Draft study: Denver-Vail rail line would cost $15B

**Pinner** · 09-01-2009, 11:18 PM

Draft study: Denver-Vail rail line would cost $15B
http://www.denverpost.com/ci_13245373
The Associated Press
Posted: 09/01/2009 08:23:25 AM MDT
Updated: 09/01/2009 08:43:16 AM MDT

FRISCO, Colo.—A draft report estimates it would cost about $15 billion to build a passenger rail route from Denver into the heart of Colorado ski country.

The Summit Daily News reported Tuesday the Rocky Mountain Rail Authority developed the cost estimate for a line connecting Denver International Airport with the Eagle County Airport west of Vail.

The route would parallel the heavily traveled Interstate 70 and have intermediate stops in Keystone and Frisco.

The draft report estimates it would cost another $5 billion to build a passenger rail route connecting Fort Collins on the north to Pueblo on the south, passing through Denver and Colorado Springs on the way.

The rail authority was created by 45 cities, counties and other groups along the two routes.

**TheGaper** · 09-02-2009, 12:00 AM

We've spent $905 billion on wars in the Middle East. Just think of the infrastructure we could have built at home for that price.

**catastrophethree** · 09-02-2009, 01:37 AM

Damn, I wish. It'd be so nice to be able to drive to Golden and park, then sleep til Frisco or Vail, hop on a 5 min shuttle and go ride.

70 is dangerous enough to drive in the summer, with all the semis and traffic. When it's dumping and the traffic is five times worse, it can be hellish. It has taken me 6 hours to make the 1.5 hr drive from the Basin to Boulder, many times it takes over 4.

For how much safer it would make the ski commute for thousands of people, combined with how much gas would be saved overall (not to mention time), a rail line would be worth it, imo. I'd throw down $300 for a pass or whatevz.

and TheGaper is right, EVERYONE in America could have a rail line to Vail for a trillion dollars.

**drn92** · 09-02-2009, 05:34 AM

Would love to see it happen. But it makes too much sense.

**jsw630** · 09-02-2009, 06:23 AM

Thats the truth. We tend to not do things that would make sense it seems. But who would be paying for this if it could happen?

**Neezer** · 09-02-2009, 06:27 AM

I think it would be great...mostly cause I would use it a lot, but for us to think that the federal government should give it to us is absolutely crazy...It is clearly a state/local issue. If we want it bad enough we will find a way to get it done, and get it done properly without the aid of the federal government.

I think the private sector could get this done much more efficiently and do a better job of it than the government.

**HORSE C0CK** · 09-02-2009, 07:07 AM

^Of course you think that Neezer, you live in the Springs. Say hello to Reverend Haggerty for me, k?

**Crinkle** · 09-02-2009, 07:09 AM

think of what they initially told us about Fastracks in Denver, the estimate as $4.7 billion. Currently the cost is quoted as $6.9 billion. Imagine what $15 billion would end up costing when completed.

**DeeAre** · 09-02-2009, 07:14 AM

Good lord, I can only hope I've moved from this place by the time a disaster like this commences. If I haven't, I'll be an Eldora hardcore.

CG · 09-02-2009, 07:32 AM

Spendy yes, but it needs to get done and the longer the Government waits the more it will cost (land, raw materials). Get it done.

**Elkhound Odin** · 09-02-2009, 07:43 AM

$15 billion so a few hundred people can go skiing on winter weekends??? That's just stupid.

**Name Redacted** · 09-02-2009, 08:20 AM

Problem is that people won't use it. Didn't the WP ski train just go under? People want to have their cars when they get to the mtns. If the train went from DIA it might work.

I think that it should at least double as freight transport. Getting the semis off I-70 should be the main goal. Think about the amount of repair they have to do each year because of damage caused by trucks (especially with their chains on). The pollution is a problem, as well as the fact that much of the traffic is caused by semis. How many jack-knifed semis have you seen on I70, winter or summer.

You think summit is "Denver West" now? Just wait...

**Neezer** · 09-02-2009, 08:23 AM

Yes of course I think it is a great idea...I live in springs....but I can see the other point of view too....the people who live up there already might not like it at all....Don't want to make it easier for some of us flat landers to get up to the goods....you are entitled to your opinion.

I would not expect you to have to pay tax dollars for something you don't want. that is why it is a local and somewhat a state issue.

If I lived up there, which I am trying to make happen, I wouldn't want to pay a dime for the damn thing....it would just make it easier for a bunch of denverites to get in my way.

Who is reverend hagarty?

**Name Redacted** · 09-02-2009, 08:29 AM

The whole state and federal gov will pay for it. People in summit, whether they like it or not will pay because it will boost their economy and therefore sales tax revenues, theoretically.

If it's stopping in Keystone, does this mean it will be going over Loveland pass? Argentine? Somewhere else in Zuma? This would suck

**smmokan** · 09-02-2009, 08:34 AM

Originally Posted by Elkhound Odin

$15 billion so a few hundred people can go skiing on winter weekends??? That's just stupid.

I hope you're kidding. Apparently you haven't seen the traffic in the summer on I-70.

