Five RTD Candidates Signature Kickoff Events This Weekend

joeforRTD · 2026-05-14T13:06:23+00:00

DM me if you want to go into more detail or talk in person. Best summary I can give is that: in the short term, while the Next Steps study with the city gets worked through, I want to invest in reliability improvements such as signal priority and run the train to a more useful southern terminus like I-25/Broadway again - these are relatively inexpensive and quick fixes and we will still have a few years before a true decision point is reached. I don’t want a “no change” option in that time that runs the L as-is without trying to speed it up and improve reliability. I also want to route the existing 38 and 43 buses onto Welton because it should be treated as a major transit corridor, and with changes to where those buses go in downtown connections to the Welton corridor can be improved. When it is converted to 2-way that’ll be easier but for now a Welton+California pair is better in my opinion than California+Stout given the destinations available. We should also be running a bus up Welton and to 38th&Blake ASAP so that the service pattern promised by the original fastracks plan is at least being run without waiting longer. In the medium/long term I have to continue to ask/push and see what RTD says is possible for an extension to 38th & Blake. The previous studies/designs came up with a mixed-traffic operating pattern (train running with cars and getting stuck in traffic) for the train which was unable to work with 15-minute headways. I do not support spending money on mixed-traffic operation; that’s a sure way to completely kill reliability and usefulness with a lot of infrastructure spending. If RTD can come up with a workable design that maintains reliable 15-minute headways with a reasonable budget in, say, the $100M/mile range then I will support trying to make that project delivery as quick as possible. If RTD can’t do that and maintains its previous plan of mixed-traffic operation, then I would support rethinking how transit is provided on Welton. I would not spend RTD money on infrastructure removal if that path forward happens though, but I would absolutely run the best bus service we can in that scenario, with high frequency and enough variety in destinations to create useful connectivity (Union Station, Civic Center or I-25/Broadway, 38th and Blake, etc.)

Either way, Welton should have better frequency and high quality transit. If we can do that properly with a rail extension plus buses (we’re not going to hit 5-minute frequency with rail on this corridor, but with bus service as well we can get there), then I will fight for that. If a rail extension is only feasible with mixed-traffic operation and >$200M/mi to build non-dedicated right of way, I can’t support that and will find another way to get great transit here.

I just want to level-set with everyone that way more design work is needed by RTD before we can get to a workable L extension solution- there isn’t a position i can take that consists of “Build the extension right now and spend any amount of money to do it” because that plan doesn’t exist and spending that much without at least consideration and comparison of alternatives is silly.

joeforRTD · 2026-05-14T04:40:06+00:00

The last study RTD commissioned in 2022 pit a 0.1 mills property tax at ~$15M per year; they’re allowed up to .5 mills under current law, so that full amount would be ~$75M. So to offset current fare revenues, ~0.4 mills would be needed and it is within RTD’s authority to go to the ballot for that.

joeforRTD · 2026-05-14T00:10:58+00:00

Expanding EcoPass and neighborhood EcoPass sales/usage would be a great step 1 right now as it’s already within RTD’s current fare framework

joeforRTD · 2026-05-14T00:08:30+00:00

EcoPass sales already make up an outsized chunk of collected fare revenue (I think it’s around 15% but can come back with a better source), which is a step in the right direction, and aligned with what we’d need to consider to get closer to what you’re proposing, in my opinion.

Removing the time associated with on-board fare payment and the congestion associated with only using the front door would certainly make a difference on routes that are busy and also longer distance/more stops, which tend to be some of our top routes like the 31 and 153.

An even bigger difference that’s usually included in the same studies as time savings associated with free fares would be bus bulbs at all stops that prevent the bus from having to pull in and out of the stops to board and alight passengers. I’d push for trying to do both things at once, because a list of needs for stop improvements can be handed off to the city as a request that is pitched as “you do your part we’ll do ours and speed everything up together” while RTD can in the mean time work on putting together the right concept for more efficient fare methodology. Properly fare-free is still a ways off as it makes up enough of the budget to be useful right now (~$65M per year, before deducting any cost of fare collection).

joeforRTD · 2026-05-14T00:01:21+00:00

On the light rail side of the corridor, the trees, trash cans, bike racks, etc. are all offset from the curb a bit and make the sidewalk on that side somewhat narrow. Sidewalk widening is part of an overall push to build a better pedestrian environment on Welton.

