GETTING THERE: High-speed rail system attractive but expensive idea

An interesting exercise kicked off this week, when a coalition of governments and transit organizations announced a yearlong study on the feasibility of high-speed rail in Colorado.

The $1.5 million study, to be done for an umbrella organization called the Rocky Mountain Rail Authority, will examine whether it is economically and technically possible to build high speed rail along the Interstate 70 and Interstate 25 corridors. (Visit www.rockymountainrail.org)

The study is required should the state asks the feds to designate Colorado as the country's 11th high-speed rail corridor, a designation that makes some funding available.

Given the inevitable escalation of fuel prices and an antiquated interstate system (despite recent improvements on I-25), the idea sounds really neat and really forward-thinking. An hour from Denver to Vail? Groovy. Thirty-five minutes from the Springs to Denver? Yeah, baby.

Just don't hold your breath. Even at first blush, there are massive hurdles to overcome before a bullet train could ever rip across the landscape.

Let's look at the I-70 corridor: To win federal high-speed rail corridor designation, trains must travel a minimum of 90 miles an hour. How much would it cost to design, grade and build a train system capable of that speed up I-70's Floyd Hill and down through the twisty canyon to Idaho Springs, a distance of less than 30 miles? Oh, about $1 billion, one expert has estimated.

How about the cost and technical challenges of building high-speed rail through Eisenhower tunnel and over Vail pass? Then there's the cost of building proposed spurs to Steamboat, Aspen and Breckenridge.

Add in the cost of a massive reconstruction of I-70, which local governments along the route have demanded (probably smartly) be included as part of any rail system. Finally, there's that messy, expensive chore of buying rights of way along the many miles of the corridor where there are no existing tracks.

The I-25 corridor presents less technical and perhaps less costly challenges. The tracks exist and generally follow the interstate, although presumably they would need to be upgraded and isolated to allow trains running speeds of 125 mph, 150, or even 250 mph.

The state is studying what it would take to relocate to the eastern plains the freight and coal trains that now use the tracks from northeast of Denver through Colorado Springs. The estimated cost: A minimum of $600 million.

Last but not least, there's the question of who will pay the bill, loosely estimated to be $13 billion if trains run on both corridors. Forget the state and feds. The Colorado Department of Transportation can‘t even fund the I-25/Baptist Road interchange, and the feds' pork only rolls so far downhill. Besides, it has its hands full subsidizing the only true high-speed train in America, Amtrak's heavily used Acela Express between Washington, D.C., and Boston.

There's little doubt that if Coloradans want high-speed rail, they're going to have to raise their taxes to pay for it. While it may well be a great investment for our children's children, that argument is always a tough sell at the ballot box.

What do readers think? Is high-speed rail a good investment? Should it run along both interstates? Would it solve our transportation problems? Would you help pay for it? Are there better alternatives? E-mail or visit this column at gazette.com to share your thoughts.

Tell me your commuter tales. 636-0197 or
bill.mckeown@gazette.com