Talk:FasTracks

Image Release

I have been trying since December to obtain a release from FasTracks/RTD for a map image for this page. There seems to be a general reluctance to send in a release for the map. Any suggestions would be welcome. Dick107 17:03, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Without knowing any details about how you approached them or how they responded, my guess is they don't have a clue about Wikipedia and perhaps are uncomfortable with the idea of people not connected with their project being in some way in control of FasTracks publicity. You might have better luck getting something secondhand through a newspaper. —mjb 04:46, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Getting the map image was the easy part. In attempting to get a release, I sent them the boilerplate from Wikimedia Commons:Email_templates (the version in the 'box') into which I inserted the Wikimedia location of the image and a GFDL-1.2 release option. The refusal from the manager that I spoke to today expressed concern about the image being altered in a way that would reflect poorly on her organization.

I didn't argue with her and had the image deleted from Commons.

I'm relatively new to Wikipedia and, although I've added my own images, this was my first attempt at obtaining a release. I felt a little frustrated with not being able to present enough of an argument (or perhaps the submission of a different release form) in order to get the approval. Dick107 06:53, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

I was looking at this page expecting a map as well. I know there was one in the Rocky Mountain news a few weeks ago when they were talking about FasTraks. Couldn't that map (or another map pulled from a public source or newspaper) be used instead of a release? Sidelko 18:05 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Possibly the biggest problem with presenting a map here is that a FasTracks map is necessarily a prediction of future events. As of 2012, a number of components of the FasTracks package are in doubt because of funding issues. Some portions may be delayed for a long time, while others may never be built at all. Please be careful with statements about the future. A map may be misleading for that reason. 06:41, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Unsourced Statements

The unsourced statement is wrong according to the timetable in the 2004 official FasTracks Plan. (last page of this pdf)

http://www.rtd-fastracks.com/media/uploads/main/FasTracks_PlanB.pdf

The original dates for completion of extensions are listed as mid 2015 for 40th/40th and 2016 for the SW line. Thus I am removing the unsourced statement. MountainTOD 19:55, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

---

CRITICISMS

I am going to put up some of the main criticisms of FasTracks so that both sides of the story are public. Please discuss if you would like.

---

4/28: I noticed that the references were all messed up so I went in there and fixed it. It appears that the last editor, in trying to clean up the language, messed up the links. It should be all good now though. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jlongo12 (talk • contribs) 20:42, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't understand why this criticism is listed here:

Environmental Impact: Randal O'Toole released another paper in April 2008 titled "Does Rail Transit Save Energy or Reduce Greenhouse Gas Emissions?", which outlines rail transit's harmful effects on the environment.

Is this a criticism of FasTracks, or rail transit in general? I glanced through the paper O'Toole wrote, and didn't see anything specific to the FasTracks system. As such, should it even be in the FasTracks article? PerryPlanet (talk) 22:53, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree, it appears to be someone with a specific axe to grind. I would remove it. We could equally well put include any number of papers and books on the Environmental effects of automobile transport without adding anything substantial to this article. --Jaded-view (talk) 05:17, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

The budgetary numbers are important for a number of reasons.

• One, because that is how the Colorado version of TABOR works: proposed projects are required to have an upper dollar cap built into the authorising ballot initiative. Using CPI instead of PPI was a mistake. CPI is a very heavily managed number (because so many things are tied to it - like tax deductions, wages and pensions - and because that's the number that TV/radio/newspapers report when they talk about inflation), while PPI isn't managed at all. CPI has been running around 3%/year, while PPI (heavy construction) has been running about 15%/year. In defence of the budgetters at RTD, back in 2003, when the FasTracks initiative was being worked on, CPI and PPI had been running about the same. However those started wildly diverged in 2004, significantly due to the wild rise in copper prices due to the accidents, strikes and shutdowns at a number of copper mines world-wide and the soaring prices of steel and concrete. One of the RTD board members described it to me: "[they] made the best decision possible with the best available information at that time."
• Two, because about 60% of RTD's revenues come from sales tax. As sales slow down due to the economy, the money to run the public transportation system dries up, which lead to some contentious board meetings last year as the combination of rising diesel prices (the city buses average about 4mpg, while the coach buses used for longer hauls get about 6mpg), combined with falling sales tax revenues lead to bus route cuts at the same time that ridership was soaring.

