LET'S GET THE SERVICE RIGHT.

Disaffected ferroequinologist Randal O'Toole directs his scorn at the proposed Front Range Passenger Rail service, at this time intended to link Cheyenne, Denver, and Pueblo by way of several college towns.

The Denver Post, which was a major cheerleader for Denver’s $4.9 billion FasTracks plan until it became the $7.9 billion FasTracks plan, by which time it was too late, is now a major cheerleader for the Front Range passenger train plan. It claims that an Amtrak train between Chicago and Milwaukee “shows what it could be.” Yes, because Fort Collins (population: 170,000) and Pueblo (population: 112,000) are just like Milwaukee (population: 577,000), and Denver (population: 715,000) is just like Chicago (population: 2.75 million).

Mr O'Toole did not provide a link to that Post article. Here it is.  The challenge is coming up with the right kind of project and the proper use of the freight tracks the trains will use.

The possibility of a similar arrangement between Colorado and Amtrak means that for all the costs and hurdles facing the creation of a Front Range rail line — and there are many — it’s closer to reality than it might appear.

For one thing, a heavily favored 191-mile corridor between Pueblo and Fort Collins mostly would follow existing freight-rail tracks. Even with modifications needed to support passenger trains, starting up a line likely would cost a fraction of the eye-popping $10.7 billion price tag estimated by a state report earlier this year.

That estimate was for a full build-out of dedicated double-track for the entire length — a long-term, gold-standard scenario that by 2045 would allow for two dozen roundtrips each weekday serving an estimated 6,900 riders.

Building the project by increments makes sense. Amtrak's Hiawatha service started with three trips each way, and a full day in Milwaukee was not possible.  It had a two-track railroad in pretty good shape to start with, and that railroad got some improvements for faster intermodal trains.  The augmented service of today, with the Milwaukee airport stop, came later.

When Lily Trienens boarded a train in downtown Milwaukee that would take her more than 70 miles to visit family in the north Chicago suburbs, she got a glimpse of the possible future of rail travel back home in Colorado.

The 35-year-old Lyons resident had flown to Wisconsin’s most populous city for a quick business trip. Looking for an easy option to make the trek south, she found it for $24 — an hourlong journey on Amtrak’s Hiawatha train that deposited her at a station in Glenview, Illinois, close enough to be picked up.

“It’s worked out perfectly,” she said on a recent Thursday morning as the crop fields and barns outside her window in Wisconsin and northern Illinois gave way to Chicago’s sprawling suburban landscape. “It’s been so convenient. It’s been really easy. It’s affordable. It’s fast.”

In the early days of Hiawathas calling at the airport, that service came as a pleasant surprise to northern Illinois residents whose planes sometimes had to divert to Milwaukee.  Denver Post readers get a favorable review of the existing service.

As Colorado looks elsewhere for inspiration, the 86-mile Hiawatha line stands out as a well-established yardstick.

It costs $25 for the full trip from downtown Milwaukee’s Intermodal Station to Union Station in Chicago, a journey that includes three brief stops in between and takes just under 90 minutes — often faster than driving. Wireless internet is available and electrical outlets are at each seat. In Wisconsin, Amtrak Thruway-branded buses have connected several other cities to the Milwaukee station for two years.

The Hiawatha can reach speeds up to 79 mph in some sections, helping it to grow into Amtrak’s highest-ridership Midwest train prior to the pandemic, carrying nearly 880,000 riders in 2019. Its recent on-time rating was 95%, according to Amtrak data.

Ridership has been recovering gradually since pandemic service cuts were reversed in May, though the early August trains still included three passenger cars instead of the usual six.

As a train pulled out of Union Station just after 5 p.m. on a recent weekday, workers who commute from Wisconsin to downtown Chicago opened their laptops. Other riders sat with shopping bags from downtown stores at their feet.

For the first 10 minutes, the three-year-old Siemens locomotive pulled three older Amtrak coach cars slowly past warehouses and redeveloping westside neighborhoods. Then it accelerated, a change noticed by a 5-year-old boy with curly blond hair as he looked out the window.

“The train’s going fast!” he said.

“We’re getting up to speed,” replied his mother, Amy Bell-Ferries.

Yes, the former Milwaukee Road trackage is posted for 79 mph north of Pacific Junction, but that's not what "really starting to move" used to mean. Never mind that: you build the service for the infrastructure you have, provide the extra frequencies, and only then start thinking about free rein to 125.  Get too eager to spend Federal money to build capacity for bullet trains in a relatively sparsely settled region, and you run into trouble.  Think about connecting Denver to the Southwest Chief route at Trindad, and then start thinking about something resembling a corridor service toward Lincoln and Omaha or extending toward Texas.  Otherwise you well might be creating a boondoggle.  Note in that High Speed Rail post discussing connectivity in the Front Range the example they cited.  "Planners should look at projects like Brightline Florida, which launched with hourly service. Frequent departures are important to making sure these projects are truly useful to passengers."  The service did not start with hourly trains, although as rider interest increased, so did frequencies.  In addition, Brightline's trains are diesel formations capable of free rein to 125 with proper signalling and grade crossing protection, meaning they don't require the really expensive tracks.