Fourteen years ago we at Yellow Scene Magazine (YS) published the article Down the Road: Ten Transportation Issues Impacting You in the Next 10 Years by James Burrus which examined planned transportation developments in Boulder and the Denver metro area. We looked at several transportation proposals and issues and wrote about their prospects. At the time, Boulder and Denver were ever-growing cities in need of an expanded transportation network. The planet was rapidly warming and new and cleaner transportation methods were greatly needed to combat climate change. We had a president in office who had a penchant for green energy and clean mass transportation. There were a lot of exciting ideas aimed at making the Denver metro area a faster-moving and modern city. The future was bright. Our ambitions were huge. The budgets were reasonable. We were ready.
What has changed?
Well, Boulder and Denver are still growing. We still need an expanded transportation network, and the planet has gotten even hotter! But we have a new president who supports the oil and gas industry and refuses to accept climate change. In reviewing our YS article from 2011, we noticed that some things panned out. For example, BCycle, which had just launched their programs in Boulder and Denver, has since greatly expanded and now offers 300 e-bikes and provides a reduced cost for low-income residents. Obviously, that is great in expanding access, helping the environment, and easing the transportation strain. BCycle is supporting the micro mobility trend — that is, the rise of transportation with small, lightweight, and often electric vehicles used for quick journeys in an urban area. The city of Boulder announced a partnership with BCycle and the electric scooter company Lime to expand access to this exciting new path. The population of Boulder has grown nearly 12% since 2014 with a current population of 330,262. If we do not begin to plan for transit in a fast-growing Boulder, we may end up with the same problems that Denver currently has.
Other proposals in the article still haven’t happened. Case in point: Jefferson Parkway, a proposed regional toll road intended to complete the Denver metropolitan beltway system by connecting the Northwest Parkway in Broomfield to State Highway 93 in Golden, Colorado. The Jefferson Parkway has been a contentious issue since its conception. The tollway is meant to go through Broomfield and Jefferson counties. A major delay and near fatal blow to the project came in 2019 when elevated levels of plutonium were discovered in the soil which had many concerned about the potential safety of the project. Aside from that, the projected budget for such a project continues to balloon. The Denver Post reported in December 2024 that a recent dispute over the project cleared up, but the article noted that the project was still plagued by debates over its feasibility and continues to remain a quagmire. Completion of the project could lead to more development in the outer limits and have possible positive economic impact in Boulder. However, it also poses a risk for increased urban sprawl.
Aside from significant environmental concerns and costs, it might be better if we avoided a major tollway project. Currently, Colorado has one of the most expensive toll roads in the country. E-470 goes around the eastern side of the Denver metro area, and it currently costs a driver 33 cents per mile. Proponents will argue that toll roads are user-fee based, saving non-users money and having a fairer form of tax. But toll roads are also designed to allow for drivers with a means to avoid congestion on publicly-funded roads. This means that drivers who do not pay to use the toll road are forced to deal with more traffic. Publicly funded highways are also on average more dangerous than toll roads because they tend to be less well funded, which leads to worse road conditions and less lighting among other things.
In a way, toll roads are a way of the government not dealing with the original problem. As traffic patterns worsen on the tollway, it will eventually demand building new (possibly tolled) roads, and the cycle will continue, which is why we need to start looking at alternatives to the car and road system.
Currently, 49% of Denver residents use their cars for most of their trips. Without new public transportation infrastructure the number of cars will likely increase. Lower income residents, though, are less likely to be able to afford a car. About 10% of Denver residents do not own a vehicle. Increased congestion, pollution, and income inequality are the futures that await if we do not invest in our public infrastructure today.
The slow track to FasTracks
Let’s now turn to Regional Transportation District’s voter-approved transit expansion program, FasTracks. We wrote in 2011 that FasTracks is “a noble vision [that] is an unmitigated success.” We proposed then that it was time to “just build it so we can all move on.” Remember, 2011 was the perfect time for these sorts of proposals, politically (trains and public transportation were in vogue) and morally (global warming). At the time of the original article, tax revenues were lowered because of the Great Recession and funding for the project was more or less put to a stop. YS recognized the need for an expanded public transit system and proposed an additional .4% sales tax to finish the project. And we do not regret that proposal. A modest tax increase would have paid dividends by now.
The project started in 2004 with the passage of Senate Bill 24-230. The goal was to provide efficient and cheap transportation and curb the use of fossil fuels. Between 2004 and 2022, according to the FasTracks 2025 Finance and Planning Committee packet provided to YS, 75% of the project had been finished with four corridors awaiting construction: the Northwest Rail, North Metro, Southwest Corridor extension, and the Central Corridor Extension. According to RTD’s website, all four projects are currently unfunded. The Northwest Rail’s failure is particularly troubling as there was a proposed stop in Boulder — the second to last stop. It goes without saying what a missed opportunity this has been. If we stuck to the plan, we could have had an easy alternative to get from Boulder to Denver, and we could have done it with a fraction of the carbon footprint made by driving.
