By Bob Brewster
Vice President, Colorado Rail Passenger Association

Why would a group of especially devoted and knowledgeable rail advocates bring a legal action against the redevelopment plan for Denver Union Station? In a word: Violations. It violates good principles of transportation, it violates the Vision Statement of the plan, it violates fiscal prudence, it violates the historical character and protection of the station, and it violates the trust of the voters who taxed themselves for an efficient rail system for their future mobility requirements.

1) Good principles of transportation demand that passenger convenience and operating efficiency preside over all other considerations, especially when the public is picking up the tab. Good principles include the “one-seat-ride,” which negates a change in modes between origin and destination. Another is close-proximity connections, when they are unavoidable, saving time and trouble, and providing ultimate convenience. Another good principle provides for through-operation of transit modes at the central hub, which minimizes dwell time at the hub station, saving valuable space and adding capacity simultaneously.

The DUS plan ignores through-operation of light rail, heavy rail, and bus, negating the possibility of any one-seat-rides beyond DUS. The plan pulls apart the already paid-for current close proximity of light and heavy rail by two blocks or more, robbing the transit patron of time and convenience. And robbing the system of potential riders: An established transit axiom suggests up to half of potential riders will decline to use the service if a transfer is involved. The quality of the connection will determine patron participation, such as the time, distance, and convenience required to change transit modes.

Through-operation could be accomplished by extending the existing “tail tracks” to rejoin the mainline railroad tracks from which they were severed many years ago, when the city reconfigured Speer Boulevard. The tail tracks are the existing extensions of 5 station tracks that terminate at Cherry Creek along Wewatta Street. But planners believe it is more important to place a building where those tracks to the future are located, and more important to accommodate automobiles in the crucible of the rail spine in what was supposed to be a transportation project. While the tail tracks pertain to heavy rail, light rail could have been better positioned for future extensions as well, such as to Coors Field and beyond.

Adequate station capacity is yet another good principle. With the proposed DUS plan, capacity is limited, since all trains must reverse direction at the “stub end,” requiring time and taking up platform space. The same is true of the planned underground bus facility, which must accommodate layovers. It is a bus stop and a storage facility, requiring a larger footprint than a simple loading/unloading accommodation. These types of activities waste precious and expensive on-site space, and they are a direct result of not providing for through-operations of all transit modes.

Adequate station capacity should be a paramount concern in order to accommodate rail and transit services that are certain to become reality. DUS will open largely at capacity, hampering efforts to host future services. This is terribly shortsighted.

2) The DUS Vision Statement and Master Plan implied a number of seemingly benevolent components. One by one they have been diminished or eliminated:

“Better connectivity between transit modes.”
• Many will be worse (light rail/commuter rail).
• Others come with a hefty price tag (taxpayer-funded mall shuttle extension).
• Bus/rail connections will vary in two-block-long underground bus facility; worse than present.
• Greater distances between connecting transit vehicles will have a disproportionate adverse impact on the disabled community.

“Provide for interstate & intercity bus operations and their connections.”
• Hub for those services eliminated; reduced to two bus bays.

“Unite critical elements of the local, regional, statewide, and national transportation systems, both public and private, existing and planned (emphasis added).”
• There will be little room for additional services in any category, it opens almost to capacity.
• Existing accommodations for excursion trains and private rail cars virtually nonexistent.

“Amtrak equipment requires more land and construction”
• About 25 percent of DUS site, which could accommodate above services and capacity, will be sold to the developer for the placement of buildings rather than rails.
• Planners’ claims that expansion can occur at mainline railroad tracks three blocks from the station are likely uncertain and inadequate, and further “balkanize” (Amtrak’s word) rail services, resulting in great inefficiency and inconvenience for patrons and service providers.

“Transform … DUS into a multimodal transportation hub of international significance, and a prominent and distinctive gateway to downtown Denver and the region.”
• Multimodal? By removing and diminishing modes?
• International significance? Highly unlikely, with a buried bus station as the focal point.

“Prominent and distinctive gateway.”
• Adjacent to a three-track freight railroad saturated with 110-car coal trains hauled by massive diesel locomotives, or entering a bus hole?

“Offer the region’s citizens many more transportation options, all in one place (emphasis added).”
• Transportation options are NOT in one place; they are scattered about the developer’s other land holdings, suggesting alternate agendas.
• The “place” has been expanded by 13 acres, separating transit modes by as much as three blocks.

“Denver Union Station will create an exciting transportation crossroads … respecting the character and historical significance of this handsome station.”
• Most transit patrons will have no reason to visit the station since they will arrive and depart blocks away on extended shuttles.
• Respect character by placing large buildings directly next to the station, hiding it from many sightlines and plunging the revered plazas in shadow much of the time?
• Respect character by demolishing existing, functional, and already-paid-for historic pedestrian tunnel that links all tracks to historic station? What historical significance is honored in this manner?

3) Fiscal prudence is not apparent in the DUS plan. Much existing infrastructure will be destroyed when it could have been modified and expanded to host the FasTracks corridors and all existing and future users.

