[Colorado-Talk] RTD Board Public Comment

[Tim Keenan]

Hi everyone,

I thought I'd share the public comment letter I just sent to the Board. It's
long, but there's a lot to say, and in writing, we don't have to worry about
the 2-minute time limit. This is a good template for you to use as you send
your own public comment letter to the Board, but please don't just copy and
paste; give your letter your own unique flavor.

 

 

Cheers,

Tim

 

 

 

Dear Members of the RTD Board of Directors, 

My name is Tim Keenan. I am the State Transportation Chair of the National
Federation of the Blind of Colorado, and I am a daily user of
Access-on-Demand. I live at 49 W 1st Ave in Denver, which means I am a
constituent of Director Guzman's. I want to address his comments at the June
10 OSSC meeting directly -- but first, let me share the broader context I
believe this Board needs to hear.

I have been following this process closely since April. I have read the
board packets, attended the committee meetings, reviewed the transcripts,
and done my own research into how peer agencies across the country have
handled the same challenges RTD is facing. I am not writing to alarm you or
to pretend that RTD's financial situation is not real. It is real, and I
respect the difficulty of what you are being asked to decide. But I believe
the Board is being presented with an incomplete picture, and I want to offer
what I hope is a more complete one.

ON THE BUDGET -- DIRECTOR BENKER HAS SHOWN THERE IS ANOTHER WAY 

Director Benker's independent budget analysis, submitted for Tuesday's
meeting, demonstrates something important that has been missing from this
conversation: a comprehensive alternative to large-scale service cuts that
still closes the entire $215 million deficit. Her Option 1 -- combining
$119.2 million in revenue measures with labor savings, contract reductions,
advertising revenue, and just 5 percent in service cuts -- generates a $6.7
million surplus. Not a shortfall. A surplus.

I am not saying 5 percent service cuts are painless. They are not. But they
are a fundamentally different proposition than 15, 17.5, or 20 percent cuts.
Before this Board authorizes staff to model cuts at those levels, I would
respectfully ask every director to read Director Benker's two-page
presentation and answer one question: why is her Option 1 not sufficient?

The argument that has been made -- that RTD must model aggressive cuts to
satisfy bond rating agencies and demonstrate fiscal seriousness -- is not
wrong on its face. But there is a meaningful difference between
demonstrating seriousness and committing to a path before the full range of
alternatives has been exhausted. The Board adopted its own December 2025
resolution requiring that it identify in advance the revenue enhancements
and expense reductions needed to balance the budget. Director Benker's
presentation shows that resolution can be honored without decimating
service. The Board should take that seriously.

ON THE BALLOT MEASURE -- THIS IS THE ENDGAME, AND EVERYONE KNOWS IT 

RTD is going to ask voters for money in 2028. Management has said so. The
Board has discussed it. It is not a secret. The only real question is what
kind of organization makes that ask.

I have spoken to riders, neighbors, and community members throughout this
process. What I hear consistently is that people want to support RTD. They
want good transit. They understand that the agency needs resources. But they
will not vote to give more money to an agency they no longer trust -- an
agency that cut their bus, eliminated their paratransit eligibility, and
told them there was no other choice when there was.

The $227 million in unrestricted reserves exists for exactly this kind of
situation. Using a portion of it as a bridge to a 2028 ballot measure --
combined with the revenue measures, labor savings, and modest service
adjustments in Director Benker's analysis -- is not financial recklessness.
It is the kind of strategic decision-making that preserves the agency's
standing with the public while pursuing a permanent solution. Cutting 20
percent of service, going to voters two years later, and asking them to fund
the restoration of what was taken -- that is a much harder sell.

ON ACCESS-ON-DEMAND -- A MESSAGE TO MY OWN DIRECTOR 

At the June 10 OSSC meeting, Director Guzman said, on the record, that
monies being used for nonrequired programs are "the first ones that need to
be chopped." As one of his constituents -- as someone who relies on
Access-on-Demand to get to work, to medical appointments, to participate in
community life -- I want to address that argument directly, because I
believe it gets the financial reality exactly backwards.

AOD was created in 2019 because Access-a-Ride was failing. It was too
expensive, too slow, and unable to meet the needs of a significant portion
of its riders -- specifically those who don't use mobility devices and don't
need door-to-door, lift-equipped service. RTD recognized that people with
cognitive disabilities, autism, learning disabilities, and other
non-mobility impairments were being routed through a system designed for a
different population, at a cost of over $100 per boarding. AOD offered those
riders a faster, more flexible, more dignified service at a maximum subsidy
of $20 per trip.

