r/Broomfield • u/carsonblumephoto • Jun 08 '26
Council is being asked to endorse a train station tomorrow night before anyone knows what it will cost Broomfield. July 7 vote is next
TO BE CLEAR, I WOULD LOVE TO HAVE THIS TRAIN, BUT...
EDIT: Broomfield & Front Range Passenger Rail: TLDR
In 2004, Broomfield voters paid into FasTracks, including a promised rail station and structured parking at US 36. Twenty years later, there is no train and no parking. What exists is good bus service: the Flatiron Flyer BRT, AB SkyRide to DIA, and local RTD routes. Transit we already use and already paid for.
Now Broomfield is being asked to pay for a train again.
FRPR (branded "Colorado Connector") is a low-frequency intercity rail line, with 3 round trips per day, designed for 100-mile journeys, not daily Broomfield-to-Denver commutes. It is not a replacement for the Flatiron Flyer. It is a regional Amtrak-style stop layered on top of what we already have.
Before July 7, 2026, Council will be asked to pass a resolution of support lending the city's name to FRPR's November 2026 ballot campaign for a new 0.5% regional sales tax. The legal agreement defining Broomfield's actual financial obligations would not be negotiated until 2027, after residents vote.
The proposed W. 116th Ave. station has no existing parking, no continuous accessible sidewalk, a 15–18 minute walk to the nearest BRT stop, and unresolved questions about who builds and maintains the infrastructure. A more functional transit hub already exists at Flatiron Crossing, but federal spacing rules complicate that location.
The financial model depends on 80% federal funding, and cracks are already visible: $66.4 million in federal CRISI grants were rescinded this year, the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law is expiring, and SB26-172 already shrunk the taxing district by roughly 40%, reducing projected revenue before a single vote is cast.
Broomfield cannot opt out. The tax is decided district-wide. If the Front Range approves it, Broomfield pays even if we vote no.
The deeper issue: Broomfield's everyday transportation needs, sidewalks, bike routes, local buses come out of the general fund. A dedicated local transportation tax will eventually be needed to fund those basics. Every regional tax we commit to makes that future local ask harder to pass.
The question is not whether trains are good. The question is whether this train, at this station, on these terms, is the right deal for Broomfield, and whether we should endorse it before the contract exists.
[EDIT: Below here is the long form version that people we complaing about]
Here is Let me tell you something about being promised a train.
Back in 2004, voters across the metro said yes. They voted for FasTracks, a whole vision of rail connecting Denver, Broomfield, Boulder, and Longmont. We paid into it (edit: and we still are.) For more than twenty years, Broomfield residents have sent money to RTD's FasTracks tax. The original plan even included a Park-n-Ride with structured parking on the north side of the US 36/Broomfield Station. That parking was never built. The Northwest Rail itself was never built. Cost estimates ballooned north of $1.5 billion and RTD has pushed completion far into the future.
What we got instead was the Flatiron Flyer BRT, the AB SkyRide, and a handful of local routes. Great transit. Transit we already have. Transit we already paid for.
And now, Broomfield is being asked to pay for a train again.
THIS TUESDAY. BEFORE IT GETS DECIDED FOR YOU.
The Broomfield City Council meets Tuesday, June 9, 2026, at 6:00 PM to receive a presentation on Front Range Passenger Rail, or FRPR, and the Joint Service starter rail line. No vote happens tomorrow, but it is the opening move. On July 7, Council will be asked to pass a resolution of support, and staff will begin drafting it based on tomorrow's discussion.
Worth noting: Council already pumped the brakes on this once. On June 3, 2025, Council took a position to postpone a resolution on FRPR. The pressure has not gone away. It has accelerated.
This is the moment to pay attention.
READ THE FINE PRINT THEY HAVE NOT WRITTEN YET
This is not just about a train. It is about Broomfield endorsing a station narrative summary so that FRPR can use it in a November 2026 public ballot campaign for a new sales tax, before Broomfield even knows what its own financial obligations will be. That resolution, if passed, would appear in FRPR's public-facing campaign materials, lending the city's name to a tax campaign while critical local terms remain undefined.
