DENVER | Transportation Thread

[SnyderBock]

Originally Posted by Octavian

As one of the radical right wingers who favors TABOR and is so often trashed on these boards, let me say that I would vote for a sales tax increase (as allowed by TABOR) to finance high speed rail construction to the ski resorts if CDOT or others comes forth with a Fastracks-like plan.

Octavian, i doubt you are a radical right-winder. Radical right-wingers tend to use violence and destruction in the form of terrorism to force their ideologies upon others. That is what I was trying to say. I'm basically saying terrorism and whatnot, are societies greatest hurdles.

[Fritzdude]

Originally Posted by SnyderBock

Octavian, i doubt you are a radical right-winder. Radical right-wingers tend to use violence and destruction in the form of terrorism to force their ideologies upon others. That is what I was trying to say. I'm basically saying terrorism and whatnot, are societies greatest hurdles.

Honestly, the term left-wing and right-wing are terms that have become so cliché that their definitions have been lost in translation. For me, they more often conjur up generalizations about a person's views on cultural issues rather than their philosophy on anything we're concerned about here, which is debating the best approach to effective transit options with minimal environmental impact. Thankfully, I think more people are pragmatic about investing in infrastructure. Anyway, we've all seen the forecast for the population doubling in the next 20-40 years along the front range so the current I-70 corridor is going to become overwhemled. Therefore, the primary questions should be:

1. What is the best option for transit investment?
2. Where does it go?
3. How is it funded?

[electricron]

Originally Posted by Fritzdude

Anyway, we've all seen the forecast for the population doubling in the next 20-40 years along the front range so the current I-70 corridor is going to become overwhemled. Therefore, the primary questions should be:

1. What is the best option for transit investment?
2. Where does it go?
3. How is it funded?

Since the tunnel route is fast approaching capacity, using the existing railroad line isn't a viable option. Therefore, another railroad line will have to be built, or reopened to make capacity available on the existing tunnel route. The Tennessee Pass corridor could be the line to be reopened. Therefore, running Talgo (max speeds of 125 mph) trains on the tunnel route could be a viable choice. This will probably require upgrading the tracks in the ROW on both lines. Of course, the existing tunnel route doesn't stay that close in proximity of I 70 for most of the route.

Another viable option would be laying new passenger tracks near, if not within, the I 70 ROW. This will require digging new railroad tunnels. DMU/EMU non FRA compliant trains could be used on tracks without freight trains. A single rail line with a few passing sidings should suffice. Narrow gauge tracks could also be used.

Stadler built GTW DMU/EMUs would be my first vendor choice, because they also are the largest supplier of rack railroad equipment, perfect for high grades in mountainous landscapes when needed.

Stadler GTW


Stadler Rack


Stadler Rack track


I don't think the I 70 corridor west of the divide will attract many commuters all the way into Denver. And I believe 80-90 mph speeds should be fast enough for vacationers. I don't think HSR or MegLev speeds are required nor needed.

[bunt_q]

And the higher speeds won't allow for the number of stations we need to make this thing even remotely viable... it's going to be hard enough to get folks where they need to be from the station location. If you've only got one station in summit county, you may as well just not bother.

[Octavian]

denver and the west
State readies road needs for stimulus funds

Denver is on the list for $400 million from D.C., and transit may get another $100 million.
By Jeffrey Leib
The Denver Post
Posted: 01/22/2009 12:30:00 AM MST
Updated: 01/22/2009 02:27:29 AM MST

The crumbling interchange where Interstate 25, South Santa Fe Drive and West Alameda Avenue come together could be among the first beneficiaries of more than $400 million in federal stimulus money for repair of roads and bridges around Colorado.

On Wednesday, the Colorado Department of Transportation identified high-priority, "ready-to-go" highway projects throughout the state that could be jump-started by an estimated $422 million that should flow to Colorado from the stimulus measure promoted by the Obama administration and Congress. A bill being considered in Congress would funnel about $30 billion to road and bridge repair nationally and another $7 billion to transit projects.

Extras

• Read the full draft project list (Excel file at bottom of web page).

In addition to the $422 million that Colorado expects to get for roads, the state anticipates it will get another $100 million for urban and rural transit projects. Congress has made it clear that the highway and transit money going to states and regional entities must be put to use quickly; unused money will be returned to the federal government. "Our goal is to use 100 percent of the funds that come to the state of Colorado," CDOT official Jennifer Finch told members of the Colorado Transportation Commission on Wednesday.

