Go to the mobile version of this Web site.

Login | Contact Us | Site Map | Paid archives | Electronic edition | Subscription Questions | Extras

FasTracks fantasy

The staggering cost projections for Northwest Rail

Rocky Mountain News

Published November 26, 2008 at 12:05 a.m.

Text size  

More Editorials

More stories »

We've become nags, we realize, on the issue of the FasTracks buildout. Since there's no chance it can be completed with present resources, we've naturally expected regional officials to act rationally and endorse the idea of trimming the project back. But they won't.

Instead, they keep insisting that the Regional Transportation District has a sacred obligation to finish the full buildout because that's what voters expected when they approved FasTracks in 2004.

The public expected the impossible, in other words, and by gosh someone had better deliver.

The latest evidence of this head-in-sand attitude is the response of public officials to news that the projected cost per rider on the Northwest Rail corridor to Boulder and Longmont has risen from $16 in 2004 to $60.44 today, while the actual cost of the line has ballooned by nearly 60 percent. So what do the mayors and transportation officials along the corridor have to say about this appalling price surge? Why, build the line anyway, of course.

We assume they realize that the $60-per-rider figure is misleadingly low. We assume they know that the figure is for each way of a daily commute, and that it includes all riders, not just new ones who aren't taking public transit today.

The round-trip cost for each new rider will be astronomical, in other words. And if this upward trend in costs continues for a few more years, taxpayers would probably be well-advised to pay to have commuters who live in the area ferried to work by helicopter rather than build the infrastructure to transport them by diesel train.

Since FasTracks also includes a Bus Rapid Transit line between Denver and Boulder, RTD's northwest region would hardly be shortchanged if the rail project were put on hold or shelved - and particularly not if the bus line were then extended to Longmont.

Heretical? Apparently, although we can't imagine why. If you're in a hole, as the saying goes, it's a good idea to stop digging.

Comments

  • November 26, 2008

    6:26 a.m.

    Suggest removal

    Level writes:

    On the West Corridor currently being built, we already lost a lot of what was promised. Amenities have been cut back, security designs compromised, and worst of all, the number of tracks reduced. The projected cost here is $6.61 per rider.

    $60.44 per rider is astronomical. The good folks in Boulder County need to swallow hard and accept some drastic cutbacks.

  • November 26, 2008

    8 a.m.

    Suggest removal

    Elwood writes:

    If the citizens of Longmont ned to cut back, RTD should refund the excess taxes we have paid for the last 4 years. Boulder county has already had to ante up an additional $300,000 this year just to continue regular bus service between Boulder and Longmont.

    Take our train away, fine, just give us our money back.

  • November 26, 2008

    8:02 a.m.

    Suggest removal

    Superstar writes:

    The problem is, elected officials are hypocrits. They expect of others differently than they expect of themselves. All of the cities in the area are having money problems just like RTD, and they've had to cut back and lay people off. But they continue to hold RTD to a standard that can't be met. People may have voted for something that seemed doable four years ago, but times have changed and we all have to change with the times. I don't know of an elected official who had ideas and ideals during a campaign, only to have to back off when reality hit and they realized they couldn't do what they had hoped. It's part of the system. And I'm sure our new president elect Obama will be in that same boat. As we have all learned repeatedly, campaign promises are rarely met, and who should know that better than elected officials. So, if the people WE'VE voted into office aren't going to get real and be responsible, then WE can vote them out of office.

  • November 26, 2008

    9:25 a.m.

    Suggest removal

    Liamstuart writes:

    Imagine a great--low bid, second-rate--city. Speaking of heads being lodged in the sand (and perhaps elsewhere), why not, 1) extend the time to complete FasTracks properly and, 2) charge AND collect more in fares as well as taxes to, ultimately, complete this massive, forward-thinking project instead of cutting big corners and doing it on the cheap? No great city worldwide is without a viable mass transportation system that includes, to a large part, a FasTracks-like system. On the other hand, by changing out our current buses for some that look and feel less like those coming and going from a county jail might also encourage more people to use them and it would be less costly, wouldn't it?

  • November 26, 2008

    9:28 a.m.