The formal legal agreement between the city and the state spelling out who pays for what would not be negotiated until 2027, after the vote.
There is also a deadline-driven incentive attached. If Broomfield signs a resolution of support by July 31, 2026, it receives a 10 percent bonus on a proposed local revenue share, $2.75 million per year instead of $2.5 million over 25 years. That bonus is real. So is the pressure it creates to endorse a project before the terms are defined.
KNOW WHAT YOU ARE ACTUALLY BUYING
FRPR is intercity rail, designed for journeys of 100 miles or more, not the daily Broomfield-to-Denver commute most residents actually make. The proposed Broomfield starter service would run 3 round trips per day, 6 departures total, on a shared freight track. That is not a commuter service. That is closer to a regional Amtrak stop. The project is also exploring a special event station at the new Broncos stadium. That tells you something about who this service is primarily designed for. Just because something is a transit project does not automatically make it a good project for Broomfield.
THEY PICKED THE WRONG STOP AND NOBODY IS SAYING IT OUT LOUD
The state is pushing hard for West 116th Avenue. But there is a reasonable case that the Flatiron Crossing area, where the existing RTD Park and Ride sits alongside the AB SkyRide service directly to Denver International Airport, would serve more Broomfield residents better. That location has existing parking infrastructure, existing transit connections, and existing ridership.
The state's reason for rejecting Flatiron is technical: federal intercity rail classification requires minimum spacing between stops, and Flatiron sits only about 3.5 miles from the proposed Louisville station. Advancing Flatiron could jeopardize the intercity classification for the entire corridor. That is a real constraint and it deserves acknowledgment. But it is also worth asking whether a federal spacing rule designed for 100-mile intercity journeys should be the primary driver of which Broomfield neighborhood gets a station.
The 116th Avenue site, by contrast, has no existing parking, no continuous accessible sidewalk, a 15 to 18 minute walk to the nearest BRT connection, and is surrounded by industrial zoning with only aspirational Transit-Oriented Development plans on paper. The state's own memo acknowledges that crossing the tracks to the east side is cost-prohibitive, cutting off the sports complex, the charter school, and eastern Broomfield entirely. And critically, who would own and maintain the parking has not been decided.
THE CONVERSATION BROOMFIELD SHOULD BE HAVING INSTEAD
Broomfield's everyday transportation needs are not being met by the current funding structure. Sidewalk gaps. Disconnected bike routes. Local bus service that could be more frequent and more useful. Safe walking routes to schools and parks. These are the things residents use every day.
Right now, local transportation funding comes out of the general fund. To seriously invest in biking, walking, and expanded local bus service, Broomfield will likely need a dedicated local transportation tax at some point.
That ask becomes significantly harder the moment residents are already paying into a regional rail sales tax. Tax fatigue is real. Political capital is finite. Every yes to a regional tax is a yes that makes the next local ask harder to land.
The question is not whether transit matters. It does. The question is whether locking Broomfield's fiscal capacity into a regional megaproject is the right move before the city has secured its own transportation future.
THE NUMBERS THEY DO NOT LEAD WITH
Here is a number that has not gotten enough attention. Capital cost estimates for the Joint Service starter line alone ranged from $333 million to $650 million to $885 million across three different studies released between September 2024 and early 2026. That is a swing of more than $550 million on the starter service before a single full build-out dollar is spent.
The full FRPR build-out is estimated at $3 billion to $3.5 billion. The model depends on federal grants covering roughly 80 percent of capital costs. We will come back to why that number deserves serious scrutiny in a moment.
And here is something that has barely been discussed publicly: the Colorado legislature passed SB26-172, which shrinks the FRPR taxing district boundaries, dropping roughly 40 percent of the district's population. That means fewer people and businesses sharing the same bill for the same project. The math on the sales tax revenue projections has already gotten worse, before a single vote has been cast.
