The Gazette reports that the Front Range Passenger Rail District has unveiled a draft delivery plan for a proposed passenger train running from Fort Collins to Pueblo along the Interstate 25 corridor. The district may ask voters in November to approve a 0.333 percent sales-tax increase expected to raise about $295 million annually for construction and operations.
That is the official pitch. Here is the part taxpayers should circle in red ink: state agencies and RTD have already directed more than $6 million in public money toward “education and outreach” before the possible tax measure even reaches the ballot. The spending includes polling, town halls, coalition building, branding, marketing and a shiny new identity called the Colorado Connector, because apparently every permanent tax needs a logo before voters get a final question.
Then comes the frosting. The draft plan includes special-event stations for the proposed Broncos stadium at Burnham Yards and the Denver Summit FC stadium near South Broadway and Interstate 25. Passenger rail may have a legitimate role in Colorado’s future. But when a plan sold as regional mobility starts accessorizing itself with sports-palace stops while taxpayers fund the preballot warm-up act, skepticism is not anti-transit. It is basic adult supervision.
The Bullet Point Brief
- More than $6 million in public money is already funding outreach. CDOT provided $3 million, and RTD approved another $3 million. Officials call it education. Taxpayers may reasonably wonder when education ends and campaign foreplay begins.
- The district may seek a 0.333 percent sales-tax increase. The proposal could raise about $295 million every year. Permanent taxes are funny that way. The ribbon-cutting is temporary. The collection plate is forever.
- The outreach budget includes polling, branding and coalition building. The adopted budget lists $794,000 for grassroots and coalition building and $565,000 for outreach, marketing and branding. Nothing screams neutral public information like market research, message development and a professionally polished logo.
- The plan includes special-event stations for two proposed stadiums. One would serve a possible Broncos stadium at Burnham Yards. Another would serve Denver Summit FC near South Broadway. Regional mobility apparently comes with luxury-box access.
- The full-service price tag is still measured in billions. The draft estimates $332 million for starter service from Denver to Fort Collins, $1.7 billion for full service to Pueblo and another $2.7 billion for expanded service. Consultants see a transportation plan. Taxpayers see a wedding cake where every new layer requires another fork.
My Bottom Line
I am not reflexively against scalable and efficient transit. I am vehemently opposed to the massive money suck that is the Guv’s fantasy choo-choo. A serious system that moves workers, reduces congestion, and connects Colorado communities deserves a serious discussion. But seriousness begins with trust, and trust is not built by spending millions of taxpayer dollars to soften up voters before presenting them with another tax.
The district says this is public education. Fine. Then show every receipt, every polling question, every consultant contract, every branding invoice and every coalition-building expenditure. Explain exactly how publicly funded outreach remains neutral when the whole operation is preparing the ground for a proposed tax increase. Taxpayers should not have to guess whether they are being informed or focus-grouped.
The stadium stops make the optics worse because they reveal who always seems to ride first class in Colorado’s grand visions. Developers benefit. Teams benefit. Entertainment districts benefit. Consultants get paid. Transit planners get a bigger map. Denver boosters get another glossy rendering. The ordinary taxpayer gets the bill, the brochure and a lecture about civic responsibility.
Before asking Coloradans for another damn tax, the Front Range Passenger Rail District needs to answer the ugly questions. Are these special-event stations genuine transportation priorities or public infrastructure dressed up as a luxury amenity? Is this outreach neutral education or taxpayer-funded sales preparation? And why does every sweeping Colorado “vision” somehow end with regular people paying more so powerful interests can make their projects pencil out?
Source: The Gazette