1. automotive and vehicles
2. cars

PIKES PEAK HISTORICAL STREET RAILWAY
FOUNDATION
dba Colorado Springs & Interurban Railway
\
P.O. Box 544, Colorado Springs, Colorado 80901-0544 Offices at: 2333 Steel Drive, Colorado Springs, Colorado 80907
[email protected] A 501(c)(3) foundation qualified as an Enterprise Zone Organization
Streetcar System Narrative and Business Plan
April 17, 2014
Executive Summary
The Foundation has outgrown its present leased facility north of City yards, and the
surrounding activities prevent it from expanding outward, either to gain more space or to
lay track to other areas of the City. Pursuant to its charter, it desires to position itself
where it can commence on-street operations and has determined the former Santa Fe
rail yard downtown, as the optimum spot.
The Foundation, incorporated in 1982, has assets exceeding $3.7 million and virtually
no debt, but no funds available for the rail yard purchase. It needs $2 million to acquire
the property and $1.5 million to adapt it for operations to be moved there.
Accompanying it will be the Museum of the Railway Worker, another foundation that
acquires, restores and displays historic railroad cars. It is possible the Colorado Springs
Public Market will also locate there.
The Foundation’s volunteers have the knowledge and experience to acquire and
develop the property to its use, as well as to restore the 18 streetcars it owns. It
believes it can accomplish this at far less cost using private funding than would be
possible using Federal funds with the onerous requirements Congress has imposed and
the required 50% local match, which is not possible to obtain in Colorado Springs.
Phase I, the acquisition and development of the yard is explored, with the Foundation
forming a subsidiary terminal railroad and taking deliveries of rail cars and track
supplies by rail, a huge savings over truck deliveries.
Phase II and III, a downtown streetcar loop and a north extension to UCCS are
discussed. Revenue streams and costs are examined, and marketing strategies are laid
out, as the Foundation believes it can operate the system with a positive cash flow,
something virtually no other streetcar system in the country has accomplished.
1
Table of Contents
1. INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................... 3
2. FOUNDATION HISTORY....................................................................................................... 3
3. FOUNDATION ASSETS ........................................................................................................ 4
4. ORGANIZATION EXPERIENCE ............................................................................................ 4
5. STREETCAR RESTORATION EXPERTISE .......................................................................... 6
6. STREETCAR SYSTEM .......................................................................................................... 9
6.1 Return On Investment....................................................................................................... 9
6.2 Our Current Location .......................................................................................................11
6.3 Downtown Property Requirement ....................................................................................11
6.4 Our Plan ..........................................................................................................................11
6.5 Feasibility Study Cost Issues ...........................................................................................12
7. SANTA FE RAIL YARD DESCRIPTION AND POTENTIAL ISSUES .....................................13
7.1 Property Description ........................................................................................................14
7.2 Potential Issues ...............................................................................................................14
7.3 Common Carrier Requirement .........................................................................................17
8. FUNDING CONSIDERATIONS .............................................................................................18
9. PHASE I — PROPERTY ACQUISITION AND DEVELOPMENT ...........................................21
10. STREETCAR SYSTEM .......................................................................................................23
10.1 Phase II — Initial Downtown Loop .................................................................................24
10.2 Phase III – North to UCCS .............................................................................................25
11. POTENTIAL REVENUE SOURCES AND COSTS – MARKETING THE SYSTEM..............26
2
1. INTRODUCTION
This document serves two purposes. First, it supplies an understanding of our organization, its
mission, capabilities, and future intentions. Second, it contains the general business plan for
achieving those intentions.
2. FOUNDATION HISTORY
The Pikes Peak Historical Street Railway Foundation, hereinafter referred to as the Foundation,
incorporated in 1982, as an IRS 501(c)(3) tax-exempt foundation with the missions of preserving
the rail history of the Pikes Peak region, with an emphasis on street rail systems, preserving the
historical artifacts, and educating the public about that history. Later its mission would expand to
include implementing a streetcar system in Colorado Springs and Manitou Springs using historic
and vintage equipment. Doing business as the CSIR (Colorado Springs & Interurban Railway),
the name of the last streetcar system in Colorado Springs, the Foundation is an El Paso County
Enterprise Zone business, for which cash and in-kind donors receive a Colorado State tax credit
of 25% and 12.5% respectively.
Early in the Foundation’s beginning, a property owner along Highway 115 donated CSIR No. 59,
an original Colorado Springs streetcar, used as a tool shed. Restoration of that car became a
dream. Then in the middle 1990s, nine (9) Philadelphia PCC (Presidential Conference
Committee) type streetcars became available. The mission expanded to bringing streetcars
back to the streets of the region. Next two additional cars, a former Ft. Collins Municipal Railway
car No. 22, and a Los Angeles Railway PCC car, No. 3101, became available for lease from the
Rocky Mountain Railroad Club. Members later purchased these cars for the Foundation. The
restoration process of the Ft. Collins car began with multiple funding sources including IBEW
(International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers) Local No. 113 and the National Electrical
Contractor’s Association. The last streetcar to operate in revenue service in Colorado and the
last of the Birney design to operate in North America No. 22 now repainted and renumbered as
CSIR No. 135 is now on the National Historic Register.
