Tom Munds
Tim Levindowski shook his head Oct. 2 as he looked over the
literature explaining the suggested options for FasTracks to deal
with its financial crunch.
“I don’t like any of the options. I would prefer they keep their
promise and build the whole project with the money they have,” the
Centennial man said. “But, we all know that can’t happen and the
[FasTracks] plan has to change. Personally, I would support paying
higher taxes to get the project finished on time. But that is just
me and I want to hear what other people have to say.”
FasTracks is the 12-year project to expand the metro area mass
transit system. Plans were to add a total of 119 miles of light
rail and commuter rail lines, enhance bus networks, transform Union
Station into the metro-area transit hub, create five new
park-n-Rides and improve existing transit systems and facilities.
The project was scheduled to be completed by 2017.
But plans must undergo changes because while the 2004 cost
estimate for the project was $4.7 billion, dramatic increases in
construction costs and fuel prices have pushed the cost estimate
for the project to $7.9 billion. At the same time, the original
revenue forecast of $13.7 billion over the next 30 years has bee
revised downward to about $10.9 billion.
FasTracks scheduled 16 meetings in October to explain the budget
crunch and the suggested options. Levindowski was among about 25
people who attended the Oct. 2 FasTracks public meeting in
Englewood. A summary of the 16 meetings will be presented to the
RTD board in November, the board will refine the options and by the
first quarter of 2009, a preferred option will be presented to the
RTD board for adoption.
Each of the 16 meetings follow the same format. FasTracks
officials will explain the budget crunch and the five suggested
options. Then, those attending the meeting are asked to use a
clicker to vote on the five options. During the meeting, the floor
is opened to let people comment about FasTracks and the options or
suggest other possibilities to expand public transportation while
dealing with the budget crunch.
Richard Clarke, senior manager for FasTracks program
implementation, moderated the Oct. 2 meeting in Englewood.
He noted the basic assumption is the completion of several
FasTracks elements by 2017 including completing all environmental
documentation, basic engineering and railroad right-of-way
purchase, completion of the West Corridor to Golden, completion of
phase 1 of the bus rapid transit line along U.S. 36 and completion
of Union Station and all maintenance facilities.
Additionally, FasTracks would complete the commuter rail line
from Union Station to Denver International Airport — the East Line
— and the Gold Line light rail corridor from Union Station to Ward
Road in Arvada to retain the eligibility for $1 billion in federal
grants.
Following are the suggested options.
The basic assumptions plus using the money available to build
segments of some of the corridors and end the project as planned in
2017.
The basic assumptions plus using the available funds to do some
corridor segments, complete one additional corridor and stop
construction in 2017.
The basic assumptions plus building as much of the project as
possible by 2017, then build the remainder of the project as money
becomes available with an estimate FasTracks would be completed by
2034.
The basic assumptions plus using the existing funds to build
longer segments of some corridors by 2017 and then build the rest
of the project over time.
Complete the entire FasTracks project by seeking additional
revenues to cover the higher costs.
One member of the audience suggested two additional options —
scrap FasTracks completely or abandon all rail corridors and go to
bus rapid transit systems.
Progress has been made as construction is poised to start on the
West Corridor through Lakewood to the Jefferson County government
building near Golden and the first phase of the bus rapid transit
corridor along U.S. 36 toward Boulder.
Additionally, work is under way to complete the preliminary
environmental evaluation and basic engineering on all corridors
and, where necessary, purchase track right of way from the
railroads.
Among those attending the Englewood meeting, 77 percent were
somewhat or very unsupportive of option No. 2 while 73 percent were
very or somewhat supportive of option No. 5.