By Debi Brazzale, COLORADO NEWS AGENCY

Rolling back a hike in vehicle-registration fees, lowering energy costs, and reinforcing taxpayer rights are on their to-do list when the legislature convenes in January, say state Senate Republicans.

Those goals, unveiled this week as a “Pledge to Colorado Taxpayers,” represent the third installment of the Senate Republicans’ 2011 legislative agenda.

“This will ensure Colorado families have more of their hard-earned tax dollars while protecting vital government services,” said Senate GOP Caucus Chair Bill Cadman, of Colorado Springs.

The plan seeks to:

• Phase out an increase in vehicle-registration fees, contained in legislation dubbed “FASTER,” passed by the General Assembly in 2009;
• Repeal the Public Utility Commission’s authority to implement a much-debated, two-tiered rate structure for power;
• Change the law to make a clear and enforceable distinction between fees and taxes and requiring a super-majority vote for all fee increases;
• Guarantee that any tax increase proposed is brought to the people for a vote.

Democratic Senate Majority Leader John Morse, also of Colorado Springs, discounted the latest legislative foray by Republicans as impractical and too costly—safety-wise. Morse said that when FASTER was proposed, his caucus tried to get the Republicans to help them with it and they refused.

“There’s a debit side to the ledger and a credit side to the ledger,” said Morse. “We have unsafe bridges and Democrats came up with this plan (FASTER). The Republican plan says ‘public safety be damned! We’re going to save people $45 per year!’ How about solutions instead of just attacking the innovative solutions that have already been implemented?”

Morse said he also takes issue with the notion that fee increases merit a super-majority vote, stating that the higher standard would compromise democracy.

Critics of recent fee hikes have decried the increases as an end-run on TABOR, the Taxpayer’s Bill of Rights amendment enacted into the state’s constitution in 1992. It requires all tax hikes and bonded debt to be put to a popular vote.

“Most of the people in Colorado believe in democracy and democracy is fifty percent plus one. Whenever you require a supermajority, you give the power away from democracy and empower the minority,” said Morse.

Yet, Cadman says taxpayers deserve more protections.

“Over-promising and overspending led Democrat lawmakers to continually circumvent taxpayer protections in our state constitution,” Cadman said. “It is time we rein in out-of-control spending and begin to budget to the core functions of government.”

Earlier this fall, the Senate GOP also released an Agenda for Economic Recovery and an Agenda to Reform & Restrain Government.

Stay ahead by signing up for State Bill E-News! >

By Gene Davis, DENVER DAILY NEWS

A wide-ranging group of experts and scholars yesterday argued that some form of high-speed rail should play a large part in Colorado’s transportation future.

But they acknowledged that no new high-speed rail line could be built for at least 10 years, a significant project would be very expensive and most lawmakers currently don’t have the political will to support a substantial high-speed rail project.

The variety of experts yesterday spoke at the “Intercity Passenger Rail Opportunities and Challenges For Colorado” forum held at the University of Denver campus. The event went on for more than five hours and included speakers like Ira Schreiber, president of the Colorado Rail Passenger Association, and Rod Diridon, executive director at the Mineta Transportation Institute.

Presenters continually argued that faster high-speed rail lines would be economically viable and sustainable for Colorado. Rocky Mountain Rail Authority Chairman Harry Dale discussed the feasibility study his group did on the economic viability of high-speed rail lines along the I-25 and I-70 corridors. The study found that rail lines could be profitable if they have average speeds of at least 80 miles per hour.

“Speed equals feasibility,” he said.

But the faster the rail line the more it costs. The starting cost for a rail line that would go fast enough to be economically viable starts around $20 billion for both the I-70 and I-25 corridors, according to Dale. The study also found that rail lines would need to be built on both corridors to attract enough riders to make the project worthwhile.