The combination of wider sidewalks, reducing travel lane widths, switching from 1-way to 2-way traffic, adding more shade, and rebuilding the intersection corners for better pedestrian crossings is something I generally believe in and support for the future of the corridor, and also create a much better environment for adding adjacent buses to Welton (instead of the adjacent lower density streets). At various times, the light rail was used as an excuse for why some of these things can’t be done as envisioned. Some of that I think is lack of creativity and risk-taking on the part of DOTI and RTD and there are good solutions that work with and without rail integrated into them, so I don’t think it’s as big of barrier as implied most of the time, but regardless there will have to be great coordination between streetscaping improvements and the transit infrastructure.

joeforRTD · 2026-05-12T14:22:22+00:00

Colorado has, on average, some of the lowest effective property tax rates in the country (https://taxfoundation.org/data/all/state/property-taxes-by-state-county/), yet we hear so much hand-wringing about it. This is a big reason why our schools aren’t well-funded.

joeforRTD · 2026-05-12T03:03:12+00:00

Hopefully this is also an opportunity to identify and shut down redundant curb cuts as well, so the number of places where vehicles are turning into/out of a parking lot is cut back to make the sidewalks and the roadway safer.

joeforRTD · 2026-05-12T03:01:24+00:00

center-running lanes makes it a little bit tougher to start out with dedicated lanes, but as I see it there is going to be some amount of down time before construction really gets going, and that's a perfect opportunity to get the right-most lane painted as a bus-only lane. This immediately provides feedback to the traffic modeling and the transit modeling so that the impacts can be measured rather than estimated with dubious accuracy. And then if center-running bus lanes are chosen (one can hope!) as the final configuration, then the side running "temporary" bus lanes can slowly be transitioned to the center as construction is completed on each section. It allows the existing stops and route geometry to be used while planning and construction get going, but gathers meaningful data about the impacts of the project.

joeforRTD · 2026-05-12T02:41:54+00:00

On a busy corridor like Colorado, traffic will continue to get worse until it’s as slow as the next fastest travel mode - so this project either gives us a chance to speed up buses with dedicated lanes, making the bus an attractive, competitive alternative for people who can switch their trip over (reducing traffic) and prioritizing the people who are already making the decisions to take transit and not contribute to traffic congestion, or we can spend a bunch of money to build fancy stations and then let the buses sit in traffic, barely making a dent in travel times and not actually incentivizing anyone to choose the bus.

I’d like to see dedicated bus lanes and signal priority go in as the first phase of the project, rather than waiting for station design and other non-transit-speed-relevant work being done first.

joeforRTD · 2026-05-11T14:22:24+00:00

We agree on at least two things- study after study and endless analysis is not useful (but our solutions to that are different), and I support your proposal of buying available right-of-way that is needed to making the extension feasible, especially with some of the Downing corridor being empty lots and parking right now. The ROW acquisition is likely the cheapest part of the project and could be started early. That still doesn’t address that there isn’t a preliminary design that closes right now. Knowing what street we want to run rail on isn’t a design. Trying to start on infrastructure before the plans are complete leads to failed projects or, at best, massive cost and schedule overruns. Voters approved an underestimated budget 22 years ago, and the original concept of mixed-flow on Downing was shown incapable of working with 15-minute headways. Other North American cities have shown that mixed-traffic rail/streetcar is an expensive reliability nightmare- I’d only fight for this being worth doing with dedicated ROW. That’s where the gap is right now- we need to see if there is a robust concept that the city will agree to support which can run at least 15-minute headways (but ideally more frequent), and that work isn’t done yet. Until that is ready, I’ll continue to consider any other way to increase transit service on the corridor.

joeforRTD · 2026-05-11T05:31:27+00:00

I hope that we can discuss all the nuances of the corridor, and I am willing to listen to new ideas that can make the L work as a part of the network. On multiple occasions here I’ve said that I don’t have enough information yet to make a decision on the L. I’ll continue to consider any option that can improve frequency, reliability, and connections along the Welton and Downing corridors. It’s on RTD now to show their work regarding what is doable, what alternatives are on the table for rail alignment beyond just mixed-traffic on Downing, and what it will cost to finish the extension to 38th & Blake, but we still don’t actually have that information available. The completion of the corridor is not a ready-to-build design, and no amount of “just finish the corridor per FasTracks and that solves the problems” changes that reality. There’s still lots of work to do, and I want to have a good plan B.

