A forklift moves a delivery of K Rail barriers for the construction site of the FasTracks underground bus facility north of Wewatta Street at Union Station. Inside Lane photo.

By Kevin Flynn
Inside-Lane.com

U.S. District Judge John Kane today declined to issue an order that would have halted work that began this week on the conversion of Denver Union Station into the rail hub for the FasTracks network.

At a brief hearing this morning, the judge said that RTD and the authority in charge of the redevelopment hadn’t been properly served and therefore he could not act on the motion, said Philipp Theune, attorney for plaintiff Colorado Rail Passenger Association. Colorail filed for a temporary restraining order last week, and Theune said he will redraft the motion and file it again on Monday.

“It was a glitch and we will take care of it over the weekend and serve them on Monday,” Theune said.

Colorail sued RTD, the Federal Transit Administration and the Denver Union Station Project Authority last year over FTA’s approval of the Final Environmental Impact Statement for the project. Colorail maintains that the final document, in differing substantially from the draft, did not follow the procedures in the National Environmental Policy Act that required it.

RTD and DUSPA respond that the process followed all of the rules and that the approval was proper. Earlier this month, FTA awarded the Union Station renovation project $304 million in two loans RTD and DUSPA were seeking to get the total $480 million project started.

Construction began Monday with earth work starting out north of the station property where the plan calls for an underground bus transfer station.

Among other things, Colorail said that the later inclusion of the bus station into the original plan entailed other changes, such as moving the light rail station two and a half blocks from the proposed heavy-trail commuter platforms. Colorail’s position is that the change resulted in the possibility of irreparable harm to the historic environments and future transit needs of the facility.

RTD and DUSPA disagree and say the changes were fully analyzed and worked through during the environmental study.

DENVER – The Denver Union Station Project Authority’s contractor for the Denver Union Station redevelopment project, Kiewit Western, will begin early construction activities at Denver Union Station beginning on Monday, Feb. 22, 2010.

Traffic will be redirected on Wewatta to one lane in each direction on the westbound side for a few weeks starting on Monday, Feb. 22. Traffic will then move to one lane in each direction on the eastbound side. These traffic changes will require RTD bus stops to be relocated slightly either to the east or west on Wewatta.

Additional pre-construction activities will be occurring over the next few weeks in preparation for the commencement of major construction at Denver Union Station.

Be advised that all construction activities are weather-dependent and subject to change. For complete up-to-date information on upcoming construction activities, access the Construction Details Page on the Denver Union Station Web site at www.denverunionstation.com or call 303-209-9822.

Cut-away view shows the underground bus station below 17th Street with the covered access to street level. Union Station Neighborhood Co. rendering.

By Kevin Flynn
Inside-Lane.com

A divided RTD board committee has given preliminary approval to removing a set of planned moving walkways from the design of the FasTracks transfer facility at Denver Union Station, a controversial element that has divided transit advocates and helped spawn a lawsuit.

By a 7-5 vote, members of the FasTracks Monitoring Committee – where the elected board typically gets its first look at FasTracks issues – approved a recommendation to delete the pair of moving sidewalks from the design. They had been proposed to cover 217 feet of the total distance of about 850 feet that will separate the new light rail and heavy rail passenger platforms.

The board still must consider final approval next week. With three members absent for the committee vote this week, one more member still must cast a “yes” vote to approve the change, assuming all 15 are present.

The heavy-rail commuter platform was originally planned to be adjacent to where the current light rail platform is located. Under a proposal from the developer, Union Station Neighborhood Co., in 2006, the commuter rail will stay there but the light rail will be relocated north two and a half blocks near the freight tracks and Millennium Bridge, with a new underground bus transfer facility as part of the multimodal station, replacing Market Street Station on the 16th Street Mall.

The underground bus station would double as a connector between the two rail modes, and the mall shuttle system will be extended to reach down to the new light rail platform.

The moving sidewalks were originally a concession to passengers, such as airport-bound families toting luggage, who would have to cover the distance between rail platforms.

But refined design of the 22-bay underground bus facility narrowed the width of the space so that a bus staging lane could be added underground. That made the walkways an impediment rather than a help to pedestrians, according to a report to the board by Rick Clarke, FasTracks’ acting manager for engineering.

That didn’t stop five board members from voting no, however, in a rare display of division over FasTracks among the board.

“The reason I voted for the amended master plan (several years ago) was because of the moving sidewalk,” said board member Bill Christopher. “Just fundamentally, when we moved the light rail station out, we got the moving sidewalk. But now, we have the moving sidewalk out but the light rail station is still out there.”

