Will you use the new commuter rail line to DIA? (Denver: university, taxi)

[wong21fr]

Originally Posted by hawkbill

http://www.rtd-denver.com/documents/...ial-report.pdf

It looks like 2015 should come out any day now.

To answer my own question, it doesn't appear that RTD will ever be able to function off of fares/advertising. Their depreciation expense alone is more than fare revenue, which implies that they don't have the ability to maintain the system based off of fares.

Maybe if I have some time I'll see if other cities have similar data and do a comparison on revenues and expenses.

No, it won't. There's only a handful of transit systems globally that are able to support themselves sans public funding and none of those are in the US. Though the argument womight be that there's almost no public transportation system anywhere (rail, air, or road) that has been able to self-fund- every single one has required government, i.e. public, assistance in some fashion to come into existence.

RTD has an ok farebox recovery rate, but could certainly do more to grow ridership on existing routes to lower the subsidy per rider systemwide.

[wong21fr]

Originally Posted by Katarina Witt

No. it. wasn't.

The BRT idea was floated after the commuter rail was deemed unaffordable until 2042 or 2044. (I've seen both dates.) Prior to that, it was supposed to be an expansion of the HOV lanes on 36, plus the rail.

Not to pile it on, but BRT along US36 was certainly part of the original FasTracks plan. In fact, the NW portion of the metro area was the only transit corridor to get two different transit modes in the FasTracks plan. A cynic would assume that this was some pretty blatant vote buying to get Boulder and Longmont aboard because BRT alone wasn't sexy enough.

[SkyDog77]

Originally Posted by wong21fr

No, it won't. There's only a handful of transit systems globally that are able to support themselves sans public funding and none of those are in the US.

RTD has an ok farebox recovery rate, but could certainly do more to grow ridership on existing routes to lower the subsidy per rider systemwide.

Love that moment when anti tax folks come face to face with the stuff taxes actually fund.

[Katarina Witt]

Originally Posted by wong21fr

Not to pile it on, but BRT along US36 was certainly part of the original FasTracks plan. In fact, the NW portion of the metro area was the only transit corridor to get two different transit modes in the FasTracks plan. A cynic would assume that this was some pretty blatant vote buying to get Boulder and Longmont aboard because BRT alone wasn't sexy enough.

Not to pile it on, LOL!

OK, the original maps show BRT on US 36. However, that part was NEVER emphasized up here until it was decided not to continue with the commuter rail, which would have served Niwot and Longmont, neither of which are served by the BRT. In fact, it only serves the very southern tip of Louisville. Lafayette would have no service from either, but d/t Louisville would be closer than south Louisville. The rail was/is supposed to go into downtown Louisville, and through Boulder, which the original and present BRT do not. The BRT goes on regular roads, not the "improved" 36 from Table Mesa Park and Ride to the Boulder Transit Center and ends there. So your statement that "the NW portion of the metro area was the only transit corridor to get two different transit modes in the FasTracks plan" is not entirely true. There is plenty of bus service in the areas served by the light rail lines.

[hawkbill]

Originally Posted by wong21fr

No, it won't. There's only a handful of transit systems globally that are able to support themselves sans public funding and none of those are in the US. Though the argument womight be that there's almost no public transportation system anywhere (rail, air, or road) that has been able to self-fund- every single one has required government, i.e. public, assistance in some fashion to come into existence.

RTD has an ok farebox recovery rate, but could certainly do more to grow ridership on existing routes to lower the subsidy per rider systemwide.

Ah, I was interested in what their fare recovery goal was specifically. I made the jump that since our fares are generally higher than other similar systems that perhaps the plan was to become self sufficient and phase out the sales tax once all of the infrastructure was built.

A look through their financials confirms that they will most likely never become self supporting though. I would be interested to see a breakdown in their expenses between expenses to operate the existing lines and expenses to continue the build out.

[SkyDog77]

Just rode the train from the 40th and Colorado station to the airport. It's a fantastic train. Great ride and very fast.

For the economics of it, it was an $11 Lyft ride (not including tip) from Wash Park to the station, then $9 for the train. My typical Lyft or Uber ride to the airport is $40 so this was definitely cheaper if I'm going alone.

It was slower by about 20 minutes with no traffic.

I likely won't use this when traveling for business because the cost isn't a factor for me and speed is. Traveling for leisure with just my wife, this is appealing, but only saves about $10-12 each way. On a solo personal trip, this seems like a no brainer.

[Wheatridger]

Originally Posted by pvande55

Denver does have higher fares from the airport. This is a common practice. Chicago has a $5 fare from OHare, about double the fare from any other station. Philadelphia has higher fares from the airport than to the most distant suburb. At JFK airport it costs $5 just to ride from Jamaica station on the AirTran. A way to hose visitors?

Don't forget that the Denver airport is about three times more distant from downtown than those other airports. So it's bound to be more expensive.

[Wheatridger]

I'm not looking for a cheaper way to DIA. Since there are virtually no close-by destinations, any flight out of Denver is going to cost me hundreds of dollars. If I can't afford two $9 fares, I shouldn't be flying. Sometimes, driving and parking at the airport will be cheaper. Sometimes it won't.

What I'm looking for is a consistent travel time-- and thats something that driving can't give me. If you live on the north side of downtown, I-70 is the obvious choice. It's clogged and congested most of the day, even between rush hours. That will get worse when the highway begins reconstruction in a few years. I-76 offers a useful back door to DIA, but you have to take I-70 or I-25 (another disaster) to access it. So I can count on the drive taking between 45 min and two hours, depending. Add in the recommendations to arrive at the airport two hours before flight time, and it's a sure bet that the trip to the plane will take me longer than the trip in the plane.

The A Train ( I refuse to use CU's meaningless branding) has its own exclusive right of way, so there's every reason to expect travel times to be consistent and dependable.

[OhioToCO]

Originally Posted by Wheatridger

The A Train ( I refuse to use CU's meaningless branding) has its own exclusive right of way, so there's every reason to expect travel times to be consistent and dependable.

Very good point about predictability of the travel time.

Regarding the branding, I can't get an answer on the RTD website as to what this "corporate partnership" actually means. Does CU sponsor RTD somehow? Seems silly, as CU itself is supposed to be sponsored by a tax payer. As a former CU employee, though, I'm all too aware of how much (little) of its funding is coming from the state. So, this "corporate partnership" doesn't make any sense to me either, especially, since there is no good information anywhere. (If anyone here has sources to learn more about it, please share).

[wong21fr]

Originally Posted by OhioToCO

Very good point about predictability of the travel time.

Regarding the branding, I can't get an answer on the RTD website as to what this "corporate partnership" actually means. Does CU sponsor RTD somehow? Seems silly, as CU itself is supposed to be sponsored by a tax payer. As a former CU employee, though, I'm all too aware of how much (little) of its funding is coming from the state. So, this "corporate partnership" doesn't make any sense to me either, especially, since there is no good information anywhere. (If anyone here has sources to learn more about it, please share).

CU is paying $5M over five years for the naming rights to the A Line. It's part of RTD's "finding ways to make a buck" initiative.