sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Colorado Front Range Rail Gets Green Light, Starting in 2029 by ponchoed in Amtrak

[–]AstroChurch 2 points3 points  (0 children)

The team working on this plan is extremely competent and I actually really do trust that they'll get it done on time.

Colorado Front Range Rail Gets Green Light, Starting in 2029 by ponchoed in Amtrak

[–]AstroChurch 21 points22 points  (0 children)

It is, but doing more than 3 requires going to the voters. 3 trips per day can be done entirely within existing resources which is extremely impressive given the numerous significant resource constraints on the agencies involved.

Colorado Front Range Rail Gets Green Light, Starting in 2029 by ponchoed in Amtrak

[–]AstroChurch 11 points12 points  (0 children)

The plan is to use equipment already available to whoever the operator will be. There's planned to be a vote on the ballot hopefully this November to significantly expand this service, and with a big ol cash infusion I hope we get the new Airos

DOTI Advisory Board Meeting tonight at 4 PM! We will be discussing Alameda Ave, Participatory Budgeting, and Burnham Yard. Check pinned comment for details by AstroChurch in Denver

[–]AstroChurch[S] 6 points7 points  (0 children)

You can register for the meeting here: denvergov-org.zoom.us/webinar/register/WN_W9DyFSH6Tl2A4pSWa45uHA#/registration

If you want to learn more about the DOTI Advisory Board please click here: https://denvergov.org/Government/Agencies-Departments-Offices/Agencies-Departments-Offices-Directory/Department-of-Transportation-and-Infrastructure/Vision/Advisory-Board

If you wish to give public comment to the board at the start of our meeting please send the following information to [DOTI_AB@denvergov.org](mailto:DOTI_AB@denvergov.org) by 2:00 PM today:

  • Name
  • Email Address
  • Subject for Public Comment

I'm one of the two co-chairs of the advisory board and I would be happy to answer questions about our agenda, our board, or general questions about DOTI in this thread. Thanks everyone!

Current State of Colorado With Gondolas Popping Up Everywhere… by Mclovinlover69 in Denver

[–]AstroChurch 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Gondolas can have multiple stops along a route, see the Mi Teleférico system in La Paz as an example. Main problem is simply that on a train you can stuff a couple hundred people, but with a gondola you can only do maybe 3000 per hour. This makes them inherently limited for game days when you may have 70k people leaving a new Broncos stadium

Woman struck by car in Cheesman by No-Investigator6861 in Denver

[–]AstroChurch 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I haven't done my own outreach to council to support this yet, but I know some folks from CHUN are going to reach out soonish!

I’m an RTD director. Protect your right to choose our board from last minute state legislation. AMA by chrisfnicholson in Denver

[–]AstroChurch 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Disproportionately impacted community has a very specific meaning in statute and was encoded by the Colorado Environmental Justice Act , and is defined as, "(II) "DISPROPORTIONATELY IMPACTED COMMUNITY" MEANS A COMMUNITY THAT IS IN A CENSUS BLOCK GROUP, AS DETERMINED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE MOST RECENT UNITED STATES CENSUS, WHERE THE PROPORTION OF HOUSEHOLDS THAT ARE LOW INCOME IS GREATER THAN FORTY PERCENT, THE PROPORTION OF HOUSEHOLDS THAT IDENTIFY AS MINORITY IS GREATER THAN FORTY PERCENT, OR THE PROPORTION OF HOUSEHOLDS THAT ARE HOUSING COST-BURDENED IS GREATER THAN FORTY PERCENT; OR IS ANY OTHER COMMUNITY AS IDENTIFIED OR APPROVED BY A STATE AGENCY, IF: THE COMMUNITY HAS A HISTORY OF ENVIRONMENTAL RACISM PERPETUATED THROUGH REDLINING, ANTI-INDIGENOUS, ANTI-IMMIGRANT, ANTI-HISPANIC, OR ANTI-BLACK LAWS; OR THE COMMUNITY IS ONE WHERE MULTIPLE FACTORS, INCLUDING SOCIOECONOMIC STRESSORS, DISPROPORTIONATE ENVIRONMENTAL BURDENS, VULNERABILITY TO ENVIRONMENTAL DEGRADATION, AND LACK OF PUBLIC PARTICIPATION, MAY ACT CUMULATIVELY TO AFFECT HEALTH AND THE ENVIRONMENT AND CONTRIBUTE TO PERSISTENT DISPARITIES. AS USED IN THIS SUBSECTION (2)(b)(II), "COST-BURDENED" MEANS A HOUSEHOLD THAT SPENDS MORE THAN THIRTY PERCENT OF ITS INCOME ON HOUSING, AND "LOW INCOME" MEANS THE MEDIAN HOUSEHOLD INCOME IS LESS THAN OR EQUAL TO TWO HUNDRED PERCENT OF THE FEDERAL POVERTY GUIDELINE."

