The ongoing riots across France protesting a gas tax that was imposed not to ease congestion but to meet climate change goals should be instructive regarding Coloradans’ constant complaints about inadequate transportation funding. One French protestor observed that President Macron talks about global warming as though it could trigger the end of the world, while he has to struggle “…to get to the end of the month.” Sound familiar? 

Estimates of the revenue required to bring Colorado’s roads into shape for the horde of newcomers arriving each week run into the tens of billions of dollars. Yet most of the “fixes” debated at the legislature have topped out at $5-6 billion, perhaps enough to widen I-25 north and south of Denver. That might quiet the noisiest petitioners, especially the mostly Republican drivers commuting between Fort Collins and Thornton. No one else, however, would see much relief.

At least twice in the past 30 years, the business community has launched efforts to force a solution. The most bizarre was the Colorado Transit Authority created in the 1980s at the behest of George Wallace, founder of the Denver Tech Center. Frustrated by RTD’s failure to connect his expanding empire to downtown with light rail, Wallace persuaded legislators to award him taxing authority on properties within a mile either side of the proposed I-25 corridor.

It took less than two years for this initiative to be repealed following an insurrection led by small businesses. It was Ralph Onofrio who pointed out that transit riders weren’t going to carry purchases home on the train from his family’s piano store on South Broadway. This year voters defeated question 110, a 6/10ths of a cent sales tax spearheaded by the Greater Denver Chamber of Commerce and supported by a laundry list of municipal, non-profit and business endorsements. Seemingly, every current or former elected official and civic eminence with a pulse was on board. Nonetheless, it was soundly defeated by a 60/40 margin.

At a time when the president has provided lip service for a $200 billion national infrastructure program, Seattle and Los Angeles have approved a $62 billion and a $128 billion road and transit program respectively. How was this accomplished? It took eighteen-months of public education and feedback surveys to incorporate projects residents stated were important to them. In Los Angeles Mayor Garcetti, a long shot candidate for president in 2020, made more than 200 appearances, night after night, on behalf of question M. In Seattle their mayor did the same. In the case of Los Angeles, a two-thirds majority was required. Both initiatives passed.

What distinguishes their success was the presence of genuine political leadership. Supporters credit both victories to thinking big. Phil Washington, general manager of METRO in Los Angeles, who formerly implemented RTD’s FasTracks expansion in Denver, has said, “We needed something in our program that every resident, every driver could see as a personal benefit to them. Sometimes that meant we had to put our planners’ preferences on the back burner in favor of what taxpayers wanted.” A similar focus and the unstinting efforts of then-Mayor Hickenlooper contributed to voter approval of FasTracks rail expansion by RTD..

How would a similar proposal play out for Colorado? At a minimum it would include Front Range passenger rail from Pueblo to Fort Collins, a high-speed Advanced Guideway along the I-70 mountain corridor from DIA to Glenwood Springs, serving our mountain resorts, and upgrades on many of the major arterials connecting rural Colorado. That means a $40-50 billion infrastructure investment over the next 30 years. From approval to ribbon cutting, major projects can require a decade, or more, to plan, finance, license, design, construct and eventually carry passengers. When voters just rejected $5 billion programs, why would they approve ten times that much?

We are long past the time for Band-Aid solutions. Furthermore, any comprehensive plan must originate with, from and by elected officials. And it may require more than a single election to get a transportation funding formula right, as it did in Los Angeles. Most of all, the road to the ballot box demands a few dedicated apostles, leaders willing to accept the political risk of spearheading the debate. Republican Gov. Bill Owens and Democratic House Speaker Andrew Romanoff joined to pass Referendum C, following the dot.com economic collapse at the turn of the century. Even with all the king’s horses and all the king’s men in tow, they barely won. 

A private sector proposal isn’t likely to pass the smell test at the ballot box. Businesses that rely on good roads and transit would be better served by leaning on legislators to do their job – and that job is not to score partisan points.

TABOR doesn’t help. Term limits don’t help. The rugby scrum for dollars from competing programs doesn’t help. Explaining what you are trying to accomplish does help. In the final analysis, it’s about that “vision thing!”