I agree but I think just putting a basic service to start is fine because we can see if it has the support and ridership it needs and then we can add frequencies as needed
In my opinion, getting Union Pacific and BNSF back on board providing passenger service, would be the way to go, we the American taxpayers shouldn't have to subsidize someone's love for a train ride. I love trains but having the government fit the bill isn't right, part of the reason we are 33 Trillion in debt, politicians don't know how to say NO. In Minnesota light rail from Mpls to Eden Prairie about 15 miles one way is at 2 billion plus and counting and won't be open until 2027. That's ridiculous
A few points: 1) Per user, buses are not cheaper than trains. Trains have higher capacity (though, at 6 trains a day, that might not be true) and last longer than buses. 2) Let's just state outright that any private entity has leverage over government when they have to work together. The private entity, whose goal is to maximize its profit, has no incentive to be fair. Contrast this with government that has an incentive to spend tax dollars wisely *and* to do so in a reasonable amount of time; the way I hear it, taxpayers are already grouchy with the gov't on both of these fronts. There are millions of tax dollars in play, and BNSF will want their cut. If they can afford to extract millions in tax dollars while minimizing disruptions to their service, why wouldn't they? I know it would still be a headache of untold proportions, but this service would be much better served in the long-term if they had their own track, beholden only to tax payers and not corporations. 3) How on earth can passenger rail survive without operating a full schedule on weekends? When I mention this project to people in Northern Colorado, it's an exciting prospect to imagine being able to take the train to Denver for social reasons (concerts, sporting events, festivals, etc.). In this video, they explain the differences between commuter rail and passenger rail (more stops vs. faster from point A to B), and then describe a ride schedule for the passenger rail project that can only be used by commuters. Which one is it going to be? Is this about freedom of movement or not? I have watched year by year as the mountains have gradually faded from view on the I-25 corridor. Please fight for something great, not something that's "possible". There are so many models abroad that do a better job than this. 4) Regarding ridership, as long as we make it convenient and cheap to drive and park, people will take their cars. In 2022, Denver doubled the parking meter rates from $1 to $2, and that's a start, but not nearly enough to justify the negative effects cars have on our cities and our health. We have so many tools at our disposal that we aren't using due to the dread "government overreach," especially living in the state that might as well be the libertarian capitol of the world. Jeff Speck writes in "Walkable Cities": [Parking] must be managed comprehensively with an eye toward community success, not just meter revenue. Parking is a public good, and it must be managed for the public good. Such management takes full advantage of the free market but--this is important--it is not the free market. The single largest land use in every American city is very much that city's business." 5) "Letting the voters decide" is sometimes a real problem, especially when there's competing interests at stake. Why would a well-off commuter, unburdened by the cost of their car travel due to its relatively low percentage of their income, agree to subsidize rail for people living on the margins who are sometimes overwhelmed with the cost of car operation and maintenance? I mean, look at where our marijuana tax goes. Colorado stoners are paying extra tax to fund school construction and address homelessness. Why single out marijuana consumers (who are more likely to be low-income) to help address the effects of the very same income inequality that they are victims of? Because it's "what the voters want." "But that's tyranny!" Being required to pay 4 cents on $100 purchase is not the same as having an infrastructure that mandates you have to drive a car to access commerce. We're currently making a choice to price people out of the market, which limits access and opportunity. In short, we are choosing to maintain a system that low-income people are forced to be stuck in. And we want voters to be the moral arbiters regarding our path forward? Nah, I'm good. I'm glad the conversation is happening, but I want to have it openly and honestly! These folks were doing a great job using diplomatic language--who knows what their personal views are--but sometimes people can see that that language is a veneer for *something* and it breeds skepticism.
Buses are much cheaper to gain right of way remember. It’s also very difficult to gain funding for large train infrastructure projects especially like ones down colfax. Trains might be slightly cheaper to operate but much higher to build. BRT is great for colfax
I hope this happens. 3 trains a day is pretty sad but hopefully that's only the start. A train each way every hour or 2 would be fantastic.
