Ballot Issue 7A: Front Range Passenger Rail District

For

The Colorado Connector (CoCo) will link communities from Pueblo to Fort Collins with a reliable alternative to driving along the Front Range, where highway congestion, delays, collisions, and increasing travel demand make travel on I-25 difficult, time-consuming, and stressful. A rail connection will expand transportation capacity, reduce dependence on personal vehicles, and provide another travel option, including for residents who cannot drive, choose not to drive, or face barriers to vehicle ownership. The service will complement existing transit systems and improve access to employment centers, educational institutions, entertainment venues, and airport connections. Special-event stations will be within walking distance of professional sports venues in Denver. Rail travel provides an affordable alternative to automobile ownership, which can cost up to $10,000 annually, and offers transportation costs that are less dependent on changing gasoline prices.

Passenger rail on Colorado's Front Range will help reduce traffic, vehicle miles traveled, fuel consumption, and transportation-related emissions. By shifting trips from automobiles to rail, the Colorado Connector will improve air quality and provide a more energy-efficient mode of travel. Colorado's transportation emissions are already projected to land above the state's 2030 climate target. The service will reduce emissions by an amount roughly equivalent to removing about 29,000 cars from roads. Rail service encourages compact, walkable development near stations, supports housing opportunities, and reduces transportation costs for households.

Highway expansion alone cannot adequately address long-term transportation needs, and a balanced transportation system should include additional travel options. Colorado already has an extensive highway network, and additional highway spending is producing diminishing benefits in travel efficiency, safety, and comfort, while passenger rail represents an underutilized transportation investment. Colorado's highway projects are already heavily subsidized. CoCo does not take funding away from highways. It is new, dedicated funding for the one mode Colorado has never meaningfully subsidized: intercity passenger rail.

Unlike projects in other states, the Colorado Connector will use partnerships with railroads on their existing corridors and infrastructure rather than requiring entirely new rail lines, reducing costs and limiting the need for major new construction and eminent domain. Using existing tracks provides a more cost-effective and less risky approach than constructing entirely new rail corridors. The project is planned in phases, allowing improvements to occur incrementally, with starter service on track to open in 2029. All communities from Fort Collins to Pueblo will see service within five years. Annual audits and taxpayer oversight add accountability measures to help ensure funds are used as intended.

The measure is an economic development investment. Improved regional connectivity will expand access to jobs, education, housing, tourism, entertainment, and commercial opportunities throughout Colorado's Front Range. The measure also includes a $1.5 billion local return program that station communities can use for local infrastructure, affordable housing, and other transportation projects in corridor communities. Increased mobility among major population and employment centers will strengthen regional economic connections, support business activity, create construction and transportation-related jobs, and help accommodate future population growth while creating a more balanced and interconnected transportation network.

Against

The proposal will impose a permanent 0.333% sales and use tax throughout the District regardless of whether residents ride the train. The tax is regressive because lower-income households spend a larger share of their income on taxable purchases and would be added to existing state, regional, and local sales taxes that already total 8% to 9% in some communities. The measure will raise approximately $295 million annually, authorize $580 million in debt with a stated repayment cost of $785 million, and continue indefinitely without a sunset provision. Voters are being asked to approve a large, permanent tax before final costs, fares, schedules, passenger ridership levels, agreements with the railroads, and full-corridor delivery dates are known.

Comparable projects have experienced cost overruns, delays, reduced scope, budget shortfalls, and unfulfilled promises. Prior regional rail commitments collected taxes for more than 20 years without delivering rail service to some communities. In some communities, more than $100 million has been paid toward prior rail plans without receiving service. Residents in those communities could pay both existing rail taxes and the proposed tax without receiving previously promised rail service. The District is a newly formed authority without a capital project record and could leave taxpayers responsible for additional costs if estimates are exceeded. Starter service, including three daily trips between Denver and Fort Collins, could proceed without the proposed tax, and actual demand and ridership should be demonstrated before additional taxes are approved.

The train will not adequately meet Front Range travel needs because most trips require door-to- door flexibility. Transportation choices are driven by travel time and the proposed train will not be competitive with driving. Travelers often need direct access to workplaces, schools, airports, recreation areas, trailheads, and event venues or need to transport bicycles, pets, luggage, camping equipment, and recreational gear. Some stations will be distant from destinations, the route will not directly serve the airport, and limited daily frequencies and fixed schedules will make the service impractical for many commuters and event travelers.

Existing buses, shuttles, express lanes, car travel, and other transit services already provide the Front Range more flexible and frequent transportation at a lower public cost. The rail line will duplicate or compete with existing service while offering limited daily trips and could weaken existing transit services. Prior rail investments have cost more than originally projected while producing ridership levels substantially below projections. Shared freight corridors, speed limitations, station access requirements, and travel times could make the train slower than or no more convenient than driving or existing bus service.

Ridership may be insufficient to reduce congestion. Rail service could increase emissions if trains operate with low passenger loads or generate trips that otherwise will not occur. Trail and roadway crossings could create safety and access concerns, including delays, closures, signals, and conflicts along existing freight corridors. Investments in roads, buses, transit connections, airport access, and existing transportation infrastructure could provide greater public benefit at lower cost and with greater flexibility than a fixed-route passenger rail system.

Note that the Blue Book goes to print earlier than the constitutional deadline for the submission of comments for and against the proposal. Please visit the District's website at www.frprdistrict.com to review summaries of any additional comments received.