[Colorado-Talk] Denver Area: Access on Demand

[Amy Sabo]

hello tim,

thanks for sending this email address for us to contact rtd's board of directors on the issues that we are facing with access a ride and, also with access on demand too. i do plan to send a email to them myself on this issue which is important to me too.


thanks again and, i will talk to you soon.



sincerely,
amy sabo


________________________________________
From: Colorado-Talk <colorado-talk-bounces at nfbnet.org> on behalf of Tim Keenan via Colorado-Talk <colorado-talk at nfbnet.org>
Sent: Wednesday, September 10, 2025 1:53 AM
To: 'NFB of Colorado Discussion List' <colorado-talk at nfbnet.org>
Cc: tkeenan79 at gmail.com <tkeenan79 at gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [Colorado-Talk] Denver Area: Access on Demand

Send them to: rtd.directors at rtd-denver.comThat’s what it says in the agenda. I put “Public Comment for Sept 10 OSSC Meeting” in the subject.    From: Colorado-Talk <colorado-talk-bounces at nfbnet.org> On Behalf Of Gail Hamilton via Colorado-TalkSent: Tuesday, September 9, 2025 6:59 PMTo: NFB of Colorado Discussion List <colorado-talk at nfbnet.org>Cc: Gail Hamilton <gail at soaringintogreatness.com>Subject: Re: [Colorado-Talk] Denver Area: Access on Demand Where do we send our comments to in an email? Infinite Blessings,Gail HamiltonInternational SpeakerSoaring Into GreatnessUnstoppable, Unforgettable, Unbelievablegail at soaringintogreatness.com(720)-377-7682[X] [X] [X] [X][X] From: Colorado-Talk <colorado-talk-bounces at nfbnet.org> On Behalf Of Tim Keenan via Colorado-TalkSent: Tuesday, September 9, 2025 8:31 AMTo: 'NFB of Colorado Discussion List' <colorado-talk at nfbnet.org>Cc: tkeenan79 at gmail.comSubject: [Colorado-Talk] Denver Area: Access on Demand Hi all,You may have seen in the memo that all of a sudden, they’re including the cost for WAVs, wheelchair accessible vehicles, as part of the AOD program. This stinks to high heaven. I just had Claude, my AI of choice, go back and make sure that they’re not pulling these costs from the Access-a-Ride budget, which they’re not, because that budget has remained more or less the same.Here's my conversation with Claude:TKWhat does it say in the memo about why they suddenly started using these new cost numbers for AOD including the WAV vehicles? These vehicles should already be budgeted for under Access-a-Ride, the budget for which is shown later in the memo. So, is there any explanation for why they almost double the cost of the Access on Demand program while the Access-a-Ride budget remains the same? You can double check the Access-a-Ride budget in the peer review report document.Claude: You've identified a critical inconsistency. Let me examine what the memo actually says about this sudden inclusion of WAV costs.What the memo says about WAV costs:The memo states: "Information previously presented to the Board has illustrated the actual trip subsidy paid by RTD to the four service providers and has not, prior to the dissemination of this memorandum, included the Wheelchair Accessible Vehicle (WAV) costs that should also be considered as part of the overall program costs. These costs have been included in the scenarios as described."The problem with this explanation:1. No justification provided: The memo doesn't explain WHY these costs should "also be considered as part of the overall program costs" when they weren't before.2. Double-counting issue: As you note, the memo shows the 2026 AaR budget at $53.4 million. If WAV vehicles are already budgeted under AaR, then including $12-16 million of WAV costs in AoD scenarios appears to be double-counting.3. Timing is suspicious: This accounting change conveniently appears just when the Board pushed back on staff's restrictive recommendations, dramatically inflating all scenario costs.Comparing to the APTA peer review:The May 2025 presentation (from the APTA peer review period) showed AaR operating costs at $53.3 million annually, very similar to the $53.4 million projected for 2026. This suggests the AaR budget has remained stable while they've suddenly added $12-16 million to AoD accounting.What this suggests:This appears to be an accounting manipulation rather than a legitimate cost discovery. WAV vehicles don't magically create new costs - they're the same vehicles RTD was already operating and budgeting for under AaR. The memo provides no explanation for why moving some of their utilization to AoD should create additional budget line items.For your public comment: This accounting change looks like staff moving the same costs from one bucket to another to make AoD appear more expensive, without any reduction in the AaR budget that should logically accompany such a shift. It's either double-counting or manipulative accounting designed to support their predetermined conclusion to cut the program. That basically sums it up right there. I encourage everyone, in addition to making public comment tomorrow night, to email your public comment to the OSSC sooner rather than later. In this forum, you’re not constrained by a 3-minute timeline, so you can fully express yourself. I just did that, and my email is below:Subject: Public Comment for Sept 10 OSCC Meeting Dear Members of the Operations, Safety & Security Committee,I'm writing to urge you to recommend Scenario 4 from staff's August memo and to ask pointed questions about the suspicious accounting changes that have suddenly inflated program costs.My StoryI'm a blind Access-on-Demand user who works night shifts at Amazon in