Discussion on rail-systems

[3pe...@gmail.com]

Too bad it just won't work. It sounds nice, but it isn't practical.

1. You would have to run a ton of trains during the peak periods if
you wanted to have a chance of impacting traffic load. I don't know
if it is even possible to carry enough people to make a difference.
If you get enough cars for the winter, what do you do with them
outside of this rush time, just let them sit?

2. Everywhere rail is running, it is subsidized at a much higher rate
than all other transportation. It would alway run at a loss, would
always want more money from the tax base, and people that never go to
the mountains would be paying for it.

3. Even with a subsidy, the price will still be to high. What will a
round trip cost? Say it is $20 a head. Sure, if I am the only one
going, and don't mind the inconvienience of not taking my car to the
slopes, it might be cheaper. Now get 4 people going (I hate to ski
alone, so I always go with a group) and we have lost a lot of
flexibility, and are paying a lot more than it costs to drive up to
the slopes. Easy decsion, drive, don't ride.

People will make rational personal decisions, and for the vast
majority of people, the train won't be it.

[bstahl...@gmail.com]

The highway certainly could use some expansion. Well at least that
ridiculous tunnel east of Idaho Springs that seems to back traffic up
every Sunday afternoon. If that tunnel was ten feet wider in the
eastbound direction, this 20 day skier would have 20 extra hours a
year to contribute to the Denver economy.

A rail system however, (Light rail perhaps) Offers a narrow footprint
which would be less taxing in the end than adding an additional lane
in each direction on 70 which certainly cost tens of billions.

Senator Romer is insane to think true Coloradoans would vote this bill
in. Just a guess, he doesn't dream about moguls in the summertime.

[pa...@managedbenefits.net]

Con: Traffic is usually bad only on weekends and then at certain
times. Many people's destination isnt long I 70 especially in the
summer so they wont ride it. Everything funnels into I70- where do
they go from there?

[James.Wh...@gmail.com]

The overwhelming majority of passenger trips to the mountains are not
to the ski areas. A monorail is a complete waste of society's finite
resources. For instance who would ride it in the summer, when traffic
is actually worse???

[rnor...@gmail.com]

Instead of spending a gazillion dollars and taking years why don't we
use the existing rail lines from Denver through the Springs to reach
the Vail Valley?

[vraja...@gmail.com]

This would be a good idea

[Biscuit]

Any discussion of a rail system would not be complete without the
inclusion of a maglev option.

Advantages of a maglev rail system:
-Not affected by moderate snowfalls due to the levitation of the train
above the rails
-Can use gravity as a means of propulsion for parts of the trip
-Faster than conventional rail (over 300mph on straight flat segments,
but would be much better than traffic if the train would average
60mph-70mph)
-Depending on location of the power plants providing electricity for
the route, would reduce polution along the I-70 corridor. (Use of
dedicated alternative means instead of existing power combined with
use of the maglev over cars would actually net reduce emissions
related to skier/snowboarder transportation.)


The maglev system could be run along I-70 with spurs to access the
line. For example
-Eastern terminal at DIA (for all of those out of state skiers and
boarders)
-I-225 junction for the eastern metro area, with shuttles and light
rail (once expanded)
-Downtown station, either at or with shuttles from Union station and
surrounding area
-Golden station, with shuttles/light rail for C-470 and highway 93
from Boulder
-Empire station, with shuttle to Winter Park (an alternate to this to
maglev the SkiTrain, but let's stick with I-70 for now)
-Loveland station
-Silverthorne Station, with shuttles/rail spurs to Keystone, A-Basin,
and Breck
-Copper Mountain Station, use Coppers existing shuttle buses to get
from station to slopes.
-Vail station, use Vail's existing bus system as shuttles to the
slopes
-Avon station, with shuttle to Beaver Creek
-West terminal Eagle County Airport, with shuttle to Glenwood Spring
(or possible future expansion).

Thoughts on how to get people to ride the maglev:
-Work with ski areas on subsidizing the train. i.e. a lift ticket is
also your train ticket. A season pass for a ski area is a season pass
for the train.
-Food car so riders can get breakfast or an after skiing snack
-Changing rooms so you can get out of your ski gear if you brought a
change of clothes. (Could have a "mile high club" problem with those)
-Some sort of reclining seats so after a day on the slopes you can
sleep on the way home.

[J.Alleg...@gmail.com]

Plus -- even if we did spend the billions and years to expand,
Colorado will have expanded enough in population by that time that no
one would even see a noticeable drop in traffic volume. And we can't
expand it forever -- it's ecologically unsound and impractical.

[epicwinter]

Most of the skiers I talk with LOVE the hi-speed monorail idea, and
would pay a good chunk of change to ride a monorail to the ski hill.
Is there a different funding mechanism than the (previously failed?)
tax initiative? Sell tickets? Private operator?

[et...@hotmail.com]

Hopefully you can help the supporters of high speed transit (there are
many other options than an unproven 'monorail') get the funding to
make this happen.

[jpk3...@yahoo.com]

Seems to me that "train ferries" or some apparatus by which
automobiles and semi-trailers could be hauled by rail up and down the
mountains would be best. If I want to go to Kremmling, I could drive
onto a ferry in Denver and off-load at Silverthorne/Dillon. If a semi
needed to get from Denver to GJ it could similarly go by rail.

[aja...@terrasciences.com]

If we are discussing rail systems, one thing that does not appear to
ever be mentioned is the drive on/drive off approach that is used in
the Channel tunnel system. You drive your car on to rail cars
designed for the purpose, and you drive off again at the destination.
This removes the problem of how people get to their condo/ski resort
at the other end. Obviously the infrastructure for this is not
currently there. You would need a large terminal at the Denver end -
probably close to I-70 on the west side of town. And one or more
terminals in the high country - one west of Avon perhaps, another near
Breckenridge.

