Finally, there might be passenger service along the Front Range of Colorado

[Anonymous]

This was in the Colorado Springs Gazette on Sunday December 5.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Passenger train talk speeds up

Springs, Denver link could dodge traffic jams, risk

By PERRY SWANSON THE GAZETTE

The popularity of a new bus line connecting Colorado Springs and Denver has some people wondering why passenger trains can’t connect the two cities.
The bus line, called FrontRange Express or FREX, started Oct. 11 and carried 300 riders each weekday on average during its first month of paid service. That’s about 14 percent of the people who commute to jobs in Denver, but it’s more than enough for the service to continue with help from a federal grant.
Some business commuters and transportation watchers said a rail line might draw more people because traffic jams and wrecks wouldn’t be a concern.
“If they had a rail, then it would take out all the worry of the driver,” said Duncan Tenney, a Colorado Springs resident who often drives to Denver.
Tenney said he avoids Interstate 25 because it’s packed with cars traveling at dangerous speeds.
For years, transportation planners have studied the possibility of rail service between Colorado Springs and Denver. The studies reached the same conclusions: A commuter rail line would cost too much to build, and too few people would ride it.
In 1994, a study found that upgrading the freight rails connecting the cities would cost about $8 million per mile, said El Paso County Commissioner Chuck Brown, who was a member of the study committee. The upgrade would be necessary for trains to go about as fast as freeway traffic, he said. Even with the upgrades, the 1994 study found, the line would draw few riders and ticket prices would be $25 to $40 each way.
The freight traffic on the tracks is another problem because companies using the railroad would probably oppose additional trains that might delay deliveries.
A 2000 study on expanding I-25 estimated that a light-rail line from Fountain to Monument would attract 3,000 riders per day within 20 years and cost $380 million to build. A heavier commuter train along the same route would attract 2,000 riders per day and cost $270 million, according to the study, which was conducted for the Colorado Department of Transportation.
The study said neither scenario would take enough traffic off the interstate to make a difference in rush-hour travel times.
Still, passenger trains connecting Front Range cities aren’t out of the question. Front Range population might create demand for passenger rail service, perhaps extending from Pueblo to Fort Collins, Brown said.
“There’s a point in time where rail is going to be the answer to the congestion that we have on the highway system,” he said.
One possible solution involves a new freight rail line running east of I-25 and bypassing Front Range cities. The line could run alongside a long-planned Front Range toll road.
Railroad companies and transportation officials are looking into the idea. If it succeeds, the existing railroad from Colorado Springs to Denver would be free for passenger traffic.
Voters across the state recently have shown interest in using tax dollars to pay for public transit.
Voters in most of El Paso County approved a 1-cent sales tax to pay for transportation projects, and 10 percent of the money will go to improving bus service.
In Denver and its suburbs, voters last month approved a sales tax increase that will pay for more bus service and 119 miles of new track for passenger trains.
“That sets the table for the development (of rail), particularly along the Front Range,” said Jon Esty, president of the Colorado Rail Passenger Association.
The Colorado Department of Transportation last week completed a study of previous research on Front Range passenger rail.
The study will be released within a few weeks, spokesman Bob Wilson said.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I know that they have been talking about this for some time, however, I just find it odd that they would pu***he freight traffic out to the new tracks and then update the current freight line for passenger service. I guess it makes sense to keep the passenger traffic closer to town, but is it worth the money that it is going to cost to do it that way?

[Overmod]

Look at it this way:

Valid business reasons for constructing the new freight-only line, and presumably enough public benefit (reduced traffic blockage or noise in cities, grade-crossing elimination, etc.) that bond funding might be attractive.

Once you have the freight line, there are things you can do with the old line that couldn't be done as effectively -- remember that the trains have to 'beat' effective freeway speeds and, worse yet, effective point-to-point timing and other automobile convenience. That means better lining and surfacing, perhaps higher superelevation, and reasonable maintenance expense and interval. This wouldn't be possible, and at best would be far more expensive on an ongoing basis, if you couldn't switch the freight traffic to a different line (which, remember, is "paid for" as a going concern)

Separation of freight and passenger means that lighter trains, e.g. DMUs (from Colorado Railcar!) could be used more easily... even if some destinations on the 'old' trackage need to have heavy freight cars delivered over the passenger line, this could be done with time separation.

What's not to make sense?

[daveklepper]

The Colorado Railcar meets FRA standards and doen't need time separation. The New Jersey River Line cars LIGHT rail cars, are Swiss (Stadler), and are designed to also operate on city streets, not true of the Colorado car (unless you take the position that any train can run on city street! Probably true if it runs slow enough.)

The Joint Line, as it is called, because it is used by both the UP and BNSF, the UP from the D&RGW heritage and the BNSF from both the AT&SF and the Q's Colorado Southern, is a very busy freight line, and much is single track, and some of the single track is in locations were double-tracking would be real problem. The freight trains also block crossings on numerous streets. So a new freight line through uncongested areas would make sense and help the operations of both railroads.

[Overmod]

Can't believe I made that "point" about the DMU when FRA approval is one of their most significant selling points -- I'd edit it, but that would retroactively "fix" what was a mistake on my part.

What I MEANT to be discussing was trains like Pendolino (or the slew of other European fast equipment) that are not FRA-qualified for joint operation with American freight trains, but which possess the (needed) attributes of customer comfort and ability to make reasonable point-to-point speed.

Personally, I have my doubts that light-rail car designs "optimized" to run on city streets (presuming that low floor and walkover heights are one design criterion) are the right engineering or marketing approach for this situation. On the other hand, the required investment in high-level platforms, ramps, etc. at intermediate stations and terminals might be considerably less for a low-floor train, and there would seem to be clear ADA advantages to using the approach. Design of a low-floor train with end-to-end walk-through connections is an interesting set of issues... one important one being to avoid the traditional lousy ride characteristics associated with light, low trains.