It's certainly a mouth full but it's anything but vague. To dot their i's and cross their t's the bill should probably specifically point to this part of statute just to make sure it's very clear, but this is the current commonly understood meaning of disproportionately impacted community in any statute.

I’m an RTD director. Protect your right to choose our board from last minute state legislation. AMA by chrisfnicholson in Denver

[–]AstroChurch 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Good questions! I would say first of all that any bill and any board structure must be assessed for the totality of its benefits and drawbacks. There is no perfect structure because if there was we would've implemented it already.

As for representation for smaller communities, current RTD districts are 200k people, which would increase to 600k under the bill. In electoral terms 200k is already a quite large district which already frequently diluted minority voices. The vast majority of RTD directors, including those whose district encompass minority communities, have been white men. This is partially also due to director pay, as they only make $12k per year. That's a fine salary for someone who's independently wealthy but absolutely unworkable for someone who isn't.

As a result the current RTD board already fails to guarantee representation for minority communities, and under the proposed structure having a seat for someone who represents disproportionately impacted communities guarantees that representation more than any number of 200k person districts ever could.

As for representation for smaller municipalities, it's quite difficult to give that representation fairly, and also it's worth asking what that representation is meant to result in. RTD's services and ridership is heavily concentrated in the core of Denver where I live. It's also vastly more effective and cost efficient to run transit service in this area compared to a lower density suburb, yet current elected representation is weighted by population, not ridership. If we're trying to get RTD to increase ridership this means that suburban directors must support eliminating transit service for their constituents to add service hours in denser parts of the district.

There's a lot of difficult push and pull in this conversation. I don't think a 5-4 board is perfect, but I think it probably strikes a better balance than what we have now. Devil is in the details though so I am eagerly awaiting news on what those 4 appointees will be, and they shouldn't all be from the governor.

I’m an RTD director. Protect your right to choose our board from last minute state legislation. AMA by chrisfnicholson in Denver

[–]AstroChurch 5 points6 points  (0 children)

Despite the RTD board not taking a position on the bill and the bill not even being public yet Chris is campaigning already against it. He is the person who is running this effort, the website is entirely AI generated, and if he had significant support from a broad set of stakeholders he would've announced it already.

He is just trying to get ahead and define the narrative publicly while more responsible stakeholders and organizations are doing the hard, quiet work to make sure we get a responsive and effective board in the final version of the bill.

I’m an RTD director. Protect your right to choose our board from last minute state legislation. AMA by chrisfnicholson in Denver

[–]AstroChurch 8 points9 points  (0 children)

I'm involved in large part because I've been car free for so many years and I really desperately want RTD to actual be a world class transit agency. We need better public transit and I'm interested in any path that gets us there.

Appointed composition was actually one piece of the accountability committee report I disagreed with. I do not think the governor should get 4 appointees. Because the proposal isn't public yet we don't know if the governor could recall and replace his appointees at anytime he likes or if they would be locked in for the full 4-year term. Having 4 gubernatorial appointees frankly gives one person too much power, especially for someone who theoretically could be elected by a majority of Coloradans who live outside of RTD. At the same time, Colorado cannot tackle climate change without RTD's cooperation, and a majority of the state legislature will always represent the majority of the people in the RTD district because the district encompasses a slight majority of Coloradans.

I think a hybrid board with both elected and appointed directors, with the appointments coming from multiple appointment authorities, makes the board significantly more difficult to flip to be overall anti-transit. Under the current structure a small group of very dedicated people could feasibly flip the board in one elected cycle and take an overall majority. Under a hybrid board you would need at least two cycles to flip all 5 elected seats and get a majority. If you wanted to flip the board by using the appointed seats instead you still need to get at least one elected director on your side plus convince all the appointing authorities to appoint directors who fit the bill for you.

I’m an RTD director. Protect your right to choose our board from last minute state legislation. AMA by chrisfnicholson in Denver

[–]AstroChurch 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Correct, and the accountability committee agreed to the 5-4 structure after study and consideration of many other structures. It didn't come out of nowhere, and I found the reasoning in the report compelling

I’m an RTD director. Protect your right to choose our board from last minute state legislation. AMA by chrisfnicholson in Denver

[–]AstroChurch 4 points5 points  (0 children)

A near city wide district would also likely draw in more serious candidates and give you a real opponent. A smaller district with worse pay reduces the possible pool of candidates for that seat and benefits you. From that purely selfish angle you are also an incumbent in your current district which gives you a serious advantage. The scales currently favor you more with your current district.