Scholars at the Independence Institute, a Golden-based libertarian think tank, believe that the high price tag makes high-speed rail a bad idea for Colorado. The Institute’s Randal O’Toole said this week that new transportation technologies are adopted when they’re cheaper, more convenient and faster than what is currently around. He believes that the high-speed rail being considered would not fulfill any of those requirements, an that the state should focus on building more roads and increasing public transportation via busses.

But Dale and other high-speed rail advocates argue that the projected population growth for Denver and Colorado means that the state must think long term, and that a high speed rail line is a necessary avenue to take going forward. Dale maintains that a high-speed rail line could attract customers while helping the environment.

“Nobody’s going to put a gun to your head and say, ‘You’re not driving today, you’re taking the train,” he said. “You need your free will to ride the train.”

Historically, American transportation builders build roads at about 8 percent over the original projected cost. Rail lines on average run about 40 percent over the original projected cost, according to O’Toole.

Additionally, the U.S. state with the one existing high-speed rail project in the works Ń California Ń has been marred by complaints that the passenger trains could be noisy and that ridership numbers would be significantly lower than originally predicted. One councilmember in Palo Alto, Calif., offered a proposal this month to state that the city has no confidence in the High Speed Rail Authority Board and to ask all government officials to stop funding the rail project. The councilmember said the taxpayers and community would have to pick up much of the cost for high-speed rail because the authority plans on building the train system “on the cheap.”

Dale expressed confidence at yesterday’s forum that the state could potentially reduce costs by 30 percent by building part of the rail tracks on site at a manufacturing center and then sending it out to the site. But he implied that manufacturing the module sections on site at a manufacturing center would not have any negative effect on the final rail line.

CDOT’s plan going forward

Yesterday’s forum comes after the Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT) last week argued via its newest study on proposed improvements to the I-70 mountain corridor that an advanced guideway system such as an elevated, high-speed rail line should play a central part in relieving traffic congestion for the area in the future. Several high-profile employees from CDOT, including the I-70 Mountain Corridor Environmental Manager, participated in a panel yesterday on planning for intercity passenger rail.

CDOT had previously eliminated the idea of implementing an advanced guideway system because they originally put a $4 billion cap on potential improvements to the I-70 corridor. But following an outcry from stakeholders, CDOT embarked on a “lengthy process” to come to an agreement with the stakeholders that resulted in the recommendation of an advanced guideway system.

CDOT acknowledged that they currently don’t have nearly enough money to fund such a project. It’s critical that some action is taken on the corridor, though, since weekend travel time is expected to be approximately three times higher by 2035 than it is today.