The Foundation received a voter approved franchise to construct and operate a streetcar
system on Colorado Springs streets, subject to due diligence with various Colorado Springs City
departments and final approval by City Council. Its first attempt to build from downtown
Colorado Springs on Colorado Avenue to Manitou Springs reached the engineering design
phase. The rebuilding of the Colorado Avenue overpass included provision for handling a rail
vehicle up to 80,000 pounds. Work on the project halted when CDOT (Colorado Department of
Transportation) requested the Foundation delay building the line as it would cut through their I25 construction site. CDOT did facilitate a future line under the overpass, however, by slightly
moving the overpass, so the streetcar tracks could avoid a large underground communications
vault.
TranSystems, a railroad engineering firm from Chicago, next offered to assist the Foundation
pro bono in building a demonstration line south toward Monument Valley Park, using what
remained of the old Rock Island Railroad line from the roundhouse to the Rio Grande depot
(Giuseppe’s). That became impossible when the UP (Union Pacific Railroad) stated to RTD
(Regional Transportation District) in Denver the UP would not allow any more construction near
their tracks without Colorado changing its liability laws. When the STB (Surface Transportation
3
Board) upheld the railroad position against RTD, that option was closed out. The Foundation
can’t build out from its current location, being surrounded by railroad lines and property.
In 2010, Mountain Metro, downtown business interests, CC (Colorado College), UCCS
(University of Colorado at Colorado Springs), the Old North End Neighborhood and the
Foundation, joined to provide matching funds to an FTA (Federal Transportation Administration)
grant for a $250,000 Streetcar Feasibility Study. The study proposed as the most viable line, a
track on Tejon Street downtown to CC then north to UCCS on N. Nevada. The Streetcar Task
Force, of which the Foundation was a participant, than applied for FTA funding for the next step
in the process, an Alternatives Analysis, but was turned down. This resulted in the Streetcar
Task Force ceasing to meet as virtually all its members believed the only option the future
streetcar system had was through the use of Federal funds to plan and build it.
The Foundation has determined to move forward on its own, as it believes a system can be built
with far fewer dollars, far faster and with far fewer impediments than through the Federal funds
route.
3. FOUNDATION ASSETS
The Foundation’s assets currently have a value over $3.5M with less than $12,000 in
indebtedness, all owed to members of the organization. Its operating budget, exclusive of
restoration expenses, is approximately $3,000 per month. It derives operating revenues through
membership, guided tours, museum gift shop sales, and donations, all of which roughly equal
the ongoing expenses. Over 95% of all funds received go directly to its missions of education
and expansion onto City streets.
The organization operates strictly with volunteers; there have never been any paid employees.
Volunteers have included businessmen, professionals such as engineers, architects,
contractors, IT personnel, skilled craftsmen and other skill sets. At least four board members
past and present have had railroad experience and one current member also has transit
experience. Other volunteers have come through community service arrangements with
Goodwill Industries (food stamps) and Front Range Community Services (court ordered).
The Foundation’s assets include eighteen streetcars, the last two surviving DTC (Denver
Tramway Company) electric trolley buses from the Rocky Mountain Region, two DTC Mack
built buses, and a 70 ft. railroad baggage car. The streetcars were built from 1901 to 1949. One
car nearing restoration completion is now on the National Historic Register and three others are
on the State Register. Additionally the Foundation owns approximately three track miles of rail
and associated parts, numerous museum artifacts, and other items.
4. ORGANIZATION EXPERIENCE
The Foundation’s Board of Directors are as follows:
David Lippincott, President
MBA, Harvard. Management positions in railroading, trucking, sugar, Mexican food, retail
sporting goods, wholesaling and corporate acquisitions.
4
Howard Noble, Vice President and Chief Operating Officer
Over thirty years’ experience in railroad industry as owner of two short lines. Six years in
city transit operations. Owned the 2nd tourist railroad in the US. Decades of experience in
tourist rail operations, including special passenger operations such as dinner trains.
Donald Gage, Treasurer and Chief Electrical Engineer
EE PhD, Stanford. Retired Professor of Electrical Engineering.
Gregory Roberts. Secretary to the Board and Chief Restoration Officer
Retired Systems Engineer in aerospace and telecommunications. Work experience
includes materials, soils science and other compliance issues for LA Water & Power.
John Haney, Historian
Retired property manager, co-author of “Pikes Peak Trolleys,” the definitive history of
Colorado Springs’ streetcar systems.
George Rothwell, Membership Chairman
Retired computer programmer.
Mitchell Downs. Certified Public Accountant.
The present board is a working board and as Foundation operations expand will become the
crux of the organization’s management committee. At that time, it is expected that community
leaders will be approached to join an expanded oversight board.
The Foundation has contracts with Goodwill Industries and Front Range Community Services to
accept community service people who accept food stamps and others who are court ordered.
Last year, over 7,000 hours were served, and a number of these folks did perform valuable
services such as clerical, hard and skilled labor, and clean-up jobs. The Foundation won an
award from Goodwill several years ago as an admired contractor who could supply meaningful
work.
The Foundation’s in-house experience in rail systems, engineering, and other disciplines will
enable it to minimize the need for expensive consultants and design firms. Specialized expertise
in areas such as land use planning, architectural design, building construction, website
construction and accounting issues have been needed in the past. The Foundation has always
been able to find individuals to volunteer their services. Such specialized people will be needed
in the future and the Foundation expects it will be able to find them to assist in volunteer
capacities. It will employ outside engineering expertise as necessary for validation and
certification of efforts and to meet regulatory requirements.
