Proposal would beef up RTD’s urban lines
Latest moves point toward future that favors higher- demand bus routes
Facing the cataclysmic shock of a onceina- century pandemic, the Regional Transportation District is in no position to expand service anytime soon. But that isn’t keeping the agency from mulling a reshuffling plan that points to potentially seismic future changes in how — and where — it runs bus lines.
RTD’s board this week is poised to approve a new service plan that in January would suspend three regional bus routes with low ridership, including downtown commuter buses to Conifer, Evergreen and several other foothills communities.
RTD also would reduce service on other bus lines — all while shifting drivers to
run buses more frequently on two urban routes, along Federal Boulevard and West Colfax Avenue, that are so full under COVID- 19 safety protocols that they sometimes turn away riders. The 16 and 31 routes serve Denver and communities to the north and west, and RTD officials point out that they tend to transport service workers who lack work- from-home options.
There’s an obvious tension at the heart of these changes, and it’s one RTD and Denver- area transit advocates began probing in- depth before the coronavirus pandemic sent ridership and revenue plummeting.
In short: Should RTD prioritize traditional routes that serve more people, at the cost of some farflung suburban and rural routes that, while attracting loyal riders, serve many fewer of them?
RTD has hit the pause button on this larger effort, a two- year study called “Reimagine RTD.” But its early lessons are evident in the proposed January service changes, which would alter RTD’s already reduced pandemic schedules without a net increase in service.
“I hope this can be a model for us to build out from,” said Danny Katz, a Reimagine RTD advisory board member who is director of the Colorado Public Interest Research Group. “What they’re doing now should help inform how they grow the service back up. I hope that one key priority moving forward is making sure we’re putting service where we have the most people ( and) the most transit dependency, because that’s where we’re going to get the most bang for our buck.”
RTD cited low ridership — often in the single digits per bus, though some riders told the agency it’s been growing lately — on the regional routes proposed for indefinite suspension: the CS/ CV route to Pine Junction, the ES/ EV route to Evergreen and the GS route between Golden and Boulder. RTD also would end service on Boulder County’s 205 route east of the Lookout Road/ Gunpark Drive stop.
While several other bus routes would see service cuts, RTD plans to adjust others’ schedules to improve their on- time performance. As for the spurned regional riders, a partner program is working out plans for vanpools and other potential alternatives, an RTD spokesperson said.
Several light rail changes also are in the offing, including reinstatement of the D Line ( and suspension of the C Line), more frequent morning trains on most lines and better schedule alignments to allow easier connections at the Broadway station.
RTD’s board will take a final vote on the proposed changes during a remote meeting set for 5: 30 p. m. Tuesday.
Bigger changes likely to invite pushback
RTD’s budget is likely to be mired in the effects of pandemic for a while. Its ridership is still stuck at less than half of normal levels, as many former riders work from home and those who do board buses and trains face mask requirements and reduced capacity limits aimed at accommodating social distancing.
But transit industry observers predict mass transportation will recover. What if RTD goes big on a fundamental rethink — one that favors different kinds of demanddriven routing over geographic coverage?
Several scenarios gamed out during the Reimagine process in the spring concluded that RTD could grow its ridership without a large expansion by refocusing service in three overlapping ways: beefing up more service along major high- frequency corridors, diverting some resources to highdensity areas where residents tend to lack cars, and targeting more service to neighborhoods and travel routes that have the highest potential ridership.
But any of those necessarily would shortchange RTD’s already sparsely served outer regions, all but guaranteeing pushback. And RTD’s setup poses an inherent challenge.
The agency has the nation’s largest urban transit footprint, with a service area that covers 2,342 square miles in eight counties. Voters elect board members to represent 15 districts, and their debates are prone to occasional divisions along territorial lines.
And there’s also the matter of the taxpayers who elect those board members.
In its election questionnaires for candidates in RTD’s board races, The Denver Post asked for views on the geography vs. demand question.
The range of responses pointed to the likelihood for measured change, at best.
“It really is a balance because even communities with less density pay into the system,” wrote Paul Rosenthal, a former state lawmaker. He’s running unopposed in District E, which covers southeast Denver and nearby suburbs.
The modest changes proposed for January drew pushback in dozens of emails and other complaints sent to RTD, largely from riders who depend on the routes set to lose service.
“Removing all bus lines to/ from the foothills is an unfair way to manage your business issues,” wrote Randy Bohannon, an information technology consultant who lives in Conifer, near the CS/
CV route. “You are cutting off an entire section of the metro area, and yes, we are still in the metro area. Reducing the number ( of buses) is reasonable, but eliminating is not appropriate.”
Favoring routes with high ridership
Along West Colfax on late Wednesday afternoon, the need for more buses on the 16 route was clear. A westbound bus leaving the Auraria Campus had riders in roughly one of every two paired seats. ( RTD discourages strangers from sitting side- byside.)
At the intersection with Wadsworth Boulevard, Denise Sandoval, 24, waited for an eastbound bus toward home in west Denver. She’d finished a shift as a sanitation worker at a south suburban Whole Foods store that’s off a connecting bus route on Wadsworth.
She’s gotten used to schedule changes this year and having to plan extra travel time to work, just in case.
“It has been crowded, and sometimes it’s delayed,” she said of riding the bus. “Sometimes, it comes full — so I don’t have a chance to take the ride. They put on the signal: ‘ Sorry, bus full.’ So you have to wait for another one.”
For now, resource- starved
RTD, which is making plans to lay off nearly 500 operators and management employees as it adjusts to pandemic service levels, plans to make better service for riders like Sandoval its priority.
During an Oct. 20 board committee meeting, Jessie Carter, the agency’s manager of service planning and scheduling, suggested that between their low ridership and long travel distances, the targeted regional routes were simply too wasteful.
“It just doesn’t bode well for mass transit, in that the resources necessary to actually carry that could be used on routes that are actually having capacity problems,” he said. “That was part of the analysis.”
RTD plans to resume the Reimagine study early next year. Katz, for one, thinks it’s the perfect time to establish a new blueprint for how RTD might add different service rather than simply reversing the cuts.
But some board members may have other ideas.
On an 8- 7 vote in the committee meeting, a narrow majority amended the January service proposal to make clear that the cuts are intended to be temporary. Depending on the course of the pandemic, they plan to revisit the decisions by next September, the amendment says, and to invite input from local governments on which services to restore. It does say the restoration process will consider, among other factors, “lessons learned in Reimagine RTD.”
But the unmistakable signal that the regional routes might not be dead was welcomed by Director Peggy Catlin, whose District N covers much of Jefferson County — including Conifer and Evergreen.
“I support this amendment. … It gives me a little bit of comfort, given what I’m facing in my region,” she said. “But I also think, given the volatility of our situation, it’s important to make sure that we can revisit this in a more timely fashion.”