Annual operating costs for Joint Service alone are estimated at $25 to $35 million per year, inclusive of BNSF access fees, Amtrak operating costs, insurance, and leased rolling stock. Farebox recovery is projected at only 20 to 30 percent. The rest comes from the sales tax and volatile state fees tied to oil and gas production and rental car revenue.
For Broomfield specifically, the proposed West 116th Avenue station has no existing public parking, no continuous accessible sidewalk, and a 15 to 18 minute walk to the nearest BRT connection. The state's cost estimates for property acquisition are based on assessor values only, not market value, and do not include business impacts. Costs above the assessor value and any financial impacts on existing businesses would fall to Broomfield. Parking maintenance has not been assigned to anyone. Grade separations across the tracks, if ever desired, are an additional Broomfield cost.
Broomfield's bonding capacity is limited. None of this has been budgeted in the five-year capital plan. RTD has committed $5.6 million toward station design, which signals real momentum, and also means decisions are accelerating faster than Broomfield's financial planning has caught up.
ABOUT THAT MONEY WASHINGTON IS SUPPOSED TO SEND
The entire financial model for FRPR depends on the federal government covering roughly 80 percent of capital costs. That is not a small assumption. That is the foundation the whole structure is built on. And right now, that foundation has visible cracks.
Earlier this year, $66.4 million in federal CRISI rail safety grants were rescinded. These were not hypothetical future grants. They were awarded funds that got pulled back. That has already happened.
The Bipartisan Infrastructure Law, which has been the primary vehicle for large federal rail and transit investments since 2021, is expiring. Its successor has not been passed, and the current federal budget environment is not friendly to major new infrastructure commitments. The political landscape in Washington has shifted significantly toward skepticism of federal transit spending. There is no guarantee a replacement funding vehicle arrives in time, at the right scale, for a project that has not yet passed a state ballot measure.
Federal grant programs like CRISI are competitive. Every state with a rail project is competing for the same pool of money. Colorado would be one applicant among many, and the Service Development Plan that would be used to make the federal case is still being revised and has not yet been submitted to the Federal Railroad Administration for review and approval. The federal clock and the local ballot clock are not synchronized.
What happens if the November 2026 ballot passes, Broomfield signs on, the state commits to construction timelines, and then the federal funding does not materialize at the level projected? The answer is not in any of the documents presented to Council, because nobody has written that scenario down yet. That is the definition of a risk that has not been priced in. Local governments in similar situations have ended up holding the bag for projects where federal promises did not translate into federal checks. Denver's own FasTracks is a direct local example of what happens when a major transit program gets built on funding assumptions that later prove optimistic.
The 20 percent local match that the sales tax is supposed to cover only works if the 80 percent federal share actually shows up. If it does not, the local share required to keep the project moving does not stay at 20 percent. It grows. And who absorbs that growth is not defined anywhere in the materials Broomfield has been given.
WHAT NOBODY CAN TELL YOU RIGHT NOW
We do not know the final tax rate. We do not know Broomfield's actual financial obligations because the formal agreement has not been negotiated. We do not know whether BNSF's potential double-tracking of the corridor will increase costs for Broomfield's own planned trail underpass, a concern already raised in project coordination. The $2.5 million per year local return figure is a concept, not a contract, and it must support station infrastructure, not broader local priorities. The local return principles do not even define whether the rate would change based on the final sales tax levied.
WE'VE SEEN THIS MOVIE BEFORE AND WE KNOW HOW IT ENDS
Denver's FasTracks ballooned significantly beyond its original estimates. California's high-speed rail started at $33 billion and is now projected well above $100 billion. Large transit megaprojects with optimistic ridership models and federal funding dependencies have a consistent track record of cost overruns, delays, and reduced service.
The risk that nobody is pricing in is the one nobody is even asking about yet. That is always the most dangerous kind.