While the City has not supplied direct financial assistance for the past twenty-one years, both
City and CSU (Colorado Springs Utilities) employees have been very supportive with their time
and expertise. Both the Colorado Avenue bridge downtown and N. Nevada Street bridge over
the former Rock Island track were rebuilt to include structural reinforcements to accommodate
rail vehicles. The streetlights on the Colorado Avenue bridge are designed tall enough to accept
trolley wire span wires. City engineers redesigned the Union Avenue - Constitution Avenue
interchange to provide room for the streetcar tracks to pass over Union Avenue and not interfere
with the pedestrian underpass. Unfortunately that last effort may have gone to waste. In 1999,
the City purchased the former Rock Island rail line between Templeton Gap and Murray for the
5
Foundation’ use and “banked” it for a future line to the east side of town. This past winter, the
decision was made to remove the four (4) miles of rail for a very inadequate net payment from
the contractor. The Foundation estimates if that rail were to be put back in place, it could cost 56
times as much as the City received in salvage payments and five to six times the cost of
refurbishing the line had the rail been left in place.
CSU personnel have been extremely enthusiastic and helpful, in providing maps of utilities
buried in the streets and advising the Foundation where it could and should not lay track to
avoid utilities relocation expenses. The system that will be described later, avoids most of the
expense of buried utility relocation while allowing the Foundation to accomplish the goal of
laying track in City streets. Major cost savings will accrue here.
5. STREETCAR RESTORATION EXPERTISE
Overwhelmingly members of the public when asked during the Feasibility Study, voiced their
preference for historic/vintage streetcars over modern or modern looking equipment. Tourists
will too. The Foundation has the capability to give them what they want. Since receiving the
donation of the body of CSIR No. 59 built in 1901 it has accumulated eighteen streetcars as
mentioned above. Included are two original Colorado Springs cars built in 1901 and four original
Denver cars built between 1911 and 1924. Our Ft. Collins car dates back to 1919. The others
cars, all PCC (Presidential Conference Committee) types date from 1943 to 1949. All need
varying degrees of restoration as set out in the table below.
Since initiating its first restoration in 1996 the Foundation has gained considerable knowledge.
The Shop Manager, after volunteering in 1996, traveled has over 30,000 miles doing research
and conferring with other restoration organizations. Several Board Members have also traveled
extensively to other streetcar organizations collecting information. The Foundation is a long term
member of ARM (Association of Railroad Museums) now merged with the Tourist Railroad
Association to form TRRM (Tourist Railroads & Railway Museums). The Shop Manager is a
member of the ARM Parts Committee. That committee exchanges between members,
restoration methods and information about parts for historic rail equipment all over the U.S.
Members of that committee range from museums like Seashore Trolley, the oldest streetcar
museum in North America, to transit operators like San Francisco MUNI, MATA (McKinney
Avenue Transit Authority) in Dallas, and others. These relationships provide restoration teams
expert knowledge to solve particular problems and to locate vendors with unique capabilities.
Car
Restore
Cost
Completed
Value
Notes
1
APA 4002
$215,000
$2,200,000
2
CSIR 135
$44,500
3
CSIR 48
$750,000
Former Pittsburgh car. Current value $450K. Body
work done saving $450K. Needs windows, rebuilt
trucks, & wiring.
Former Ft. Collins No. 22. Last streetcar to operate in
revenue service in Colorado. On National Historic
Register. Electrical work undergoing completion now.
Will need APAT compliant windows on ends and
possibly control upgrades for transit service.
Original Colorado Springs car. On Colorado State
Historic Register. Wood car needing full restoration.
Will require shop upgrade with CNC router.
$2,500,000
6
Car
Restore
Cost
Completed
Value
Notes
4
CSIR 59
$300,000
$2,500,000
5
DTC 117
$850,000
$2,500,000
6
DTC 329
$700,000
$2,500,000
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
SEPTA 2014
SEPTA 2091
SEPTA 2093
SEPTA 2102
SEPTA 2107
SEPTA 2109
SEPTA 2129
$650,000
$650,000
$650,000
$650,000
$650,000
$650,000
$650,000
$2,200,000
$2,200,000
$2,200,000
$2,200,000
$2,200,000
$2,200,000
$2,200,000
14
15
16
SEPTA 2131
SEPTA 2722
LARY 3101
$650,000
$650,000
$2,200,000
$2,200,000
17
18
DTC 724
DTC 770
Original Colorado Springs car. On Colorado State
Historic Register. Undergoing restoration. Current
value $553K.
Part of RTD Historic Vehicle Collection. Built 1911.
Requires fabricating replacement trucks.
Part of RTD Historic Vehicle Collection. Built 1910. Can
use our other set of 1924 Taylor trucks.
Rebuild using CTA trucks
Rebuild using CTA trucks
Rebuild using CTA trucks
Rebuild using CTA trucks
Rebuild using CTA trucks
Rebuild using CTA trucks
Currently in service at the museum. Would be rebuilt
for in street service.
Rebuild using CTA trucks
Rebuild using CTA trucks
On Colorado State Historic Register. Narrow gauge
(42”). One of only four surviving passenger rail vehicles
built in 1943. Street service depends on acquiring GE
control spares.
Former DTC work car built in Broadway Shops.
Former DTC work car built in Broadway Shops.