These points are abbreviated from a number of board meetings, the agendas and handouts you can obtain at: detailed financial and agenda handouts abbreviated handouts

Tangurena (talk) 17:40, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

References

Desired content

It'd be neat if someone could find a construction schedule or at least a schedule of the phases. I'd like to see which lines will be built in which order. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.253.171.40 (talk) 16:33, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

From the FasTracks site, the proposed schedule is available, but I agree it is hard to find. Tangurena (talk) 17:18, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Does anyone know what this system would look like after the system is compleate? A system map of a compleate system would be great. I am very new to Wikipedia and I am still trying to figure out how to get around.173.26.131.52 (talk) 13:13, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

From the FasTracks site, this page: planned routes shows what the planned system would be. The light blue routes are the current/existing light rail lines. The Gold Line, West Corridor and East Corridor routes have matching federal funding, so they have to be finished (or RTD loses about a billion dollars in grants). Due to budgetary problems, the rest of the proposed routes might not get built by 2017, or maybe later. Some of the extensions won't add a lot of value, such as the extension to the SW corridor, which extends that line to a single business park. Lots of people commute from Colorado Springs to Denver, and the South East line extension would have been quite useful for commuters to get parking and hop on the light rail, but with the introduction of parking fees (for people who live out of the RTD district) starting this month, the parking situation along the I-25 corridor (which is adjacent to the SE corridor), those parking garages aren't filling up. Out-of-district parking now runs $4/day, and combined with a ticket downtown, many folks just keep driving downtown. Tangurena (talk) 17:18, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Randal O'Toole

I've tagged the Criticisms section as being unbalanced due to the "Impact on Congestion Negligible" subsection, which struck me as heavily POV and probably needs to be reviewed by someone knowledgeable. --Shadypalm88 (talk) 06:57, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Hi. As a long-time resident of Colorado, I would like to point out that O'Toole is a right-wing anti-transit crank associated with the Independence Institute. His remarks have no place in an encyclopedia article. Paul (talk) 06:21, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Agreed O'Toole has proven himself to be an unreliable source, especially on issues relating to Denver. I have removed it. 2 December 2019 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.169.47.245 (talk) 16:45, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

Progress notes -- dates in question

The penultimate paragraph of the "Progress" section cites an announcement made by RTD in 2010 that the completion of the FasTracks "build-out" might have to be delayed until the year 2042, i.e. 32 years after the announcement. This announcement was based on funding difficulties, which are continuing.

That being the case, most of the specific dates stated in this article are highly questionable. In fact, some of the events anticipated for specific dates may not happen at all. For instance, there may not be a Northwest Rail Line except for the southernmost 6 miles. Please note that predictions of future events -- and particularly time schedules -- have a tendency to be inaccurate. Paul (talk) 06:52, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Health Impacts section

I will be removing most (if not all) of the content in the Health Impact of the Light Rail section. For the most part, the section doesn't relate to FasTracks at all, but rather discusses light rail in general or projects that are not FasTracks. I don't think this belongs on the project article. Specifically:

• "Some of the negative consequences are: increases in noise levels, loss of wetlands, adverse impacts to historic sites, gentrification and risk of displacement." The source used for this quote is discussing T-REX, not FasTracks. Furthermore, the source states the noise levels were mitigated with sound walls, the lost wetlands were replaced, doesn't mention gentrification.
• "A 2011 study done by Human Impact Partners in Minnesota showed that light rail and RTD expansion..." The study mentions Denver once in passing, and doesn't mention RTD or FasTracks by name. It is a study of the effect of light rail on St. Paul, Minnesota.
• The Injury Hazards section does not mention FasTracks at all. The sources are discussing light rail in general. While such criticisms may apply to FasTracks, applying them without a reliable source would be original research. The injury hazards information may be useful in the light rail article, but it doesn't belong here.