Noting the priority of putting people to work, Finch said the federal stimulus was more of a "jobs bill" than a transportation measure.
Other highway projects in metro Denver that are at the top of CDOT's priority list include a new $19 million interchange at East Arapahoe Road and South Parker Road, the $50 million reconstruction of U.S. 36 between Table Mesa Drive and West 88th Avenue; the $20 million "restoration" of C-470 from Santa Fe Drive to I-25; and a new $6.4 million concrete surface for Wadsworth Parkway between West 88th and West 104th avenues.

In southeast Colorado, the highest priority candidate for stimulus money is a $16 million project that would reconstruct U.S. 287 south of Springfield, CDOT said.

In the state's northwest, the top-priority project is the $13 million reconstruction of Colorado 13 in Rio Blanco County, the agency added.

Officials said Colorado hopes to get about $100 million in stimulus money for transit projects, with about 90 percent flowing to urban systems and the balance to rural transit agencies.

The top candidate for money in the urban category is about $18.6 million in improvements for Denver's Union Station that will be used as part of RTD's FasTracks program.

Other high-priority transit projects that are in line to get federal stimulus funds are a $10.3 million bus maintenance facility in Summit County and a $14 million multimodal transportation station in downtown Colorado Springs.

Eagle County and the town of Avon also hope to use the federal money to construct a $24 million regional transit facility shared by the county and town.
Finch emphasized that language in the federal bill is likely to change and some projects could lose priority status while others may gain it.

CDOT estimates that the amount of one-time federal stimulus money it may get for highways — about $422 million — is roughly equal to the money the agency expects its fiscal 2010 budget to be down from the current year's budget. The forecast is down because of expected declines in federal and state funding for transportation.

A draft of the list of priority highway and transit projects that could be funded with federal stimulus money can be found at denverpost.com.

Jeffrey Leib: 303-954-1645 or [email protected]

Road wish list

The top 10 of 23 "A" priority projects in the Denver-metro area that would be funded by federal stimulus money, according to a draft list released Wednesday:
1. New interchange at Arapahoe and Parker roads: $19 million
2. Interstate 25 — Alameda bridge and Santa Fe interchange (Phase I in a five-phase $100 million project): $24 million
3. New grade separation on Pecos in Adams County: $5 million
4. Concrete overlay on Wadsworth Blvd. (88th to 104th) $6.4 million
5. Surface treatment of I-70 (Colfax Ave. to 32nd Ave.): $3.8 million
6. Concrete restoration on C-470 (Santa Fe to I-25): $20 million
7. Full reconstruction of U.S. 36 (Table Mesa to 88th): $50 million
8. Surface treatment Colorado 88 (Potomac to Peoria): $6.4 million
9. Surface treatment Colorado 2 (Alameda to Martin Luther King Blvd.): $5.1 million
10. Maintenance of C-470 bike path (I-70 to I-25): $17 million

[Octavian]

denver and the west
Mayors searching for fairness in FasTracks timing

Some cities are not happy that financial problems may delay their light-rail routes.
By Jeffrey Leib
The Denver Post
Posted: 01/21/2009 12:30:00 AM MST

Some Denver-area mayors analyzing options for RTD's financially strapped FasTracks program said voters in their communities will rebel if construction of some lines advances while their lines are delayed.

"We think all corridors need to share costs," Broomfield Mayor Pat Quinn said Tuesday at a meeting of the Metro Mayors Caucus' FasTracks committee. "We feel you can't put a corridor totally to the back of the pack."

Last year, the Regional Transportation District said costs of the FasTracks program had ballooned to $7.9 billion, about $2 billion more than the agency expects to have on hand for construction of six new train lines by 2017.

When it reported the shortfall, RTD said three of the lines — the train from Union Station to Denver International Airport; the Gold Line to Arvada/Wheat Ridge; and the West Corridor light-rail line to Golden — would have to stay on schedule for completion by 2017 because they expect to get at least $1.3 billion in federal money. The DIA and Gold Line trains also expect to benefit from the injection of about $1.2 billion in private financing.

The three other main FasTracks trains — Northwest commuter rail to Boulder/Longmont; the North Metro train to Thornton/Northglenn; and the Interstate 225 light-rail line — could be completed by 2017 only if the additional $2 billion could be raised, RTD said. Otherwise, their completion might have to be delayed until 2034.