Costs are estimated as the Foundation’s direct outlay. The great difference between restoration
cost and value derives from two sources. First is the value inherent in the components that are
acquired. For example, the pair of Taylor trucks under CSIR No. 59 cost the Foundation their
scrap weight value in Boston plus shipping here. Another $120,000 went into their restoration.
To replace those trucks if they had to be built from scratch would run about $250,000 each The
supply of restorable originals has declined drastically as other dedicated preservationists have
begun to purchase original cars and parts.
Second, the amount of donated skilled labor we’ve attracted here and very reasonable vendor
prices helps keep our costs down. CSIR No. 59 currently has accrued over $400,000 of donated
labor. That does not count the over 2,000 hours just developing the restoration plan for the car,
which also creates a template for the other wood bodied cars. According to Nan Rickey, now
retired from the Colorado State Historical Fund, it may be the most documented restoration
project in the State.
Restoring the wood bodied cars (CSIR No. 48, CSIR No. 59, DTC 117, DTC 329, DTC 724, and
DTC 770) will be done mostly in-house for the wood portions. Mechanical items and foundry
work goes to vendors with those capabilities.
The Foundation’s restoration efforts to date have not been as fast as it management would have
liked primarily due to a lack of funding and tooling limitations. If it can get the type shop
equipment needed for a new facility, especially a CNC (Computer Numeric Control) router and
some other equipment that will change. The shop facilities it intends to establish will be based
on thousands of hours of collective experience. It will enable producing needed parts at lower
cost, quicker, and still high quality. The Foundation anticipates its shop being a revenue source
for work for other museums, including non-railroad ones, as well as for its own vehicles.
7
The Foundation’s restorations are not for cosmetic display; they are for street operation. This
means adhering to historical integrity, but also complying with safety and operating
requirements. Compliance with standards and regulatory requirements from numerous agencies
and organizations is mandatory, including, but not limited to, ADA (Americans for Disability Act),
APTA (American Passenger Transportation Association), CDOT (Colorado Department of
Transportation), FRA (Federal Railroad Administration), FTA (Federal Transportation
Administration), NEC (National Electrical Code) and others.
Restoring these cars to appear to be original requires meticulous research into materials and
construction methods used 100 years ago and often a world-wide search for materials. The
copies of Brill 77E trucks for the CSIR No. 48 were actually a gift from the Japanese railway
system in Hiroshima, Japan to the Foundation’s first president. Rattan for seats comes from the
only two looms still capable of weaving it, in China. Items such as replica U.S. Type 6 trolley
bases for the wooden cars have been reverse-engineered from the patent drawings by the
Foundation and one of its vendors, and will be available for sale to other museums and
systems.
Presidential Conference Committee Cars
The majority of the Foundation’s cars are of the 1935 PCC design. Some experts consider them
as the most durable transportation vehicles ever built. Ones in service today were built in the
1930s and 1940s. These cars will provide the primary vehicle in Colorado Springs’ system. Built
of steel, they are very durable. The bodies are also restorable by any firm with expertise in
shaping and welding steel. They can be made compliant with ADA requirements as well. To
answer any question as to whether PCC type cars are suitable for current service, consider the
following list of cities in which they still operate and/or will soon return to service:
Boston — Still being used.
Dallas — Former SEPTA (Southeast Pennsylvania Transportation Authority) cars purchased for
the new Oak Cliff line.
El Paso — Plans to bring back original PCC cars after restoration for new system.
Kenosha — Operates former Philadelphia and Toronto cars re-gauged using former CTA
(Chicago Transit Authority) trucks. Plans exist to expand the fleet.
Philadelphia — Former SEPTA rebuilt cars returned to service reversing a decision to scrap
them.
San Diego — One PCC car operating in circulator service downtown on light rail track with plans
for others.
San Francisco MUNI – PCC fleet currently running in transit service in U.S. on F Street (Market
Street) and E (Embarcadero) lines
MUNI (Municipal Railways of San Francisco) operates the largest fleet of these cars in transit
operations in the world today. It recently had a number of them rebuilt. Interestingly it decided to
use the original Westinghouse traction motor controls rather than modern units. Bombardier out
of Canada now supplies the original design, which proved simpler to operate and maintain while
costing considerably less than some modern units. For example, one manufacturer wanted $1.5
million for the computerized test equipment and refused to supply all of the error codes. All of
the Foundation’s PCC cars employ the Westinghouse controls, considered the best design.
The Foundation’s PCCs can be rebuilt for about $650,000 each, which compares favorably with
the cost of a new bus. This will include stripping the bodies down to bare metal, basic structural
8
repairs, new floors and roof, addition of ADA compliant equipment (e.g. wheelchair lifts,
annunciators, etc.), air conditioning, new wiring and rebuilt trucks. Although initially more
expensive than a vehicle with rubber tires, rail based equipment has a less costly total life cycle.
It costs less to operate and less to maintain. PCC cars built 60 years ago are still in service,
whereas a bus normally is retired after 6-7 years.
Since the Philadelphia cars used broad gauge (5 ft 2 ¾”) Clark B2 trucks, the Foundation
acquired St. Louis Car Company standard gauge (4 ft 8-½”) B3 trucks formerly used by CTA
(Chicago Transit Authority) on its L (elevated) line. These are the sturdiest PCC trucks ever
built. The Foundation acquired them for scrap value plus shipping costs in 1995, about $2,000
per pair. Their wheels sets alone not including motors, now have a market value of $10,000 per
pair.