Despite being so close to the end, nothing much has changed. Our demand to “just build it” has not happened. What is going on? In 2011, the Denver population was 2,428,000. The population of Denver is now 23% larger at nearly 3 million people, and Boulder has grown by 12%. Denver’s increase in population has not affected its average commute time, which currently stands at 25.5 minutes. This accounts for about two days stuck in traffic for the year. It can be inferred that newer residents are bringing cars with them. Car users will have the advantage of being able to live farther away from the city center. This will lead to more demand for roads. While this might not be a problem now, it most definitely will be in the future.
Where are we now?
In 2004, voters authorized an increase in the district’s sales to finance the development of FasTracks. As stated earlier, YS proposed an additional (and modest) tax increase to continue FasTracks development, yet that has not come to fruition. Currently, sales tax makes up 66.6% of FasTracks’ budget while an additional 18% comes from grants. Only 4.9% of revenue comes from passenger fares. There are advantages to this system. It is not dependent upon passengers to generate profit. This is important to ensure that a new industry can survive in the beginning. It also helps low-income residents. Because the majority of revenue comes from sales tax,low-income residents, those most likely to benefit from any sort of public transportation system, are not subject to price hikes and rising costs.
The downside to this current economic model is that it is subject to the shocks of economic downturns, such as The Great Recession. As has already been noted, that economic downturn and the following reduction in sales tax revenue lead to the project being stalled. Then, as you may already be well aware, another shock came in 2020 with the COVID crisis, which severely reduced transit ridership. These economic shocks caused the project to be heavily delayed. According to Professor Juan Carlos Lopez, associate professor specializing in urban economics at the University of Denver, one consequence is that the cost of the project will continue to rise. “This isn’t surprising, “ Professor Lopez told us. “Long-term investments require projections on [what] costs are going to look like in the future.” None of us could have foreseen the Recession nor the pandemic, and we continue to have the same budget outline from the early 2000s.
Ridership reached its peak in 2019 with 105,824 boardings. The pandemic squashed those numbers, and FasTracks has yet to recover. Ridership for 2024 was at 65,230 boardings, a nearly 40% decrease. Lower ridership obviously decreases any continued revenue stream and puts more strain on the need for tax increases. Professor Lopez pointed out how the lack of development creates a catch-22 for the transportation system. “The system is pretty good at getting people downtown but not very good at getting people anywhere else. As you expand the set of places you can travel in the metro area via public transit, the more attractive the system looks.” Currently, about 6% of all trips are by either bus or rail. Without expansion, many residents will be forced to continue commuting by automobile, further compounding the problem. This lack of FasTracks seems much more like a shark in that once it stops moving, it begins to die.
Denver, Colorado, USA-June 22, 2016. Amtrack train ready for departure at the Denver Union Station.
The problem is that we are once again entering into choppy economic waters, and the appetite for another tax increase might not be there. But a failure to raise revenue via taxation would most likely mean that expansion would have to fall on the passengers by increasing the cost per ride, which would defeat the whole point of a public transportation system. Currently, base fares for Denver are some of the most expensive in the country at $2.75. This is 50 cents more than the national average.
In addition, as is the case with many public transportation projects, projected budgets were vastly outpaced by reality. The project was originally projected to cost $4.7 billion. The budget quickly exploded and reached $6.5 billion,which caused delays in building and scaling back the project’s ambitions. Contributing to these challenges is FasTracks’ greatest expense: deterioration — the wear and tear of its infrastructure, such as its trains and tracks. Eventually, this infrastructure will need to be replaced, which further strains FasTrack’s budget as funds will need to be diverted towards maintenance and replacement of infrastructure as opposed to going towards investment in the continued expansion of the transportation network. FasTrack’s history of going over budget remains a cause for concern considering that the Denver to Boulder train is currently in talks again.
In 2012, YS published Derailed by Greg Cambell which explored the issues that slowed FasTracks over 12 years ago. The article ended with the following quote, “‘Whatever the price,” added Director Matt Cohen, “let’s just get it done sooner than later.’” Time is truly a flat circle, and we are demanding the same thing now.
What can we do to solve this?
Denver Moves Everyone 2050, the strategic transportation plan issued in April 2023 for the Department of Transportation and Infrastructure, provides a comprehensive look at Denver’s current transportation situation as well as its possible future. Currently, 14% of all trips are made by walking, rolling, cycling, and transit. The project hopes to get this number up to 51%. Part of this goal, as has already been covered, is greater expansion of the transportation network.
Currently, sales tax represents FasTracks’ greatest revenue stream. However, according to Denver Moves Everyone 2050, the city “does not presently have the funding necessary to keep up with the maintenance needs of the current transportation system.” FasTracks operates at a loss, but it must be noted that it is still considered a “safe investment” by Moody’s, indicating that there is no risk of the network going under anytime soon.