And there will be significant operating costs in perpetuity: Extended mall shuttles (buses, drivers, maintenance, fuel) and extensive ventilation and pumping, due to the water table, at the underground bus facility.

Plus, there will undoubtedly be costs to accommodate future services, already being studied, that will not find space at DUS because there will be buildings occupying the ground where their rails could have been.

This elaborate plan also includes a massive roof that sports a massive opening, exposing all those below to all the elements that Colorado has to offer. It is gratuitous, out of place, functionless and costly.

Then there is the ruthless excavation of the entire site by some four feet to implement the more costly “high-level” train platforms. This time-consuming and expensive exercise is not necessary, other than to address aesthetics. The high-level platforms result from RTD’s most curious decision to select single-level railcars, in total contrast to almost every other new and existing commuter rail line in the nation. In further contradiction to practices elsewhere, it is important to note that a dozen or more municipal transit systems have spent millions to bring light rail into close proximity with its heavy rail counterpart for passenger convenience, just as Denver did some eight years ago, but which Denver will now pay even more to remove, wasting the original expenditure.

Of course, during this excavation adventure, current users of DUS (Amtrak, Ski Train, etc.) will need “temporary” alternate housing for three to four, costing millions more. This inconvenience likely could be avoided by incrementally adjusting current track and platform configurations on the current grade, as needed.

Finally, how will the current downturn in commercial real estate jeopardize the financing scheme for the DUS plan? Could that be why Standard & Poor’s declined to give the proposed DUS bonds a rating? Is there really a market for all of the proposed development near DUS? If existing businesses relocate to DUS will that cause problematic vacancies elsewhere? Would it be more prudent to separate the transit components from the private development and just build the more modest transportation hub with the already dedicated funds from the FasTracks revenue stream?

Rendering shows the commuter rail boarding platforms planned for behind Denver Union Station' the light rail platforms are proposed to be being relocated north of here, near the existing freight tracks.

(4) The historic character of DUS will be permanently tarnished with the presence of the proposed side-flanking buildings. They will hide and detract from the historic architecture of the station building and plunge much of the plaza area and neighborhood in shadow. The currently in-use and historically designated pedestrian tunnel linking the tracks to the station will be destroyed. The DUS plan violates the historic nature of the site and its facilities.

(5) In 2004, area voters convincingly approved RTD’s FasTracks plan that would add numerous rail corridors to the existing transit system. Denver Union Station was designated to be the central hub of all of these corridors even before FasTracks became reality. There was even a reference to “NexTracks,” suggesting further corridor additions.

But voter trust has been violated because DUS transportation elements have been manipulated and compromised to favor real estate development and auto mobility, as described in the preceding paragraphs. The four government entities that purchased DUS in 2001 surrendered their transportation obligations and responsibilities to a prominent real estate development consortium which owns adjoining land parcels ripe for financial exploitation. As such, it appears that only the public transit components have become malleable, morphing from all underground locations to scattered locations. Streets and buildings seem to have escaped such manipulation, perhaps sacrosanct, even though the transit election enabled this ambitious project to proceed.

It is understandable that land-locked Denver must develop within its set boundaries. Development of its downtown core offers tantalizing opportunities to showcase a great municipality. The promise of multiple transit corridors penetrating that core only ratchets up the opportunities. And it is further appropriate for the private sector development to profit and share the prosperity and greatness. But it is not appropriate to take advantage of the taxpayers’ generosity and shortchange their transportation opportunities for the future.

It should be further noted that FasTracks and DUS belong to the eight-county region that enabled the monumental transit project, designed to benefit all communities. DUS is not solely in Denver’s domain and it is unfortunate that Denver has disproportionate influence on the board of the governing agency for the project.

There are many compelling reasons to assure success of FasTracks and its vital DUS component, both locally and in the wider realm. Air pollution and ozone figure prominently in the population’s health, aggravated by congested roadways, their limits and inefficiencies, especially during bad weather. Our population, which is both aging and growing, creates new mobility challenges. Air transportation conundrums abound, and flights of 500 miles or less make less sense than rail corridors of similar length. And, of course, the uncertainty of oil pricing and availability confounds the world economy. The DUS plan fails to fulfill its optimum potential to address these many critical transportation vulnerabilities.

Efficient mobility is essential to economic vitality. The plan for DUS falls short of that efficiency. As residents and government officials twist in the wind over FasTracks’ significant budget shortfalls, there is a parallel twisting in the DUS financing. Yet there are equitable solutions to the DUS financing fragility. The entire Union Station neighborhood needs a re-examination. Transit services must be viewed through the eyes of the potential rider and the neighborhood mobility must be viewed through the eyes of the pedestrian. That is what Transit Oriented Development is all about. Denver has a unique, one-time opportunity to make a statement about how it views its sustainable future. Transportation must rule this unique neighborhood as it once again serves as the foundation of a greater Denver, region, and state.

And that is why the Colorado Rail Passenger Association has taken legal action against the prevailing plan for Denver Union Station. The easy-to-read lawsuit can be viewed by clicking on this link to www.colorail.org.