The trip time has to be somewhat comparable to driving it now, perhaps
3 hours to Vail might be OK, but not much longer. New trains and
rolling stock capable of travelling at such speed in the mountains
would be needed. Although we do not need 180 mph trains here. The onus
should be on pulling power and fast acceleration to 60-80mph with a
reasonably large manifest of cars. Electric not deisel power
preferably.

The problem with rail in such an environment as the Rockies are the
grades and avalanche dangers etc. If money were no object then a
series of tunnels might suffice. I am talking here of signifcantly
longer tunnels than the Eisenhower tunnel, perhaps 10 to 15 miles
inlength in some places. This would mitigate weather problems to a
great extent and also alleviate grade issues over the steepest part of
the mountains.

Using such a conventional type of rail system would also be expandable
for freight and commuter rail use also. adding regular passenger
stations at A Basin, Vail, maybe a line to Keystone/Breck.

I do not think a monorail is practical primarily as people want the
convenience of their own vehicle once in the mountains.

Widening existing roads is something to consider as well, but it does
not get you round the problem of closures due to weather, and
accidents.

[CWE...@gmail.com]

The high speed mag-lev rail idea is a good one. I have been
thinking a lot about it over the last few years - I've had ample time
to do so while sitting in traffic on I-70... There are a few problems
with the rail system that have been pointed out by some of the folks
on this page, I hope to dispense with their concerns in turn.

The first problem with a high speed mag-lev rail system is
funding. It would cost upwards of $10 billion dollars. Even at the
state level, this would be a tremendous burden on the tax base. The
idea would be to market the rail as not just a front range issue, or a
state issue, but a national priority. Since the rail line would be the
first of its kind in the United States, we would hopefully be able to
tap into a larger financial pool than just local tax payers and ticket
purchasers.

The ticket pricing issue is particularly sensitive with regard to
Denver area skiers. A good solution is to borrow a ticketing idea
from the resorts. If the resorts did not offer Colorado residents
season passes, and if each Colorado resident was forced to pay the
full ticket price every time they went skiing, there would not be the
conjestion problem on I-70. So, with each season pass, there should
be a highly subsidized season pass for the rail line for a nominal fee
of 150-200 per season pass. Skiing is the reason for building the
rail line in the first place, so why not create attractive incentives
for skiers to use it. Let the occasional skiers pay $20-25 per ticket
if they want to. Let the out-of-town skiers pay $80-100 per round
trip ticket from the airport - why not? - they are allready willing to
shell out at least that much per ride on Colorado Mountain Express -
or two or three times that much to rent a car.

Second, is the issue of what to do with all the cars. The idea of
transporting cars on the rail system is somewhat backwardly focused.
The elimination of cars from the overall skiing and extended-weekend-
condo-staying-tourist population should be the end goal. It would need
to include the use of public transportation at the destination cities
and resorts along the rail. For the most part, the rail could not
pull up to the base of the mountain and drop skiers off, ready to hit
the slopes. The rail line should stop at the intersection of I-70 and
US 40 - for a tram, shuttle, or other system for taking skiers to
Winter Park. The line should stop at Silverthorne for shuttle service
to Dillon, Keystone, A-Basin and Breckenridge. The line should stop
at Vail, which already has an extensive and efficient public
transporation system. The line should stop at Avon - which has a
great public transportation system. The line should stop at Glenwood
Springs (for the non-skiing crowd), and then Grand Junction.

The goal should be the elimination of cars from the skiing
experience all together. Why should tourists flying into Denver to go
skiing need a car? They could hop on the train at the airport, and
get off at their mountain of choice. Why should Denver skiers need to
take a car to the mountain? They could hop on the train at a gigantic
park and ride near Golden and be able to get to the base of the
mountain without needing a car.

The train should supplant the need of most people to drive cars,
not entirely eliminate driving up the I-70 corridor. If most people
rode the train to go skiing, or visit Glenwood Springs in the summer
to go rafting or whatever, that would eliminate the conjestion
problems on I-70 for those driving through the state, or who were
using I-70 to connect to another highway in the state.

The high speed rail line should not carry cars, just people.

[aja...@terrasciences.com]

I would disagree that the purpose of the train is to provide solely
for skiers. I-70 delays are just as bad in the summer, especially at
weekends. Traffic volumes are higher. Having a system devoted solely
to skiers would make the whole thing useless for 6 to 7 months of the
year. Providing car transportation year round would alleviate summer
as well as winter driving. I certainly do not have an issue with the
trains carrying passengers also, but I do not see the point in
restricting it to just passengers.

Conventional style rail would serve this multi functional purpose.

snip ...

[Kelly....@gmail.com]

A rail system would solve all sorts of traffic problems, the most
important of which is drunk driving. Everyone knows that people
driving around up here in bad weather to get to the hill oftentimes
have a few drinks at apres ski. Do we really want them driving back
down to Denver afterward? I think a rail system is a safe and
effective alternative to carpooling (who wants to get in a car with
complete strangers?) and also would be really useful for Vailites
trying to get to Denver.

[brek...@hotmail.com]

I've asked several of my civil engineer friends about a train. Most
have said that it would be extremely expensive. However, the loss of
our beautiful environment due to global warming can't even be
quantified. I have felt so guilty driving up to enjoy the mountains in
every season. I love them so much I'm killing them. I, for one, would
be glad to pay a toll when I have to drive in order to support the
cost of a train. Furthermore, I would gladly suffer through a bus
shuttle system until the train could be built. (It will take years,
folks.) I am thankful that Chris Romer has initiated this forum. But
not because I'm that tired of the traffic. We should all realize that
the problem is much bigger than the inconvenience of sitting in a
traffic jam.