If we want to fund FasTracks properly and allow it to expand, then we will have to increase its revenue source. Admittedly, an additional increase in sales tax is politically infeasible. A rise of sales tax, which functions as a flat consumption tax, would fall mostly on lower-income residents who see a greater share of their income go towards consumption rather than savings and investment. This would defeat our noble goal of fighting income inequality. We could try to raise ridership fees to make up revenue deficits, but this would threaten an already decreasing ridership, potentially lowering it further and dissuading future passengers from utilizing the service.
One solution proposed by our Down the Road article 14 years ago was a gasoline tax of 25 cents per gallon to fund public transportation. The truth is, we want to dissuade gas-powered automobile use. More cars lead to more congestion and more pollution. Higher-income residents are more likely to own cars and less likely to use public transportation. We could utilize this tax both to increase funding while damming destructive tendencies. We cannot continue down our current path, which will lead to byzantine spaghetti roads clogged by cars all the while our ozone layer gets thinner and thinner. In addition, we can seek additional revenue by taxing dirty industries. If they are going to create pollution, then we need to invest in a cleaner future. It’s a fair deal. And of course, we can always start taxing the wealthy more.
Another more pragmatic solution would be to divert funds towards other means of transportation. Professor Lopez believes that perhaps it’s time we invest more in buses: “Light rail is often seen as attractive, but it is expensive, and the infrastructure is fixed. You have to commit to that line. Buses provide a lot more flexibility in terms of routes and timing in that you can easily adjust how often buses run and where they should go.” The data does bear this out. According to RTD’s Unaudited Monthly Financial Statements from December 2024, bus ridership has increased 4.1% while light rail ridership has seen a decrease of 12.4%. This suggests that buses are picking up the slack. The demand for transportation is still there — it’s just that buses have been more efficient in expanding their routes to cover a greater area.
While much of this article has been devoted to expanding public transit, we also must consider ways to make Denver more walkable for residents. Not only is walking the greenest option for transportation, it is also the healthiest and can help build up a strong society. It is imperative that we start improving pedestrian infrastructure and safety now. According to a recent report by NPR, 7,500 pedestrians were killed by drivers in 2023, which marked the highest total since 1981. This is in line with the Colorado Department of Transportation’s report that pedestrian deaths in the state have “increased 77% since 2018.” If we were to continue expanding our reliance on automobiles, we will have to continue to put more land towards streets. Shockingly, as of today, only 1.2% of land in the 35 largest metropolitan areas are “walkable” according to the World Economic Forum.
Boulder has made PBS’s list of most walkable medium or smaller cities while Denver managed to take 16th place according to Conde Nast Traveler. Surprisingly for such an active city, Denver fares poorly when ranked by cities with the most green space (calculated by total green area and parks). Denver sits at 68th, beaten out by its sister city, Colorado Springs, ranked 27th. Colorado’s reputation for active lifestyles and populations does not match its lack of walkability and green spaces. Our cities should better reflect this. The DME 2050 plan recognizes the importance of walkability. The plan calls for car-free zones in heavy pedestrian zones. The estimated budget of the project is $4,000,000 per mile. That might sound like a steep price, and, after reading about the boondoggle projects in this article you might be skeptical that the city is even capable of keeping that budget.
A major theme that this article would like to impart upon you is that all public work projects, if property funded and executed, could pay off dividends for the economy, public health, and the betterment of society. According to the World Economic Forum, walkable urban areas are less costly to maintain and run due to close proximity of destinations and require fewer, not more, government subsidies as the city no longer has to fix and repair deteriorating roads nor deal with the consequences of automobile accidents. More walkable areas and more public parks and playgrounds would, according to Denver’s Parks and Recreations Department, help expand access to active areas to which 52% of Denver’s children do not have access. Boulder’s Transportation Master Plan shares many of the same goals as Denver. Boulder hopes to create more separation between cars and pedestrians to make the city safer and create a more welcoming atmosphere.
Where do we go from here?
As we look at what has (or has not been) done and what is being proposed, it’s important to remind ourselves that there are major innovations on the horizon that could dramatically reinvent what we think of as transportation and that could reshape how we think of urban design. You have probably already seen driverless cars picking up passengers or tiny robots delivering food. Drone technology is slowly being introduced for package and food deliveries, and there are some exciting developments with the Jetsons fantasy of the flying car. In five or 10 years we could be having a very different discussion on what is being developed in our city and state than we are having now.
We have seen some changes and improvements in our infrastructure since the last time we explored this issue 14 years ago. Yet several major projects have either stalled and are, as of yet, unfinished or have not even gotten off the ground. But the problems still remain, have gotten worse, and will continue to worsen until action is taken. We should continue on, to just build the damn thing and get it over with. And we should continue to think about new ways we can give more residents greater access to transportation throughout our state and cities. We need to strive to make a sustainable, efficient, and equitable city. We can’t afford to wait. Let’s hope the next time we write about this, it will have a different tone, reflecting on the great progress we’ve made.