On Tuesday, Thornton Mayor Erik Hansen said if construction of some FasTracks lines, including the North Metro train that will serve his community, is delayed, it could mean that $1.5 billion in sales taxes paid by north- metro residents will go to support trains that do not serve their area.

Hansen said that would be "$1.5 billion in taxes that my citizens just won't tolerate in paying."

In 2004, voters throughout metro Denver approved a sales-tax hike to pay for FasTracks.

Last month, Thornton commissioned a survey of city residents that assessed, in part, their views of RTD and FasTracks. About 58 percent of those polled said they were "unsatisfied" with the progress on FasTracks so far; 30 percent were listed in the "very unsatisfied" camp. Mayors and county commissioners in the Northwest/U.S. 36 corridor recently said fairness "means that all communities that are contributing to FasTracks must have meaningful and visible transit service improvements consistent with the ultimate FasTracks vision between now and 2017."

At Tuesday's meeting, FasTracks official Julie Skeen pointed to a financial analysis showing that by accepting federal money for the DIA, Gold Line and West trains, RTD ends up with an extra $362 million for other rail corridors that would not be there except for the federal funding.

Yet Aurora Mayor Ed Tauer said that if three FasTracks lines are built by 2017 and others must wait until later for completion, it "stretches credibility to say no money will come out of the other corridors" to support the federally backed lines. "Nobody's going to believe that," Tauer said.

Arvada Mayor Robert Frie reminded his colleagues that however they resolve the issue of fairness, they should not risk endangering the flow of federal and private money for the DIA and Gold Line trains. "Let's get $1 billion in free (federal) money and another $1.2 billion from the concessionaire (private investment team)," Frie said.

Jeffrey Leib: 303-954-1645 or [email protected]

[Octavian]

I don't see people voting for a tax increase. That is a hard sell, but it seems to be what the mayors want to do. .


Published: Wednesday, January 21, 2009 10:50 PM MST

Editorial: Barring bailout, let's fix FasTracks





By THE VOICE OF AURORA
The Aurora Sentinel

Published: Wednesday, January 21, 2009 10:50 PM MST
Amid a growing list of economic uncertainties and discouragements, there’s one no-brainer local officials can agree on and then spend time worrying about something else.

For the last several months, officials from the Regional Transportation District and local cities have been wringing their hands over what to do about a huge shortfall in the FasTracks budget. Voters in 2004 approved a sales tax increase of 4 cents on every $10 to raise what was then an estimated $4.7 billion to build a host of transit lines in the metro area. Two of those new lines would service Aurora, one of them being integral to the success of the redevelopment of the Fitzsimons campus.

The project enjoyed huge voter support and pointed out that metro-area residents like the idea of light rail. They use the light rail currently in service, and they are more than willing to pay for more of it.

Someone, however, blew it. Rising costs of materials pushed the price tag for the projects up to almost $8 billion, and revenues in our sinking economy are coming up short of expectations. It’s unclear whether the cost of the project was simply underestimated in the first place.

It doesn’t matter any more. What matters is that everyone now agrees that trimming down the scope of work, and likely shorting Aurora and other communities of what it expected from FasTracks, is unacceptable. So, too, is going along as if a miracle might happen someday and building what we can until we run out of money.

No. The only answer is to first see if there is a possibility of more federal money for the project, either through existing programs or new ones created to help stimulate the economy. Then local officials must return to voters and ask them for an additional sales tax of two or three cents on every $10 in purchases to finish the job right and as quickly as possible. Such a program, accelerated, could create a number of needed jobs and an even more-needed mass transit program serving Aurora’s burgeoning medical and research complex and Denver International Airport.

There are no other acceptable alternatives. So rather than continue wishing on a star, local officials need to proceed with a ballot question so that it has the best chance possible of success.

[Istanbul5280]

Originally Posted by Octavian

I don't see people voting for a tax increase. That is a hard sell, but it seems to be what the mayors want to do. .


Published: Wednesday, January 21, 2009 10:50 PM MST

Editorial: Barring bailout, let's fix FasTracks





By THE VOICE OF AURORA
The Aurora Sentinel

Published: Wednesday, January 21, 2009 10:50 PM MST
Amid a growing list of economic uncertainties and discouragements, there’s one no-brainer local officials can agree on and then spend time worrying about something else.