I agree but I think just putting a basic service to start is fine because we can see if it has the support and ridership it needs and then we can add frequencies as needed
correction: a big infrastructure project like this CAN be built all at once, there is just not the political will to do it in the u.s.
Boulder County waiting impatiently for promised Northwest Rail to Union Station
Well @douggrinbergs you are in the right place because that's one of our main topics
In my opinion, getting Union Pacific and BNSF back on board providing passenger service, would be the way to go, we the American taxpayers shouldn't have to subsidize someone's love for a train ride.
I love trains but having the government fit the bill isn't right, part of the reason we are 33 Trillion in debt, politicians don't know how to say NO.
In Minnesota light rail from Mpls to Eden Prairie about 15 miles one way is at 2 billion plus and counting and won't be open until 2027.
That's ridiculous
A few points:
1) Per user, buses are not cheaper than trains. Trains have higher capacity (though, at 6 trains a day, that might not be true) and last longer than buses.
2) Let's just state outright that any private entity has leverage over government when they have to work together. The private entity, whose goal is to maximize its profit, has no incentive to be fair. Contrast this with government that has an incentive to spend tax dollars wisely *and* to do so in a reasonable amount of time; the way I hear it, taxpayers are already grouchy with the gov't on both of these fronts. There are millions of tax dollars in play, and BNSF will want their cut. If they can afford to extract millions in tax dollars while minimizing disruptions to their service, why wouldn't they? I know it would still be a headache of untold proportions, but this service would be much better served in the long-term if they had their own track, beholden only to tax payers and not corporations.
3) How on earth can passenger rail survive without operating a full schedule on weekends? When I mention this project to people in Northern Colorado, it's an exciting prospect to imagine being able to take the train to Denver for social reasons (concerts, sporting events, festivals, etc.). In this video, they explain the differences between commuter rail and passenger rail (more stops vs. faster from point A to B), and then describe a ride schedule for the passenger rail project that can only be used by commuters. Which one is it going to be? Is this about freedom of movement or not? I have watched year by year as the mountains have gradually faded from view on the I-25 corridor. Please fight for something great, not something that's "possible". There are so many models abroad that do a better job than this.
4) Regarding ridership, as long as we make it convenient and cheap to drive and park, people will take their cars. In 2022, Denver doubled the parking meter rates from $1 to $2, and that's a start, but not nearly enough to justify the negative effects cars have on our cities and our health. We have so many tools at our disposal that we aren't using due to the dread "government overreach," especially living in the state that might as well be the libertarian capitol of the world. Jeff Speck writes in "Walkable Cities": [Parking] must be managed comprehensively with an eye toward community success, not just meter revenue. Parking is a public good, and it must be managed for the public good. Such management takes full advantage of the free market but--this is important--it is not the free market. The single largest land use in every American city is very much that city's business."
5) "Letting the voters decide" is sometimes a real problem, especially when there's competing interests at stake. Why would a well-off commuter, unburdened by the cost of their car travel due to its relatively low percentage of their income, agree to subsidize rail for people living on the margins who are sometimes overwhelmed with the cost of car operation and maintenance? I mean, look at where our marijuana tax goes. Colorado stoners are paying extra tax to fund school construction and address homelessness. Why single out marijuana consumers (who are more likely to be low-income) to help address the effects of the very same income inequality that they are victims of? Because it's "what the voters want." "But that's tyranny!" Being required to pay 4 cents on $100 purchase is not the same as having an infrastructure that mandates you have to drive a car to access commerce. We're currently making a choice to price people out of the market, which limits access and opportunity. In short, we are choosing to maintain a system that low-income people are forced to be stuck in. And we want voters to be the moral arbiters regarding our path forward? Nah, I'm good.
I'm glad the conversation is happening, but I want to have it openly and honestly! These folks were doing a great job using diplomatic language--who knows what their personal views are--but sometimes people can see that that language is a veneer for *something* and it breeds skepticism.
Buses are much cheaper to gain right of way remember. It’s also very difficult to gain funding for large train infrastructure projects especially like ones down colfax. Trains might be slightly cheaper to operate but much higher to build. BRT is great for colfax