Stay ahead by signing up for State Bill E-News! >

By Melissa Maynard, STATELINE
Way back in the early 1990s, Minnesota was one of the first states to pursue the idea of public-private partnerships in transportation. All these years later, it has yet to see its first privately operated toll road open.Legislation that passed in 1993 sought to focus the state Transportation Department’s limited resources on maintaining its existing network of roads and bridges. It would allow private operators to finance, build, operate and maintain toll roads to fill out the system. But the project’s first endeavor, a high-profile new toll road that was to jut out from the southwestern edge of the Twin Cities, failed to win the public approval it needed and the whole costly experience soured the state on transportation public-private partnerships (“P3s”) for more than a decade. Minnesota might seem an unlikely candidate to launch a broad P3 portfolio now, both because of the earlier experience and because of local controversy over the Midwest region’s high-profile $1.8 billion, 99-year lease of the Chicago Skyway in 2004 and the $3.8 billion, 75-year lease of the Indiana Toll Road in 2006. Still, a comprehensive evaluation of a range of potential P3 projects in the state is due back from a consulting firm by the end of the month, and the Minnesota Department of Transportation is hoping that the time is finally right for P3s to relieve congestion and add capacity in and around the congested Twin Cities more quickly than could be done through more traditional approaches. The projects that Minnesota and other states are quietly launching in this new generation of P3s are more modest than the big-ticket P3 push of the mid-2000s, which focused largely on finding opportunities to lease existing toll roads to private operators for decades in exchange for large upfront payments.  “They were all driven by the political desire to quickly turn future revenue streams into a big pile of cash,” says Juang Lee, of the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials. Blockbuster “brownfield” projects such as the Indiana Toll Road that convert existing highways into P3s and use future toll income to compensate the private operators have largely stalled, and are being replaced with more modest projects aimed at building new roads or adding additional capacity to existing ones. “We’re not even considering things like the Chicago Skyway or Indiana Toll Road at this point and that’s because it seems to be a very polarizing approach,” says Brad Larsen, of the Minnesota Department of Transportation. “We’ve found it easier to say we’re not going to look at those types of projects at all.” Wall Street’s welcome The more modest approach that many states are taking aligns well with the current needs of potential partners in the private sector. “There is more interest in smaller transactions and not necessarily going for the home runs,” says Jim Taylor, vice president of the infrastructure firm Mercator Advisors. Smaller deals are less trouble to put together and are seen as an easier sell in cases where formal legislative approval is required, which is sometimes late in the process. “While the credit markets have opened meaningfully since 2008, the deals need to really show legislative certainty before banks will spend time on them,” says Robert Collins, a managing director at Greenhill & Co., an investment bank. As the former head of Morgan Stanley’s domestic infrastructure banking efforts, Collins worked closely with Pennsylvania Governor Ed Rendell as Rendell attempted to sell the Legislature on his 2008 proposal to lease the Pennsylvania Turnpike to an international consortium of investors for $12.8 billion. The deal would have been the largest domestic P3 deal to date, but the necessary legislation stalled in the Legislature due to concerns about everything from the size of the offer to foreign involvement and the impact of toll increases on neighboring communities. “The biggest obstacle to transportation P3s is effectively the glide path for the approval process,” Collins says. “If we spend the money to launch the plane, are they going to be able to land it?” In the “greenfield” P3 projects that states such as Florida and Virginia have launched on empty land, the private sector gets involved in varying aspects of the financing, design, building, operation and maintenance of a new road or additional lane, and is compensated for its investment in varying ways by the state. This can mean an accelerated schedule for cash-strapped states such as Arizona, especially where there’s limited debt capacity and a long wish list of projects. “P3s provide an opportunity to stretch our limited conventional funding,” says Doug Nintzel, a spokesman for the Arizona Department of Transportation, which is using authority granted under 2009 legislation to explore a range of P3 projects. “If a project can be done with private investment, that could allow state funding to be used elsewhere. We’re finding that P3s could be used to get big projects done sooner than anyone might think.” A toll-free model Florida, for example, is working with a group of investors including Meridiam Infrastructure to build a new tunnel connecting the Port of Miami to key downtown highways and create an alternative to the often congested area on and around the Port Bridge. Construction began in May on the $903 million tunnel project — which a private operator has agreed to design, build, finance, operate and maintain for 35 years — and it is expected to be completed in 2014, an accelerated timeline by industry standards for a project of its magnitude. In exchange, the state will provide milestone payments throughout the project’s construction and annual “availability payments” of up to approximately $32.5 million that will be determined by the condition of the road. Other states are watching Florida’s project closely because it offers a toll-free approach to P3s that might be more palatable to the public and state legislators than other options — such as increases in the gas tax. California significantly altered its P3 legislation in 2009 to allow for a more comprehensive approach that doesn’t require legislative approval for each project. A major P3 project called the Presidio Parkway that uses a payment structure similar to that of the Port of Miami Bridge is in the works in San Francisco. But it has proved to be more difficult to identify other projects and move them forward than many in the state had hoped, says Richard Little, a member of California’s Public Infrastructure Advisory Commission.  “At the heart of the matter with doing P3s is ‘where’s the revenue coming from to do this,’” Little says. “If you’re not going to take it out of the tax structure, you’re going to have to charge a fee.” The available permutations of P3s are increasing, says Jaime Rall, a research analyst at the National Conference of State Legislatures who focuses on transportation issues. “That raises a lot of opportunities, but it also makes the necessary dialogue more complex,” says Rall, noting that questions about how to govern and oversee P3 contracts over long periods of time tend to be especially prickly. According to NCSL, 29 states now have some form of “enabling legislation” authorizing P3s, up from 23 in 2008.  These statutes set up a variety of governance structures and range from authorization for pilot projects to the go-ahead to launch a range of projects without consulting or briefing the legislature.  The more cautious states require a vote of the legislature before any particular projects can move forward or, in Missouri’s case, even a vote of the people under some circumstances. In 2008, public concern over the neighboring Chicago Skyway and Indiana Toll Road deals prompted Minnesota to significantly disable its 1993 enabling legislation. An amendment called the “prohibition on privatization provision” now limits the extent to which a private operator can operate and maintain a road. Although Minnesota is still counted in most tallies of states with “P3 enabling legislation,” new legislation would be necessary to move forward virtually any significant P3 project. —Contact Melissa Maynard at mmaynard@stateline.org