    Suggest removal

    c4l2a0 writes:

    I can't wait for gas to go up above $5 and then listen to all of these same people complain when their costs to commute to work in their SUVs is much higher than the cost of an eco-pass. Short-sighted people make me laugh.

  • November 26, 2008

    9:51 a.m.

    Suggest removal

    KCalongne writes:

    Interesting how much Boulder and other NW Corridor officials are so interested in imposing legislation on their residents to force a costly reduction in waste and greenhouse gasses, but are determined to build a ghost-of-a rail line, wasting resources and polluting the air because they are so blinded by greed to take private property and develop. Here's an idea, they could just build the line, and their soviet-esque high density developments, where young adults can pass apple brandy 'round tables of one bedroom apartments, then not run trains on it. Well, actually, I'm late on that -- the piece from Boulder to Longmont has already been proposed to sit, sans rail service, 4 hours of the day because of the problems the BNSF has with sharing its tracks -- unless RTD builds a second set of tracks -- just one huge impact on cost of which RTD has spent untold time relieving itself of responsibility -- simply forgot to ask about before the FasTracks vote.

    If cities along the rail line were given authority to take peoples' hard earned property from them to develop without the train, that might be a cost-efficient solution for the NW Corridor. There has not been a single statement of concern about the new paltry expectation for rail ridership, and the waste of resources this represents. If US 36 mayors and commissioners really cared about the waste of resources, they would allocate the waste they are instead demanding to the completion of other lines that do not have duplication of services in exchange for the potential for full build-out of transportation -- BRT. Debra Baskett can protest as loudly as she'd like that rail serves a different route, but until she can do something about the map on RTD's website which shows that the distance between the two is little more than the quarter mile transportation officials claim residents are dying to walk for transportation, she may as well stop trying to make fools of the people she represents.

    Cal Marsella has gone before the CO House and plead his case to "partner" with private developers to use air rights above RTD structures, which incidentally might result in a reduction in cost for their "transit purposes." Yet, he protests RTD is innocent of all claims that RTD is in the development business. He protests, they are just, through the kindness of their hearts-- responding to the desires of cities to build high-density development. If they are not in the development business, they have no business overreaching the public they profess to serve to support a type of development, the taking of property for which has never come to a vote of the people. The people voted for transportation. It is clear from the self-serving reaction of US 36 mayors and commissioners, that transportation is an almost insignificant part of the equation.

  • November 26, 2008

    10 a.m.

    Suggest removal

    Andy writes:

    Government is not a business. If Fastracks were a business venture it would certainly be canceled, but it isn't. It's an infrastructure improvement. The fact is that rail commuting is attractive to a lot of people with long commutes (like me). It follows that governments with rail stations will attract more residents and therefore business, thus expanding its tax base. The increase in revenue needs to be factored into the equation when determining cost per rider.

  • November 26, 2008

    10:16 a.m.

    Suggest removal

    meckjo writes:

    Let's nag RTD to redo their cost forecasts/analyses in light of today's economy and play hard ball in negotiating the build out. The numbers everyone is using now are totally unreal (HIGH) and it is time to stop repeating the myth that we have to pay based on outdated forecasts from 6-12 months ago when prices for everything were sky high. Then we can make intelligent criticisms and/or recommendations about what RTD can or should do.

  • November 26, 2008

    11 a.m.

    Suggest removal

    glowrock writes:

    I want to see updated costs now that the price of commodities has tanked by more than 50 percent in many cases! FasTracks just got a heck of a lot cheaper over the last few months, don't you think?

  • November 26, 2008

    11:39 a.m.

    Suggest removal

    Art writes:

    In the meantime RTD is taking measures to insure that less and less people will take their busses to DIA from Stapelton. They are raising the fares and even requiring those with Ecopasses to pay and additional $5 to ride this route. They are also implementing a plan to require people to pay for parking at the Stapelton lot, even for those in the RTD district. These measures will convince a great many people who now take this route and part at the Stapelton lot to drive closer to DIA and park closer in a private shuttle lot. It will be cheaper for them and more convenient. RTD will find that their scheme for paying to park in the Stapelton lot will cost them more than they will ever be able to recover from those who pay, and they will lose revenue from those who now regularly take the bus from Stapelton, resulting in less revenue coming in to RTD just at a time when they should be gaining revenue. They must have idiots in their financial offices.