I think $15 billion is an extremely low estimate. Think about it- its cost ~$7 billion for RTD to build out around 30 miles (or less) of light rail in Denver, where the land is fairly flat and there aren't any giant mountains to get around or go through. Denver to Vail is what, 100 miles of mountainous terrain? I'm guessing the cost would be closer to double that...

**Pablo Escobar** · 09-02-2009, 09:03 AM

train wont be stopping in loveland = win for me. fuck summit co and vmr. you all can eat the peanuts outta my shit.

**DeeAre** · 09-02-2009, 09:07 AM

Originally Posted by Pablo Escobar

train wont be stopping in loveland = win for me. fuck summit co and vmr. you all can eat the peanuts outta my shit.

Werd up Pablo.

**Elkhound Odin** · 09-02-2009, 09:19 AM

I'm not kidding. Think about it for second....who and when would it be used? The train will make stops at a few ski resorts and mountain towns. The heaviest usage of I70 is weekends. That's when people might use it. During the winter this lasts about 3 months when people go to the ski resorts. In the 3 summer months people go all over the place, with very limited (compared to winter) ski resort usage and the trains will sit idle, or under utilized.

The daily average Eisenhower tunnel traffic in the winter is about 16k each way. Winter holiday peak reaches mid 20k. Summer daily average is about 18k each way. Summer holiday peak reaches low 30k.

Everyone looks at the peak traffic as the problem (which is what, 75 days or 20% of the year), and wants to spend $15B to "solve" this. But, 80% of the year it's not needed. The peak usage really would be limited to winter when people go skiing (at the train stops) so that drops real usage down to about 10%.

So how do you justify a $15B investment that will be used about 10% of the year? How do you determine capacity? How do you get people to opt out of the convenience and low cost of driving? Since the train isn't going to pick people up at their home, they have to drive to the station, that means lugging gear back and forth to the train, then back & forth to the ski resort. Add the cost for a train ticket, I'll bet most people will opt for the highway.

Anschutz couldn't keep the one ski train we have in operation. The biggest complaint people have of not using it - the high ticket cost. When you look at trying to cover just the maintenance cost over the actual limited use of a mountain train, those tickets will be ridiculously high, further limiting usage.

A better option than a mountain train, would be expansion of I70 with dedicated bus lanes or toll lanes. Even adding 1 lane that can be swapped between east & west bound during the day would help.

**Name Redacted** · 09-02-2009, 09:19 AM

Originally Posted by Pablo Escobar

train wont be stopping in loveland = win for me. fuck summit co and vmr. you all can eat the peanuts outta my shit.

Yeah, you totally win.

**smmokan** · 09-02-2009, 09:36 AM

Originally Posted by Elkhound Odin

Anschutz couldn't keep the one ski train we have in operation. The biggest complaint people have of not using it - the high ticket cost.

The Ski Train failed because of two reasons:

- It only served Winter Park.
- It was expensive.

**Missing Sock** · 09-02-2009, 09:46 AM

Originally Posted by Elkhound Odin

So how do you justify a $15B investment that will be used about 10% of the year? How do you determine capacity? How do you get people to opt out of the convenience and low cost of driving? Since the train isn't going to pick people up at their home, they have to drive to the station, that means lugging gear back and forth to the train, then back & forth to the ski resort. Add the cost for a train ticket, I'll bet most people will opt for the highway.

Anschutz couldn't keep the one ski train we have in operation. The biggest complaint people have of not using it - the high ticket cost. When you look at trying to cover just the maintenance cost over the actual limited use of a mountain train, those tickets will be ridiculously high, further limiting usage.

A better option than a mountain train, would be expansion of I70 with dedicated bus lanes or toll lanes. Even adding 1 lane that can be swapped between east & west bound during the day would help.

Hit the nail on the head.

**Edgnar** · 09-02-2009, 09:50 AM

I think the ski train would have done better if they sold season passes, and you could do more than a day trip on it. e.g.- They could have gotten destination travelers if they let you go up one day and let you come back another with out having to buy two different tickets.

I think I would like to see a train come up to summit. It would probably have reduced usage in the shoulder seasons, but it would be nice to be able to drive/ride the bus to Frisco ( I live in Breck), hop a train and go to the airport, $35 for gas, $50 for parking, probably makes the ticket price worth it.

IF they do build it, they say it won't be done till something like 2020 anyway. I have heard people up here say they don't want it, it would run right by some of the places near I-70 and ruin their property values. OR so they think. Even though it is probably a good idea, I would be surprised if it does happen.

**Missing Sock** · 09-02-2009, 09:51 AM

Originally Posted by smmokan

The Ski Train failed because of two reasons:

- It only served Winter Park.
- It was expensive.

Lets say it cost $30 round trip, thats $120 for a carload of four. Roughly 4x as expensive as gas and parking for a carload of 4 and you lose the choice to leave or get there whenever you feel like it, stop for food on the way up or home. Not to mention sitting around waiting for the Summit Stage or whatever shuttle service that someone will have to put together in silverthorne, Frisco, to even get you to the lifts. Hell when its all said and done it will probably cheaper and faster to drive.

**smmokan** · 09-02-2009, 09:56 AM

Wasn't the Ski Train something like $50-60 per person?

The only reason I'm defending this is because IMO, its the only feasible option... adding lanes to I-70 seems like it would be virtually impossible.