[Lazierfan]

"ajag...@terrasciences.com" has it right. The rail is already in
place. Denver needs to take the Union Pacific, Amtrak and the Southern
Pacific (Anchutz) by their collective cojones and solve this nation's
rail passage 'cluster ####' through our state, turn it into a state
controlled solution. Motor rail buses can use this rail and travel
faster than any 75 mph car on a highway that has to share a finite
number of lanes with out of state truckers with no chains, and buses
with anemic engines and bad brakes.
Air transportation can already shuttle skiers to Vail and Aspen, come
up with puddle jumpers and in-state packages for Colorado residents.
Rail right-of-way traveled as far as Georgetown from Golden through
Hwy 6; re-open this grade and use that for your experimental mag-lift.
There is a transportation laboratory mecca in Pueblo, which also
happens to be in the State of Colorado. Why can't the state entice
this laboratory to use the Stapleton-to DIA route as a test bed? Then
graduate to mountain grade tests? There is a huge transportation
factory in Lamar which stands empty. Why can't we use this factory to
build rail buses and rail cars, put Colorado workers back to work, and
keep it all in the state?

[TrainExpert]

The largest problem with a rail system that everyone seems to be
ignoring is the grade factor. The question is why do we not see trains
next to our roads now? It is because of the grade. Yes Floyd Hill,
Silverplume hill, Vail Pass etc. are all too steep for a train! A
certain type of train can go up a steep slope only if it is a cog rail
(e.g. pikes peak), but these types of trains do not go very fast. The
reason people think trains go fast is because they have see James Bond
movies and think a train can actually go up a hill like car (the
channel is straight). Have any of you been to Europe and noticed
trains going through the Alps are not going up hills like Silverplume
or Floyd Hill? These type of bullet trains are on 2% or less grades
going around the mountains.

The alternative solution is to build "another I-70". Yes can you
imaging two parallel ways to get through the state (what a concept?)
Being from Colorado native we think having one road that goes E\W and
another that goes N\S is good enough. Look at the I-25 and I-70 routes
through Denver. There is only one highway to get through town without
lights. So, I propose (need to create a new discussion) that a new
I-70 gets built. The impact to current drivers on I-70 is minimal and
transparent to everyone until the new highway is built. Call it "I-70
Plan C" (The Colorado way to get through the state to see new country
side and get to the new or same destinations. We could utilize
existing back roads to expand and interconnect. Perhaps this would
introduce new ski area's or easier access to other less common areas.
This allows for the same amount of money to go to the new job
creations, less noticeable construction traffic and best of all we
have options!
Another option is to actually build a level subway system. Holes under
the ground that we can not see or smell, but get us to the same
places, just under ground (I know fire dangers, etc, but it is the
only other type of rail system but you would have to make everything
level on the track less than 2% to get through Colorado terrain)

[joa...@maptek.com]

I agree with the rail system ideas. In the long run, rail
transportation is the cheapest possible solution. Getting people to
use the rails is more of a culture issue than anything else. The
light rail in Denver has the same hurdle to cross. As people ride the
light rail more, they'll get used to the idea/concept of public
transportation. It is imperative that if a rail system is built there
is adequate transporation to the mountains, condos, etc.

Many companies these days offer Eco Passes to all their employees; and
perhaps there could be an extra fee companies could pay to allow their
Eco Pass holders to use the I-70 rail system. This takes the burden
off the local individuals and helps companies offer yet another
benefit to their employees.

I-70 is packed in summer months just as much or more than in winter
months. The rail would need to operate year round and offer
transporation to the summer destinations such as main trailheads,
shopping, etc. A decent rent a car system could be put in place at
one of the mountain drop offs which would allow travelers to rent a
car once they got to the mountains.

[lauren...@gmail.com]

Light, fast rail is the only way to go. Secure, safe and well-lit
centers, where skiers and others can park their vehicles, then take
the modern train to the mountain is attractive and trouble free.

[comtnbyker]

Rail system is best solution. Can be elevated down the median. I
would be willing to be taxed to build this. Feds could chip in also
since it is an interstate. Just charging skiers would be unfair and
probably legally challenged as taxation without representation. Also
traffic is almost as bad in teh summer on weekends so who gets charged
there? How would you even enforce it?
Jim Evergreen CO

[bitwrang...@gmail.com]

Monorail.

People respond enthusiastically to new. Notice the shopping centers
around you. A two-way high-speed monorail running near and above the
I-70 right of way would be horrendously expensive, and darn well worth
it. Monorail cars are readily added during peak times and removed
from service at slower times. Money spent (lots of it) on a world
class forward thinking system will be rewarded with huge demand. Just
make sure there's plenty of good parking at the Denver end, and enough
spurs to feed directly to the major ski areas.

[dcrom...@gmail.com]

If a rail system were placed from DIA to Grand Junction it would need
to be economically viable to work. Heck, why stop in Grand Junction,
let's dream about it going all the way to Las Vegas and Salt Lake
City.

High cost public transportation in areas such as San Francisco is
driven by population density and the funds that go along with having a
lot of people in a small area. This leads to the question, how can a
rail system make a profit? First, we must discard ideas that we know
do not work, are not proven or have no chance of making a profit.
Amtrak or trains dedicated for skiers only are among a quick list of
ideas that have no shot at generating enough income. So why are we
still talking about an I-70 rail?

The majority of us can probably agree that a rail system, no matter
what type, is a good idea, but it is supplementing the cost of this
hypothetical rail system that needs to be the central focus of the
discussion, because let's face it, no dough, no go. The building of a
rail needs to correspond with the needs of other entities that will
benefit from its existence and could help foot the bill. Ideas
include: Casinos in Central City and Black Hawk that do not have stake
limits could be taxed huge, implement an out of state skier tax, ski
resort tax (they are benefiting the most economically), Summit County
land tax (don't know if you noticed but there are a bunch of rich
people living up there), and provide an energy/ water/small freight
conduit that coincides with the train. An example of an energy
conduit could possibly be an Xcel Energy transmission line that
provides green energy to the West Coast. Water conduit could provide
water from the Western slope to the more highly populated Front
Range. Small freight could be space that is leased out to UPS, US
Postal Service, DHL, etc, so they are able to advertise they are using
sustainable energy to transport their parcels.

