[Colorado-Talk] Access-on-Demand: Staff Recommendations

Thu May 22 21:21:28 UTC 2025

Hi friends, thanks for taking the time to read my very too long comment. I love what you’re talking about Tim, focusing on equity. But I would like to say to everybody here is that these folks work for us. We voted them in, we can vote them out. The money that is given to them is given for all of us to have not just OK service but the best service. We should expect nothing less than the best. I don’t believe that you can negotiate from a point of weakness rather, we need to negotiate by demanding excellence and the very best from the RTD district. What do you think those people who never ride, the 97% of the 3.1 million people who pay 40% of the operating budget and never, never use it.  Anyway, thanks and don’t forget friends, the meeting is on Wednesday not Tuesday because of memorial day at 5:30. See you there. Kind regards, Claudia. 

> On May 22, 2025, at 2:53 PM, Tim Keenan via Colorado-Talk <colorado-talk at nfbnet.org> wrote:
> 
> 
> Thanks for the numbers. I think my public comment is gonna revolve around this equity aspect, with a conclusion that if you must do this, at least allow the service to remain district wide rather than limiting it to the ADA service area and hours, thereby leaving a bunch of people without any affordable transportation options.
>  
>  
> From: Colorado-Talk <colorado-talk-bounces at nfbnet.org> On Behalf Of Claudia Folska, PhD via Colorado-Talk
> Sent: Thursday, May 22, 2025 1:57 PM
> To: NFB of Colorado Discussion List <colorado-talk at nfbnet.org>; Sue <sue at teamspirit.net>
> Cc: Claudia Folska, PhD <cfolska at yahoo.com>
> Subject: Re: [Colorado-Talk] Access-on-Demand: Staff Recommendations
>  
> Hello again, friends,
> This morning, perhaps like many of you, I received a press release from RTD announcing increase service hours of 27,000 to take affect on the fixed route beginning this Sunday, May 25. I would encourage each of you to read this thoroughly. Well, at the same time, they talk about increasing service hours and even free metro rides along with the free 16th St. shuttle, they talk about reduction in service of paratransit. So I thought it would be time for us to have a deeper discussion on what this means and how this appears especially through the lens of equity. 
>  
> First, let me give everyone some clarity on what RTD is and who it actually serves, overall. The district called the regional transportation district encompasses 2400 mi.² and includes 3.1 million citizens. All of them have a right to vote for their elected official to sit on the governing board of RTD. The seats rotate every two years with each individual serving for years with a term limit of two terms. Of the 3.1 million people in the district, 97% do not, will not and have not used RTD. Yet every person in the district and even those who are visiting pay sales tax. Sales tax revenue accounts for 40% of , the RTD annual operating budget formula. Another 40% comes from farebox revenue and the final 20% from federal funding. So who’s using RTD? Just 3% of the 3.1 million people and yet is paying for it. 
>  
> So let’s talk about the budget and funding for one moment. Well, we know that the annual operating budget for RTD is $1.32 billion and that does not include any capital cost for things like new trains or new bus lines. Also, and may interest you to know that RTD Has a surplus in their savings account of $800 million. I know this because Mr. Doug McLeod the former CFO has made that perfectly clear to the entire board of directors and staff. It’s hard to see where the financial hardship is and why when increasing service hours  For fixed routes, they want to shrink our overall participation in the public transit system. And by the way, during my tenure on the regional transportation district board of directors, every May there were service changes. And they were always, reduction due to summer and school being out of session.  in the fall, service hours are increased to support student transportation. I am wondering myself why then are we increasing service hours? 
>  
> Thinking in the spirit of equity, it would make sense to increase service for all pair of transit services commensurate with the increase in service for everybody else. A deep concern of mine is that people with disabilities at RTD, have always, and continue to be sidelined as another, other. What would make more sense for everyone is to be included in the entire conversation. It’s not just the transportation, though, it’s access to information and an ability for everyone to use the website. 
