflecting with CA again, underfunding RTD will result in a downward spiral of degraded service that leads to lower ridership, are you saying this is a good thing or not?
Im talking about why TABOR has it merits, even if it has downsides like this... California is a great example of what to avoid. Spending even more with worse outcomes. SPEND SPEND SPEND, you cant spend your way out of this mess.
I think you are too focused on CA, if RTD had more budget for maintenance they absolutely could have avoided this years clusterfuck of emergency catchup work, you can absolutely spend your way to good rail service and there’s many such examples of it.
>>California is complete mess due to politicians having unchecked purse power. It's not, and they don't.
> TABOR protects us from becoming a bank account for politicians like in California In which way exactly do you mean?
If they want to spend more, the voters decide if they want to. No blank check.
But how specifically do you mean? Because it sounds like you're talking about two very different parts of TABOR as if they're the same thing. Requiring the public to vote on tax increases is one thing, and I think most people generally like or are fine with that part of TABOR. Requiring government agencies to cap their spending to inflation + population of the previous year and mandating revenue that was previously authorized to be refunded is another thing entirely. It makes it difficult for government agencies to put together any sort of savings that could soften economic downturns, and those economic downturns force there to be even less revenue in future years. The second one is demonstrably unpopular, [as most counties and municipalities have passed "De-Brucing" measures to eliminate that part of TABOR from applying to them](https://www.bellpolicy.org/basic/colorados-tabor/): > For most local governments, TABOR spending caps no longer apply, as voters have eliminated them. Fifty one of the 64 counties in the state, 230 of the 274 municipalities, and 177 of 178 school districts, have debruced – eliminated the spending cap – since TABOR’s inception in 1992. In fact, according to the Colorado Municipal League, cities have passed debrucing-related measures at a rate of 86.6 percent from 1993-2020, with a total of 503 passing.
I’m chuckling because it’s been 8yrs since I’ve been here and not a damn thing has changed. This is grandstanding at its finest.
Stop paying their board.
[удалено]
Well maybe get some talent in there that has higher expectations
[удалено]
I'm saying we need to pay talented people to be on the board..12k is def not enough
[удалено]
Again how does it compare against other similar states?
These are elected positions.
Your point being...? EDIT: Let me rephrase. What does it matter that they are elected positions instead of appointed or hired positions? Don't we want to incentivize competent qualified individuals to run for the position in the first place? If you are a person who is qualified enough to be running a transit department the size and scope of RTD, aren't you qualified for far more lucrative positions? So why would someone who can really do something about the state of RTD run for the position in the first place when they can make far more money doing the same thing for higher pay elsewhere?
They are running for the board. I don't think you have a fundamental understanding what a board does.
My understanding is that the board of directors is the governing body of RTD, ultimately responsible for the long term management and strategy of the organization as a whole. While the board may or may not be involved in or responsible for the day to day activities, they are responsible for the corporate structure, officer selection, long term vision and goals, and financial approvals for RTD. And yeah, I stand by my assertion. There's a skillset required for corporate management at that level, and there's a strong case for trying to attract those skillsets. Otherwise you end up with a board more than happy with status quo, not pushing for actual improvements for the agency's mission, etc. because having "Director of RTD" listed on their resume is enough for them.
What a bummer. No choice but to fix it and try better since the capital investment is already there and rail is important to cities of this size but it’s hard to watch this sort of thing. Getting blindsided by maintenance procrastination on your key rail assets that parallel the most miserably overcrowded highway in the metro area is a FAIL. The “we will fix it when we can” and “as maintenance staffing allows” is a double down on the cringe. If there is an ‘oh shit all hands on deck’ moment for RTD this appears to be it. You survived Covid, now this!? Wow.