Ultimately, human ingenuity will prevail in the I-70 dilemma and the
fear should be that solutions are within reach in our lifetimes.
Obama in 08.

[Jeanne]

Monorail - except that nobody wants to pay the taxes for it.

[telluri...@gmail.com]

a rail system is the only solution that will work. bit the bullet and
start building it.

[Pia...@gmail.com]

Asia and Europe have figured it out! TRAINS. A train is the best
solution for this ongoing QUESTION? Why is it so hard for people to
see. Just spend the money , build the train system. Have it go from
Denver, Boulder and Colorado Springs stopping in Idaho Springs,
Georgetown, Silverthorne, Frisco, Copper, Vail, Glenwood Springs,
Grand Junction. This way Business travelelrs can use it and more
people can live in the mountains and commute to Denver during the
week. It opens the state up for better way of life for families who do
not want to live in the city and give people the iopportunity to
experience smaller towns to raise families and the main income earner
can commute. Just like people in England who have to commute into
London to work. Why reinvent the wheel when the answer is right
there. TRAINS.....Trains.....Trains....

[Erik]

Instead of building a new rail line, how about expanding service on
the existing ski train to Winter Park? (http://www.skitrain.com/
winter.html ) This would be cheaper than building an entirely new
rail line, and it would remove cars from from I-70. Add train
stations near I-25 north of downtown, in Arvada at Wadsworth, and
where the rail line crosses Hwy 93 between Golden and Boulder. This
would make it easier for travelers to get to the train, Also increase
the number of trips per day (currently there's only trip) to give
riders flexibility in their schedule.

[akau...@gmail.com]

Trains will only work if they are non stop and transfer times are
limited...If I can hop on a train at I70 and C-470 and it goes direct
from there to Frisco where I have to catch another train to Keystone,
Breck, or A-basin and that train is direct to those locations, then
it'd be worth it...but If I have to transfer to the summit stage, then
it isn't worth it. Likewise if there are long wait times for the
transfer, then it's not worth it either.

Finally, the trains need to run late...those that want to spend some
time up there at night should not have any trouble catching a train
back at midnight.

[vmum...@msn.com]

Rail is a good idea. Monorail probably won't work because everytime it
snows, the snow will pile up on the one big fat rail and then it will
done. Two rails have less surface area which makes it less vulerable
to the snow.

Another good idea is to charge a reasonable fee for the rail so people
will use it instead of driving. If the rail cost more than gas for the
car, then there is no real financial advantage for the average skiier.
We don't need a high cost luxury ride, just a place to sit and put our
ski gear. Maybe the ski areas could help pay for it.

[outdoor.law]

Long term a train/monorail transportation system is the only way to
go. Can't expand the road with G-town and I Springs as National
Historic Districts now.

Short term, follow CA lead and restrict trucks and anything with
trailers on the weekend.

[try...@gmail.com]

I would gladly pay extra taxes if they went to a light rail system!
However, there are many other ways to raise funds. Hire fund-raising
professionals and let's get moving on a solution instead of continuing
to ignore the problem or claim nothing can be done. We MUST get out of
our cars if we want Colorado to remain livable!

[tom....@gmail.com]

I agree that there is no single solution to this problem. But there
may be some ideas that would be easy to implement immediately that
could quickly help move things in the right direction.

As an example, let's say 10% of the I-70 skier traffic goes to Winter
Park and Steamboat. That traffic could be removed from I-70 (see
below) and have more than a 10% improvement on the situation because
it would remove the slowdowns caused by merging/exiting at the I-70/
US40 junction.

How do you remove the Winter Park/Steamboat traffic from I-70? There
is a railway section (Moffat Tunnel) between Rollinsville and Winter
Park that is less than 20 miles long:
http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&hl=en&geocode=&q=rollinsville,+co&ie=UTF8&ll=39.901835,-105.651398&spn=0.166455,0.373535&z=11

If you had a park and ride at Rollinsville, you could run frequent
trains between Rollinsville and Winter Park. Since it is a relatively
short stretch of rail, it should be easier to coordinate train
schedules so that trains could be run more often (maybe several west
bound departures in the morning, one midday departure in each
direction, and then several east bound departures in the afternoon/
evening).

This could be done mostly as standing room-only (again, because it's a
short ride), and as other posters mentioned, maybe it would be
feasible to do have a drive-aboard system for people that want to
drive to destinations other than Winter Park (e.g. Steamboat in the
winter and Grand Lake, Rocky Mountain National Park, etc in the
summer). If the drive-aboard system is not feasible, then Steamboat/
Grand Lake/etc could run bus shuttle services from the rail station in
Winter Park.

The current Ski Train from Denver to Winter Park includes this section
of rail, but it is far too restrictive (and expensive) to be anything
more than a once-a-year tourist experience (2.5 hours in each
direction, only one departure time, and you must return the same day).
By giving people the flexibility to return at different times (and
even on different days), it would greatly increase the number of
people who would take the train and stay off of I-70. I also don't
believe this would threaten the Ski Train business, so the push back
from the rail company should be less of an issue.

If this is cheap and easy to implement, what's stopping us?