  • November 26, 2008

    11:43 a.m.

    Suggest removal

    SteveFesch writes:

    Andy FasTracks is a business and they are in the business of redeveloping people's land. Big money, big developers, and the crooks at RTD our out to steal people's land and cash in via Abusive eminent domain. Eminent Domain does have a function in society when it comes to right of way for the light rail but it's clear RTD and their chosen people want much more of the pie.

    Read this......

    Hope for Lincoln/La Alma
    One of poorest neighborhoods in Denver set for revitalization
    Peter Marcus, DDN Staff Writer
    Tuesday, November 25, 2008

    One of Denver’s poorest neighborhoods could become a beacon for the future of development in the city with an emphasis placed on transit-oriented developments, mixed demographics, job training and education building.

    The Lincoln/La Alma neighborhood is to receive a $500,000 grant from the JPMorgan Chase Foundation to begin a revitalization process. The city’s Office of Strategic Partnerships is also waiting on word of a separate proposed grant from the John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation. A final decision on that grant is expected Dec. 11th when details will be made known.

    The $500,000 from JP Morgan Chase will break down into 12 separate grants through 2010 to help students, teachers and low-income families in the Lincoln/La Alma neighborhood. One of the grants will go to Columbia, Md.-based Enterprise Community Partners, which will develop an affordable housing plan focused on transit-oriented development and a gentrification of the neighborhood, explained Jill Barkin, vice president of Philanthropy at JP Morgan Chase.

    The epicenter of the TOD development will be the light rail station at 10th and Osage. Planners expect the station to become more active as the Regional Transportation District FasTracks build-out comes to fruition.

    Prime location

    Already selected by the Office of Strategic Planning as a neighborhood for revitalization, Barkin explained that the area’s close proximity to arts, education and downtown business makes it a prime location for the effort.

    http://www.thedenverdailynews.com/art...

    Continued..............

    Sounds pretty good doesn't it Andy? Now imagine owning a home there and getting a letter in the mail one day that your home is being confiscated so someone can make money on your land. Then imagine not even being able afford another home by the time the Eminent domain process is done. That is what is happening to the people on the west corridor. Hundreds of families face this and thousands will face this along the corridors. Even more people will be pushed out via urban renewal. Property Rights don't mean much in Colorado these days.

  • November 26, 2008

    12:07 p.m.

    Suggest removal

    Marshdale writes:

    I don't speek for everyone I know, but the fact of the matter is that in an era of dwindling resources and lower wages, people will not be able to afford to buy cars and they wil need to have some form of transportation. I'm willing to pay for it. I know most of you are not, and I don't expect you to. In a nation where majority rules I will probably be the loser. Thats ok though, because that is how our republic is set up. I will take the knocks on the chin and find another way.

  • November 26, 2008

    12:09 p.m.

    Suggest removal

    Cwillyrun1 writes:

    Boulder shouldn't have more than one option anyway, just like the other lines being built. With Bus Rapid Transit, there's less construction and costs involved. Aren't the people in Boulder against any kind of development as it is?

    If RTD asks for another vote to get more money from us, I'm voting no.

    c4l2a0, I can drive to work in about 20 minutes, or take the bus and rail, which is a 90 minute trip. It costs more for me, even if gas was $5.00 a gallon, to take RTD as opposed to driving. That also doesn't take into account the 15 minute walk between where light rail is and where my place of employment is. Add all that up, and it means no RTD for me. Light rail and RTD are an advantage for a small percentage of the population. Not for the rest of us.

  • November 26, 2008

    12:16 p.m.

    Suggest removal

    c4l2a0 writes:

    SteveFesch: You don't live in Lincoln/La Alma neighborhood do you? I hope so, otherwise your argument is weak. I live along the west corridor in an "up and coming" neighborhood and I see the light rail project as a great thing for our neighborhood. If property owners can't/won't increase the value of their property by improving and taking pride/care with their property then I don't feel bad if they lose it. Our city is much better off without all of these blighted neighborhoods. I say we push all of these people out to the fringes of the city where they belong (Montghetto). There is nothing about 10th and Osage that should be saved, except for the Buckhorn. There is no reason to fear development, and why do you care about all of these poor people with dilapidated houses? Does it make you feel better about living in your Wash park scrape to take up their cause?