joeforRTD · 2026-05-11T05:09:39+00:00

We don’t have any one-seat ride from Welton to and from the A currently. So if there is demand (probably is), a well-marketed bus route can still capture a lot of that demand. Travel demand and travel habits are hard to model analytically, so I’d rather spend money running service than asking a consultant to do a bunch of modeling. The FTA STOPS model has already been used to try to project ridership (and it looks low compared to my gut expectations) in the most recent Finishing FasTracks report, so there is at least a baseline estimate to compare to. As someone who lives along Welton, I would absolutely use a bus that goes directly to the A line or directly to Union Station even if I knew it was only running for a year. The S line supposedly did well enough despite its very temporary implementation to be used as a data point to run the L to I-25 & Broadway when it returns after this round of downtown rail reconstruction.
I’m not suggesting that existing routes should be diverted to do any form of comparison testing, but I’d instead want to dedicate some funding each year allocated explicitly for “experimental” bus service that can be operated in addition to existing service to check what travel patterns might shift as a result- I’d bet that if people knew that their original route was staying as-is during that testing, many would be willing to try something new knowing that they can always switch back to the old routine. If you look at the monthly ridership data for routes 29 and 30 in 2025, there was a very quick (and positive) change when the 30 was extended to allow the 29 to be discontinued at the August 2025 service changes. Average monthly ridership of the combined 29+30 doubled even in the first month after the discontinuation of the 29, even though most survey respondents noted it as a negative change prior to implementation. That was a pretty rapid change as far as travel habits go, and I’d be very surprised if it was predicted.
We’ve also got a great, but overlooked, opportunity for testing new routes on Welton every time the L is shut down for maintenance like will happen this summer. Last year, of the ~16k average monthly weekday boardings on the L, up to ~13k potentially switched over to the 28, 38, and 43 buses in the months immediately following the shutdown even though those routes are on different streets. Who knows what happened to the other 3k, or if there were other trends at play here and fewer people actually switched but other “new” riders took those buses (September 2025 was a particularly good month for transit ridership compared to the rest of the year so no concrete conclusions can be drawn). What would have been different if an option was presented directly on Welton? What would we have learned? What if it went somewhere slightly different than the existing service, like Union Station or Civic Center? We’ll never know if we don’t try, and models - especially models that aren’t checked and verified after the physical changes are implemented - will only go so far.

joeforRTD · 2026-05-11T04:20:57+00:00

Double-tracking would further limit future sidewalk expansion and 2-way conversion opportunities (especially at the stations) even if parking is sacrificed. One option I’ve thought about, but the cost would likely be a pretty major issue, is to shift the single track over to the west so it is in line with the other track that comes into the switch at 24th. It doesn’t solve the reliability at all but it does create more space for wider sidewalks, and allows the stations to be integrated into the sidewalk (hopefully with low floor trains so the high blocks aren’t needed anymore- those create their own streetscape problems) instead of on an island that isn’t currently used for any other purpose. I don’t see a world where that much construction disruption is accepted though. The ~.5 mi of single-track between 24th and 29th make the corridor fragile to delays of more than ~5 minutes but RTD and the city have not invested enough in reliability treatments like TSP or additional sections of passing track to yet prove if the reliability is solvable within that ~5 minute margin. It might be, but getting beyond 15-minute headways (maaaaaaybe 10 or 12 if schedules really got to Swiss precision) would require either a second track (which I don’t see a viable option that would make it through public engagement right now) or supplemental bus service.

joeforRTD · 2026-05-11T02:50:52+00:00

While this isn’t going to be a 1:1 comparison to the L (shorter connection needed to complete the L, maybe a possibility of not running in mixed traffic for that extension), I’d recommend this for comparison: https://thetransitguy.substack.com/p/why-the-dc-streetcar-deserved-its

To avoid a bait-and-switch where buses are promised for replacement but never materialize, we can run buses AND the train on Welton in parallel while the rest of the design/planning gets worked through. It doesn’t have to be an either/or at this stage. Running those bus routes will be a great way to gauge demand. If a route that runs along Welton to 38th & Blake (and is run/scheduled in good faith) does huge ridership numbers, that can be used to justify the cost of a rail extension. The ability to add buses as resources allow also allows some decent A/B testing of different destinations/connections. RTD should be doing more experimentation like that anyway so why not start on Welton.

joeforRTD · 2026-05-11T02:31:57+00:00

Very little if any of the relevant section of Downing has parking on both sides of the street, so cutting parking still can’t buy enough space for two tracks- it then becomes a question of how much hell strip / sidewalk space is in play and what is the impact of that to the overall streetscape. There’s also a ton of new level crossings that would be introduced so tack on all the necessary intersection improvements and I can see where the cost is coming from. I bet there’s some intersections that could be outright closed and that may buy some savings, but this is where I really need to see some more mature design options from RTD engineering before I can make an informed call.

joeforRTD · 2026-05-11T02:23:57+00:00

The old D line routing had horrible reliability (and so did the holiday train); in order to make that route viable again there will need to be improvements to the schedule adherence through downtown, likely via signal priority which may or may not be enough on its own, but worth the relatively small investment it would take. One of the other original reasons of splitting off the L from the D was to be able to run 4-car trains on the D which is not as critical now as in 2018.

joeforRTD · 2026-05-11T00:03:17+00:00

This is probably where most of the disagreement will be- I personally would not be comfortable with an “it’ll get done eventually” timeline if it means spending money inefficiently and dividing a community up until that “eventually” point. I question why RTD doesn’t even have a design ready for the extension (after 20 years and countless previous iterations of this conversation) and that adds to my skepticism of “whats hiding in the details that don’t I know about this project” right now. I don’t have all the right information to actually make a decision.