The Economic Growth/Development section is directly related to FasTracks, but is pretty bare-bones. I'll keep it in, but will add a maintenance template asking for expansion of the section. 98.245.42.127 (talk) 04:15, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Blacklisted Links Found on the Main Page

Cyberbot II has detected that page contains external links that have either been globally or locally blacklisted. Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed, or are highly innappropriate for Wikipedia. This, however, doesn't necessarily mean it's spam, or not a good link. If the link is a good link, you may wish to request whitelisting by going to the request page for whitelisting. If you feel the link being caught by the blacklist is a false positive, or no longer needed on the blacklist, you may request the regex be removed or altered at the blacklist request page. If the link is blacklisted globally and you feel the above applies you may request to whitelist it using the before mentioned request page, or request its removal, or alteration, at the request page on meta. When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags. The whitelisting process can take its time so once a request has been filled out, you may set the invisible parameter on the tag to true. Please be aware that the bot will replace removed tags, and will remove misplaced tags regularly.

Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:

• http://www.railway-technology.com/projects/eaglepcommuterrailpr/

  Triggered by \brailway-technology\.com\b on the local blacklist

If you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.

From your friendly hard working bot.—cyberbot II ^Notify_Online 11:51, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

 Resolved This issue has been resolved, and I have therefore removed the tag, if not already done. No further action is necessary.—cyberbot II ^Notify_Online 20:05, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

The Definition of BRT

The new express bus route on US 36, has been described as "BRT" by internal sources, but has failed to conform to the ITDP standard for what constitutes "BRT". The characterization of the new express bud route as "BRT" has been criticized and denounced in the media. There is an express mention of "BRT Creep" in the text of the criticism section, which refers to the practice of calling non-BRT systems as "BRT". THE ITDP has explicitly graded the US 36 bus system as "Not BRT" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 147.153.168.23 (talk) 14:49, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

The ITDP is not the only source we have to define BRT. If independent news sources outside of RTD widely refer to it as BRT, which they do ([1], [2]), then we call it BRT per the verifiability policy. It may not be Gold standard BRT, but it still has features that qualify it as a step above normal Express services, which already exist at RTD ([3]). Conifer (talk) 16:38, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia policies dictate that due weight be given and that the page fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources. The idea that the US 36 developments are "Not BRT" is not a fringe and have been verified via reliable, mainstream sources outside of the RTD. The whole point of the "Criticism" section is to discuss the criticisms of the page's subject, not to reinforce the ideas which are being promulgated by the subject itself. The ITDP has rated the US 36 bus system as "Not BRT", as in it does not have the features which are present in an actual "bus rapid transit" system. The new system makes no substantial changes to the previous system, as the busses remain in the same configurations, and still feature paying fares on-board the bus. The toll lane improvements to US 36 are separate from the Fastracks program altogether and does not bring the new system within the bounds of what constitutes "bus rapid transit". I am going to re-write the section in question as to more accurately reflect the criticisms which are present and to remove the lack of a neutral viewpoint. 147.153.168.23 (talk) 18:22, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Off-board fare collection is included in the US 36 project ([4]). Plus, if every aspect considered to be part of BRT by the ITDP was necessary to call a system BRT, then we would have very few of those systems in the United States. Please provide independent sources other than the ITDP or reports about the ITDP that term the US 36 buses something other than BRT. Conifer (talk) 18:41, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

In fact, there is only one bus system in the United States which is defined as "BRT" by the ITDP, which is Cleveland. The whole point of defining the phrase "bus rapid transit" is to standardize the definition of the phrase and to more accuractely classify bus systems. Here are several sources which state that the US 36 system should not be called "BRT": . This article does not conform to Wikipedia:Neutral point of view#Due and undue weight when it only calls the system "BRT", while completely ignoring the fact that this is not universally agreed up.

147.153.168.23 (talk) 19:18, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Just being published in a newspaper doesn't make it a reliable reference.

1. The first article is a letter to the editor (not reliable)
2. The second is a report on the ITDP's findings (not independent of the ITDP)
3. The third is an opinion article (not neutral).