[jshore]

After living in Europe for the past 7 years and seeing what can be
accomplished there with rail systems I believe that the best solution
for the I-70 corridor is to develop an electric rail system to the
high country. The system would be paid for with a combination of
federal and state funds, a bond issue, funds from the resorts and
funds from each county where the train would stop. If a European
company is invited to participate in the development of the system
there may even be European Union funds available to support their
participation.The trains would also be supported by tickets, marketing
revenues and other sources. It would be best to do this in phases.
1. Rail line from the intersection of I-70 and C-470 to Vail.
2. Extend the rail line from the intersection of I-70 and C-470 to
DIA.
3. Extend the rail line from the intersection of I-70 and C-470 to
Lone Tree along C-470
4. Extend the rail line from Vail to Glenwood Springs.

Spurs to towns like Breckenrigde and Aspen could also be developed.

[Hekau1]

One Affordable I-70 Rail alternative? & Second Reasonable One?

The Moffat Rail tunnel is 6.3 miles long - leads directly from Winter
Park to Rollinsville - Avoiding the mess of I-70 altogether. Access
Rollinsville from Boulder, Coal creek Canyon or Golden.

1. CHEAP Alternative, IF rail rights could be negotiated - and Euro-
style railroad auto-transport cars, a Tolland-located parking lot and
a simple 15 minute rail shuttle would enable thousands to daily avoid
I-70. using the existing tunnel, just avoiding the tunnel when regular
freight trains are scheduled.

People have two options, pay more & stay with their cars - paid staff
would pre-;load -Cars shuttle on two or 3 rail cars, and join the
Other passengers who pay less, and leave their cars for the day - if
they just want to visit Winter Park, all sit in new passenger railcars
for the short shuttle trip, all that would be needed are new side
tracks; two- trains - one to load on each side - while the other is in
transit, sales concessions, and parking lots.

2. Bore one new two-way Automobile tunnel Parallel to the rail tunnel
- much more expensive buy WAY cheaper than any I-70 rail alternative.
Thanks, Lee

[Sallade]

Raise my taxes and put in a high speed rail system
I think anyone who has waited on I-70 in bumper to bumper
would gladly pay for another means
Maybe even set up a station on the side of I-70 on a Sunday afternoon
and ask for donations

[mike]

I hate to cut down the state but to be honest, If I didn't live in
Colorado I'd travel to Utah for my skiing. There you can stay in the
city cheep and take a bus to 4 great resorts.

If there was a rail from DIA to summit county it would make Colorado a
more attractive ski destination. This would benefit the whole state.

[a...@vail.net]

Many of you apear to want to know the facts about what is being
studied for solutions. Are you looking for a real source for
information? Take a look at the I-70 coalition website if you want
information about the work that is being done on the future of the
I-70 corridor.

The I-70 coalition web site. http://www.i70solutions.org/

[berner...@gmail.com]

I agree Europe has been ahead of us in this area. A monorail would be
my vote. Not only would it relieve the traffic, but it is a solution
for the future. I am tired of watching CDOT tear up roads in an
expansion effort only to see it be an expansion of one lane. And then
again 2 years later. Going one lane at a time is ridiculous. Going 2
lanes at a time is ridiculous. We need a different solution. Maybe we
should do all of them, but a new solution. Just get it done.

[Chris Linder]

YES! i would even pay in advance for this system...i cannot wait for
the day that i can work/read/do homework on a rail system on my way to/
from skiing....i might actually get to get out more becuase i was
more efficient with my time!

[meo...@uwyo.edu]

CAR - FERRY Borrow an old idea from the west coast ships. I70 lends
itself to a fast express train, but in order to make rails work, you
need to let Americans stay in their cars and load them onto rail cars
for the trip up I70.

Stops at Silverthorne, Vail, & Glennwood, allow the cars to unload and
become individual mtn explorers.

This idea works when the train ride cuts travel time. If you can't
build it for speed and convenience, don't bother.

[pcre...@gmail.com]

Let's make a train! I've had multiple discussions while carpooling on
70 this winter and we all like the train.

[patric...@yahoo.com]

Year-round gridlock exists on I-70. Frustration with traffic may
reduce resort revenues and discourage mountain usage. I believe that a
shuttle train, which would use the existing tracks, is an economical
solution. The benefit is that such a shuttle train wouldn't require a
lot of new infrastructure and could mitigate the gridlock, even if it
only reduces traffic from Boulder County and north Jefferson County to
Winter Park.

My short-term concept is to set up a shuttle train through Moffat
Tunnel starting at Rollinsville and ending in Winter Park. It is
approximately 2 miles from Winter Park to the tunnel, the tunnel is
about 6 miles long, and it is about 15 miles from the tunnel to
Rollinsville. This would be a short trip for ski traffic, without any
big hills for the train to climb. The existing coal trains are the
priority, and so it would be easy to time the trip through the tunnel
and not get in the way of commercial traffic.

A parking lot, a station, a shuttle train, and a short track to get
the shuttle off the main line would be needed. Rolling the train
ticket into the Winter Park ski pass would make it economical for the
skier, rider, or mountain biker. This conceivably would take a portion
of the Boulder County and Jefferson County mountain-goers off I-70.
Adding a shuttle bus from the Nederland Bus stop would complete the
trip.

A long-term option would be to set up another station at Hwy. 93
between Boulder and Golden. But, first proof of concept would need to
be achieved without spending a lot of money before other additions
would be considered.

Presently, there is a ski train that is not widely used by skiers or
boarders because of the cost and the fact that it doesn't reach Winter
Park in time for first chair. The train has to get there before the
first chair starts or it won't be used by the regular resort-goer in
winter.

[Richard]

Suntram is the way to go. See Suntram.net. A static cable with high
speed tram, can go over anything, energy efficient, 1/100th the cost
of rail. No cost to the tax payers we just need R/W for a tower at 1/4
mile intervals. Can't get hit by rocks and snow can't stop it.