>  
> For a moment, let’s go back to the 3% of the three-point 1 million people in the district who use RTD. For folks that are not disabled, that proportion dropped because of the pandemic. I can’t be confident about this number, but I do think it’s about 60% lower lower and writer. Maybe RTD believes that if they increase service hours that they increase ridership. All in all, I think they’re missing the boat. In order to increase ridership they can just look at what they did with access on demand people need to be met where they are.  In today’s world with the advancements of technology, we can do just that. I suggest that we come together with all of our allies and demand more service, not less and tell all of the board of directors and staff that none of these recommendations are acceptable, and it needs to be enhanced and improved.  Can’t RTD apply the access on demand model to the access model and save $82 of boarding. Furthermore, the current subsidy for the general population to ride the fixed route is $19 per boarding and that’s an average across the entire system where as, for access on demand it is $16 and for  Access ride $100. Now we can argue over dollars and cents here but I think we all get the drift. No equity here. Maybe even no para here. 
>  
> Kind regards, Claudia
> 
> 
> On May 21, 2025, at 7:39 PM, Claudia Folska, PhD <cfolska at yahoo.com> wrote:
> 
> 
> Hi Sue, I’m unaware of that reduction of service anywhere else in the system. In fact, I understand that they are expanding service for everybody else. Kind regards, Claudia.
> 
> 
> On May 21, 2025, at 7:01 PM, Sue <sue at teamspirit.net> wrote:
> 
> I feel your input Claudia is really accurate and helpful. Where else is RTD trying to cut cost other than Access on demand?
> Sent from my iPhone
> 
> 
> On May 21, 2025, at 6:51 PM, Claudia Folska, PhD via Colorado-Talk <colorado-talk at nfbnet.org> wrote:
> 
> 
> Dear Curtis,
> Thank you very much for distilling this confusing information. I have a couple of takeaways that I would like to share with you and the group at large.
> 1 equity many of you will recall that there was a program supported by the state called free fare for clean air I believe beginning August 1, 2023. Those of us enrolled in access on demand will recall that we had a generous subsidy of $350 per day for the entire month. That was implemented for equity. I think we need to consider what equity actually means to us given that we are 20 to 25% of the population. The current annual operating budget of RTD is $1.32 billion a year. 20% of that would amount to roughly $264 million.  I do not believe that the budget for paratransit services gets anywhere close to that. I find it personally offensive that they are struggling to reduce the money they spend from 15 million down to 10 or even even lower. We should be asking and frankly demanding more service. 
> 2 given our current climate of people with disabilities being under siege from so many different angles this is even more troubling. we are anticipating an increase in the cost of living and buying the necessary things for living. Our day-to-day lives. Increasing our affairs above what is actually legal double what the fixed route fair is, add salt into the wound.
>  
> 3 I strongly believe and encourage everyone to reject either proposal and demand more service with no caps at all. We know how to increase writer ship by making convenient where we are. We need to stop accepting whatever crumbs are thrown our way and expect that public services actually meet the needs of the public. if anything what we have learned with this access on demand service is that it does just that and perhaps all writers would appreciate on demand service. I think that’s where we might be headed. 
>  
> Those are my thoughts, and I would love to hear what others think about these proposals. For me, they are dead on arrival.
> Kind regards,
> Claudia
> 
> 
> On May 21, 2025, at 3:54 PM, Curtis Chong via Colorado-Talk <colorado-talk at nfbnet.org> wrote:
> 
> 
> Greetings:
>  
> While Access-on-Demand was not actually discussed during the May 14 meeting of RTD's Operations, Safety, and Security Committee, there was a PowerPoint document incorporated into the online agenda which I was able to extract and have analyzed by perplexity.ai./ The analysis document was somewhat convoluted in its format, but I was able to extract the following useful information for those of you interested in knowing what RTD staff is currently considering for Access-on-Demand.
>  
> <Begin Excerpt>
>  
>  
> Current Access-on-Demand Program
> Subsidized curb-to-curb taxi and ride-share service for certified paratransit customers.
> RTD pays the first $25 of each trip; the customer pays any amount above that.
> Customers may take up to 60 trips per month.
> Available within the entire RTD service area, 24/7.
> No customer fare (i.e., $0 base fare).
> Annual operating cost: $15.3 million; 685,402 customer trips in 2024.