Stay ahead by signing up for State Bill E-News! >

By Gene Davis, DENVER DAILY NEWS

The newest study on proposed improvements to the Interstate 70 mountain corridor argues that an advanced guideway system such as an elevated, high-speed rail line should play a central part in relieving traffic congestion for the area in the future.

Meanwhile, anti-rail advocates maintain that the Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT) is on the wrong track by recommending an advanced guideway system.

The preferred alternative detailed in the Revised Draft Environmental Impact Statement released Friday argues that building a new advanced guideway system, along with widening the highway, would help increase capacity and mobility while decreasing congestion to destinations along the I-70 Mountain Corridor. If nothing is done, weekend travel time on the corridor in 2035 is expected to be approximately three times higher than it is today, according to CDOT.

Pricey

But implementing a rail system and widening the highway would help make the preferred option cost up to $20 billion. CDOT acknowledges in the study that the state does not have enough money to fund those improvements and is looking for other sources for money Ń including private/public partnerships, tolling and bonding/loans Ń to help fund the project.

CDOT promises to fund studies to determine the viability of an elevated transit system along the mountain corridor. The transit system would provide service for approximately 118 miles from the Eagle County Regional Airport to the C-470 intersection. The rail system would require new tunnel bores at both the Eisenhower-Johnson Memorial Tunnels and the Twin Tunnels.

CDOT had previously eliminated the idea of implementing an advanced guideway system because they originally put a $4 billion cap on potential improvements to the corridor. But following an outcry from stakeholders, CDOT embarked on a “lengthy process” to come to an agreement with the stakeholders that resulted in the recommendation of an advanced guideway system.

Bad idea?

Randal O’Toole of the Independence Institute, a Golden-based libertarian think tank, believes an advanced guideway system such as rail is a bad idea because it would cost a lot of money while not relieving traffic congestion. He doesn’t think many people would use a rail line because it’s “inconvenient, a lot more expensive and — not faster at all” compared to roads.

“You’re substituting an expensive, inconvenient slow technology for a convenient fast cheap technology and it’s just not going to work,” he said.

Meanwhile, Kevin O’Malley — the chairman of the Clear Creek County Board of County Commissioners who has been involved with working on the future of I-70 for about six years — said he supports building an advanced guideway system because it is projected to last for more than 75 years. Adding extra lanes, on the other hand, would do little to combat congestion after five years, he added.

“I think that it’s time that we in the United States start thinking a little bit more about the long term,” he said.

Danny Katz of the Colorado Public Interest Research Group (CoPIRG) added that an advanced guideway system is “one more step in coming up with a comprehensive solution to a problem that everyone in Colorado has had a personal experience with.” He believes plenty of people would utilize a rail line through the mountains and that the transit system would be economically sustainable after it is built.

The Revised Draft Environmental Impact Statement follows 10 years of studies and deliberation. CDOT Spokeswoman Stacey Stegman said it’s taken so long to offer a plan because the mountain corridor is “unique and critical to so many groups.”

She pointed out that the I-70 mountain corridor effects everyone from trade and commerce and freight traffic to snowboarders looking to get away for the weekend.