If RTD eliminates AOD, those riders do not disappear. They go back to
Access-a-Ride. And Access-a-Ride -- which already saw its on-time
performance drop from above 90 percent to 83 percent between June and August
of 2025, before absorbing any additional load -- will absorb thousands of
additional trips at five times the cost. That is not savings. That is a
budget disaster wearing a cost-cutting disguise.

The peer agency data is unambiguous. Washington DC's WMATA pays an average
of $24 per trip through its Uber partnership versus $135 for traditional
paratransit -- more than 80 percent lower. New York's MTA saved $102.7
million in a single year by shifting eligible riders from traditional
paratransit to on-demand alternatives. Boston, Chicago, and New Jersey
Transit are doing the same thing. The industry is moving decisively in this
direction because the math is undeniable.

Director Guzman, I understand your concern about spending money on programs
that are not federally required when the agency is under severe financial
pressure. That is a legitimate instinct. But I would ask you to look at the
data from your own agency and from peer agencies across the country. AOD is
not a luxury add-on. It is a cost containment tool that is already saving
RTD money every single day compared to what those same trips would cost on
Access-a-Ride. Eliminating it would not save money. It would cost more.

What RTD should be doing is the opposite -- actively identifying
Access-a-Ride riders who don't need door-to-door service and transitioning
them to AOD. That would reduce costs, improve AAR's performance for those
who genuinely need it, and preserve independence for thousands of riders who
have built their lives around a service that finally works for them. I am
one of those riders. I know what AOD means to people, and I know what losing
it would mean.

ON THE INDEPENDENT PARATRANSIT STUDY -- HONOR THE LAW YOU HELPED ENACT 

RTD is required by SB 26-150 to commission an independent third-party study
of its paratransit system by December 31, 2027. That study exists because
the legislature recognized that major decisions about paratransit should be
informed by independent, objective analysis -- not by the same staff whose
budget pressures create an incentive to cut the programs they are being
asked to evaluate. Our coalition -- the National Federation of the Blind of
Colorado, ADAPT Colorado, Atlantis Community, and the Colorado
Cross-Disability Coalition -- has formally asked the Board to maintain
existing paratransit service levels until that study is complete. Making
permanent cuts to AOD before the study is done would undermine the very
purpose of the law that was just enacted. I am asking you not to do that.

ON GRANDFATHERING -- THIS IS A SIMPLE ASK WITH A CLEAR ANSWER 

If service cuts reduce the ADA-mandated paratransit coverage area, people
who are currently eligible for Access-a-Ride will lose that eligibility
through no fault of their own. They will have built jobs, medical routines,
housing choices, and daily lives around a service that will no longer cover
them. Chair O'Keefe has expressed support for grandfathering existing
riders. I am asking the full Board to make that commitment explicit on
Tuesday -- not as a general principle, but as a formal policy directive to
staff that no existing eligible rider will lose eligibility as a result of
service changes.

ON PUBLIC PARTICIPATION -- THIS IS NOT THE TIME TO BE QUIET 

The Board voted in March to cap public comment at one hour per meeting. I
understand the operational rationale. Long meetings are genuinely difficult
to manage. But this is not an ordinary moment in RTD's history. The
decisions being made in the next several months will affect tens of
thousands of riders for years to come. The disability community, low-income
riders, seniors, workers who depend on transit -- these are people who have
very little power in most policy arenas. Public comment is one of the few
tools they have. I am asking the Board to suspend the one-hour cap for all
meetings related to the service change and budget process, and to expand
opportunities for meaningful public participation before any final decisions
are made.

IN CLOSING 

I have spent months studying this situation. I have read every board packet,
attended every relevant meeting I could, coordinated with peer disability
organizations, and researched what other transit agencies across the country
have done in similar circumstances. I have done all of that because I
believe RTD is worth fighting for, and because I believe the riders who
depend on it deserve an agency that fights for them too.

The decisions before you on Tuesday are not final. They are directional. But
direction matters. The direction you set Tuesday will shape what staff
models, what gets presented to the public in September, and what the full
Board votes on in December. I am asking you to set a direction that takes
seriously the alternatives to large-scale service cuts, that protects the
riders who have the most to lose, and that positions RTD to make a
successful case to voters in 2028.

You have allies in this community who want to help you get this right. We
will be in that room on Tuesday, and at every meeting that follows. We are
not adversaries. We are partners in a transit system that, at its best,
makes this region more connected, more equitable, and more livable for
everyone.

Please make it the best version of itself. 

 

 

 

Respectfully submitted, 

Tim Keenan 
State Transportation Chair 
National Federation of the Blind of Colorado 
Access-on-Demand rider, RTD District C 

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://nfbnet.org/pipermail/colorado-talk_nfbnet.org/attachments/20260621/e8ac80cd/attachment.htm>