Opinion: It’s expensive to add more people to Colorado

“1.7 million more people are projected to move to Colorado by 2050. … Yes, you coming here will not make it less affordable for everyone else,” said Rep. Steven Woodrow, in Tuesday’s Denver Post. Woodrow is a Denver Democrat and sponsor of HB24-1313, the transit corridor densification bill that just passed. But survey results indicate that 1.7 million is just a tiny fraction of the demand. And Woodrow apparently doesn’t understand who pays for the costs of such growth.

One of the arguments for HB24-1313 is that almost all these new people will move into its transit areas and use rapid transit, like RTD, instead of driving to work. The problem is that RTD’s 2024 budget of $1.246 billion is paid for mostly by sales and other taxes. These taxes are paid by all residents; only 5% of RTD’s budget is paid by fares from the actual riders. Worse, these riders constitute only a very small portion of all commuters. 

What happens when a lot more people are added, and instead of a tiny fraction of the new commuters using RTD, almost all will use it? That is the basic premise of HB24-1313. Since RTD, at least pre-pandemic, was running at near capacity during rush hours, it does not have spare capacity at those times. So, its costs will have to go up significantly to pay for the additional service to serve these new commuters. But, given the above, its revenue base won’t expand proportionately, not even close. Therefore, RTD will run a very large deficit. And to cover this deficit, our taxes will have to go up, contrary to Woodrow’s assertion.

I did a “guestimate” using an additional 300,000 new people moving here. After accounting for the additional fares and sales and other taxes paid by these new residents, I found that RTD could run a net deficit of up to $450 million per year. And, the more people that come here, the worse it gets. So, we can look forward to a huge debate over who should pay and how.

HB24-1313 also wants to “subsidize” impact fees paid by new development, with the intent of reducing the cost of new housing. Of course, if the housing is not price controlled, that just means more profits for developers, with those costs passed back onto existing residents. 

Additionally, there’s the potential cost of replacing supplies from the Colorado River by buying pre-Compact rights from West Slope farmers. Again, more costs because of all the growth, likely passed back onto all of us. Also, note that HB24-1313’s focus on replacing other forms of development with high-density housing means that the commuters’ destinations could potentially become less convenient, as shopping, office space, etc., get replaced with more apartments, condos, etc. 

Rifts seem to appear between Israel’s political and military leadership over conduct of the Gaza war

Carpooling, van-pooling and ride-sharing are convenient and work well in spread out areas, like the extended Metro area in Adams, Arapahoe, Boulder, Broomfield, Denver, Douglas and Jefferson counties. All of these alternatives to transit may emit less pollution than buses. For example, diesel buses averaging 20 passengers over a day and getting 4.5 MPG yield 90 passenger-miles per gallon, but a 12 MPG van with 10 riders gets 120 p-mpg, and a 50 MPG Prius with four gets 200 p-mpg. So mass transit is not necessarily the best way to reduce global warming emissions.

DRCOG provides carpooling coordination for free; it also coordinates rides to schools. CU coordinates carpooling for its students. And Uber and Lyft offer ride-sharing services, so even people without cars can carpool. Both DRCOG and the Northern Front Range Metropolitan Planning Organization rent vans for people to use. And there are private companies that coordinate carpool riders, like gotraffix.com.

The key to making these alternatives to transit work is to charge for parking; then use those revenues to pay people to take one of these alternatives, making it basically revenue-neutral. Implementing parking charges is simple in parking lots. On streets, various companies offer equipment that can scan license plates driving by at up to 30 MPH, with systems for integrating charges, credit cards, etc. What it takes is the government deciding to implement this approach. With strong incentives, all of these could be expanded significantly. And none require any tax increases.

In the right situations, RTD’s regularly scheduled service is very beneficial. But it makes zero sense to turn large parts of the huge Denver Metro area into overcrowded dense cities, just so mass transit can work marginally better at significantly increased costs and environmental impacts.

Popular Posts

Opinion: Opportunity for the new Boulder City Council

Congratulations to the four new Boulder City Council members! You have a great opportunity to make a contribution to the Boulder community, but it will take a lot of work to do it responsibly; the learning curve is pretty steep. Here are some suggestions for you (and other Council members) that may help improve the process. Read the Charter. It is the document that governs how you, city staff, and board and commission members operate, and how you relate to each other. It defines the limits of your and their power, and can only be amended by a citizen vote. You don’t have to remember every word. But just knowing what’s there makes you more self reliant and less at the mercy of others’ opinions. For example, relative to the recent meeting discussion over diversity, the council does  not  have the power to suspend the rules as to when the mayor is selected. Charter Section 14 specifies, “The mayor shall be chosen by the council from its own number, upon the convening of the new co
Read more

Opinion: Is this the end of Boulder as we know it?

Much of what has made Boulder such a great place to live has been the work of people half a century ago. These people recognized what I call the “ ratchet effect ,” that bad development decisions cannot be undone, so policies needed to be put in place to prevent, or at least limit, the damage that a growth-at-all-costs majority of the council could do. These policies include charter limits, like the Blue Line that prevents city water for development from being supplied above a certain altitude, the 55-foot height limit that has prevented high-rise development from cutting off our views, and the open space referendum process that allows a 60-day window for citizens to challenge disposals of open space. Other constraints include the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan’s requirement for Planning Board agreement for land-use changes in the area inside the city limits (Area I) and additional agreement by the county commissioners and county Planning Commission for urban development further
Read more

Policy Documents: Impact Fees and Adequate Public Facilities

I am writing this to correct some of the apparent inaccuracies put forward at the 10/14 CC/PB study session about charging growth for its costs. I do not claim to be an expert in the field, but I have studied it long enough and consulted with enough supposed experts and legal types to understand most of the basics. In addition, I have found that the experts don’t necessarily know everything and won’t necessarily put forward the most appropriate solutions. The fundamental rule, both legal and equitable, is that growth should pay to address its impacts so as to maintain existing levels of service (LOS) for existing residents and businesses. But growth cannot be required to improve levels of service. LOS is measured in all sorts of ways depending on the facility and/or service being measured. For transportation, it could be total VMT, travel time, intersection waits, access to transit, etc. For schools, it might be square footage per pupil, etc. For water, it could be water righ
Read more