As to the sturdiness of these cars a year ago the San Diego circulator car encountered its first
accident. The driver of a brand new pickup truck made an illegal left turn in front of the streetcar.
The truck was totaled while the streetcar was out of service for two days while volunteers
painted out the two inches long scratch on the forward bulkhead from the accident.
The first car the Foundation will restore for in-street service will be former APA (Allegheny Port
Authority) No. 4002, donated to the Foundation in 2013. It is the closest to completion since the
body was restored in the late 1980s and it was stored indoors until August 2013. It will cost the
least amount of any to put into operating condition.
6. STREETCAR SYSTEM
The following paragraphs provide sources for examples of the ROI for implementing a system
and our basic plan for doing so.
6.1 Return On Investment
For those asking why build a streetcar system, many sources, including the City’s 2010
Feasibility Study addressed that very issue repeatedly. The organization Reconnecting America,
in Oakland, California created a comprehensive book, Street Smart; Streetcars and Cities in the
Twenty-First Century, 2nd edition. Intended for city planners, it can be acquired from the
organization’s Denver office, Program Director Catherine Cox-Blair, 303/881-3858. This book
contains examples of rail based transit benefits. The table Streetcar Benefits to Investment, set
out below, indicates ROIs from a low of 920% to a high of 4112% for several representative
systems.
On-line sources discussing rail based transit, include the following:
www.reconnectingmaerica.org
www.lightrailnow.org
www.heritagetrolley.org
Both Reconnecting America and Light Rail now have a number of excellent papers addressing
some of the vocal critics of light rail and streetcar systems.
The APTA Heritage/Vintage web site contains numerous cases where replacing rail based
systems with buses resulted in rapidly declining passenger counts. In Europe, a study analyzed
9
the situation in Switzerland where passengers prefer rail over buses. Apparently people have
the same preference everywhere.1
Studies of the enhanced property values along streetcar lines have noted that the effect falls off
with distance from the line to no change past three blocks. In Portland and Kenosha, the lines
were adjacent to former industrial and warehouse sites. In Tampa, the line extended from Ybor
City to near but not to, the downtown area. In Little Rock, much of the near downtown retail area
was already developed; only the portion of the line that crossed over the Arkansas River into
North Little Rock, entered a depressed area, and there is now a minor league ballpark there as
well as a convention center.
The McKinney Avenue streetcar line in Dallas started with one restored Birney type car. It now
has three operating cars. John Landrum, the director of that operation told the Foundation in
See “Bus or Rail: An Approach to Explain the Psychological Rail Factor” by Mileana Scherer, ETH
Zurich and Katarin Dziekan, Berlin Institute of Technology, Journal of Public Transportation, Vol. 15, No.
1, 2012
1
10
2012, the assessed property valuations along that line now exceed those anywhere else in the
Dallas downtown area. Businesses advertise themselves as being on the McKinney Avenue
line.
In Colorado Springs, the area to the west of the Santa Fe rail yard is not overly developed. It
can be anticipated that as developers take notice, property values will increase as would
property taxes, as more consumer shopping and residential housing gets built.
6.2 Our Current Location
The Foundation leases five (5) acres north of CSU yards, which has the remaining stalls of the
Rock Island Railroad roundhouse built in 1888. It shares this space with two other 501(c)(3)
historic rail preservation organizations. The MRW (Museum of the Railway Worker) acquires,
restores and displays historic railroad equipment as part of its preserving the histories of the
railroad worker. The local chapter of The Friends of the Cumbres & Toltec Scenic Railroad is
restoring an 1888 Denver and Rio Grande emigrant sleeping car on the property. The
Foundation also maintains a museum dedicated to the Rock Island Railroad housed in a
baggage car it owns. The two remaining bays in the roundhouse can accommodate three
historic streetcars. All other vehicles, stored in the open yard slowly degrade. Parts are stored in
two abandoned boxcars left on the property and whatever covered space the organization finds.
6.3 Downtown Property Requirement
The 2010 Streetcar Feasibility Study recommended that any streetcar system commence in the
downtown area, which is why the Foundation has concentrated its search downtown. Its current
location, about three miles from the downtown core, does not meet either its current needs or
those needed for a streetcar system for the following reasons:
1. The Foundation does not own the property it now occupies. The CSU lease is 10
years, with a 30-day cancellation clause, exercisable at the discretion of the utility.
Should Constitution Avenue ever be extended west to I-25, the property sits directly in
the path of one of the two alternative routes, most likely the preferred one. The
alternative route would traverse the City’s main yard, effectively cutting it into three parts.
2. The Foundation currently has very limited space. It still needs to bring in five vehicles
donated by RTD in Denver. While sharing the space with the MRW and Friends makes
things more cramped it’s crucial to attracting the visitors to maintain our revenue stream.
3. The major structure on the property is a wooden, 130 year old roundhouse, that lacks
a heating system for the work area, does not provide adequate cover for more than three
streetcars, would not meet EPA regulations if employees (vs volunteers) worked there,
and is 1,500 feet distant from the nearest firefighting water source.
4. The property has a poor connection to city streets and is boxed in by city yards and
active rail lines. Extending rail lines for streetcar operations outside of the property limits
is not feasible as previously stated.
6.4 Our Plan
The Foundation proposes three phases to achieving a streetcar system.