[wa...@elkrun21.com]

I believe the town of Rollinsville would make an excellent train stop
for skier loading/unloading as it is at the entrance to a very long
section of relatively flat and open space - which is a perfect
location for a train to stop at. While this solution would primarily
benefit only Winter Park/Maryjane skiers, there would also be a
residual benefit to other skiers as now a lot of the WP/MJ skiiers
would no longer use I-70.

[Richard]

Suntram only way to go. See Suntram.net Rail is way too expensive and
slow.

[phdas...@msn.com]

New train concepts for the 21st century are needed. Forget the heavy,
diesel electric or all electric train as you see now. A new system of
very fast passenger movement combining aerospace design with tubular
steel elevated track system, powered by highly efficient jet turbine
power can propel a large number of passengers very quickly and
effeciently. Speeds in excess of 150mph should be very attainable.
This system should be much more cost effective than current monorail
designs which are very heavy and require vast amounts of concrete and
steel in their construction. Maglev construction is also so highly
expensive as to be almost impossible for anyone to ever imagine that
it would recapture its cost.

By lifting the tubular rail system you do have the advantages of a
monorail and avoid conflicts with other traffic methods and animals.
The most important function of any multiple passenger system has to be
to move the most amount of people at an economical cost.

The concept requires further engineering and testing towards a working
model, but has the potential to be economical in construct, fast to
build, and very expandable to many cities in our mountain areas.

[heis...@exacta.com]

On Feb 27, 6:12 pm, Richard <ssir...@msn.com> wrote:
> Suntram only way to go. See Suntram.net Rail is way too expensive and
> slow.

Does Suntram have any actual systems in operation? Sure doesn't look
like it.

Aerobus would probably be a better choice for a cable suspension
system, since they've actually had operating systems working
throughout the world. http://www.aerobus.com/home.html


Any rail system into the mountains really should consider a few basic
points:

- It should be elevated - IE, monorail, maglev, etc. This makes right
of way easier to come by, and often times results in the construction
of the track segments being done elsewhere, and merely assembled on
site. It also makes some grade issues easier to deal with, as tower
heights are easier to adjust for a decent grade than earthmoving.
Track blockages due to avalanche and rockslides are less likely to
occur.

- we shouldn't assume that it needs to run the same path as I70 - it
only needs to connect to spots along the same corridor - it doesn't
have to run the same exact route. Spots that are a must in my opinion
- Dillon/Frisco area, Vail, Glenwood Springs and Grand Junction by the
time the system is done

- should be capable of running both local and express trains

- Only the main corridor of the line should have any state/federal tax
support - the rest of the line should be funded privately or locally -
including stations. The intitial plan should include the actual
corridor between DIA and Grand Junction, each locality along the line
that wants a station or spur should be encouraged to provide their own
funding. Trust me, the city of Vail and the Vail ski resort aren't
going to let a train line run through their city without paying for a
station, likewise for Copper Mountain, the Dillon area, etc. Encourage
the casinos in Blackhawk/Central city to fund a station/spur that
serves them.

- allow the ski areas and other major attractions to subsidize extra
trains to serve their areas - trains that are dedicated to their
service. IE, let Vail subsidize a Vail only train where they could
sell a lift ticket/train ride package - and only those package holders
could board that train.

- as garish as they may seem, sell the exterior paint schemes of the
trains as an advertising medium, much as they've done with the Las
Vegas Monorail. I'd much rather see the occasional garish paint scheme
go by on a track than one more billboard put up in our high country.

I'd suggest that everyone here go over to www.monorails.org and do
some research on monorails and maglev.

[mjpd...@gmail.com]

I think the idea of a monorail or train into the mountain is also a
poor one. An efficient low cost system would turn every town from
Idaho Springs to the divide into a suburb of Denver. I have friends
in Summit county who are under the impression that a round trip ticket
into Denver might cost on the order of $20-$30 - not realizing this is
what a round trip ticket from Boulder to DIA costs $20. Do rail
proponents think that a system would have the capacity to carry 10,000
people up the mountain between and 7 and 9am, down the mountain later
that evening? Ever take light rail after a Broncos game? It might
beat being
stuck in traffic, but standing on a train for the ride down the hill
after a day of skiing
would not be fun. Then, there is the issue of how to utilize the
trains and drivers which would then largely sit idle for the next 5
days until they
are needed again.

At least in the winter, the majority of people are heading to a
relatively few number of
locations. How would such a system work during the summer when people
are heading up
to camp grounds, lodges and cabins which are much more dispersed?

[phdas...@msn.com]

Concerning working examples of jet turbine powered hi speed rail
systems, I would invite interested persons to visit the Bombardier
company site. They have completed a jet turbine powered locomotive
and will be constructing the highspeed regional rail system for
Florida. I believe that this type of very high speed train on a
reasonable cost construction system is the ultimate solution. We need
to think beyond just the ski areas, and incorportate all of the state
in a comprehensive expandable plan. So, this should answer those of
you who feel that trains are to heavy and slow. This isn't your grand
dad's or your dad's train!

[lauri...@gmail.com]

I'm not a skier, so the "ski traffic" doesn't concern me. What does
concern me is the idea of highway construction to add lanes for more
car traffic. This will eventually end up with more congestion,
pollution, and ecological damage to the mountains.

I'm also not an engineer, but after being in Vancouver last summer, it
struck me that their mostly-elevated monorail might be a good solution
for I-70. I would think such a system could run either between or
alongside the existing highway lanes. Since the ski resorts will
largely benefit from improvement to this system, they should be the
ones to somehow pay a larger portion of the costs to improve it.

lsk

[wanograham]

Trains would be too expensive. If the cost to construct a rail line
and associated tunnels, etc. is about $10 billion, the yearly cost of
capital would be $700 million per year using a 7% interest rate. If
10,000 people used the system each weekend day for 16 winter weekends,
the cost per passenger round trip would be more than $2,000! Moving
more people with carpools, vans or buses on the existing higher would
be a far cheaper way to move people.