For the last several months, officials from the Regional Transportation District and local cities have been wringing their hands over what to do about a huge shortfall in the FasTracks budget. Voters in 2004 approved a sales tax increase of 4 cents on every $10 to raise what was then an estimated $4.7 billion to build a host of transit lines in the metro area. Two of those new lines would service Aurora, one of them being integral to the success of the redevelopment of the Fitzsimons campus.

The project enjoyed huge voter support and pointed out that metro-area residents like the idea of light rail. They use the light rail currently in service, and they are more than willing to pay for more of it.

Someone, however, blew it. Rising costs of materials pushed the price tag for the projects up to almost $8 billion, and revenues in our sinking economy are coming up short of expectations. It’s unclear whether the cost of the project was simply underestimated in the first place.

It doesn’t matter any more. What matters is that everyone now agrees that trimming down the scope of work, and likely shorting Aurora and other communities of what it expected from FasTracks, is unacceptable. So, too, is going along as if a miracle might happen someday and building what we can until we run out of money.

No. The only answer is to first see if there is a possibility of more federal money for the project, either through existing programs or new ones created to help stimulate the economy. Then local officials must return to voters and ask them for an additional sales tax of two or three cents on every $10 in purchases to finish the job right and as quickly as possible. Such a program, accelerated, could create a number of needed jobs and an even more-needed mass transit program serving Aurora’s burgeoning medical and research complex and Denver International Airport.

There are no other acceptable alternatives. So rather than continue wishing on a star, local officials need to proceed with a ballot question so that it has the best chance possible of success.

Could a big part of the Fastracks financing problem be due to a lack of leadership promoting it? I mean, Denver taxpayers pay a 0.1% sales tax for Mile High, right? Fastracks is 0.4% for a 119 mile transit system that will dramatically add value to the metro area and especially downtown. There is such a thing as a smart tax. Every article I read is about costs... costs... costs. Where is the benefits side? Now, I agree it appears RTD grossly underestimated the costs and some people should be held accountable. Unexpected commodity increases is understandable, but they do not account for the entire $3.2 billion gap. Its similar to telling someone to spend $50,000 on a car or a college education without explaining how one is an investment and the other is a consumption. Am I missing something? Start a public relations campaign to increase the sales tax to 0.7% while providing concrete examples of why transit is a strong investment..Southeast line development for one. Has a regional benefit analysis been done for Mile High? Where could I find it? Damn you John Elway!

[SnyderBock]

I don't understand why FasTracks isn't seeking more relief funding from that Federal Stimulus package. Seems to me that FasTracks is about as close to "ready to go" as it gets for transit projects. Any funding added from the stimulus package would Could be injected immediately into the West Corridor Light Rail and Union Station projects, then an equal sum of their existing funding could be deferred to say, the North Corridor (for example).

I mean, the state could get $100 million in transit funds and less than $20 million would go to FasTracks projects (Union Station)? Hello, are there morons working for the Governor? What's their logic here?

[glowrock]

I still want to know why RTD hasn't released UPDATED cost figures for FasTracks, now that commodities prices are half or less of what they were a year ago... That $7.9 billion number looks more and more overblown every day!

Aaron (Glowrock)

[Fidel Castrobot]

So am I to understand that I will not be able to get to work at 62nd and Washington on the light rail until 2034???!!! Wow. that sucks big time... especially since Im paying good money for this thing to be built... I guess if you dont work in the Tech center your just SOL.

[wong21fr]

^Well as the Federal Stimulus package is designed for projects that are ready to go, but not yet going due to budget cuts, so the only way to get it going for the West Corridor would be to lie.

But hey, what's a little perjury?

[mr1138]

I don't know if anybody has seen this yet... http://www.rtd-fastracks.com/media/uploads/nw/2008-0923_FasTracks_Public_Presentation.pdf It's a RTD presentation my friend forwarded to me from Dec. It basically spells out the five options from here forward. Looks like the East, Gold, West lines and Union Station are a sure thing no matter what. The rest could face changes.

[Fritzdude]

Originally Posted by glowrock

I still want to know why RTD hasn't released UPDATED cost figures for FasTracks, now that commodities prices are half or less of what they were a year ago... That $7.9 billion number looks more and more overblown every day!