1. Acquire and develop a piece of land downtown, large enough to relocate its
operations, that of the Museum of the Railway Worker, and the newly formed Colorado
11
Springs Public Market project or a portion of it, and commence activities that would
attract the public and generate increased revenue than it currently has. The Foundation
has approached the BNSF Railway to acquire the unused rail yard on the lower east
side of downtown. The BNSF is evaluating our proposal, spending more time as we wish
to take the property as a railroad.
2. Construct a basic 2-3 mile long line in City streets as Phase II, which the Feasibility
Study also recommended, to demonstrate the systems’ viability. With the former rail
yard, the most feasible initial route would be west on Moreno to Tejon Street then north
to the Boulder/Platte area or to CC, depending on interest and funding, returning south
to the rail yard. Interest has been expressed in connecting to the planned City of
Champions project site; however, for that to be effective it would have to link to the
businesses along Tejon as well as City and County parking garages in the vicinity. That
connection could be a possibility in Phase III or it would require added funding by the
City of Champions project for Phase II implementation.
In addition to the benefits from new development and property value increases within
several blocks of the system, the City would experience restored public transportation
equipment from different eras. This would provide public transportation for local
residents plus a valuable tourism draw. The system would aid in moving people between
downtown parking facilities and various businesses, or if it reaches CC, transporting
students to downtown venues.
3. With increased interest and support from the downtown businesses and the public,
the Foundation would commence Phase III, the north-south route envisioned in the
Streetcar Feasibility Study of 2010, which eventually would connect six destination
points, downtown, CC, the Old North End, Penrose Hospital, UCCS and the University
Village Shopping Center, ensuring riders outside tourism, and with proper management
and marketing, a positive cash flow.
The Foundation is seeking $3 million for the first phase, acquisition and development of
the rail yard, with funding to come from charitable foundations, corporations and the
public. No government funding would be sought, as none appears to be available.
Property acquisition would cost approximately $2 million and building of the initial
facilities and laying track could add an additional $1-1.5 million. These costs are
exclusive of car restoration costs.
Phase two could be funded from the same sources with increased funding from downtown
interests whose properties would be served by the system. Preliminary estimates put the cost of
this phase at $4 – 8 million per route mile, considerably under the $32 million number in the
Feasibility Study.
6.5 Feasibility Study Cost Issues
The Foundation’s contention with the Feasibility Study is the $32 million cost per route mile in
the study. In private, a respected transit consultant called the figure “excessive”. The study
consultants took seven systems, discarded the most and least expensive systems and
averaged the remaining five. Statistically a sample to be considered “representative” must
contain a minimum of thirty (30) samples.
Consider the tables on page 10, from the APTA Heritage/Vintage trolley web site. Notice the
considerable variation in costs per mile and that Kenosha has the lowest cost. The Colorado
12
Springs Feasibility Study gave the cost for Kenosha as $2M per mile. It was the low figure
ignored. Implementing the Tampa system required purchasing expensive real estate for a
private right-of-way and building a fully FRA compliant crossing of the CSX Class I freight
railroad tracks. The cost of such a crossing typically exceeds $1M. That means an added cost
of over half million for per mile for the two mile length.
In Kenosha the local transit company designed and constructed the system. The two mile long
system cost included a brand new dedicated transit maintenance facility plus the cars. Using the
same averaging approach the Feasibility Study consultant used the average of the systems in
the first table minus Tampa would be $7.41M per mile. Without examining the specific costs,
extrapolating that to another city is not a sound approach.
A respected consultant, who does not use such mathematically questionable approaches, has
repeatedly told the Foundation 50% of the costs can be utility relocation. Until one examines the
specific utility situation of a possible route, this means a built in-error of that percentage alone.
The Foundation has met with CSU personnel to discuss the utilities situation in the downtown
area to minimize any conflicts with their infrastructure and to keep costs in control. The
Feasibility Study consultant never met with any CSU persons. To do so would have violated the
“FTA process.”
The Feasibility Study consultant stated the route mile cost included land, buildings, rolling stock
and landscaping requirements. Curiously, when somebody asked what the cost of another mile
of track alone without any rolling stock, added power supplies, maintenance facility, or anything
else would be the consultant said the price would be the same. When the questioner than asked
how that could be, the consultant simply ignored the question. Only those present at that
particular public forum saw this. When the study came up with a figure of around $200M for a
basic system, it no doubt caused many individuals to lose interest in the concept. The answer
should have been that cost for an added mile would be the cost of the track, power installation,
passenger stops and additional signaling.
The consultants and prime contractors for these projects typically charge a percentage of the
overall total cost as their fee. There is no motivation to keep costs in check. Federal government
involvement is generally considered to increase costs by 600%. Factoring out that percentage
would bring the Feasibility Study $32M per mile down to $5.3M per mile. Given all of these
factors and other inputs the Foundation believes its estimates are more realistic. Any work it
proposes will be time and materials with provisions to prevent overruns.
7. SANTA FE RAIL YARD DESCRIPTION AND POTENTIAL ISSUES
The BNSF (Burlington Santa Fe Railroad) former Atchison, Topeka and Santa Fe rail yard in the
southeast quadrant of downtown Colorado Springs is ideal for the Foundation’s needs. The rail
yard has not been used for several years. It has good street access on the north end and good
rail egress in the center, is only five blocks to the east of the proposed City of Champions
projects, and has a live rail connection which would be used for receiving rail equipment for use
and display, and materials for future streetcar line construction – the least expensive means of
delivery.