>  
> Initial Recommendations (November 2024)
>  
> Customer Fare
> Current Program: $0 (base), $0 (LiVE)
> Initial Recommendation: $4.50 (base), $2.25 (LiVE)
> Trip Cap
> Current Program: 60 per month
> Initial Recommendation: 40 per month
> Subsidy per Trip
> Current Program: $25
> Initial Recommendation: $20
> Service Area
> Current Program: Entire District
> Initial Recommendation: Mirrors ADA service area
> Service Hours
> Current Program: 24/7
> Initial Recommendation: Mirrors current service hours
>  
> Estimated annual cost reduction: $5.86 million (38.2% decrease)
>  
>  
> Revised Recommendations
>  
> Scenario 1: Increased Trip Cap Approach
>  
> •            Trip Cap: 50 trips per month (higher than initial recommendation but lower than current).
> •            Fare: $6.50 per trip (base), $3.25 per trip (LiVE discount).
> •            Subsidy: $20 per trip.
> •            Service Area/Hours: Mirrors current ADA service area and hours.
> •            Estimated annual cost reduction: $6.17 million (40.2% decrease)1.
>  
> Financial Impacts:
> Increased fare generates more revenue.
> Trip cap reduction and subsidy decrease save costs.
> Projected yearly spend: $9.16 million (down from $15.33 million).
>  
> Scenario 2: Tiered Approach
>  
> Trip Cap: Up to 60 trips per month.
> Tiered Fare Structure:
> Trips 1–30: $4.50 (base), $2.25 (LiVE)
> Trips 31–50: $5.50 (base), $2.75 (LiVE)
> Trips 51–60: $6.50 (base), $3.25 (LiVE)
> Subsidy: $20 per trip.
> Service Area/Hours: Mirrors current ADA service area and hours.
> Estimated annual cost reduction: $5.04 million (32.9% decrease)1.
>  
> Operational Considerations:
> Requires significant staff oversight and additional headcount (4 FTEs).
> Customers must track their trips to know their fare each time, potentially causing confusion.
> Projected yearly spend: $10.29 million.
>  
> Summary of Options
>  
> Scenario 1 (Increased Trip Cap): Reduces trip cap to 50/month and increases fare, maximizing cost savings and revenue while maintaining a relatively high trip allowance.
> Scenario 2 (Tiered): Maintains the current 60-trip cap but introduces a tiered fare structure, increasing the fare as usage rises. This option preserves flexibility for high-frequency users but adds administrative complexity and potential customer confusion.
>  
> <End Excerpt>
>  
> Cordially,
>  
> Curtis Chong
>  
>  
> _______________________________________________
> Colorado-Talk mailing list
> Colorado-Talk at nfbnet.org
> http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/colorado-talk_nfbnet.org
> To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for Colorado-Talk:
> http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/colorado-talk_nfbnet.org/cfolska%40yahoo.com
> List archives can be found at <http://www.nfbnet.org/pipermail/colorado-talk_nfbnet.org>
> _______________________________________________
> Colorado-Talk mailing list
> Colorado-Talk at nfbnet.org
> http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/colorado-talk_nfbnet.org
> To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for Colorado-Talk:
> http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/colorado-talk_nfbnet.org/sue%40teamspirit.net
> List archives can be found at <http://www.nfbnet.org/pipermail/colorado-talk_nfbnet.org>
> _______________________________________________
> Colorado-Talk mailing list
> Colorado-Talk at nfbnet.org
> http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/colorado-talk_nfbnet.org
> To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for Colorado-Talk:
> http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/colorado-talk_nfbnet.org/cfolska%40yahoo.com
> List archives can be found at <http://www.nfbnet.org/pipermail/colorado-talk_nfbnet.org>
> _______________________________________________
> Colorado-Talk mailing list
> Colorado-Talk at nfbnet.org
> http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/colorado-talk_nfbnet.org
> To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for Colorado-Talk:
> http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/colorado-talk_nfbnet.org/cfolska%40yahoo.com
> List archives can be found at <http://www.nfbnet.org/pipermail/colorado-talk_nfbnet.org>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://nfbnet.org/pipermail/colorado-talk_nfbnet.org/attachments/20250522/73585bb0/attachment.htm>