The Revised Draft Environmental Impact Statement is a first step towards improving the I-70 mountain corridor.

The statement is available online at I70MTNCorridor.com. CDOT is holding public hearings on the proposed preferred alternative Oct. 5-7 in Summit, Clear Creek and Eagle counties.

Improving the I-70 mountain corridor has long been a hot-button issue for lawmakers, community members and state leaders. During the past legislative session, Sen. Chris Romer, D-Denver, proposed installing a “zipper lane” that would reduce traffic on the highway during peak hours. Zipper lanes would use movable barriers to create three eastbound lanes and one westbound lane on I-70 during peak traffic hours.

A bill proposed by Romer and passed by the Legislature encourages the Colorado Department of Transportation to study the use of zipper lanes. According to the Colorado News Agency, the zipper lanes would be implemented in the fall of 2011 and at the earliest, if it comes to fruition at all.

Stay ahead by signing up for State Bill E-News! >

By Peter Marcus, DENVER DAILY NEWS
The Regional Transportation District tonight will begin holding public hearings to address a proposed fare increase that would begin in 2011.
Transit riders are already concerned that the increase will impact the ridership’s most vulnerable population, including disabled citizens living on a short fixed income.
The proposed increase includes:
— 25-cent increase for local regular cash fares;
— 50-cent increase for Express and Regional cash fares, and;
— $1 increase for SkyRide cash fares.
RTD officials say the increase is necessary to help close an estimated $12 million budget shortfall.
Budget analysts for the transit agency say there are two primary areas where the district is losing revenue: sales tax and passenger fares.
Sales tax revenues account for 69 percent of those revenues while passenger fares account for 30 percent, and advertising revenues and other sources account for an estimated 1 percent.
Because sales tax revenues continue to remain below what is needed to support current service levels, which has required the development of a fiscal action plan to address the projected deficit, RTD officials do not forecast an immediate boost to operating revenues.
Outside the bus stop Friday at 21st and Broadway, two disabled transit riders expressed their concern for any raise in fare. With assistance checks as low as $200 per month, Denver’s most indigent population often suffers the worst, said Mike Basnett, a Denver resident living on disability, and Michelle Wold, a Denver resident who is living on a short fixed income because of a disability she suffered.
“I don’t get much money,” said Basnett. “I’d be kind of irritated. I wouldn’t be able to take as many trips.”
He added that he uses transit for such core functions as going to the pharmacy and to doctors appointments.
“It would be a hardship,” said Wold, outside the Stout Street Clinic in Denver’s downtown Ballpark neighborhood.
“I understand, I do understand,” she said of RTD’s need to fill a continuing budget shortfall, as well a close a $2.5 billion gap in the FasTracks light rail and bus expansion project budget. “But, I can’t get anywhere for $40 a month. I can see their point, we need FasTracks, we needed it 10 years ago, we need RTD, we can’t afford to lose RTD, and so at the same time, I guess you have to suck it up.”
Public hearings to address the fare increase begin tonight in Littleton, Westminster and Aurora, and will continue across the metro area through Sept. 24.
The RTD Board of Directors says it will review public comment before making a final decision on the fare increase on Oct. 26.
Comments can be e-mailed or faxed to:
— farecomments@RTD-Denver.com
— 303-299-2008.
All comments must be received by Sept. 26.
For a list of public hearings and additional information, visit RTD-Denver.com/proposedfareincrease.