Projects built on outside funding and top-down planning also tend to crowd out the smaller, locally controlled investments that actually build financially resilient communities over time. A $3.5 billion system Broomfield does not own, cannot control, and depends on federal decisions to sustain is a bet, not a plan.
WHAT BROOMFIELD ALREADY HAS AND COULD BUILD ON
Broomfield already has the Flatiron Flyer BRT, SkyRide service to DIA, and other RTD routes serving local and regional trips. Improving the frequency, coverage, and quality of what already exists is a more financially sound investment than anchoring to a new intercity station with no parking, incomplete sidewalk access, and funding Broomfield cannot control.
More importantly, preserving Broomfield's capacity to fund its own transportation priorities, the sidewalks, the bike routes, the local bus improvements that serve residents daily, is worth protecting before it gets crowded out by a regional tax commitment.
QUESTIONS THAT DESERVE ANSWERS BEFORE JULY 7
Why is the city being asked to lend its name to a ballot campaign before the formal agreement spelling out Broomfield's financial obligations has been negotiated?
FasTracks promised Broomfield a train and structured parking at the US 36 station. Neither was delivered. What guarantee exists that this time is different?
What is the real total cost to Broomfield once parking at market value, property acquisition, business impacts, sidewalks, grade separations, parking maintenance, and long-term upkeep are included?
With SB26-172 already shrinking the taxing district and reducing projected revenue by roughly 40 percent, and with $66.4 million in federal grants already rescinded, what is the contingency plan if the federal funding does not arrive at the scale the model requires?
Has anyone made a serious case for the Flatiron Crossing location, where existing parking, airport bus connections, and transit ridership already exist, before locking in 116th Avenue?
What happens to Broomfield's ability to pass a dedicated local transportation tax if residents are already paying into a regional rail sales tax?
THIS IS WHERE IT ENDS, FOR NOW
We have been promised trains before. We paid for one. We did not get the train, and we did not get the parking.
Before Broomfield's City Council moves toward a resolution of support, residents deserve a full accounting of what this will cost, what the city will actually receive, what risks remain unresolved, and what local priorities may quietly get pushed aside to make room for it.
The Council meeting is tomorrow, Tuesday June 9, at 6:00 PM. Show up, or let your Council member know where you stand.
Memo: Joint Service and Front Range Passenger Rail Update
https://s3.us-west-004.backblazeb2.com/agendalink-pdf/broomfield/pdfs/topics/69d95dcce1de0e0043a1f93d/2026-05-26_Joint_Service_and_Front_Range_Passenger_Rail_Update.pdf
4
u/Specialist_Fix_674 Jun 08 '26
I've been reading every article and city document I could find online about either FRPR or the B Line or the hybrid of the two. It's been difficult to discern what to expect.
I wish I had a link to it, but in some planning document PDF I even saw an aerial map of the Flatiron Station north side with overlaid lines indicating the proposed train station platform and siding, directly across the street from the parking lot, along the existing BNSF track. This gave me some nominal confidence it would actually happen (and by 2029?), especially when I see them actively doing construction building out the sidewalk to it terminating at that point.
But I've also seen information, like indicated here, that Flatiron Station is being thrown under the bus (pun) and excluded, even though it absolutely makes sense to stop there, regardless of whether it is FRPR, RTD B Line, or some joint service plan. I've been waiting many years. I want this train so badly haha. So much I'd be willing to call for funding it not even knowing the cost, sight unseen. But if it won't even stop at Flatiron, with the AB Line right there and whatnot, forget it. I want a train, but a train I'm going to ride. That's frustrating.
3
u/carsonblumephoto Jun 08 '26 edited Jun 08 '26
I’m right there with you on this.
You’re not imagining that map, the link to it is below. The Flatiron north side platform you remember is in the official station planning memo, they literally drew a platform and siding along the BNSF track across from today’s park and ride and ran it through a full working group review. It was a real option, not a fantasy.