Aurora. Some of my shifts start at 2:30 AM, others end at 12:30 AM (sometimes flexing to 1:30 AM). Under staff's preferred Scenario 2, I'd lose access to subsidized transportation for all these shifts. When I have to pay the full $30 Uber fare home after a midnight shift, that's nearly three hours of wages at $22/hour - a devastating hit to my paycheck. I'm not alone - at least three other blind workers at my Amazon facility work these same overnight shifts, and undoubtedly others throughout the system depend on 24/7 service.The Broken PromiseTen months ago, RTD asked Denver voters to approve Ballot Measure 7A to avoid refunding excess revenue to taxpayers, explicitly promising to "maintain the availability of services for people with disabilities." Sixty-nine percent of voters said yes, including endorsements from the Colorado Cross-Disability Coalition based on that promise. RTD now keeps at least an extra $50-60 million annually that would have been refunded to taxpayers. Yet they want to break their promise to retain services in order to save 2.4% of RTD's budget. This isn't fiscal responsibility - it's a betrayal of voter trust.The Suspicious NumbersStaff's August memo contains glaring problems that demand scrutiny:1. Manipulative Accounting: Staff suddenly includes $12-16 million in wheelchair accessible vehicle (WAV) costs that were never counted before, nearly doubling program costs overnight. Yet the Access-a-Ride budget remains unchanged at $53.4 million. Where were these WAV costs previously budgeted? If they're shifting from AaR to AoD accounting, why isn't the AaR budget reduced correspondingly? This appears to be double-counting designed to inflate AoD costs.2. Basic Errors: Scenario 2's assumptions reference "18 trips per customer per month based on a lower per month trip cap" - but Scenario 2 has 60 trips, not a reduced cap. This is copied from Scenario 1's text. If staff can't get basic parameters right, how can we trust their cost projections?3. Unsupported Claims: The memo claims Access-a-Ride on-time performance dropped from 90% to 86% and attributes this decline to AoD WAV demands. But this is pure speculation with no evidence provided. Staff offers no data showing causation between AoD usage and AaR performance problems. They're essentially guessing and presenting it as fact to support their predetermined conclusion.The Math Doesn't Add UpEven staff's inflated numbers show the program represents a tiny budget impact:Current AoD cost: 1.9% of RTD's $1.3 billion budgetScenario 4 (reasonable compromise): 2.4% of budgetScenario 6 (most generous): 2.8% of budgetStaff threatens to cut 3.3% of bus service if they don't get Scenario 2, but that same amount could fund the most generous AoD scenario twice over. This isn't about fiscal crisis - it's about staff manufacturing reasons to decimate a program that for some reason they seem hellbent on cutting.Why Scenario 4 Makes SenseFair pricing: $4.50 matches Access-a-Ride fares - we're not asking for special treatmentPreserves essential service: Maintains 24/7 access and full service area for people who depend on it for work and independenceReasonable cost: At 2.4% of RTD's budget, this is hardly breaking the bankHonors voter promises: Maintains the paratransit services voters specifically funded through 7AHold Staff AccountableMs. Johnson has a pattern of giving non-answers to direct questions. When you ask about the WAV cost accounting, the errors in assumptions, the unsupported claims about performance impacts, or anything else, don't accept evasive responses. Keep asking until you get straight answers. You deserve accurate information to make informed decisions.The Bottom LineAccess-on-Demand isn't broken - it's RTD's most efficient paratransit service. Staff is manufacturing a crisis to justify cutting a program that enables disabled people to work, live independently, and contribute to the community. We're willing to pay our fair share with a $4.50 fare, but we shouldn't pay premium prices ($6.50) for what staff admits is RTD's most cost-effective service.Scenario 4 represents a reasonable compromise that maintains essential services while addressing legitimate fiscal concerns. More importantly, it honors the promise RTD made to voters just ten months ago.Thank you for your consideration and your commitment to serving all RTD customers.Sincerely,Tim KeenanAccess-on-Demand User  
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image001.png
Type: image/png
Size: 1078 bytes
Desc: image001.png
URL: <http://nfbnet.org/pipermail/colorado-talk_nfbnet.org/attachments/20250911/a77af2f9/attachment.png>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image002.png
Type: image/png
Size: 1228 bytes
Desc: image002.png
URL: <http://nfbnet.org/pipermail/colorado-talk_nfbnet.org/attachments/20250911/a77af2f9/attachment-0001.png>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image003.png
Type: image/png
Size: 1089 bytes
Desc: image003.png
URL: <http://nfbnet.org/pipermail/colorado-talk_nfbnet.org/attachments/20250911/a77af2f9/attachment-0002.png>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image004.png
Type: image/png
Size: 2436 bytes
Desc: image004.png
URL: <http://nfbnet.org/pipermail/colorado-talk_nfbnet.org/attachments/20250911/a77af2f9/attachment-0003.png>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image005.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 9689 bytes
Desc: image005.jpg
URL: <http://nfbnet.org/pipermail/colorado-talk_nfbnet.org/attachments/20250911/a77af2f9/attachment.jpg>