Rail, Yes to start (Part 2)

[adamsx2_...@comcast.net]

Since my last post, I've noticed everything from "I don't care" to "some good ideas" to total "frustration". In my last post, next to the last in Feb, I mentioned that existing rail can work. If given a chance it can not only reduce traffic, but can also reduce pollution along the I-70 corridor, redirect freight in a more efficient way, and create jobs. I mentioned four depots on the west slope.

The four depots would be located as to accommodate as many communities as possible and still be centrally located. The first, from Denver, would be the Fraser or Tabernash area. The second at Kremmling, third, Dotsero, and the fourth at Glenwood Springs. The facilities would be constructed as to fit in with the local topography and not be an eyesore to passers-by. Even though Granby and Steamboat are skipped here, later accommodations can be accomplished because of the existing rail network. The specifics of each area:

• Fraser/Tabernash – Located to accommodate Winter Park to Granby. Local light rail could be used to transport passengers in both directions. Rail sides exist in both locations. This would be a major down load location for “Beetled” trees.

• Kremmling – Not only can it supply Summit County, but Steamboat in the other direction. As far as light rail, it would be easy to the south, but more problematic toward Steamboat.

• Dotsero – Vail/Beavercreek area. Light rail would be easy as there is already an unused rail line to Minturn. The Depot could be at Dotsero or Eagle as the airport is at Eagle. Convenience for the rail road would be Dotsero and would be less costly as mentioned in my last; drop a load and continue.

• Glenwood Springs – This would be a depot that could service all the way to Aspen. Sides exist. With light rail, I believe there is already a rail grade all the way to Aspen, could be wrong here, however, the valley is wide enough to accommodate.

Specifics of all Depots:

Each would contain a storage/receiving area for freight and gasoline. The passenger terminal would be separated to provide the best visit for the passengers, kind of like a “gate way” to each valley. Both facilities could be fitted to use existing technology for climate control and power. Vehicles tasked to deliver would be fitted with technology that could use the best eco-friendly fuel available. Since the road grades to all locations from depots mentioned are not near as steep as I 70 in spots, the power factor is not near as necessary as vehicles using I 70. Employees would be from the surrounding communities. Seasonal employees could be used, however, I don’t see this type of “hub” being dormant at any time of year. If anything, using top quality facilities and appropriate marketing, local economies would grow exponentially.

Pros:

Each location is located to accommodate every ski area within 35 miles of I 70.
Each location has side rails that can be used to supply the depots or pick up…trees, or return containers.
Using the rail is cost effective and environmentally friendly as there is no increase of gases, smoke, or, due to existing trains, noise.
Once in place, the trains could, conceivably, use no more engines than they are currently using (cost). There are already freight trains traveling to the mountains. Price per mile “could” drop.
Once the infrastructure is in place, you could be looking at a tourist haven. Included in their ski package and see the mountains that I 70 travelers can’t.
The coal mines are not going away. Unless someone comes up with a way to move the coal more economically or comes up with a more economical way to produce power on the front range, the train is not going away anytime soon.
How many gas carriers have crashed and caused not only environmental problems but also deaths? Especially on Loveland Pass! How many tax dollars have already been spent to address this specific problem?
Ski train? Update it, consolidate it, make it more comfortable. Riding on bench seats for a couple of hours does not improve the mood.
Later on down the road, with new travel infrastructures in place at the resort areas, maybe a light rail or monorail to the mountains can be constructed. I don't think "right now" is a plausible answer.

Cons:

The communities along I 70 to the tunnels could be impacted by the reduced traffic.
Significant growth could take place at the depots and possibly, without controls, along the routes to destinations.
Some independent truckers could see reduced routes.
Other variables that, right now I can't think of, or some of you out there will certainly come up with.

To be frank, I can’t think of a “good” con. This plan could, conceivably, increase the economy of the effected areas and not change any environmental issues. Yes, the depots would increase “dust” pollution on delivery routes, however, this too could be addressed. Of course an environmental impact study would probably be required, however, I can’t think of a significant issue other than fuel storage at the Depots.

I'm not against the independent truckers. Most will continue with what they are doing, especially the truckers that don't have a stop in the mountains and are using I70 as a direct route to their intended destination. I am, however, wanting to practically eliminate the slow "vehicles" that cause the congestion, however powerful, they can not keep up the momentum up the steep grades. Plus, one rail car can carry up to three times the weight that your average tractor trailer can carry.