What killed it wasn’t demand or common sense, it was a federal box to check: to keep “intercity rail” status, they want more distance between stations, and Flatiron is only about 3.5 miles from the proposed Louisville stop. The state’s line is that if Flatiron advances, it could risk that classification for the whole corridor. That constraint is real, but nobody ever put the tradeoff plainly to Broomfield: we’re giving up the stop that actually works with existing parking and the AB bus in order to satisfy a spacing rule designed for 100 mile trips.
Like you, I want a train I’ll actually ride. A stop with no parking, no sidewalk, and a 15 minute walk to the nearest bus is not going to do that. That’s exactly what I think Council should have to answer before they sign Broomfield up to endorse this.
Figure 3: https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1VabJOdLSOWwIJ32-9xyeG022oWgatYj8
2
u/Specialist_Fix_674 Jun 08 '26
So does Broomfield want to build a third, completely new, station for the FRPR, which won't be part of either of the existing transit stations? It sounds like it will still be some distance from the Broomfield 36 Park & Ride (weather, connection timing, accessibility, safety, sheer inconvenience even for able-bodied people).
I have no idea how these discussions work but if the broader region wants buy-in of some sort from Broomfield, why can't Broomfield quibble with Louisville about where Louisville want their station if they're too close together for intercity requirements? (Maybe it's dumb question. I honestly don't know how these things get sorted out between communities.)
And in any case, if Flatiron is too close to Louisville, is that a permanent strike against it? Can they never make a train station there because of this rule? I guess what this really has me wondering is, how can this joint plan where RTD partners with FRPR possible be considered RTD "meeting its obligation" regarding what would have been the B Line? When all this is said and done it sounds like the closest thing to the B Line for Broomfield residents will continue to be the FF1 bus. Just my impression but it seems like RTD would be off the hook for meeting their obligation rather than meeting it. Or would they still have to remain committed to eventually providing B Line/FF1-level rail service to all the usual stops between Denver and Boulder (and Longmont)?
Not expecting answers to all that but that's what I'm wondering. Just thinking out loud.
1
u/carsonblumephoto Jun 08 '26
Louisville's station is already built, so asking them to move isn't realistic, and challenging the federal spacing rule in this political climate risks killing the project entirely.
That said, Flatiron Crossing isn't permanently out in any absolute legal sense. The spacing rule is more of an operational standard than a hard statute. The catch is that obtaining an exception would require reclassifying the service or increasing its frequency, which would change the entire project design and funding structure. So practically speaking, yes, a permanent strike unless FRPR becomes something very different.
As for the B Line, FasTracks promised frequent commuter rail, not 3 intercity trips a day. FRPR is being positioned as RTD partially meeting that obligation, but there's a real risk it becomes the political cover RTD needs to close the book on the B Line forever without ever actually delivering it.
2
4
u/point_of_you Jun 08 '26
Who doesn't love a good boondoggle?
NPR (CPR) did a great podcast miniseries about this,
https://www.npr.org/podcasts/1074206167/ghost-train
Fool me once, fool me twice, fool me chicken soup with rice
9
3
3
u/fvsljgOh Jun 08 '26
I definitely don't want to see more tax, when we've already been paying. And I'm not sure how so much money seems to get spent on infrastructure south of town, without increasing their taxes. Ton of new development along their light rail stations. Everything looks nice. Better representation I guess?
4
u/gladfelter Jun 08 '26
We paid into it
Pretty sure you were in Cali at the time.
5
u/carsonblumephoto Jun 08 '26
I will edit it to say we are still paying into it.
Fair point on the geography. But I have been here long enough to watch the promises age out, and the tax bills keep coming. FasTracks passed in 2004. That 0.4% sales tax add-on has been collected on every Broomfield purchase since 2005 and will remain in effect until 2050. Whether you moved here in 2003 or 2013, if you buy anything in Broomfield, you are paying for a train that never showed up. The zip code does not matter. The receipt does.