[The Big Biker]

Been over to Japan. They have a good train system. I will make
references further on.

Now for here, we already have the RTA light rail system. It would be
interesting to integrate light rail into a train system that goes out
to the mountain towns. One thought was a given train would stop at the
different towns on the way but a better idea of an Express Train
where is each train would travel non-stop from Denver to a given
destination. One train would go to Silverthorne for access to places
like Keystone, Breckenridge with bus connections. Another train would
go Copper, another straight to Vail. The tracks would have to be setup
where a given train stops, it gets off the main line and other trains
going through bypass the station. Something like a Shinkansen (新幹線) or
Bullet Train could be used. In Japan, they travel at around 150+ mph.
Here it would have to be slower but with good engineering, the speed
is attainable.

The train station to catch such a train could be located near Golden
and have a parking lot that is large enough for people to park in
addition to being connected to the light rail system. The parking lot
would be guarded to prevent break-in's and vandalism that sometimes
occur at commuter lots.

Most ski areas start operation at around 8 to 9am. With that in mind,
the trains should start operation at around 3:30 or 4:00 am. You would
have a big crowd at around 6 am so the earlier times would be for
those want to avoid the crowd and at the same time, arrive before the
place opens.

On Japan, we traveled from Tokyo to Kyoto and Nara without having to
be in a car. Even though I am a gearhead or car/motorcycle person a
train would be a better idea. BTW, I live down in Colorado Springs and
have driven both the back to skiing (US24 to CO9) and through Denver.
Driving from Denver to the resorts on a Saturday morning and coming
home in the evening sucks !

Last note even though it goes off tangent, I would like to see light
rail extended from DTC down to Colorado Springs. The train could run
from downtown Colorado Springs with a stop at Tiffany Square,
Monument, Castle Rock and then DTC. Similar configuration could be
done where there are express trains from different stations go to the
Lincoln Exit non-stop where the light rail system starts at the South
end. There could be another line that runs parallel to County Line
Road that goes from the DTC line over to Littleton.

[gpg...@pol.net]

Why not improve the Winter Park Ski Train service? Minimal
infrastructure required. Restore the passenger loading dock on
Colorado 93 and pick up passengers there. Some who drive from Boulder/
Larimer/Weld County and north Denver Metro would be willing to come
there, but do not wish to drive into Union Station to pick up the
train. OK -- it would reduce the traffic by a few dozen cars, but it's
a cheap "fix."

[jmvbike]

I fully disagree with you.

I think there are some important factors to consider.

Cost is only one small factor.

Sure it will be expensive.

But so what!

We can come up with the money.

Add a tax like the city of denver did when Ivesco field was built &
Coors Field.

Have the ski resorts kick in.

Have a title sponor like Coors or Pepsi.

The bottom lone is a train would cut down on much pollution in the
coming years.


Air pollution



On Feb 22, 8:41 am, 3pe...@gmail.com wrote:
> Too bad it just won't work.  It sounds nice, but it isn't practical.
>
> 1. You would have to run a ton of trains during the peak periods if
> you wanted to have a chance of impacting traffic load.  I don't know
> if it is even possible to carry enough people to make a difference.
> If you get enough cars for the winter, what do you do with them
> outside of this rush time, just let them sit?
>
> 2. Everywhere rail is running, it is subsidized at a much higher rate
> than all other transportation.  It would alway run at a loss, would
> always want more money from the tax base, and people that never go to
> the mountains would be paying for it.
>
> 3. Even with a subsidy, the price will still be to high.  What will a
> round trip cost?  Say it is $20 a head.  Sure, if I am the only one
> going, and don't mind the inconvienience of not taking my car to the
> slopes, it might be cheaper.  Now get 4 people going (I hate to ski
> alone, so I always go with a group) and we have lost a lot of
> flexibility, and are paying a lot more than it costs to drive up to
> the slopes.  Easy decsion, drive, don't ride.
>
> People will make rational personal decisions, and for the vast
> majority of people, the train won't be it.

[msk...@comcast.net]

I suggested the same thing of working with UPRR and BNSF to build some
branches off existing rail lines. The thing is, terrain is already
difficult enough. There's a line that goes west from Arvada into the
mountains (ironically enough this line eventually runs along I-70, but
too far west) and I've ridden that line on Amtrak. Granted it's a
beautiful drive, but with the route the tracks have to take and the
numerous tunnels that would have to be dug just to get a rail line
through would take many years to safely put a line through.

Folks, it's not an easy task. I see bumper stickers that say I-70
monorail NOW; as if we can just snap our fingers and boom it's done.
This "now" business has got to stop. "now" is already here. We're
talking about it now right? We just have to decide what to do and
then do it.

Progress is being done and I'm glad the state reps are actually
realizing there's an issue and are finding ways to take care of it.

so QUIT WHINING!

On Feb 22, 11:12 am, rnorma...@gmail.com wrote:
> Instead of spending a gazillion dollars and taking years why don't we
> use the existing rail lines from Denver through the Springs to reach
> the Vail Valley?

[abdi...@hotmail.com]

I actually did a group project in a Marketing Class that proposed a
mono-rail up I-70. It would make so much sense and it obviously works
with the train to Winterpark. There are so many resorts that could
work with the monorail. It' is a fairly expensive but so it putting
cameras to ticket drivers with less than 3 people.

[milehigh...@gmail.com]

So you are going to ride a train from Denver to Colorado Springs, to
Pueblo, up to Leadville (dead line) and then to Minturn or Avon? Do
you have any idea how long that would take?

[milehigh...@gmail.com]

This is NOT a reason for the rail system. Stupid people making stupid
decision will continue doing that.