Rendering shows passengers headed toward commuter trains from behind Union Station. Courtesy Union Station Neighborhood Co.

Christopher voted against taking out the moving walks, along with members Matt Cohen, John Tayer, Jack O’Boyle and Wally Pulliam. Those voting in favor were Bill James, Bruce Daly, Noel Busck, Lee Kemp, Chris Martinez, Kent Bagley and Tom Tobiassen.

“One of the things I was able to tell people who were concerned about the distance between the light rail and commuter rail was that at least we were having a moving sidewalk,” Tayer said.

“We’re doing this at the expense of providing our passengers a convenient way of getting from light rail to commuter rail,” said Pulliam, who went on later in the meeting to vote against advancing $9 million from FasTracks to the developer to get construction underway in advance of receiving federal loans for the project this spring.

Pulliam wanted RTD to go with an alternative that would widen the pedestrian area within the bus station by deleting the six-bus staging lane on the west side of the underground facility. That would bring an additional 11 feet of width to the pedestrian area.

But Clarke said the staging area is essential and RTD would have difficulty finding such an area above-ground nearby in the lower downtown neighborhood, where people object to idling buses.

The move saves the $480 million project the $2 million cost of the mechanisms, known in the industry as “travelators.” It also removes $25,000 a year in anticipated operating and maintenance costs for them.

The irony is that many who advocate the moving walkways would rather not have them at all – they have been urging RTD not to relocate the light rail platform at all, but to keep it where it is and make it adjacent to the new commuter rail boarding area.

The design is part of a lawsuit filed by transit-advocate ColoRail, which says the inconvenience of the transfer will hurt ridership. RTD maintains the level of projected ridership transfers between light rail and heavy rail is small enough to minimize the problem. The transit agency also says it is too late to engage in the substantial redesign without imperiling the already tight schedule.

The transit improvements at Union Station must be completed by 2014 in time for FasTracks’ West Corridor light rail, currently under construction, to terminate there and for the imminent start of construction on the heavy-rail East Corridor line to Denver International Airport.

Other FasTracks corridors planned to terminate at Union Station are the Gold Line from Arvada-Wheat Ridge, Northwest Rail from Longmont, Boulder, Broomfield and Westminster, North Metro from Thornton and Commerce City, and the C and E light rail lines of the existing Southwest and Southeast Corridors from Littleton and Douglas County.

RTD board member Jack O'Boyle of Lone Tree, right, discusses the FasTracks financial plan while member Kent Bagley of Littleton listens. Inside Lane photo.

By Kevin Flynn
Inside-Lane.com

An RTD board committee gave preliminary approval Tuesday evening to a financial plan for FasTracks that keeps the option open for the time being of asking metro Denver voters for a second sales tax increase in November.

But several members were clear they think that option is not realistic.

The full board is expected to make a decision sometime in March or April whether it will take the plunge into the November 2010 ballot to seek a sales take hike of up to 0.4 cents to close a $2.45 billion funding gap and allow the transit agency to build the $6.5 billion rapid transit expansion by the original 2017 completion date.

But just in case, the board’s FasTracks Monitoring Committee – consisting of the full board, although three members were absent Tuesday evening – recommended a Plan B. That was to develop a financial plan for the program based on putting off going to voters until 2012.

Approving the current financial plan that assumes voters will approve a tax hike this fall was purely a placeholder measure. Board members made it clear they aren’t ready yet to make that call, and are hearing from constituents that they shouldn’t try it until the economy shows betters signs of a solid recovery.

In fact, several board members balked at seeming to send the wrong message by giving the public the impression a 2010 election was a go.

Bill Christopher

“The message that has to be sent on this is that this board has not yet made its decision,” added Jack O’Boyle, a board member from Lone Tree.

Julie Skeen, manager of program-wide support for FasTracks, told them to think of the staff recommendation to keep the 2010 vote as an option if only because the board hasn’t decided either way.

“It’s simply there so as not to preclude you from making that decision,” she said.

Bill Van Meter, RTD’s planning manager, said it is important for the board to approve a financial plan in order to submit the data to the Denver Regional Council of Governments, which does an annual review and approval for the FasTracks program in the spring.

RTD’s calendar calls for a decision on a 2010 election by April at the latest, due to various deadlines for other activities that need to happen if the decision is yes.

Waiting until 2012 to go to voters would add an estimated $400 million to the price tag through inflation caused by the delay. It changes some of the original assumptions of the program and could lead to attrition of the program staff during the interim.

