From Colorado Biz Magazine
By Kyle RingoYears of study, bickering and efforts to build consensus should finally produce a long-term vision in 2008 of what Coloradans can expect for improvements to the sometimes snarled Interstate 70 corridor. It’s looking like rail service could be part of the equation.

Russell George, executive director of the Colorado Department of Transportation, told 25 members of the I-70 collaborative-effort team formed last fall that he would like them to come to an agreement on a proposal for the corridor by May. During a late-November meeting with members, he pledged CDOT will support their recommendations and gave each member a signed letter stating so.

“He said we’ve got everybody here. We’ve got the points of view represented. So when you come up with a decision, that’s what we’re going to go with,” said Jon Esty, president of the Colorado Rail Passenger Association. “We’d be fools not to. He said the real problem would be if you didn’t come to a decision or if you couldn’t come to a compromise.”

Reaching an agreement has long proved difficult and still could be in the coming months, but some of those involved say they feel more optimistic about the process now. The feeling can be partly explained by a sea change that occurred when Gov. Bill Ritter took office a year ago and removed some of the restrictions hovering over any proposed improvements.

In the past under former Gov. Bill Owens’ administration, the state’s funding criteria capped construction costs along the corridor at $4 billion and eliminated futuristic rail possibilities such as monorail. The new approach takes a deeper view of the problems that cause congestion on busy ski weekends in the winter and spring months and similar problems experienced by hikers and campers and fishermen in the summer.

Simply widening the highway between Golden and the Eagle Valley Airport would address the problem over the next two decades, or nearly as long as the project would likely take to complete. At the end, some say similar problems would still exist because the state’s population is expected to grow, with much of the growth coming along the Front Range and I-70 corridor.

Previous ideas for rail service along the corridor met resistance because the technology was unproven on terrain such as that found in the mountains west of Denver. The expense also made many cringe. Recent research has found trains in use in similar areas in Europe that could be easily adapted for use in Colorado. The Swiss Stadler train used in the Alps could shuttle hundreds of commuters and skiers back and forth between the mountains and Denver quickly. The Fast Light Innovative Regional Train, or FLIRT, can travel at 100 mph on less than 5 percent grades and 65 mph on the 7 percent grades seen on some stretches of the I-70 corridor.
“It can be powered to take the grades that are present along the I-70 alignment,” Esty said.

While a train is now a much more viable option that it was just a few years ago, Esty said he doesn’t know if trains are the answer to I-70 congestion because of the expense involved. In 2001, the Colorado Rail Passenger Association that Esty heads held a seminar for its members in which it examined all the different possibilities for addressing traffic problems in and out of the central Colorado mountains.

“We had kind of a vote after all these people had given their opinions, and all these people who support rail — that’s why they’re members of this organization — said they thought the bus alternative was the best one,” Esty said.

The cost and environmental impact of construction seemed to be what concerned most of those involved, he said.

The trains would run on electricity just like the light rail in Denver. Where the power would come from remains up in the air. Literally, maybe. Bert Melcher, a Sierra Club representative for the I-70 collaborative effort, envisions wind farms on the eastern plains powering trains that run from Denver International Airport up the corridor, although the study area does not include anything east of Golden. Melcher concedes there may be a need for a power source located in the mountains, which would likely be unpopular with those who live along the corridor west of Denver.

Some wonder whether those who support using trains because of environmental concerns might be shooting themselves in the foot because rail transportation would make it easier for people to travel and increase the sprawl effect environmentalists detest.

Melcher said it would be wrong for the state to spend billions on highway widening alone if doing so won’t fix the bumper-to-bumper problems. He said the wise approach is to look at solutions that can make an impact on traffic problems for 50 or 60 years instead of those that address the issue for a decade or two. He said that is the new approach the coalition seems to be headed toward with new leadership at CDOT.

“I think if you look at the next four or five decades, some combination of rail and highway is the only thing that makes sense,” he said. “It’s immoral to spend that much money on just highway expansion and never really solve the problem.”

The governor’s blue ribbon panel seeking the best funding sources for I-70 improvements was supposed to release its suggestions in late December. The expected approach is a plan for issuing bonds similar to what funded the T-Rex expansion of I-25 through south Denver.

If Russell George receives a decision by May from the I-70 coalition trying to find consensus for a transportation alternative to wider highways, it will be well-timed with the long-awaited draft preliminary environmental impact statement that should be done some time next summer. The statement must undergo a year-long review, but the pieces could fall into place, giving voters a decision to make in 2010.

That might be too optimistic because of the threat of litigation, according to I-70 coalition chairman and Frisco Town Manager Michael Penny. “We still have a long way to go and a lot of work to do,” Penny said. “We could still be decades away.”

One possible plaintiff in such a lawsuit could be the town of Idaho Springs, which opposes expanding the highway because there is no room left in the bottleneck at the bottom of the west side of Floyd Hill for expansion without further cutting into private property and other areas such as the high school football field.

Even if all of the communities, private land owners, departments of government and environmentalists climbed aboard one option now, agreed on the funding and cleared all the political hurdles in their way, the trains wouldn’t start shuttling skiers, hikers and bicyclists into the mountains and workers into the city for at least five years and maybe more.
Colorado already has a ski train, and it’s a popular alternative to fighting the crowds on I-70. The problem is it only serves the Winter Park resort.

The current ski train was started in 1940 when skiers began hopping rides to the slopes on the Yampa Valley mail train that ran between Denver and Steamboat Springs. The Ansco Investment Co. purchased the operation in 1988 and now makes 45 trips during the winter with 14 cars capable of carrying 750 people.

Ski Train spokesman Jim Bain said the train never has made money in its previous 67 years of service, in part because of high insurance expenses and the cost of using the rails owned by Union Pacific. Bain said most trips are 85 to 90 percent filled.

The train departs Denver early in the morning on Saturdays and Sundays from late-December through March 30 and travels on flat stretches at 50 mph before the mountain climb brings speeds down to around 30 mph. Service on Fridays is added Feb. 1, and Thursday trips begin March 6. The trip costs between $44 and $74.

Count Bain among the skeptics who question whether rail service is genuinely needed along the I-70 corridor. He is the first to acknowledge congestion exists at peak times in the early mornings headed west and in the evenings, particularly Sundays, heading east. But he’s not convinced those problems can’t be solved in other ways, such as encouraging ski resorts to offer deals and promotions to lure skiers to the slopes during the week and not just on weekends.

Bain also correctly points out that a train along the I-70 corridor will serve only three ski resorts conveniently: Loveland, Vail and Copper Mountain. Skiers and travelers wishing to visit other destinations will still require cars or buses to get to places such as Breckenridge, Keystone and Aspen.

“The reality is that it will be very expensive, and we all pay for it in the end,” he said. “I know there is a problem on some ski weekends at certain hours in the morning and certain hours in the evening, and there is a similar problem at times in the summer months. But you can drive up there at most times and never go below 70.”