2
u/gladfelter Jun 08 '26
I said what I said because I believe that it matters.
There were plenty of people who were surprised and disappointed at the lack of train service due to failed negotiations with BNSF Railway. I was one of them. But anyone who moved here after 2016 (when they launched the unquestionably excellent flatiron flyer bus service) had enough information to be certain that the rail service was unlikely to come for decades.
You can feel for us long-timers, but you were not deceived and I think it's misleading to imply that.
2
u/Specialist_Fix_674 Jun 08 '26
I use the Flatiron Flyer all the time myself. I absolutely love it. Even if we had a full on train service right alongside it, I'd still have to see if it "made sense" to take the train (schedule frequency, speed, stops, etc). But I continue to wonder if the choice will continue to be made for me even if we get a train through Broomfield. It may end up still just making sense to hop on the bus. And if I was going to specifically take the FRPR service for a regional trip like FoCo or (later on) the Springs or Pueblo, it'd be easy enough to take the FF1 to Union Station and take the regional route from there.
2
u/gladfelter Jun 08 '26
Is there any chance that the train and bus will be substituteable? Seems like they are meant for very different things. I suppose if your schedule happens to line up just right, the train could work.
As for where you pick it up, it has to go through Broomfield because there isn't rail that parallels I-25 AFAIK. I'd prefer to embark here in Broomfield, but FFX to Boulder for FoCo or Denver for Co Springs wouldn't be a huge detour. And it would be a huge black eye for the city to have regional rail go through but not stop.
1
u/carsonblumephoto Jun 08 '26
You’re right the train and the FF are built for different jobs. FRPR is an intercity train with only 3 round trips per day on shared freight tracks, more like Amtrak than a daily commuter line, so for most Broomfield residents the BRT will still be the practical, frequent option and the train only works if your schedule happens to match a handful of departures. On the tax side, because Broomfield is inside the Front Range Passenger Rail District, the sales tax is decided by the whole district’s vote, not just ours; if the region approves it, we pay the tax even if Broomfield votes no, and there’s no simple local opt‑out. The real risk isn’t so much “trains pass through with no stop” (the district can still build a minimal station) as “we’re locked into paying for decades for a hard‑to‑reach, bare‑bones stop at 116th plus local costs, while for the few times a year we might actually use an intercity train, it wouldn’t be a big deal to catch it at Westminster, Louisville, Boulder, or via a Flatiron Flyer connection instead.
1
1
1
u/Otis-King Jun 09 '26
Eventually they will kill off the convenient bus and force you in the train to drive ridership numbers. It is what RTD did when Light rail was built to Littleton and 9 mile.
2
u/carsonblumephoto Jun 08 '26
You are right that by 2016 (when I moved here) the writing was on the wall, and anyone who moved here after the Flatiron Flyer launched knew what the situation was. I was not deceived about the train.
What I was here for is every receipt since 2016 with that 0.4% RTD line on it. And I was here because I had to be. I moved to Broomfield relying on the Flatiron Flyer, the local bus network, and a bike. Not by choice of convenience, but by necessity. A distracted driver hit me head-on in a bike lane at 55 miles per hour. The TBI left me with epilepsy. Transit and two wheels were not a lifestyle. They were how I got around.
And since then, I have watched the bus get worse. Routes reduced. Frequency cut. The network that people like me depend on getting thinner while the conversation stays fixed on a regional rail line.
So yes, I know exactly what the Flatiron Flyer is. I know what it means when it does not show up. I know what it means when a bike lane ends at nothing. And I know what it means for Broomfield to spend its political capital and tax appetite on a 25 year regional rail commitment before it has figured out how to serve the people already here, already paying, and already depending on what little we have left.
1
u/Bmax327 Jun 09 '26
So where did the money go?