“We are working in very aggressive fashion to determine, if we do go in 2012, what else we would have to do in that case,” said RTD General Manager Phil Washington.

Of course, the projections in both the Plan A and Plan B financial plans assume voters say yes. RTD board members and staff are hearing a lot of cautions from the community that such an assumption is overly optimistic.

On the other hand, RTD’s projections show that with the impacts of the recession and the precipitous drop in sales tax revenues, if it were to have only the revenue from the initial 0.4 cent sale tax approved in 2004 – along with federal grants and other resources assumed in that 2004 plan – it would now take until 2042 to complete all 10 FasTracks rapid transit corridors.

FasTracks consists of four new heavy-rail commuter train corridors, two new light rail corridors, extensions to three existing light rail corridors and one Bus Rapid Transit corridor, on U.S. 36.

With existing revenue trends and no new tax, RTD says it can only project completing the West Corridor light rail now under construction in Denver, Lakewood and Golden, Phase One of the Bus Rapid Transit improvements that are well underway on U.S. 36, conversion of Denver Union Station into the FasTracks rail hub, the East Corridor heavy-rail commuter line to Denver International Airport – and, perhaps, the Gold Line commuter rail to Arvada and Wheat Ridge.

Left without sufficient funds for completion would be the Northwest Rail commuter corridor to Westminster, Broomfield, Boulder and Longmont, the North Metro commuter corridor to Commerce City and Thornton and the Interstate 225 light rail corridor in Aurora, as well as the extensions to the Southeast Corridor, Southwest Corridor and the original Central Corridor light rail lines.

ColoRail, the Colorado Rail Passengers Association, has raised concerns about the new train station since the project was first conceived eight years ago. The inability to make easy connections quickly and easily is the group’s primary concern.

Go to Lakewood Edge to read the entire article.

“It’s the same kind of bait and switch” as when the light-rail platform was moved 2 1/2 blocks west of Union Station in the redevelopment design for the area, said board member Wally Pulliam. The moving sidewalks are supposed to make the transfer between the light-rail and commuter-rail stations easier for commuters, Pulliam said.

The Denver Union Station Project Authority, which is planning the $480 million remake of the station area as part of FasTracks, says the underground bus station linking the two rail facilities is too narrow and crowded for the currently designed moving walkways and they likely will increase congestion for pedestrians.

Go to the Denver Post to see the entire article.

The backing would be needed if tax receipts from the redevelopment fail to cover debt payments.

Denver finance chief Claude Pumilia told members of the Denver City Council’s FasTracks committee that the action is needed quickly to keep the $480 million project on schedule.

Go to the Denver Post to see the entire article.

Rendering shows DUS underground bus station with moving sidewalks now proposed to be removed.

Rail transit advocates on Thursday afternoon criticized a proposed change in the FasTracks’ Denver Union Station design that they had both predicted and feared.

A board member of the Denver Union Station Project Authority is proposing to remove moving walkways from a below-ground covered bus station meant to help transport riders between light rail and commuter train platforms nearly three blocks apart.

The Colorado Rail Passengers Association, which has long advocated keeping the light rail and heavy rail boarding areas adjacent to each other– thus not needing moving sidewalks to connect them — said it expected the proposed change because it always thought there wasn’t enough room for the moving sidewalks within the bus station area connecting the two train platforms.

ColoRail president Ira Schreiber said changes need to be made in the plan. “This shows that the present plan does not work to serve the future users of Denver Union Station.”

You can look at a document outlining the change, with drawings, here.

DUSPA member Robin Kniech proposed on Thursday that DUSPA eliminate plans for two moving sidewalks that would have helped riders get from a new light rail station at the north end of 17th Street, near the freight railroad mainline, to the heavy rail commuter trains that will go where the light rail platform is now located behind Union Station.

DUSPA is considering the change because Kniech says the walkways too short to be effective, and because they would use up a significant amount of the pedestrian circulation space and seating areas in the underground bus station.

In a letter that you can read and download here, Kniech wrote that she had started as a proponent of the moving walks especially out of concern for disabled people and the elderly.

“Since that time a number of engineering requirements have dictated a change in the design of the bus facility and the moving walkway, to the point where I no longer believe it serves its intended purpose, and in some regards may actually negatively impact access,” Kniech said in the letter.

Cost was also behind her proposal.

“Although my recommendation is motivated by design considerations, I also believe it to be prudent for the project financially, as the walkway is estimated to cost between $2 and 4 million to construct and an unknown but costly amount to operate and maintain.