Aaron (Glowrock)

Not to mention the reduction they should be able to negotiate for labor and construction crews. There are a bunch of guys in hard hats that don't have a lot going on right about now and when the economy was humming along - they could demand going rates. But with so many people idle, I'm sure people would work for 80% of their normal pay just to keep busy.

[PLANSIT]

However, that could all change with the Stimulus Package. There are legitimate concerns that the huge influx of construction could again drive up materials and if not done correctly (multiple contractors, geographically separate jobs), labor as well. I know it has been talked about here (OK).

[Octavian]

Originally Posted by Fritzdude

Not to mention the reduction they should be able to negotiate for labor and construction crews. There are a bunch of guys in hard hats that don't have a lot going on right about now and when the economy was humming along - they could demand going rates. But with so many people idle, I'm sure people would work for 80% of their normal pay just to keep busy.

Unfortunately, they can't. RTD is required by federal law have to pay the highest union wage in exchange for receiving federal funding. This WSJ editorial explains it better:

How to Save $40 Billion

One suggestion for transcending 'worn-out dogmas.'


President Obama said in his Inaugural Address yesterday that government must spend to rebuild roads and bridges, but that those "who manage the public's dollars" must also "spend wisely" and "reform bad habits." With that ambition in mind, here's an idea to save tens of billions of taxpayer dollars in the months ahead: Repeal Davis-Bacon superminimum wage requirements for construction projects.
We're referring to the 1931 law that requires contractors on all federal projects to pay a "prevailing wage." In practice, this means paying the highest union wage in every part of the country. Over the years nearly every analysis -- by the Congressional Budget Office, the Government Accountability Office and Office of Management and Budget -- has concluded that Davis-Bacon tangles projects in red tape and inflates federal construction costs.
A 2008 study by Suffolk University and the Beacon Hill Institute examined local wage data for construction workers and found that the Department of Labor estimates for the "prevailing wage" in cities are about 22% above the actual wages paid in these cities. It estimates that Davis-Bacon adds slightly less than 10% to federal building costs, or $8.4 billion a year.
Davis-Bacon was devised in part as a way to keep blacks and immigrants from federal construction projects during the Depression. Nowadays its impact is mainly to reward unions for political campaign support, though it still does have some racial implications. A 2001 study by labor economists Daniel Kessler and Lawrence Katz examined state Davis-Bacon-type laws for the National Bureau of Economic Research and concluded: "Repeal is associated with a sizeable reduction in the union wage premium and a significant narrowing of the black/nonblack wage differential for construction workers."
George W. Bush briefly suspended Davis-Bacon during the Gulf Coast clean-up after Hurricane Katrina in 2005. But the unions howled that immigrant workers were filling the reconstruction jobs at lower wages. So under intense pressure from Members of Congress in both political parties, Mr. Bush backed down.
The savings for taxpayers from waiving Davis-Bacon would be even greater amid the staggering new spending contemplated for the stimulus bill. Let's say Congress spends $400 billion over the next two years on roads, mass transit or other construction. Assuming only a 10% cost savings -- the lower end of economic estimates -- would mean about $40 billion in lower spending for the same projects. Congress could either forego that spending, which would mean a smaller claim on future taxpayers, or it could spend that money to fund more projects that would hire more workers.
The draft stimulus bill we've seen explicitly mentions that Davis-Bacon rules must apply. But Jim DeMint (R., S.C.) says he'll offer an amendment on the Senate floor to suspend those rules for stimulus spending. This would seem to be exactly the kind of liberation from "worn out dogmas" that Mr. Obama called for yesterday. If he wants to send an early message that this really is a new era -- and save taxpayers a bundle too -- the new President need merely put in a good word for Mr. DeMint's effort.

[Octavian]

Originally Posted by SnyderBock

I don't understand why FasTracks isn't seeking more relief funding from that Federal Stimulus package. Seems to me that FasTracks is about as close to "ready to go" as it gets for transit projects. Any funding added from the stimulus package would Could be injected immediately into the West Corridor Light Rail and Union Station projects, then an equal sum of their existing funding could be deferred to say, the North Corridor (for example).

I mean, the state could get $100 million in transit funds and less than $20 million would go to FasTracks projects (Union Station)? Hello, are there morons working for the Governor? What's their logic here?

