There’s little argument that the Regional Transportation District has missed the bus on creating a widely usable mass transit system in the metro area and Front Range.
It hasn’t been for the lack of trying, or the lack of money.
Created in 1969, RTD has spent billions and billions of dollars to create a sprawling system that too few people actually want to ride, and, clearly, most people do not.
State lawmakers have stepped up with a measure that, at long last, attempts to revamp the district’s structure in hopes that more focused attention by more qualified leaders leads to a bus and light-rail system far more people want to, and do, ride.
The state Senate’s approval of SB26-150 is a long-overdue acknowledgment that for a state and region that prides itself on growth, innovation and livability, its mass transit system is, by nearly every practical measure, a failure.
Start with the rider experience. RTD is too expensive, undependable and impractical. Commuters do not simply board a bus or train and arrive at their destination. They wait — and wait — for delayed buses and light-rail trains that too frequently run behind schedule. Even when service arrives, it rarely delivers riders where they actually need to go. Instead, many are left piecing together multiple routes, adding transfers and uncertainty to an already time-consuming journey.
For working families, it’s not a viable alternative to driving. It’s just another burden.
The problem is systemic. Despite more than 65 million annual boardings, overall ridership remains far below pre-pandemic levels, a clear sign that the public has lost confidence. When people who have options choose not to ride, and those without options are left frustrated, the system is failing both groups.
And yet, this is not a system starved for resources. RTD operates with a staggering $1.5 billion annual budget. That figure alone should end any argument that the agency’s struggles are simply a matter of funding. Taxpayers are investing heavily. Riders are paying fares. The return on that investment should be a transit system that is reliable, efficient and accessible. Instead, they are getting inconsistency and inconvenience.
The Senate’s proposed reforms rightly focus on governance. The current 15-member board is too large, too unwieldy and too often ineffective. Decision-making slows to a crawl when consensus must be built across a sprawling group, particularly when members represent vastly different constituencies with competing priorities.
Worse, the status quo has too often produced directors who lack either the expertise or the urgency to steer a complex, $1.5 billion transit system.
Shrinking the board to nine members — five elected and four appointed based on relevant expertise — is a sensible step.
A smaller board can act more decisively. Adding appointed members with professional qualifications introduces a level of competence that has too often been absent.
The change would not diminish democracy. It would ensure that those entrusted with oversight are equipped to do the job.
Compensation is another issue the bill attempts to address, but it deserves scrutiny. Paying board members just $1,000 a month has likely discouraged some qualified candidates from running. Public service at this level requires significant time and responsibility, and compensation should reflect that.
Raising board salaries alone will not solve RTD’s leadership problem — particularly when contrasted with the agency’s executive pay. The RTD executive director has been paid roughly $400,000 a year, a figure that is difficult to justify given the system’s performance.
Top compensation is often defended as necessary to attract top talent. But if that were true here, RTD would not be grappling with lagging ridership, persistent delays and declining public trust.
That disparity sends the wrong message — to employees working throughout the system, to taxpayers funding it and to riders enduring its shortcomings. Compensation must be tied to results, and right now, the results are not there.
If RTD is serious about rebuilding ridership and serving the 30% of households without reliable access to a car, fares must come down or, in some cases, be eliminated.
This measure is by no means a guarantee that all RTD problems will be solved, but it’s a solid step away from decades of what got us here.
RTD’s proposed governance reform may be well-intentioned, but it does not feel realistic in its current form. While supporters argue it could improve accountability and streamline decision-making, there are serious concerns that cannot be ignored.
First, voters have already rejected a similar concept once before. When the public has spoken on an issue like this, bringing it back so quickly can come across as dismissive of voter input rather than respectful of the democratic process. If leaders want reform, they should first explain what has materially changed since the last rejection and why residents should trust this version any more than the last.
Second, governance changes alone will not solve RTD’s biggest challenges. Riders are more concerned about reliability, safety, frequency of service, staffing shortages, and whether buses and trains run on time. Restructuring a board or shifting appointment powers may create headlines, but it does not automatically improve daily service for the people who depend on transit.
There is also concern that reducing voter control in favor of appointed leadership could weaken public trust. RTD serves a diverse region, and residents want to know their voices are represented—not replaced by political appointments that could raise concerns about favoritism or insider influence.
Real reform should start with operational improvements, transparency, and rebuilding confidence with riders. If governance changes are truly needed, they should be developed with broad public input and only after clearly demonstrating why the previous voter rejection no longer applies.
In short, RTD needs solutions grounded in service and trust, not a recycled proposal voters have already declined.