[Colorado-Talk] RTD Update: We Need You Next Tuesday

Tue Jun 23 23:19:56 UTC 2026

Hi there,

If you go to the RTD website and visit their calendar, you can sign up to
attend the meeting and then you will get the Zoom info.

Best wishes

Jess

https://rtd.iqm2.com/Citizens/Default.aspx

On Tue, Jun 23, 2026 at 5:07 PM Kijuana Chambers via Colorado-Talk <
colorado-talk at nfbnet.org> wrote:

> Good afternoon. This is Kijuana. I would like to attend the zoom meeting
> if there is one set up. Has anyone received any link for it at this point?
> Because I haven’t and I know this starts at 5:30. Please let me know as
> soon as possible. Thank you.
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> On Jun 18, 2026, at 10:41 AM, Trent Taylor via Colorado-Talk <
> colorado-talk at nfbnet.org> wrote:
>
> 
>
> Thanks, Tim, for an excellent report and summary.  I agree that the
> board's vote next Tuesday will have probably a more profound effect on our
> daily  lives than any other one legislative action. So for all those who
> are reading, please do your best to come out and speak up!
>
> On Wed, Jun 17, 2026 at 4:47 PM Tim Keenan via Colorado-Talk <
> colorado-talk at nfbnet.org> wrote:
>
>> Hey, RTD riders and transit advocates!
>>
>> Last week we had two critical RTD committee meetings -- the Finance and
>> Planning Committee on Tuesday, June 9, and the Operations, Safety, and
>> Security Committee on Wednesday, June 10. These were the last committee
>> votes before next Tuesday's full Board meeting on June 23, where the most
>> consequential decision in RTD's recent history will be made.
>>
>> Here's what happened, what alarmed us, and why we need you at 1660 Blake
>> Street next Tuesday, June 23 at 5:30 PM.
>> ------------------------------
>>
>> What the committees voted on
>>
>> Both committees voted to authorize RTD Staff to model service cuts at
>> three specific levels: 15 percent, 17.5 percent, and 20 percent of total
>> bus and rail service. These are not final decisions on specific routes. But
>> they are the scenarios that will now be built into the 2027 proposed budget
>> and presented to the full Board in July. The direction is set. The numbers
>> are real. And next Tuesday's full Board meeting is when those directions
>> converge into a formal decision.
>>
>> Director Benker -- our strongest ally on the Board and Chair of the
>> Finance Committee -- voted no on the OSSC motion, arguing correctly that
>> the percentage ranges are arbitrary without knowing which specific routes
>> would be cut and how close RTD actually is to closing the $215 million
>> deficit gap with other tools. She also reminded her colleagues that RTD has
>> plenty of other options on the table before going after service. She did
>> not get enough support to stop the motion, but her dissent matters and
>> needs to be amplified.
>> ------------------------------
>>
>> What alarmed us most -- Director Guzman's comments on Access-on-Demand
>>
>> At the OSSC meeting, Director Guzman said something that every person
>> with a disability who relies on RTD needs to hear. When the subject of
>> Access-on-Demand came up, he said -- and I am quoting directly from the
>> official transcript -- "Access-On-Demand is not our federally required
>> paratransit system so it is always at risk if we can't afford to pay for
>> it. And monies being used for a nonrequired program are the first ones that
>> need to be chopped in order to be able to augment and support what is
>> required by federal law. I don't like saying that, but that's the reality."
>>
>> He also suggested that if you asked anyone at the Federal Transit
>> Administration, they would tell RTD the same thing: if you can't afford a
>> supplemental program, stop it and make the required program work.
>>
>> Not a single Board member on that committee pushed back on this argument.
>> Not one. The chair moved on without engaging it at all.
>>
>> So let's engage it now, because Director Guzman's argument is factually
>> wrong, and the Board needs to hear why.
>>
>> Access-on-Demand is not just a nicety RTD can trim to save money.
>> Eliminating it would actually cost RTD more, not less. Here is why.
>>
>> AOD was created specifically because Access-a-Ride -- the federally
>> required paratransit service -- is one of the most expensive forms of
>> transit RTD provides. Each AAR boarding costs RTD over $100. Each AOD trip
>> costs RTD a maximum of $20. When AOD was launched, RTD recognized that a
>> significant portion of AAR riders -- people with cognitive disabilities,
>> autism, learning disabilities, and others who don't use mobility devices --
>> don't actually need AAR's door-to-door, lift-equipped service. They need a
>> reliable, affordable ride. AOD provides that at a fraction of the cost.
>>
>> If RTD eliminates AOD, those riders don't disappear. They go back to AAR
>> -- the more expensive system that is already struggling. Access-a-Ride's
>> on-time performance dropped from above 90 percent to 83 percent between
>> June and August of 2025, before absorbing any additional riders. Adding
>> thousands of AOD users back onto that system would not improve it. It would
>> break it.
>>
>> The data from peer agencies is unambiguous. Washington DC's WMATA pays an
>> average of $24 per trip through Uber for paratransit versus $135 per trip
>> for traditional paratransit -- more than 80 percent lower. New York's MTA
>> saved $102.7 million in a single year by shifting eligible riders to
>> on-demand alternatives. These agencies are not eliminating their
>> supplemental programs. They are expanding them because they save money.
>>
>> RTD should be doing the same. Rather than eliminating AOD, RTD should be
>> 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
>> performance for those who genuinely need it, and preserve independence for
>> thousands of riders who have built their lives around AOD.
>>
>> Director Guzman's argument gets the financial reality exactly backwards.
>> We need the full Board to understand that on Tuesday.
>> ------------------------------
>>
>> Two other concerns from the OSSC meeting
>>
>> First, a representative from the Broomfield Housing Alliance testified
>> that RTD Staff recently denied a request to extend Access-a-Ride service by