“This results in passengers having no other choice but to walk the distance from the light rail to their bus stop, or walking to the commuter rail tracks,” the ColoRail statement said. “ColoRail has said for years that there wasn’t enough room in the bus box for all the people, wheelchairs, bicycles and lines of passengers for the ticket booths and bus loading.”

Deleting the walkways would cut $2 million from the project cost, estimated at $500 million.

The proposal received no official action, and before it can become official, it must be reviewed by RTD, which had signed off on the plan when the moving walkways were included. DUSPA is an entity created by Denver to manage the financing and contracting of the Union Station development. RTD is part of the board of DUSPA.

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.

RTD photo shows Denver Union Station at 17th and Wynkoop streets lit up for the 2007 World Series featuring the Colorado Rockies.

Transit advocates might seem like odd opponents of a transit project, but members of Colorail – the Colorado Rail Passenger Association – and their supporters plan to speak out Thursday night against the current design of the FasTracks rail hub at Denver Union Station.

The occasion is a public meeting of the Denver Union Station Project Authority, the entity overseeing the financing and contracts for the redevelopment of the historic station and its environs.

The meeting is scheduled for 5:30 p.m. Thursday at RTD headquarters, 1600 Blake St. You can view the meeting notice and agenda here.

The meeting includes a presentation on “public realm schematic design,” the concept plan for integrating the various public elements of the 19.5-acre site including the passenger platforms for boarding trains, an underground bus station, shuttle bus routes and pedestrian pathways and plazas.

FasTracks commuter trains would stop under a partial canopy right behind Union Station.

Colorail members say the way the design evolved over the past few years makes the so-called “crown jewel” of RTD’s FasTracks program – the Union Station hub and the ancillary commercial development that will help finance the improvements – more like costume jewelry. Even though their questions are long-standing – the issue first arose more than two and a half years ago – they plan to raise them again during the questioning period of the DUSPA board’s meeting.

RTD and its supporters, on the other hand, say the current design is a result of cost constraints, operational issues and consensus building over the course of a lengthy environmental process, and that the issues Colorail raises were discussed and settled. Reversing course would add cost and schedule delay that the FasTracks program cannot absorb. The Federal Transit Administration signed off 13 months ago on the Record of Decision approving the environmental plan.

Critics believe the current design leaves no capacity for expansion of bus connections or intercity trains, and is less convenient for transit riders than the original concept voters saw in 2004 when they approved FasTracks. Originally, the light rail tracks and the new FasTracks heavy-rail commuter train tracks were adjacent to each other and right behind Union Station, allowing quick transfers.

Map shows transit access to Denver Union Station, with light rail in blue, commuter rail in yellow and the 16th Street Mall shuttle in red. Colorail wants the blue line at the top left to come down to Union Station, as it does today, so light rail is closer to the yellow commuter train lines.

You can read Colorail’s criticism here. Colorail is the plaintiff in a suit filed last spring against the Federal Transit Administration over the agency’s approval a year ago of the Environmental Impact Statement for the Union Station project. You can read Colorail President Ira Schreiber’s letter explaining the lawsuit here.

The current plan that has light rail trains from southwest, southeast and the new West Corridor stopping at a station platform next to the freight rail tracks about 1,100 feet, roughly three blocks, away from Union Station’s door. Meanwhile, the FasTracks commuter lines – the East Corridor to Denver International Airport, Gold Line to Arvada and Wheat Ridge, Northwest Rail to Westminster, Broomfield, Boulder and Longmont, and North Metro Corridor to Commerce City and Thornton – all converge on five tracks right behind the station.

Cut-away view shows the underground bus station below 17th Street with the covered access to street level.

“Denver Union Station will cost, including 30-year interest on federal loans, almost $1 billion,” said Bert Melcher, a Colorail member who once served on the RTD board. “It will be outgrown long before the loans are paid. The underground bus terminal will be at capacity by 2030 and there is no way to expand it for further increases in bus traffic. Few additional national or intercity trains will be able to enter DUS. There are better alternative layouts that will cost far less and have a long-term capacity and far better intermodal connectivity.”

The changes that Colorail wants, said Roger Sherman, a consultant who is spokesman for the Union Station project, would require reopening the Environmental Impact Statement for a supplemental study, because the changes would substantive.

A similar EIS reopening on the West Corridor light rail FasTracks project took 10 months in 2007. Early related construction on the Union Station project already has begun and major work was to start this fall, but may be put off to early next year. Delaying for a new environmental process would add to the time and, along with redesign work, would significantly delay the completion beyond the 2015 time needed to meet the planned opening of the line to DIA.

“It could add years” to the project, Sherman said.