  • November 26, 2008

    12:36 p.m.

    Suggest removal

    Andy writes:

    "...Property Rights don't mean much in Colorado these days."

    A fair point. The exercise of eminent domain is problematic at best. The editorial, however, doesn't address this.

  • November 26, 2008

    2:23 p.m.

    Suggest removal

    Darwin writes:

    Marshdale writes: "I don't speek for everyone I know, but the fact of the matter is that in an era of dwindling resources and lower wages, people will not be able to afford to buy cars and they will need to have some form of transportation."

    We already have a form of transportation (public), it's called a bus. They are less expensive and routes can be changed if demographics change.

    I would dare say, that if one was to have a contract to have a home built with defined specifications and a defined price, you would consider the contract null and void if the builder came back and said the home would now cost $$$ more and would have a smaller footprint.

  • November 26, 2008

    6:35 p.m.

    Suggest removal

    mmannino writes:

    KCalongne,

    Good post. It also seems ironic to me that the saviours of the earth in Boulder are demanding huge transit subsidies. Here is something else for the Boulder greens to consider. These transit plans are causing sprawl, a serious green sin. I proprose a commuting limit (perhaps 5 miles) to force everyone close to work, schools, and recreation. I imagine a tremendous reduction of that deadly pollutant, CO2. With my commuting limit, most can bike or walk providing a side benefit of reducing health care costs.

  • November 26, 2008

    10:09 p.m.

    Suggest removal

    WitnessTree writes:

    Someday, people in this great country are going to get tired of hurricanes, Santa Anna fires, drought, tornadoes, ice storms, rising temperatures and brutal winters. When they finally figure out how good we have it here in Colorado, it's going to be a bit crowded.

    Did you ask the new administration how they would feel about killing this infrastructure effort and all the jobs this project could bring to Colorado? Maybe we can get Uncle Sam to help.

    We best be building rail now. Rail is inevitable and it's going to cost more for every year we delay it. Colorado has more cars per person than California. What are we going to do when the rest of California gets here?

  • November 26, 2008

    11:15 p.m.

    Suggest removal

    mmannino writes:

    WitnessTree,

    The only problem with your analysis is that rail does not move many people. If it did transport large numbers, its relative cost would not be so high. The largest impediments to rail transportation are parking and its fixed location. Few people will take rail if they cannot find parking at a rail station. Few people will take rail if the rail station is not reasonably close or at least on the path to a location.

    I like the light rail service but I also was a bus user previously. I am receiving a tremendous subsidy for light rail. Light rail may be useful in our transportation planning but it is not going to replace the need for private transportation. At best, light rail can relieve some congestion during peak travel times.

  • November 29, 2008

    1:38 p.m.

    Suggest removal

    warrengfunk7 writes:

    meckjo writes:

    "Let's nag RTD to redo their cost forecasts/analyses in light of today's economy and play hard ball in negotiating the build out. The numbers everyone is using now are totally unreal (HIGH) and it is time to stop repeating the myth that we have to pay based on outdated forecasts from 6-12 months ago when prices for everything were sky high. Then we can make intelligent criticisms and/or recommendations about what RTD can or should do."

    from what I have read, RTD has scheduled a new cost estimate to begin this February and it will take several months to complete. So I woudl guess the new estimates would be out sometime between mat and July of 2009.

  • November 29, 2008

    1:51 p.m.

    Suggest removal

    prk166 writes:

    So RTD promises something it knew it couldn't deliver as promised and we get uppity over the mayors of Westminster or Boulder? They didn't make the original mistake; they do not deserve the lion share of the blame.

  • November 30, 2008

    11:12 a.m.

    Suggest removal

    prk166 writes:

    Why doesn't RMN's online version show who wrote the editorial?

  • December 1, 2008

    9:54 a.m.

    Suggest removal

    warrengfunk7 writes:

    RTD named #1 transit district in America for 2008:
    http://shopping.postnewsmarketplace.c...