>> just 750 feet to reach The Grove, a new affordable housing community for
>> people with disabilities opening in six weeks. RTD's denial means that
>> restoring Route 53 -- which is happening in the September service changes
>> -- is now the only way those residents will have paratransit eligibility at
>> all. This is a real, concrete example of what we have been warning about:
>> service decisions have direct consequences for who can and cannot access
>> paratransit. The Board needs to see that connection clearly.
>>
>> Second, on grandfathering: multiple public commenters, including myself,
>> raised the need to grandfather existing paratransit riders if service cuts
>> shrink the ADA-mandated service area. People have built jobs, medical
>> appointments, and daily routines around their current eligibility. Losing
>> it because a route gets cut near their home -- through no fault of their
>> own -- would be devastating. Chair O'Keefe has expressed support for this
>> principle. Not a single committee member on either night brought it up,
>> moved a resolution, or pushed Staff to commit to it. We need that explicit
>> commitment before any vote on service cuts is taken.
>> ------------------------------
>>
>> What happened at the Finance Committee
>>
>> The Finance Committee focused on the revenue side of the equation. A few
>> things worth noting. Bond refinancing is already in motion and will
>> generate about $38 million in cash flow savings in 2027 -- real money that
>> reduces the deficit without cutting a single route. Staff presented
>> detailed fare increase modeling showing that a 10 percent increase would
>> generate about $4.8 million but cost about 1.3 million boardings.
>> On-vehicle advertising, if the Board reverses its October 2025 ban on
>> window coverage, could generate $3 to $4.5 million net annually. And
>> critically, no fare increases were assumed for Access-a-Ride or
>> Access-on-Demand in any of the modeling. That's a meaningful signal and one
>> we want the full Board to maintain.
>> ------------------------------
>>
>> A united voice from the disability community
>>
>> Even before last week's committee meetings, the National Federation of
>> the Blind of Colorado joined with ADAPT Colorado, Atlantis Community, and
>> the Colorado Cross-Disability Coalition to send a joint letter to the RTD
>> Board of Directors. What we heard from Director Guzman at the OSSC meeting
>> made that letter feel more urgent than ever.
>>
>> The letter makes a specific, principled request: that the Board formally
>> commit to maintaining existing paratransit service levels, eligibility
>> standards, geographic coverage, and Access-on-Demand availability until the
>> independent paratransit study required by SB 26-150 has been completed and
>> its recommendations have been considered by the Board.
>>
>> The reasoning is straightforward. SB 26-150, signed into law by Governor
>> Polis on May 27, requires an independent third-party study of RTD's
>> paratransit system, with recommendations due to the Board by December 31,
>> 2027. That study exists precisely because policymakers, riders, and
>> advocates recognized that important questions about paratransit costs,
>> operations, service quality, and long-term sustainability have never been
>> independently answered. Making permanent decisions about paratransit before
>> that analysis is complete would undermine the entire purpose of the study
>> -- and could cause irreversible harm to riders before the Board even has
>> the information it needs to make a sound decision.
>>
>> As our letter states: "Riders and stakeholders should be assured that the
>> independent review is being undertaken to guide future actions rather than
>> simply document decisions already made."
>>
>> Director Guzman's suggestion that supplemental programs like AOD should
>> be "the first ones chopped" is exactly the kind of premature, evidence-free
>> decision our coalition is asking the Board to avoid. We hope the full Board
>> will honor both the letter and the spirit of the law it just helped bring
>> into existence.
>>
>> We are proud to stand together with our coalition partners on this. When
>> the disability community speaks with one voice, it is harder to ignore.
>> ------------------------------
>>
>> This is the moment. We need you at 1660 Blake Street on Tuesday, June 23
>> at 5:30 PM.
>>
>> The full Board vote is next Tuesday. This is not a committee meeting with
>> six directors in a Zoom room. This is all fifteen Board members, the full
>> public record, and the decision that will shape RTD's paratransit system
>> for years to come.
>>
>> Please come in person if you can. When the Board looks out and sees a
>> room full of people who depend on this system, it lands differently than a
>> list of Zoom names on a screen. Zoom and dial-in links will be posted soon
>> -- watch for a follow-up message once they are available.
>>
>> You can also submit written public comment to
>> RTD.Directors at rtd-denver.com at any time. It becomes part of the
>> official record and every Board member sees it. Three sentences is enough.
>> Tell them you rely on RTD. Tell them eliminating AOD would cost more than
>> keeping it. Tell them you want the Board to grandfather existing
>> paratransit riders before any service cuts take effect.
>>
>> If you have never made public comment before and the idea feels
>> intimidating, please reach out. We will help you prepare. Your voice
>> matters more right now than at any other point in this process.
>> ------------------------------
>>
>> They have not heard enough from us yet to make this easy. Let's make
>> Tuesday impossible to ignore.
>>
>> Tuesday, June 23. 5:30 PM. 1660 Blake Street, Denver
>> <https://www.google.com/maps/search/1660+Blake+Street,+Denver?entry=gmail&source=g>.
>> Be there.
>>
>> Tim Keenan
>>
>> State Transportation Chair
>>
>> National Federation of the Blind of Colorado
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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/trentrtaylor%40gmail.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/kaskaloral%40gmail.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/jbbeecham%40gmail.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/20260623/05fd279a/attachment.htm>