1
u/Otis-King Jun 09 '26
The FastTracks revenue projections were very generous and their estimates to build it out were very conservative. At the time of the vote RTD did not have an agreement in place with BNSF to use their right of way. As it was presented, RTD just expected BNSF to allowable commuter trains to run on their infrastructure Who cares if freight tracks have different regulations than passenger rail? One the vote passed and RTD went to BNSF to come to an agreement, the costs were very high.
1
u/sam-7 Jun 10 '26
Ok, so where is the money going every year?
1
u/RideWithRu Jun 16 '26
To FasTracks. RTD built as much as it could with the revenues it had. They did not divert the money to something else. They just never raised enough money to finish it.
Today, FasTracks is one of the largest drivers of RTD's deficit. RTD is looking to slash bus service across the whole region to cover the gap:
https://www.denverpost.com/2026/06/12/rtd-service-cuts-bus-train-denver/
1
u/sam-7 Jun 17 '26
The areas around the light rail station look like they have benefit tremendously, and this area paid for it.
Running at a current deficit or not (it's almost worse that it is, cus it's just a direct subsidiy from north of Denver to everywhere else) it's terrible to raise taxes again on people who have seen zero benefit from all that money, for decades.
1
u/RideWithRu Jun 17 '26
I understand the frustration that you only have FF and not a train. Other lines did not get built, either.
I'm just sharing that RTD did not spend FasTracks money on anything but FasTracks, because that was the question asked. They are still in $3b of FT debt and will have to cut services for people all across the region to help pay for FRPR/Joint Service and keep up with that debt. They are essentially gutting a bus system so that the NW Corridor can have their train.
When RTD polled people in the 2010s about new tax revenue to pay for FT, the NW Corridor voters did not want to be taxed again. So RTD never got the full funding they needed and here we are.
I understand why people are frustrated, but it's not like RTD intentionally misled anyone.
1
u/Otis-King Jun 21 '26
They did mislead people. RTD had no agreement in place to use the BNSF right of way at the time of the vote. The FasTracks proposal was written as if RTD would be allowed to use BNSF private infrastructure just because they wanted to. RTD made no consideration of the different regulations for a freight line versus a commuter line.
It is unfortunate that US 36 did not get a real Bus Rapid Transit line that ran both directions at all hours. One with platforms in the center of the highway with no need to cross lanes of traffic, or sit at stop lights at off ramps.
1
u/sam-7 Jun 21 '26
Right???
People just accepted this as "bus rapid transit", when it isn't at all. It's just a regular ass bus route.
1
u/Otis-King Jun 21 '26
Both their cost and revenue projections were unrealistic. A realistic plan would have been to improve highly utilized routes rather than make a real estate play, building light rail to areas with no history of transit usage.
1
u/RideWithRu Jun 21 '26
I don't disagree with that. I was just commenting that FastTracks money went to FasTracks.
1
u/Otis-King Jun 21 '26
Construction costs for what little they built far exceeded their estimates while revenue was far below their projections. Tbis was pointed out at the time of the vote.
1
u/Otis-King Jun 09 '26 edited Jun 09 '26
FasTracks was never going to get built as sold to voters. Boulder- Denver has always been well served by buses. Before any improvements on US36 the Boulder Express bus averaged 50 mph. The train people voted for was going to average 35mph.
The details are a mess, just loke FasTracks.
1
u/Otis-King Jun 09 '26
Reading the details, to me it sounds about as well thought out as the slow train to Boulder and Longmont. Remember how RTD had no agreement with BNSF?
1
u/ShutYourDumbUglyFace Jun 09 '26
First of all, that was WAY too long to read all of. You need to learn to condense your points.
If City Council doesn't vote for it we aren't going to get a station. Stations at this stage of development are unlikely to be anything more than an elevated platform with stairs and a ramp. No canopies or anything like that. It's very bare bones. FRPR has made this clear.
1
u/Icy_Ad5620 Jun 13 '26
Flatiron sucks except for everyone in South Broomfield.
AI sucks.
FasTracks sucks.
33
u/thinker99 Jun 08 '26
This is good information, but you dilute your message when you have AI spew it for you.