Lower Fares for Low-Income Riders in Hands of RTD Board that May or May Not Approve Them

Cherry-picking from a new fare structure proposal would have rippling — and possibly crippling — effects on the RTD Board's own goals.

Photo: David Sachs
Photo: David Sachs

Will the Regional Transportation District’s Board of Directors approve a carefully constructed package of fare discounts and pass options meant to improve access to transit? Or will elected officials try to remove certain pieces and risk toppling the complex fare structure like a tower of Jenga blocks?

That’s the question in front of 15 RTD Board members, who will vote on a fare overhaul in September.

In 2016 the Board told RTD staffers to convene 25 reps from every corner of the transit district and hammer out a new fare pass program. It would have to serve lower income families but also businesses, Board members said, high school kids but also college students. Oh, and the new fare package would have to increase ridership in the process, without going over budget.

After a year of intense horse trading, complex modeling, and public input, the Pass Program Working Group came up with a suite of changes that essentially met the Board’s goals.

Please excuse the numeric soup: The fare package includes a 40 percent discount for bus and train riders who need financial help to reach their daily needs (people living at or under 185 percent of the federal poverty level) and a 70 percent discount for kids age 19 and younger.

Image: RTD
Some of the changes proposed by the Pass Program Working Group. Image: RTD

RTD riders are already facing a probable fare increase in 2019, but to make the math work, the group recommends an increase of 40 cents, or $3 total. The EcoPass (business) and CollegePass (student) programs would get recalibrated as well, so that riders pay for the actual service they use.

The low-income fare. Image: RTD
The proposed low-income fare. Image: RTD

RTD took that package back to the public earlier this month through a series of eight public meetings. At the Board’s request, staffers added two options to share with the public: One changed nothing. The other raised the standard fare to $2.90 and kept the 70 percent youth discount — but not the income-based discount. Instead, the current low-income program remained intact, which is capped too low to meet demand, transit advocates say. Neither options were approved by the Pass Program Working Group.

“Our position is respect the process, keep the package together,” said Mile High Connects Executive Director Jeffrey Su, who helped mold the original proposal. “It came from a diverse set of perspectives, and to piece it apart, it takes away from that process. The recommendations are not designed to be taken alone, they’re designed to work together.”

One change to the delicately balanced fare structure created by the working group would have rippling — and possibly crippling — effects on the Board’s own goals. For example, without re-balancing EcoPass pricing, there’s less money for youth and low-income discounts.

“Staff is going to continue to do what we think is the most responsible thing, which is to present to the Board that we have to consider these things as a package because they all work together,” said Michael Washington, RTD’s transit equity manager, who led the year-long talks. “There’s that factor of interdependence, and ultimately it’s in their best interest to consider the packages that we put together. They balance not only the principles that they gave us at the beginning of this study, but also the budget.”

RTD Board members are politicians who represent a range of constituents — from super dense parts of urban Denver to the rugged mountains far southwest of the city. Will members who represent less transit-dependent districts vote for low-income discounts?

District D Director Jeff Walker, who represents south Denver and its suburbs, said he’s waiting to see public comments on the proposal before making a decision. “I’m all for increasing access,” Walker said. “If there’s an overwhelming sentiment in the public to do or to not do something, that’s something good for me to consider.”

Some Board members “seem to be more inclined to go à la carte just because of the variety of opinion that they’re hearing directly from their constituency,” Washington said. “It can be taken à la carte. But not without consequences.”

Today is the last day to submit comments on the review process, though the Board will hold a public hearing closer to the vote.

  • TakeFive
  • David Cook

    One factual correction to the article is needed.
    In characterizing the two alternatives that were added to the PPWG recommendations, the author states, “At the Board’s request, staffers added two options to share with the public: ONE CHANGED NOTHING. The other raised the standard fare to $2.90 and kept the 70 percent youth discount — but not the income-based discount. Instead, the current low-income program remained intact, which is capped too low to meet demand, transit advocates say. Neither options were approved by the Pass Program Working Group.”
    RTD did not give the public the option of a “NO CHANGE” alternative.
    Alternative One would not increase fares but it would make two very major changes in RTD’s group pass programs:
    1) It eliminates what RTD has always described as the “deeply discounted” pricing that RTD has used for the EcoPass and College Pass for twenty-seven years and for the Neighborhood Pass for twenty-two years. It also eliminates discounts from the Flex Pass program and the 10-Ride Ticket Books. It would instead switch these programs to pricing every ride at full cash fare for every ride taken.
    2) Another major change that Alternative One would make is to switch these programs to “utilization-based” pricing, relying on the smart card tap data that RTD has deemed too unreliable to use for the last five years.
    Alternative One is far from a “NO CHANGE” option.
    Alternatives Two and Three also make all of these changes, but they are not characterized as status quo options.
    Members of the PPWG agreed to give up the “deeply discounted” pricing for existing group pass programs specifically to be able to create the new Low-Income Pass program while keeping within RTD’s strategic budget plan – to make transit access more equitable. Alternatives One and Two take away the discounted pricing for the existing group pass programs (set by 2009 RTD Board policy to be a 40% discount once utilization-based pricing is implemented) WITHOUT creating the Low-Income Pass program – eviscerating the consensus reached by the Pass Programs Working Group.
    Because Alternative One would create a $13 million budget deficit, it would require RTD to cut service to balance its budget. You will have to ask RTD how much service they would cut (and on what routes) to close this deficit. I would ball-park it at about 100,000 hours of service.


Wednesday’s Headlines

Former CDOT Building to Become Low Income Housing, Hopefully (Denverite) CDOT Rolls out Drugged Driving Campaign (Patch) How to Avoid Snowy Roadways This Winter (Hint: Just Don’t Drive) (Fox31) … and On the Topic of Snow and Traction Laws: E-Scooters (9News) Another E-Scooter Article on Accessibility (9News) Pikes Peak Railway Voting Underway for Proposed Amendments (Gazette) […]

Tuesday’s Headlines

DenPo Backs Prop 110 Polis vs. Stapleton on Transportation (and Other Things) (Denverite) … and More on their Transit Debates (DBJ) Here’s a Breakdown of Donors for Prop 110 (DBJ) Drivers Dominating Traffic Circles, and People Walking Aren’t Happy About it (Westword) Federal Blvd Gets More Cameras, but Not to Enforce Speeds (DenPo) Daily Dose […]

Monday’s Headlines

Private Contractors Are Pretty Much the Only Ones Making Bus Stops Decent (DenverUrbanism) Forest Service will Ban Cars at Hanging Lake (CPR) People Don’t Like Dirty Highway Interchanges (Denver7) Amtrak Won’t Suspend Rural Train Service, but Only For Another Year (Sun) National headlines at Streetsblog USA