The Foundation has been in discussions for a number of months with the BNSF’s real estate
consultant for disposition of unused property to non-rail purchasers, but has always made it
clear it wished to acquire the property as a railroad, with the BNSF not filing for abandonment
with the Surface Transportation Board prior to the sale. During this period, the railroad
13
commissioned an appraisal of the property, forwarded several documents to the Foundation and
answered a number of questions posed by the Foundation on the property; e.g. there are no
pending legal issues, all easements on the property have expired. The Foundation sent an offer
to both the consultant and the railroad, agreeing to pay the appraisal price with a $3.25/s.f. cap.
It had previously been told $3.25 was the most probable appraisal price, based on a previous
sale several years previous. The consultant also indicated that as the Foundation needed to
raise funds for the purchase, the railroad would accept a 10% down payment with a closing up
to six months later, when the balance of the money had been raised.
It was at this point, the railroad realized the Foundation intended to acquire the property as a
railroad and enter into an interchange agreement with it to receive rail shipments. It put a hold
on the transaction, while the operating people studied the arrangement, which is where the
matter stands as of April 2014. No time limit for a decision was given to the Foundation but it
was also made clear that no other entity had bid on the property in total.
7.1 Property Description
The property includes two sections separated by the East Costilla Street overpass. The north
parcel is bounded on the north by the former AT&SF freight station property, and Cucharras
Street; on the east by the Transit Mix property; on the south by the East Costilla Street
overpass; and on the west side by commercial properties. The south parcel is bounded on the
north by the East Costilla Street overpass, on the east by the centerline of the Shooks Run
creek, on the south by East Fountain Blvd, and on the west by the backs of other industrial
commercial properties, except for the spur crossing Wahsatch at Moreno.
For autos and trucks, the property can be accessed from Vermijo Street, Cucharras Street, and
a very narrow access from East Fountain Blvd. The narrowness would violate separation
distance regulations with the railroad track running parallel to it crossing East Fountain Blvd.
Rail access includes the BNSF track on the south end and a rail access corridor on the west
side onto Moreno Street.
From north to south, the property is approximately 0.6 miles in length. The property elevation is
about forty (40) feet above Shooks Run. The eastern side of the lower piece including the slope
down to the creek contains some heavy foliage. The real estate firm representing the railroad
indicated the property included approximately 20 acres of which less than one acre was
unusable. The Foundation disputed this. Aerial photographs, using an autocad program with
estimated boundaries for usable land, indicate sixteen to seventeen acres total. After
subtracting the portion of the land estimated not to be developable, the Foundation believes
there are approximately thirteen (13) usable acres, which it is prepared to pay for.
7.2 Potential Issues
1. Boundaries
Foundation members interviewed several adjacent property owners and discovered one of them
purchased a small piece in the northwest corner in January 2014, which would block access
from Cucharras Street. The real estate consultant had not disclosed this. The property owner is
enthusiastic about the Foundation acquiring the balance of the yard and supports the streetcar
concept. He also indicated he would not have any problem granting access from Cucharras
Street. Since that acquired parcel blocks that access an easement will have to be negotiated.
14
The ATSF acquired the property between 1887 and 1917, with several small parcels added in
1955. The book and page numbers for nineteen (19) recorded deeds provided to the
Foundation are mostly in the northeast corner, where a number of residential lots were acquired
by the ATSF. Many of them report the sale to somebody other than any railroad. Railroads
typically used third party agents to hide the fact a railroad intended to purchase the property.
Several of the deed copies are so faded as to be unreadable. No survey exists, but a consultant
representing the railroad indicated if the Foundation commission one the railroad would
consider it. The Foundation believes the best way to determine the boundaries will be to
determine the boundaries of the adjacent parcels.
2. Potential Bearing Load Limitations
Given the slope on the southern parcel down to Shooks Run, at least part of the ground is likely
fill, designed to level the yard. The Foundation believes a soils engineer should be consulted to
determine if that area could be developed and if so, how. This would impact the usable area of
the property to indicate the acreage the Foundation would be willing to pay for.
3. East Costilla Street Overpass Condition
Reports were requested from the City of Colorado Springs, CDOT (Colorado Department of
Transportation), and the BNSF. The City and CDOT reports have been received and indicate no
repairs are required. To clean up trash associated with the overpass and insure that no future
problems occur Foundation volunteers would strip off the dirt which has infiltrated the ballast,
treat any corrosion spots on the beams, fill any cracks in the concrete abutments, repaint the
metal, install drains to keep melted snow and ice off the sidewalks below, install blocking to
keep homeless individuals from crawling into any empty spaces on the structure for shelter, and
install new decking where advisable. The Cooper rating for the overpass has been requested
from the BNSF, an FRA annual requirement for all railroads.
4. East Fountain Blvd Crossing Signal Maintenance
What entity will maintain these crossing signals needs to be determined. Initially the real estate
firm said the BNSF would, however that was before it fully understood the Foundation’s
intention to create a Class III carrier. The maintenance would then most likely be the
responsibility of the terminal railroad to be formed as a subsidiary by the Foundation, especially
if it was to assume the easement south of Fountain Blvd. to connect with the BNSF on the Joint
Line. A certified Signal Maintainer would be required by the Foundation if that were to happen.
