|
Progress Updates & FAQ |
|
Updates: January 12, 2006 RFTA rejects proposal for 4.75 miles, encourages shorter route propoosal At the January 2006 RFTA meeting The Glenwood Heritage Train group proposal for operation over the 4.75 miles to Orrison was turned down. However, GHT was encouraged to consider operation on a shorter 2 mile route to the Glenwood Springs City limits. GHT is revising its proposal.
October 13, 2005 RFTA hears GHT proposal and directs 90 day study of issues Matt Armitage presented his Glenwood Heritage Train proposal. R&T delivered an analysis showing that by using a boardwalk in sloped terrain, the parallel trail can be built at no additional cost. RFTA voted 6 to 1 to direct staff to study the following issues related to leasing its rails and report back in January: o Crossings - Signalization -> FRA to decide - Traffic staging -> CDOT to weigh in o Parking -> wye or MOC o Insurance Renee (board) & UP to Determine o Salvage Analysis o Trail costs -> $20k for trail design & estimate o Staff time -> Dan to determine o RFP question -> Rel' from Renee o Safety Barrier -> RFA to decide o Freight -> not a requirement o To Carbondale -> Matt said yes o What is GS (& Carb) willing to chip in for trail costs? o 27th to 13th question o Developers o Comparison of trail costs
October 6, 2005 Gws council hears GHT proposal and endorses excursion train
September 8, 2005 RFTA directs staff to hold back 27th to Orrison from salvage negotiations RFTA has selected Tie Yard of Omaha for salvage which bid $1.2 million for salvage rights and approved entering into final negotiations. It voted to separate and withhold for 90 days the section from 27th street to Orrison Distributing. RFTA has set a salvage value of $350,000 for this 3.5 mile section and the cost of building a parallel trail at $800,000. RFTA revealed it will cost $200,000 for revegetation and part of $560,000 for survey markers to remove the rails.
In the weeks before the meeting Armitage investors revealed to the public its RF&RG Proposal to create and operate the Roaring Fork & Rio Grande (RF&RG) Railroad dinner/excursion train between Glenwood Springs and Carbondale. This proposal was individually presented to RFTA board members, but they felt the magnitude of the proposal left too many uncertainties..
The investment group revised their preliminary proposal to create a scaled down proposal for a Glenwood Heritage Train operating from Gws to Orrison They mailed this proposal to RFTA board members on August 30, 2005. RFTA scheduled a public review of this proposal at its October 13th board meeting.
August 11, 2005 RFTA refuses to discuss proposals/ R&T closes process R&T notified RFTA prior to its meeting today it had a preliminary proposal, two letters of interest, and a list of four interested operators for a dinner/excursion train. At the meeting it attempted to present this information and asked it to accept proposals. RFTA refused to discuss the matter. It left a very small crack in the door to sneak in the preliminary proposal by personally presenting it to individual board members. R&T notifies all interested operators the proposal process is closed.
July 27, 2005 Proposal Response Dates Set by R&T Monday August 8, 2005 - Respondents are requested to submit a preliminary proposal or letter of intent to Rails and Trails by August 9th.
July 25, 2005 RFTA RFP for Salvage Today the Roaring Fork Transit Authority issued a RFP for salvaging the rails. The contract is to be awarded on August 26, 2005. This dictates the schedule for responding to R & T's Excursion Train RFP.
July 16, 2005 Salvage approved - article ADN, T Watkins The [Colorado Historical Society,] Colorado Department of Transportation and the Federal Highway Administration have decided that pulling up the valley's rails and selling them as scrap would not have any negative environmental or historical impacts. A salvage firm to buy the scrapped rail has yet to be found, but Blankenship [RFTA] said requests for proposals should go out in the near future. A firm has been found to build the trails -- Aspen Earthmoving LLC -- and work is expected to begin Monday on a 3-mile stretch of trail between Catherine Store and Carbondale. KW Note: An extensive and expensive survey of the rail corridor is needed before the rails can be removed.
May 27, 2005 R&T RFP for Glenwood excursion train issued |
|
Frequently Asked Questions
Will a parallel trail cost more? No R&T has analyzed using a boardwalk in sloping terrains which it believes is no more expensive than building on the roadbed. RFTA is reviewing the concept.
Will the excursion train delay the trail? No RFTA can build the parallel trail for no additional cost or delay. Any additional cost is a problem as RFTA is already under budgeted to complete the trail by 2010.
Is parking available? Yes There is unutilized space along the rails in the wye. With Glenwood approval, additional space may become available in two adjacent city parking lots.
Will trains block intersections and backup traffic? No Trains will be flagged by the brakeman coordinated with the traffic light. The 3 trains/day will quickly pass through the intersections at off peak times.
Will crossing be safe? Yes The train will stop at traffic intersection and be flagged through by the brakeman only when clear for all. The trail plan avoids crossing the railroad.
Will the trains be noisy? No The horn will only be sounded at the four signalized intersections which are unpopulated or surrounded by businesses. A small diesel engine will pull the train.
Will the GHT limit itself to weekends and summer operation? No Running more weeks, days and trains is planned as are evening excursions, private parties, special events, holidays and tour packages.
Do the train and trail need be separated by barriers? Yes, but infrequently In banked terrain where boardwalk will be employed, the rails and trails may have to be placed in close proximity. The boardwalk's fencing will provide separation.
How does RFTA benefit? RFTA will recieve $30,000/year from a lease. Salvage income is delayed, not lost. GHS is responsible for operations, maintenance and liabilities, relieving RFTA of any burden.
RFP Related Questions:
Could a shorter route be considered? Yes, if the route began in Glenwood. This approach might be more attractive to RFTA as the length of a parallel trail land income from salvage would be reduced. The more scenic part of the route would be lost. The GHT proposal only uses the 5 miles to Orrison Distributing.
What insurance coverage is required? The RFTA shared use agreement with the UP sets the insurance at $5 million for passenger operation. Now UP is claiming an excursion train does not meet this requirement and is asking $25 million. RFTA will have to defend its rights as the owner of the rails.
Has RFTA voted to salvage the rails?
Would RFTA have to assume Freight Carrier Status? No. The Armitage proposal does not include freight operation. In the past RFTA lawyers determined the contract can be written so the rails can again be "banked" when excursion operation is concluded.
What will it cost to make the railroad operational and how many grade crossing need upgrading? The rails, as they are, are serviceable and little maintenance is required for FRA certification for 10mph operation. The rails were maintained and used to haul coal until 1991.
Pending FRA approval, flagging is proposed for intersections and crossing signals will not have to be activated or installed. There are only four intersections in the route potentially requiring new or upgraded signals.
Will RFTA have to assume additional administrative Costs? No. Other than completing a review of open issues and writing a lease agreement, operational responsibilities and maintenance will fall to the leaser.
Does a new RFP have to be issued? This is being researched by RFTA legal staff. If necessary it can be accomplished within 90 days.
|
|
FAQs |
|
Progress Updates |