Stay ahead by signing up for State Bill E-News! >

By Gene Davis, DENVER DAILY NEWS
The Colorado Department of Transportation yesterday announced that Mark Imhoff has been named as the director for the state’s new Division of Transit and Rail.
But critics of high-speed rail have one piece of advice for Imhoff — stay away from a transportation system that they believe is neither cost efficient nor financially efficient.
The Division of Transit and Rail was created by legislation last year to oversee a statewide transit program. The program has the authority to promote, plan, design, finance, operate, maintain and contract for transit services such as passenger rail, buses and advanced guideway systems. An initial goal of the program is to explore new transit and rail services, including high-speed rail, through Colorado.
Meanwhile, Randal O;Toole, a research fellow at the Independence Institute, a Golden-based libertarian think tank, is hoping that Imhoff will stay away from promoting or implementing high-speed rail. O’Toole argued that rail lines are expensive and limit where people can go. He favors building more highways that can “go far more places and for a cheaper cost.”
“If you look at the history of transportation you see that we adapt new technologies when they are faster, cheaper and more efficient than old ones,” he said. “But rail technology is slow, expensive and inconvenient. There’s no reason why anyone would adopt rail technology in today’s transportation world.”

Criticisms of, support for high-speed rail
Historically, American transportation builders build roads at about 8 percent over the original projected cost. Rail lines on average run about 40 percent over the original projected cost, according to O’Toole.
Additionally, the U.S. state with the one existing high-speed rail project in the works — California — has been marred by complaints that the passenger trains could be noisy and that ridership numbers would be significantly lower than originally predicted. One councilmember in Palo Alto, Calif., offered a proposal this month to state that the city has no confidence in the High Speed Rail Authority Board and to ask all government officials to stop funding the rail project. The councilmember said the taxpayers and community would have to pick up much of the cost for high-speed rail because the authority plans on building the train system “on the cheap.”
O’Toole worries that taxpayers in Colorado would also end up paying for high-speed rail since the federal government has said that at least 20 percent of the funding for the high-speed rail projects must come from local taxpayers, who also must pay for the operating costs.
But Danny Katz, state director for the Colorado Public Interest Research Group, said it makes sense for the state to look at all possible transportation options that could move the people who will be “flooding into the state” within the next 30 years. He doesn’t believe the state can build enough roads to properly accommodate the influx of people. Katz pointed to a study conducted by the Rocky Mountain Rail Authority issued this year that found high-speed rail routes would be economically and technologically feasible throughout the state.
“It seems premature to write high-speed rail off when it hasn’t been built anywhere in the country,” he said.

Provision of controversial FASTER program
The new Division of Transit and Rail was created by a provision of FASTER, a controversial transportation plan that raised vehicle registration fees to help fix the state’s transportation infrastructure. A provision of FASTER provides that $5 million of FASTER funds be allocated to the State Transit and Rail Fund.
The federal government is covering more than 75 percent of the $24.7-million budget for the 2011 fiscal year for the grant funding that will be administered by the new division. The remaining budget provides for initial staffing, including Imhoff’s salary of $114,948 per year, and funds for developing the State Rail Plan and High-Speed Rail Connectivity Study.
Prior to coming to CDOT, Imhoff was managing principal at a firm and oversaw a contract for RTD’s FasTracks program. Imhoff also served as a senior manager at RTD. His initial goal when he starts his new job today is to figure out everything that’s going on, bring more visibility to CDOT and look for creative solutions to the future of transportation for Colorado.
“It’s been 50 years since the interstate system was introduced, and if you look at every aspect of our society we do things differently than we did 50 years ago,” he said. “The same thing needs to happen with transportation.”