I concur completely with your discussion about the Joint Line... my point was a bit different, which was that the money for a new freight line will be more directly forthcoming, from existing capital sources with business doing all the 'heavy lifting', than for a new passenger-only line (in part because of the increased operational effectiveness the new line would make possible, of course) while the existing infrastructure in the old line effectively subsidizes much of the cost of new passenger-operation startup, perhaps even bringing it into the realm of "profitability" after publicly-acceptable levels and types of subsidy...

I'd be interested to hear more about that rather precise "119 miles of railroad" to be improved in the Denver area.

[Anonymous]

All of these points are good, I have no doubt that the freight lines would like to have some new tracks. I was just looking at the pure cost to build/refurbi***he lines to make them usable. The total (estimated) cost from the article, I figure, would end up being about $10 Million a mile (the ten year old $8 Mill estimate to upgrage the existing track, and $2 Mill to build the new freight (I think that was what I heard on here that it cost to build new track). Whereas, I would think that it would be much cheaper to keep freight were it is and build the new track as passenger.

Now it might be that I just have my numbers wrong and am out wandering past left field somewhere (which knowing me is a very distinct possibility) [:)] and it would just be much better to do it as the article and everyone on here says.

[mudchicken]

[(-D][(-D][(-D][(-D][(-D][(-D][(-D][(-D][(-D][(-D][(-D][(-D][(-D][(-D][(-D][(-D][(-D][(-D][(-D][(-D]

(1) I Agree with MWH's assessment wholeheartedly. Please add that the joint line thru the Springs is already down to one main track due to elimination of the Santa Fe line thru town in 1975-78 {before the PRB coal boom] to eliminate crossing accidents. The Springs failed to live up to parts of that agreement which has been a source of annoyance to BNSF and UP. See #4 below and keep in mind that as part of the deal in '75 was the clause that Springs and El Paso County were to help pay for the double tracking that MWH speaks of, which they now will not support....ATSF's Larry Cena has to be rolling over in his grave over this................[:-^]

(2) As long as there is not one legitimate railroader on CDOT's staff and RTD is in the domain of bus people calling themselves transportation engineers, the idea is DOOMED from the start.[:(]

(3) CDOT has dusted off the proposed front range bypass again (new railroad Bru***o Byersor Limon, resurrect the KP's 1873 Arkansas Valley RR abandoned in 1877 , 1st major abandonment in the state...not a new idea, it's been around since the 1960's in various forms) from Kit Carson to Las Animas...but the state does not have 2 nickels to rub together and not a prayer of federal assistance.

(4) You have the political entities in Colorado Springs and El Paso County that are complete IDIOTS that have drawn the ire of BNSF, UP, The Colorado PUC and others for being a bunch of il-mannered, pushy jackasses for years. (it was not that long ago that Colorado Springs and El Paso County told the railroads to move their R/W east of town at their [railroad's] expense because their planner(s) wanted to redo downtown and the existance of the railroad did not agree with their vision of the future....They will not even agree to carry out earlier agreements because that set of politicians are not the same as the current regime and therefor they cannot possibly follow through on a civic obligation to the railroads at present.) Castle Rock, Boulder and Ft. Collins are rapidly getting as stupid as El Paso County & Co.[V]

(4) Do not expect the rest of the state to fund Colorado Spring's pipedream. CDOT is already fighting the homers and NIMBY's that do not want to pay for road upgrades & repairs outside of the front range urban corridors. These shortsighted fools cannot fathom that the stuff from the supermarket and the malls had to be transported from somewhere else to get to the local store....over those same roads![V]

(5) North Yard (UP)and Globeville(BNSF) are up for sale and are soon to be gone. The freight side of Denver's infrastructure support will take a big hit if the price of fuel takes another hit and the taxpayer supported trucking industry can no longer deliver. The lack of foresight around here is going to hurt larger urban Colorado towns sooner than later. BNSF to build a new yard out by Irondale/Hudson and UP is relocating out on the KP line near DIA (airport east of town, jokingly referrred to as being in Kansas).[X-)]


[banghead][banghead][banghead]

[dldance]

A similar proposal has been floated around Central Texas for a number of years. It is driven by the fact that UP's freight line runs in the median of the MoPac expressway through the state capital of Austin. (The source of the name should be obvious.) TXDOT would love to have the RR ROW for creating toll lanes on MoPac.

The proposal involves double tracking UP's Taylor Tx to San Marcos line, eliminating the "Smithville Jog". UP has been enthusiastic in their response - "Give us $500 million and we'd be happy to rebuild our freight line." I don't expect 1/2 billion dollars to be forthcoming anytime soon.

dd

[mudchicken]

QUOTE: Originally posted by dldance

A similar proposal has been floated around Central Texas for a number of years. It is driven by the fact that UP's freight line runs in the median of the MoPac expressway through the state capital of Austin. (The source of the name should be obvious.) TXDOT would love to have the RR ROW for creating toll lanes on MoPac.

The proposal involves double tracking UP's Taylor Tx to San Marcos line, eliminating the "Smithville Jog". UP has been enthusiastic in their response - "Give us $500 million and we'd be happy to rebuild our freight line." I don't expect 1/2 billion dollars to be forthcoming anytime soon.

dd

Yeah, but TxDOT will study it to death....They just threw a healthy chunk of change ($0.5 Million)at the Orient line (Ft. Worth to Presidio) to do the same thing. They bought the line, but are totally clueless at what they really own.

[dldance]

mudchicken - I agree. but remember the best way for government to avoid making a big spending decision is to do another study.

dd