Does SMARTrans, a single-track, meter-gauge railway, have the capacity required for an alternative to the I-70 highway? The key factors to consider are:
- that this is a relatively low-demand route, and
- that peak demands are strongly in one direction only.
As far as demand is concerned, the Denver Metro Area is of modest size, perhaps 2 million people, and the mountain communities to be served have fewer than 60,000 people. Despite tourist visits, this corridor has much lighter traffic than many urban corridors more suited to a high-speed monorail (if one existed). For example, Dallas to Houston involves two urban centers with 4 million population each, which are separated by largely flat terrain.
The Colorado Intermountain Fixed Guideway Authority (CIFGA) has arbitrarily set a peak capacity requirement for its monorail system of 10,000 passengers per hour. When, if ever, this capacity would be required is highly problematical, but SMARTrans could meet this demand if it were ever required. Each Stadler GTW 4x8 trainset (3 cars) has a capacity of 266 passengers. In this case, three trainsets would be coupled together so that each train has a capacity of 798 passengers. Thus, 13 trains per hour would provide a 10,374-passenger capacity. Four of these trains would be the locals operating every half hour in each direction. The other nine would be Expresses operating in the high-demand direction only.
Along the critical Empire/Golden sector, the nine Expresses would be operated in three groups of three trains, with each group twenty minutes apart. The three trains in each group would be from (or headed to) Vail, Breckenridge and Winter Park. Within the group these three trains would operate on one-half-minute headways (an average distance between each train would be a comfortable one-half mile) so that the transit time of each group past any given point is only a minute and a half. Thus, none of the local trains (which take to the passing tracks when the Express group goes by) are delayed. These locals have over 18 minutes of running time between the passing of the Express groups and therefore would experience no delays.
But is a capacity of 10,000 passengers per hour realistic? Using the Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT) estimate that peak hour traffic accounts for 15% of peak day traffic, this level implies a daily use by over 66,000 passengers, which exceeds the combined population of all of the mountain counties served!
Also, according to CDOT, the peak demand capacity in either direction of I-70 through Clear Creek County is 2,600 vehicles per hour. At 1.9 people per vehicle, the resulting figure of about 5,000 passengers per hour is one-half of CIFGA's requirement. But most transportation experts would not expect any transit system in this situation to attract more than 20 to 25% of the highway traffic capacity. Put another way, this 10,000 passengers per hour is equivalent to almost 30 Jumbo Jets unloading over a one-hour period which would even tax the capability of DIA.
Clearly, SMARTrans can provide any capacity necessary for the foreseeable future along the I-70 Mountain Corridor. And this fact is true even if demand eventually developed to the excessive levels CIFGA uses to justify its selection of its double-tracked, expensive, unsightly and unproven monorail.
REPORT ON JANUARY 27TH MEETING OF THE
COLORADO RAIL PASSENGER ASSOCIATION:
A record turnout greeted the four presenters at the January 27th meeting of the Colorado Rail Passenger Association. The subject was the alternative approaches to solving the I-70 mountain corridor congestion problem. John Peacock led off with the Turbotrain now being rebuilt for Amtrak service in New York State's Empire Corridor. Hugh Wilson suggested more usage of the Moffat tunnel as well as highway buses sponsored by the resorts themselves (as is currently done for the gaming interests in Gilpin County). Ex-Senator Hugh Fowler espoused the cause of CIFGA's monorail and Ed Wright presented the case for the meter-gauge, cog-assisted SMARTrans system
Wright asked the attendees to consider three key factors strongly: Energy, Environment and Cost, and stated that SMARTrans excelled in each of these.
ColoRail President Jon Esty presided and at the meeting's end asked for a show of hands in favor of each approach. This rail-savvy audience supported each approach warmly, with the exception of the monorail, which registered only a handful of support. While Senator Fowler repeatedly emphasized the "vision" of CIFGA's monorail, the audience was more practical in opting for proven technologies. Author Wright repeatedly encounters this reasonable attitude among knowledgeable audiences.