Stay ahead by signing up for State Bill E-News! >

By Peter Marcus, DENVER DAILY NEWS
A House committee yesterday backed legislation that would cap late registration fees for trailers at $10.
Senate Bill 198 came to be after the Democratic-controlled Legislature last year increased vehicle registration fees in order to raise an estimated $250 million annually for crumbling roads and bridges.
But an unintended consequence of the Funding Advancement for Surface Transportation and Economic Recovery (FASTER) legislation is that owners of camper and multipurpose trailers were seeing late registration penalties of anywhere from $25 per month up to $100. Because motorists are not as vigilant about registering their trailers as they are their motorized vehicles, drivers started seeing expensive penalties for waiting to register their trailers.
Rep. Wes McKinley, a Democrat from Walsh who voted against the FASTER legislation and is sponsoring SB 198, said he hopes the bill will ease some “ruffled feathers.” When the legislation took effect, angry trailer owners — especially from the agricultural community — complained passionately about late fees mounting to more than the worth of their trailers.
“The biggest contention of the FASTER bill is those hideous late fees that they put on,” said McKinley. “If you’ve got a trailer, a camper trailer — and there’s a lot of camper trailers out there that people have got in storage — all of a sudden they’re looking up; they’ve got to pay that increased fee, and they get a $100 penalty.”
“This is just to say that we’ve recognized that there’s a problem out there and we never intended this to happen, so let this be a little bit of relief for you,” he continued.
SB 198 would cut the late fee for non-motorized vehicles over 2,000 pounds and less than 16,000 pounds and camper trailers or multi-purpose trailers regardless of weight from $25 per month to $10.
The measure was backed last week by the Senate with little opposition. It passed through the Senate State, Veterans & Military Affairs committee last week by a unanimous vote.

Off to appropriations
The legislation was backed by the House State, Veteran & Military Affairs Committee yesterday by a vote of 8-3. It now heads to appropriations. 
SB 198 works in concert with House Bill 1211, which has already reduced late vehicle registration fees to $10 per month for non-motorized vehicles weighing less than 2,000 pounds. Sen. Bruce Whitehead, D-Hesperus, attempted to attach an amendment to HB 1211 to lower the fee regardless of weight, but the amendment failed to pass the House.
Whitehead acknowledges the late timing of SB 198, but said it is necessary to address concerns from his constituents.
“I had to apply for late bill status to introduce this legislation; however, it was necessary because I knew how important this measure was for my constituents,” Whitehead said in a statement. “While we want to ensure citizens are registering vehicles on time, we cannot unfairly burden our agricultural communities who often own multiple trailers but only utilize them once or twice a year.”

Opposition
Rep. Jeanne Labuda, D-Denver, joined Rep. Nancy Todd, D-Aurora, and Rep. Lois Court, D-Denver, in voting against SB 198 yesterday after a hearing in the House State, Veterans & Military Affairs Committee. Labuda believes lowering registration penalties will only take money away from crumbling roads and bridges when it is most necessary. 
There are 126 structurally deficient bridges across the state; 115 bridges are 75 years old; highway sections are 75 to 100 years old; and interstate sections are up to 50 years old. 
“Anytime I see a bill like this where people are pleading, ‘Please exempt me from the late fee because I don’t know whether I’m a little guy or whether I don’t use my trailer or whatever very much,’ this takes away from the funding to repair those pot holes that the driver’s probably going to drive over and then break an axle in his car that we couldn’t pay for because we exempted his vehicle,” said Labuda.
“Pay the $100 fee one time and you’ll remember next time,” she concluded.

Stay ahead by signing up for State Bill E-News! >

By Debi Brazzale, COLORADO NEWS AGENCY

Calling the bill innovative and affordable, lawmakers Tuesday signaled their approval of a short-term solution to a long-time problem–congestion along the I-70 corridor through Colorado’s ski areas.

Senate Bill 184, sponsored by Democratic Senators Dan Gibbs of Silverthorne and Chris Romer of Denver, would allow the Colorado Department of Transportation to create a “zipper” lane along I-70 — a reversible lane utilized to accommodate overflow traffic in either direction.

Gibbs said the zipper will allow the flow of mountain rush-hour traffic to increase by fifty-percent, also noting that studies he has seen indicate for every hour traffic is at a standstill correlates to $1 million in lost revenue for Colorado’s tourism industry.  Gibbs also stated that contrary to popular belief, the busiest months for the corridor are July and August, not the winter months.  On average, 500,000 vehicles travel through the Eisenhower tunnel monthly.

Romer emphasized that this is bill is only a temporary fix.

“This is a common sense way to put a down payment on a long term solution,” said Romer.

Republican Minority leader Josh Penry of Grand Junction said he supports the measure because it gives CDOT the flexibility to apply the zipper as needed at a relatively low cost.