It's really not up to the Governor.

http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/...-the-shaft-to-make-room-for-tax-cuts.php

Oberstar: Mass Transit Got the Shaft to Make Room For Tax Cuts

By Elana Schor - January 21, 2009, 5:48PM
I wondered last week why the $825 billion House stimulus bill gave the short end of the stick to mass transit, despite vows from President Obama and other Dems to wean the country off its obsession with gas-guzzling car travel. After all, the House bill contains only $10 billion for transit compared with $30 billion for road-building -- a $20 billion-plus cut from the infrastructure stimulus proposal put forth last month by Rep. Jim Oberstar (D-MN), chairman of the House transportation panel.
It looks like Oberstar himself shed some more light on the question two days ago, while Washington was in the thick of inauguration fever. In a speech to the U.S. Conference of Mayors, Oberstar explained why ground-breaking infrastructure projects got sliced: to make room for tax cuts. Here's how he put it:

That is why we set forth this $85-billion initiative from our committee. It's been reduced in the final going. We expect that it'll come out somewhere around $63 billion, but $30 billion for highways. The reason for the reduction in overall funding -- we took money out of Amtrak and out of aviation; we took money out of the Corps of Engineers, reduced the water infrastructure program, the drinking water and the wastewater treatment facilities and sewer lines, reduced that from $14 billion to roughly $9 billion -- was the tax cut initiative that had to be paid for in some way by keeping the entire package in the range of $850 billion.
But I'll say that our portion is the one that really creates the jobs. Our portion of it is the one that's going to put people to work because unlike anything else, these jobs can't be outsourced to Bangalore, India.

Trading high-speed rail for more tax cuts? Hmmm ...

[Octavian]

Originally Posted by Istanbul5280

Could a big part of the Fastracks financing problem be due to a lack of leadership promoting it? I mean, Denver taxpayers pay a 0.1% sales tax for Mile High, right? Fastracks is 0.4% for a 119 mile transit system that will dramatically add value to the metro area and especially downtown. There is such a thing as a smart tax. Every article I read is about costs... costs... costs. Where is the benefits side? Now, I agree it appears RTD grossly underestimated the costs and some people should be held accountable. Unexpected commodity increases is understandable, but they do not account for the entire $3.2 billion gap. Its similar to telling someone to spend $50,000 on a car or a college education without explaining how one is an investment and the other is a consumption. Am I missing something? Start a public relations campaign to increase the sales tax to 0.7% while providing concrete examples of why transit is a strong investment..Southeast line development for one. Has a regional benefit analysis been done for Mile High? Where could I find it? Damn you John Elway!

The benefits are a lot harder to quantify than the costs. For example, maybe T-REX just shifted investment that would have occured elsewhere to that corridor. Worth it if you believe in urbanism, but there are a lot of voters who don't. More people live in the suburbs than in Denver proper.

Well, part of the problem is a breach of trust. You can blame the cost overruns on outside factors, but at the end of the day, RTD promised to deliver a product on a set budget and timetable and, before construction really gets underway, failed to deliver. So its a hard sell for them to ask the public to trust them with more money.

At what price would you say that Fastracks is not worth it? How high would the sales tax have to be? And how else could that money be spent? Don't get me wrong, I want to see the system built out, but I don't think folks are crazy for asking these questions.

[SnyderBock]

I would say FasTracks would be worth it, if it was expanded to be a $15 billion project with a doubling of the TOTAL existing, RTD sales tax. Of course for that price, I would expect a subway line from Union Station to Civic center Station and then down Colfax at least to approximately York Street. I would also expect service to Cherry Creek and Highlands and possibly down Broadway. And of course the North corridor would need to be upgraded to electric EMU and the NW Corridor rail would need to be upgraded to high-speed electrified rail service.

[Octavian]

Originally Posted by SnyderBock

I would say FasTracks would be worth it, if it was expanded to be a $15 billion project with a doubling of the TOTAL existing, RTD sales tax. Of course for that price, I would expect a subway line from Union Station to Civic center Station and then down Colfax at least to approximately York Street. I would also expect service to Cherry Creek and Highlands and possibly down Broadway. And of course the North corridor would need to be upgraded to electric EMU and the NW Corridor rail would need to be upgraded to high-speed electrified rail service.

Then you're not talking about Fastracks anymore. How much would you be willing to pay, or what would be a appropriate price, for the 2004 RTD Fastracks plan as promised?