On Feb 22, 5:43 pm, Kelly.Mile...@gmail.com wrote:
> A rail system would solve all sorts of traffic problems, the most
> important of which is drunk driving. Everyone knows that people
> driving around up here in bad weather to get to the hill oftentimes
> have a few drinks at apres ski. Do we really want them driving back
> down to Denver afterward? I think a rail system is a safe and
> effective alternative to carpooling (who wants to get in a car with
> complete strangers?) and also would be really useful for Vailites
> trying to get to Denver.

[mikiandbob]

The only real solution is Monorail, while quite costly much of this
expense can be passed on through passenger fairs and a new tax imposed
on the communities that benifit from the system. Bear in mind that
none of the mountain communities participate in the RTD/Stadium/
Cultural tax imposed her in the metro area. An increase in sales tax
in these areas would garner Millions of dollars per year. They can
impose a sales based Mountain transportation authority tax (MTA).
Extend the Stadium tax upon it's experation to roll over to this fund
as well. Yes this would need to be voter approved, but do we need any
other public funded stadiums.

The reason I suggest monorail is three fold, building more traffic
lanes would only allow more cars to sit at idle in 5 mph traffic
polluting the beauty we all seek in our trips to the mountains. The
enviromental impact of monorail would be all most nonexistant in
comparison. Argument " Boring new tunnels" answer, bypass the tunnels
all together, I have rafted clear creek several times and it would
only be a short trip around the tunnels thus eliminating much expense.
Second monorail would be elevated thus snow would not be an issue,
trains would still be running at full capacity while those that
"refuse" to pay can spend the night in the mountain towns thus
increasing the tax base only more. 3rd reduction in driver fatigue,
how tired are you after a hard day on the slopes, now compound that
with a long slow drive home. Who has had to stop for a double espresso
or giant monster just to make it back. It is my premis that many of
the accidents occuring in the mountain corridor, snarling traffic for
hours, can be atributed to some person or multiple persons that where
fatigued and lost there ability to safely operate a motor vehicle.

In the short term set traffic enforcement to penilize those that are
impeding traffic, this to include truckers and busses. CDOT needs to
commission a study as to why traffic backs up from the tunnels up.
This could be a solution as simple as increased lighting similar to
Eisenhower.

The resorts/towns that do not fall directly on the I-70 corridor, and
frankly none due would need to provide scheduled shuttle service to
their particular destinations. We tax payers should sholder the burden
of getting to the mountains but they should do the same getting us to
their "business".

With the ever increasing cost of fuel we should all factor in the cost
of getting to the slopes. Just like driving and using gas, costs
should be destination bases. The person going to Echo Mtn should pay
less than the person going to beaver creek.

Last thought as rail access is available it should be opened and not
wait on the full system to be operational before opening as this will
be a long term solution. The resorts that want to capitalize on this
business will need to provide long distance shuttle service otherwise
allow loveland to be overloaded skiers.

My vote MONORAIL

[skiyak]

Why the objection to tunnels? They've clearly got less environmental
impact than new highway lanes or even building a new railroad grade,
and I'd think the long term energy savings of going thru the mountains
in a straight line instead of up and over them along whatever sort of
serpentine route needs to be built to keep the grade low enough would
offset much of the boring costs for the tunnels.

I say make a high-speed rail line--whether it's conventional, maglev
or monorail--that uses tunnels to shorten the route and minimize
elevation changes: Bore into the mountain at Golden and come out at
Idaho springs. Provide a stop there for shuttles to Winter Park, or
maybe another spur line thru a tunnel at a later date. Then continue
up the canyon to Georgetown and bore into the mountain again, re-
emerging at Dillon, where shuttles (or spurs) can take passengers to
the Summit County resorts. Enter a third tunnel Silverthorn (or
perhaps Copper) that comes out at Vail.

This would be a LOT quicker ride than any overland route--including
I-70, which would lure a lot of resort traffic onto the train. If the
trains carried cars, I be a lot of thru-traffic would take advantage
if the price was right. Weather, avalanche and aesthetics aren't an
issue in a tunnel, so maintenance would probably be less too.

How much does it cost to drill a tunnel with modern technology, anyway?

[john...@vail.net]

Adding Toll booths is certainly not a viable solution. Just ask anyone
from the NY metro area. Tolls create more traffic and on some roads
(Garden State Parkway in NJ), some toll booths that stood for 40+
years have been removed to reduce miles long backups with some
success.

The current transportation infrastructure decision makers favor adding
lanes because that is all they know. Their way of life and living has
been based on a cozy, lucrative relationship with the contractors that
build roads. By the time the new lanes would be completed, it would be
time to add more which on I70 would become very expensive and in some
sections of I70, impossible. In the meanwhile, during the construction
of proposed new lanes, we would sit in traffic for hours on end over a
period of 5+ years watching productive and leisure hours slip away.
Never to be recovered.

A rail or monorail system is the only viable alternative that works in
the long run. Yes it is expensive, but better to start and construct
it with today's dollars than to "figure it out" 10 years from now that
1 to 4 people in a car trying to drive to mountain destinations is no
longer a feasible solution. Then 12 or 15 years from now when I70 is a
parking lot 15 hours a day, go ahead and start on a mass transit
system to be paid for in future dollars. A look over to Europe to see
what has been done is easy enough.

Thanks for reading.

[colorad...@gmail.com]

Everyone who is frustrated with the current options being looked at by
the government PLEASE get behind the Movement to build a Colorado Ski
Rail! We want to build a Green Rail, powered by colorado grown
renewable energy, ease traffic, ease polution, and increase tourism.
When we get enough people behind this movement there will be no need
for the government to increase taxes and tolls to pay for more highway
and polution and traffic. email us at colorad...@gmail.com to
find out how you can help! UNITED WE SHALL STAND!!!