No one authority defines BRT; instead it is a term that we give to systems according to what reliable, independent sources use. I have no problem with including content on that shortcomings of the US 36 bus system, but until you find independent sources that describe it as an express bus, we cannot call it such across the whole article. See the links above for proof that it is referred to as bus rapid transit in reliable sources. Conifer (talk) 21:36, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

References

How do you pay the toll if u used a toll road?

How do you pay the toll after you payers rhe road? Cathy Zahn (talk) 01:07, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

Tolls on the US 36 Express Lanes can be paid by transponder or license-plate tolling. Since FasTracks is an RTD transit expansion project, I think this issue would be more relevantly discussed on U.S._Route_36_in_Colorado#Boulder_to_Denver, which focuses more on private automotive use of the same corridor. I've created a section of the talk page, Talk:U.S._Route_36_in_Colorado#Toll_Payment_for_Express_Lanes_on_Boulder_to_Denver_section and added two possible references there. Msramming (talk) 23:44, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

Or there's a partial answer in U.S._Route_36_in_Colorado#Express_lanes, a section needing updating. My apologies for not scrolling down far enough on that page. Msramming (talk) 23:53, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on FasTracks. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://www.webcitation.org/61dE1wI6W?url=http://www.progressiverailroading.com/federal_legislation_regulation/article/USDOT-provides-1-billion-for-Denver-RTDs-Eagle-P3-commuterrail-project--27812 to http://www.progressiverailroading.com/federal_legislation_regulation/article/USDOT-provides-1-billion-for-Denver-RTDs-Eagle-P3-commuterrail-project--27812
• Added archive http://www.webcitation.org/61dDpt6Pu?url=http://www.rtd-fastracks.com/main_126 to http://www.rtd-fastracks.com/main_126
• Added archive http://www.webcitation.org/61dDvBaJE?url=http://www.railway-technology.com/projects/eaglepcommuterrailpr/ to http://www.railway-technology.com/projects/eaglepcommuterrailpr/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:15, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

John Hickenlooper

John Hickenlooper seems to be taking a lot of credit for this project on the campaign trail, but I don't see his name mentioned anywhere here. Perhaps someone who's familiar with the history can add some context. Walkersam (talk) 19:00, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

Colorado Public Radio's Ghost Train Podcast should have some information about Hickenlooper's involvement. Msramming (talk) 14:43, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

(Correcting website = citation ) Msramming (talk) 23:13, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

US 36 bus in managed lanes: interim or integral

There's an inconsistency in how the US 36 bus corridor (now Flatiron Flyer) is described. In the second paragraph of FasTracks#Quarter-century_Northwest_Rail_Line_delay, it's described as an "interim measure", while earlier in the article, it merits its own section, FasTracks#US_36_Corridor, as a component of the original program. If it's part of the original measure, it can't be an "interim measure" for another component of the original measure (Northwest Rail).

I'm revising to "In January 2016, RTD introduced a new express bus system in a corridor paralleling that of Northwest Rail. Branded 'Flatiron Flyer', it travels in high-occupancy toll lanes along US 36 between Denver and Boulder." Hopefully that's sufficiently neutral. I suppose I'm starting the Discuss phase in advance of my being bold and my change potentially being reverted. Msramming (talk) 15:02, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

Also, Flatiron Flyer now has ticket vending machines at stations, thus remediating one of ITDP's objections (lack of an off-board fare system). I just don't think I can cite Google StreetView as a source. These may have been installed after the agreements that came out of the Northwest Area Mobility Study (NAMS). Msramming (talk) 15:18, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

FastConnects

The FasTracks#Project_details section doesn't - but should - include a section for FastConnects, which was planned to include an enhanced bus network and mobility hubs. It's mentioned by name on the first page of the 2018 Program Overview - Executive Summary It may have been hampered by the creation of the FasTracks Internal Savings Account (FISA), which capped bus expansion planned to be paid for with part of the 0.4 percent sales tax, and instead directing that money to help complete the higher profile rail lines. But also, the way things have been renamed or rebranded (such as the East Corridor becoming the A Line, or the US 36 Corridor becoming Flatiron Flyer) might mean FastConnects is called something else that's more difficult to track. Msramming (talk) 15:34, 22 February 2022 (UTC)