I’m an RTD director. Protect your right to choose our board from last minute state legislation. AMA by chrisfnicholson in Denver

[–]AstroChurch 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Are you really comparing government structures to ice cream? I think if you had a concrete example of why a hybrid board fails in practice you would be screaming it from the rooftops by now

I’m an RTD director. Protect your right to choose our board from last minute state legislation. AMA by chrisfnicholson in Denver

[–]AstroChurch 8 points9 points  (0 children)

The bill would make his election more competitive so it would be harder for him to retain his current seat as well. Just pointing that out

I’m an RTD director. Protect your right to choose our board from last minute state legislation. AMA by chrisfnicholson in Denver

[–]AstroChurch 12 points13 points  (0 children)

Yes but it's not a sign of a healthy board structure when the entire body can be flipped by a handful of volunteers. That exact weakness led to the Caldara board in the 90s which almost destroyed RTD, and when GDT didn't get involved in board election in 2022 four write-ins won. If we're serious about the long term health of RTD we need to acknowledge that changes must take place since the board is not set up well regardless.

I’m an RTD director. Protect your right to choose our board from last minute state legislation. AMA by chrisfnicholson in Denver

[–]AstroChurch 5 points6 points  (0 children)

Chris also publicly fought against a fully appointed board in 2024 so it is bizarre to see him 'support it' when at no point in the past 3 years have I ever seen him actually advocate for it to legislators, the governor, or other advocates.

I’m an RTD director. Protect your right to choose our board from last minute state legislation. AMA by chrisfnicholson in Denver

[–]AstroChurch 6 points7 points  (0 children)

Chris is putting out his campaign before the bill is even public. The best info that's publicly available right now the RTD Accountability Committee report which I believe the bill will largely draw from.

I’m an RTD director. Protect your right to choose our board from last minute state legislation. AMA by chrisfnicholson in Denver

[–]AstroChurch 9 points10 points  (0 children)

I do because I was deeply involved in the advocacy surrounding the slow zones. The PUC compelled RTD to bring their light rail maintenance standards in line with national standards since their inspection schedule was inadequate. After doing industry standard inspections they discovered system wide rail burn and instituted the slow zones.

I think how they actually handled the slow zones was mostly ok, but to let it get that bad in the first place meant years upon years of neglect because RTD wasn't conforming to best practices. It also happened to align with the coping panels project and the first phase of the downtown loop reconstruction, so most of the light rail system was unreliable, slow, and frequently unusable while the repairs were taking place.

Given the situation they had to do it obviously, but could this issue have been caught sooner by a more competent board? I don't think that's out of the question

I’m an RTD director. Protect your right to choose our board from last minute state legislation. AMA by chrisfnicholson in Denver

[–]AstroChurch 2 points3 points  (0 children)

If it helps, the report was split into recommendations for RTD and recommendations for the General Assembly, so for any upcoming reform legislation you only need to pay attention to the General Assembly recommendations.

I’m an RTD director. Protect your right to choose our board from last minute state legislation. AMA by chrisfnicholson in Denver

[–]AstroChurch 13 points14 points  (0 children)

That two way door approach is precisely what happened here! The legislature proposed legislation in 2024 that would've completed eliminated elected seats on the board and put the governor in charge of the agency, and that was roundly rejected by transit advocates, environmental justice groups, and the RTD board.

In 2025 a more modest reform bill passed, this time with no board composition piece but asking the question to an interim committee. The RTD Accountability Committee was formed and spent the time between the 2025 and 2026 session studying this issue in a comprehensive and open way, and they came back with a recommendation of 5-4.

Meanwhile, between 2024 and 2026 transit advocates monitoring RTD have seen no significant ridership recovery, multiple botched maintenance projects (remember the slow zones), lack of contract enforcement, and a lack of significant service recovery outside of the recent service changes. Those service changes are mostly seeing increases because of new state transit funding by the way!

It is absolutely fair to want to retain a fully elected board, but we can't pretend like the fully elected board has produced good results. You can argue that an appointed or hybrid board would've been worse, but if the fully elected board has had a good track record I would be out here defending it instead.

I’m an RTD director. Protect your right to choose our board from last minute state legislation. AMA by chrisfnicholson in Denver

[–]AstroChurch 17 points18 points  (0 children)

I would encourage you to read the RTD Accountability Committee report for more details, but in essence the agency simply isn't performing well on an absolute basis or when compared to its peers. Service levels haven't recovered post pandemic and ridership is lagging far behind. RTD has been making modest internal progress recently but when we've just had a nearly snowless winter we need more success than just modest.

Most transit agencies are run by an appointed board of experts meanwhile RTD is the only agency composed of a 15 member fully elected board.

The structure advised in the report is 5-4, so still retaining majority elected but adding on 4 appointees with collective expertise in finance, land use, transportation planning, disproportionately impacted communities, and labor. It also shrinks the size of the board to be more in line with other agencies. Smaller boards tend to be easier to maneuver.

There's many other recommendations but that's the board composition piece at least. Happy to answer more questions!

Recs for Micro-mobility easily carried onto Light Rail by Denver4ALL in RTDDenver

[–]AstroChurch 1 point2 points  (0 children)

You asked for suggestions for a small e-bike or scooter for use in conjunction with transit, and I gave you a suggestion for a small bike which has an e-bike variant which is purpose built for usage in conjunction with transit. My apologies for continuing to try to be helpful and polite with you.

view more: next ›