“This allows us to take a big step forward and do it through innovation rather than asking for more money,” said Penry.

Although there wasn’t any opposition to the measure, a couple of lawmakers reminded their colleagues that while the zipper seems like a good idea, it could ultimately bring back the traffic jams it is intended to cure.

“In reality what’s going to happen is more people will travel to the mountains–of course it’ll be good for the tourism,” said Rep. David Schultheis, R-Colorado Springs. “But it’ll be jammed again within a couple of years.”

Dovetailing Shultheis’ observations, Rep Joyce Foster, D-Denver, said she agreed with Schultheis, and lamented that the traffic issues weren’t addressed years earlier when discussions first emerged in the 1970’s about building a rail line.  For some, like Foster, a rail line is inevitable as a long-term solution

This state has to make a commitment to the trains sooner than later and unfortunately it’s going to be much later,” said Foster.

SB184 is on the calendar for 3^rd Reading Wednesday for an up or down roll call vote.

Stay ahead by signing up for State Bill E-News! >

By Gene Davis, DENVER DAILY NEWS
A Senate committee Thursday backed a bill that could relieve congestion on the I-70 mountain corridor during its busiest hours.
If the plan was found to be safe and feasible, Senate Bill 184 would require the Colorado Department of Transportation to use movable 300-pound barriers to add an extra eastbound lane to the I-70 mountain corridor between Floyd Hill and the Eisenhower-Johnson tunnels. The moveable barriers are expected to help relieve the traffic gridlocks caused by people heading back from the mountains on weekends and holidays.
“The bottom line is that we love those mountains and we live in this state to get access to the mountains, we have gridlocks emerging on our highways and we need to do something different,” said Sen. Chris Romer, D-Denver, one of the bill’s sponsors.
The Colorado Department of Transportation already has the authority to implement the so-called “zipper lanes” and is in the midst of a study to determine whether doing so would be feasible.
“I don’t know that the bill really does anything different than what we could already do,” said CDOT Spokeswoman Stacey Stegman. “I think that it sends a message to CDOT that we want you to seriously consider implementing this quickly.”
Stegman warned against moving too quickly, though, as the steep grades and large amounts of snow make I-70 an “incredibly difficult highway” that brings plenty of challenges. Additionally, the extra eastbound lane would leave only one lane going westbound, an idea some community members have opposed, according to Stegman. The CDOT study is expected to be completed in approximately two weeks.
The moveable lanes are expected to annually cost $2-$2.5 million per year. The senate bill calls for a public-private partnership to help cut down on the cost to the state.
The measure passed out of the Senate Transportation Committee on a bipartisan 6-0 vote.

Other measures addressing I-70 traffic
The Senate Transportation Committee Thursday also passed a bill that would require vehicles in the left lane of the steepest parts of I-70 to go no less than 10 miles per hour below the posted speed limit. Drivers going less than 10 miles per hour below the posted speed limit on stretches of I-70 with 6-percent grade inclines could get a $19 ticket.
Speakers at Thursday’s committee hearing said while the two measures would not be complete solutions to the I-70 traffic problems, they are small steps that could help ease the traffic gridlocks. CDOT has already implemented some short-term solutions, such as expanding the number of chain-up stations and posting the travel times for motorists on I-70.
CDOT’s long-term vision for improving the I-70 mountain corridor includes building a rail system through the area. The long-term plan has yet to get federal approval and is expected to cost billions of dollars.
“It’s a complicated highway from a transportation perspective, so we have to be really incredibly thoughtful about what we do,” said Stegman.

Stay ahead by signing up for State Bill E-News! >

Sens. Chris Romer of Denver and Dan Gibbs of Silverthorne, both Democrats, want to use moveable barriers to temporarily add an eastbound lane on Interstate 70 on weekends when people head back to the Front Range from the mountains, the Associated Press reports.

The so-called “zipper lane” proposal is up for its first hearing at the Capitol on Thursday in the Senate Transportation Committee.

Stay ahead by signing up for State Bill E-News! >