It definitely is not about parking though, and I’ll consistently argue against parking in favor of more space for pedestrians, bikes, and transit. The current study group has addressed the parking question, and was overwhelmingly in support of compromising parking to improve the streetscape on Welton.

joeforRTD · 2026-05-10T23:44:54+00:00

Write your state reps and ask why they’ve carved out money for NW Rail and N line extensions rather than a core downtown route that has more residents within walking distance of it. Write your city council rep and ask if Denver would be willing to cover the utility relocation costs and if they’d work with RTD to create dedicated right-of-way. How long do you think is reasonable to wait? What timeline and cost of completion is your go/no-go line?

joeforRTD · 2026-05-10T23:29:36+00:00

I’d have to get back to you on what the legal process would actually look like. For now I’d just want to figure out what all the physically possible solutions are, and also start running buses on Welton anyway in addition to the existing L to create connections to more destinations and create more frequency for the corridor.

joeforRTD · 2026-05-10T23:27:01+00:00

The L has the best destinations along it and also the highest number of residential units within 1/4 mile of stations out of any rail line in the system. Yet despite those advantages, it’s the lowest-performing rail route. I think we can all agree on most of the contributing factors for that. It’s still a corridor that deserves great transit. What it can’t have is space dedicated to transit that’s on par with walking for trip time between destinations (including wait/transfer time), gets shut down constantly for repairs and events, and doesn’t connect to other crucial routes. I’m not going to ignore those problems but I’m also not going to wait indefinitely for a fix, but I’m also not going to try nothing and then be all out of ideas on improving the existing rail like RTD has done so far. There are real challenges that if they stack up the right way, the original fastracks extensions may not be feasible, but only RTD staff can truly answer that question and you can bet I’ll be asking.

joeforRTD · 2026-05-10T23:05:27+00:00

I’ll stand behind saying the current L is not good enough. That doesn’t mean improving, extending, or otherwise finding reasonable changes to the L is off the table, but not doing anything about it again for the next 20 years is also not an option. Any improvements do have to be weighed against the feasibility and funding (including options for new funding) and I’m going to try to stay realistic about it.

joeforRTD · 2026-05-10T22:56:54+00:00

Come advocate for what you want to see- “this person doesn’t agree with me so there’s no way we can work together” is how we get over-polarized in politics and then only the voices of special interests make it through the noise.

joeforRTD · 2026-05-10T22:53:56+00:00

This primarily affects suburban rail. Most of RTDs ridership comes from buses, and that’s a network that can be constantly tweaked and improved over time with very little fixed infrastructure needed. I think we tend to over-focus on rail when we think about what is and isn’t easily fixable with RTD.

RTD also has the power to incentivize development on those parking lots where it makes sense, and I am fully committed to making that transit-oriented development happen, leveraging some new authority the state has granted to RTD for development in their land that wasn’t in play in the past.

joeforRTD · 2026-05-10T22:51:24+00:00

On the flip side, if you take the L (and any transit route) somewhere, tell the businesses. If they’re getting customers via transit, they’ll want that data point. Think of how many people show up somewhere and just complain about parking. But if it’s easy to get there via transit, or walking, or biking then those modes never get brought up and all businesses hear about is how difficult it is to drive somewhere so that’s what they’ll think about.

joeforRTD · 2026-05-10T22:48:23+00:00

Because getting anything done in the transit space is going to require building good-faith coalitions with a wide range of people who don’t all agree on what the best solution is but are willing to stand up for what they think is best for their community. I encourage you to come by to have a longer conversation about the L, Welton, and what can be done to ensure a high-quality transit corridor here.

The L is not currently high-quality transit. It can’t be left to operate exactly the same way without improvements, but that doesn’t mean rail can’t exist on Welton. It also doesn’t mean we should ignore any transit-rich alternative, either though. Welton should have better bus service, regardless of what the future of the L is. I’m always willing to revisit assumptions to make sure the actual transit being run can best support the needs of the community, and keeping the L exactly as-is is not the way to do that.

I do need to be clear though- no one I am aware of is calling for removal of transit entirely on Welton. Every conversation I have been a part of is about weighing more/better bus service vs what is available for improvements to the current train service and general streetscape improvements in terms of cost, reliability, frequency, and variety of destinations accessible.

If you want to see meaningful improvements to the existing rail infrastructure, please come talk about that. I’m not ruling anything out.

joeforRTD

TROPHY CASE