5. Suspected Encroachment
There is a suspected property encroachment on the eastern side of the property, just south of
the Transit Mix plant. According to a City supplied aerial boundary map, the railroad property
actually surrounds a junk yard, previously sold by the railroad. Junk cars and other
miscellaneous metal materials are being stored there and have encroached beyond the property
limits, with the possibility contaminants could be leaching into the creek. This will be addressed
prior to the property being acquired.
6. Access
Only two usable street access points exist on the property, Cucharras St. and Vermijo St. Both
are located north of the East Costilla Street overpass. In the 1920s, the ATSF eliminated East
15
Costilla Street as a grade crossing by excavating down and building the overpass. It is likely any
fill added to the east side of the property occurred at that time.
The City of Colorado Springs on several occasions has requested the BNSF tear down the
overpass due to the low 13’1” clearance and water leaks from precipitation onto the sidewalks
and street below which freezes in winter. The Foundation notes that the UP/BNSF mainline
crosses Uintah Street, which carries a far higher amount of traffic compared to East Costilla
Street, at 12’6” clearance, thus the East Costilla Street overpass is not the lowest underpass in
the City.
The BNSF has not agreed to remove the overpass since it would cut the yard in two. The
southern two-thirds of the yard with very limited access except by rail would become virtually
worthless to a most buyers.
7. Drainage
There are drainage grates on the property. They need to be inspected to determine if they are
still usable and where the discharge empties. .
8. Right-of-way(s) and Track Agreements
Any right-of-way(s) or track agreements with the BNSF or predecessor railroads still in effect
need to be determined, even though the railroad’s consultant told the Foundation there were
none.
9. Easements
These are being investigated including gas, water, electrical, sewer, telecommunications, or
others. The CSU utility map provided the Foundation shows a sewer line running along the west
side of the property, a gas line running on the south side of East Costilla Street, but does not
indicate if it is at street level or overpass level. There are several manhole covers in the north
end labelled “Western Electric.” The latter may be telephone lines from years ago, but will be
investigated. The BNSF’s consultant stated any easements have expired.
The Foundation has proposed purchasing the property from the BNSF as a Class III railroad,
and the railroad is evaluating the proposal. Preliminary estimates of usable area are 14 acres.
At the appraisal price of $3.25/s.f., a purchase price of $1,982,000 plus closing costs can be
imputed. The Foundation’s offer to purchase is capped at the appraisal price.
Since the railroad will supply only a quitclaim deed, a common practice, the Foundation has
contacted a title company that has indicated a willingness to assist in confirming the above
matters and perhaps uncovering others, unknown at this time.
The Santa Fe rail yard was not used for servicing locomotives, to the Foundation’s knowledge,
though they could have been refueled in the yard. The Foundation strongly suspects there are
minimal or no toxic substances or pollutants in the soil. The consultant indicated the railroad
would provide a Phase I soils analysis at closing at no additional cost, but if the Foundation
wanted one prior to closing, it would be at the latter’s cost. The Foundation will not commission
such an analysis.
16
7.2 Common Carrier Requirement
Currently the property is active railroad property despite lack of recent use. The BNSF has not
abandoned the yard as railroad property and has no intention of doing so while owing the
property, as it would then be subject to local real estate property taxes. Railroads do pay taxes
on a statewide basis, based on land they own, with the proceeds meted out to various
municipalities according to a formula.
Without formal abandonment proceedings by the railroad, any purchaser legally becomes a
Common Carrier subject the jurisdiction of the STB. Concurrent with a purchase the Foundation
would incorporate as its subsidiary, with BNSF and STB concurrence, a Class III railroad as a
subsidiary to be called the CSTR (Colorado Springs Terminal Railroad). A Class III is the
smallest railroad recognized by the STB based on revenue. There are Class III carriers with a
total track length of only a few hundred feet, so this is nothing radical or out of the ordinary.
Creating this Class III carrier serves the following purposes:
1. Maintaining the rail connection to the Joint Line.
This would allow the Foundation to receive historic streetcar equipment and rail equipment
owned by the Museum of the Railway Worker by rail. When construction of the in-street system
commenced, the Foundation could receive rail and other construction materials by rail also.
Considerable cost savings over delivery by truck would be realized.
2. Preserving the E. Costilla St. overpass.
The need for this structure has been discussed previously. The PUC (Public Utilities
Commission) protection afforded a Class III railroad, would preserve it. Interestingly, neither the
City nor the railroad has documentation that determines ownership of the overpass, each
claiming that the other entity as the owner. The City has conducted regular inspections that
indicate the overpass is safe for its use as a road. The Foundation has not received
documentation from the railroad as yet, required yearly, testing the overpass for load-bearing
capability and other rail uses.
Upon acquiring the property, the Foundation intends to remove the ballast from the bridge and
treat the underlying metal beams and plates, insuring they remain in excellent condition for rail
and motor vehicle access between the northern and southern portions of the yard.
3. Zoning benefits.
City Planning has indicated it could extend the Form-Based-Code zoning east from the
properties along Wahsatch Ave. to Shooks Run, encompassing the whole property and allowing
various desirable developments to take place. That action may not be needed, however, as
railroads have certain zoning benefits separate from those imposed by municipalities.
4. Potential revenues from rail operations as a Class III carrier.
The Foundation would lease the Class III operating rights to the CSTR. The BNSF and the
CSTR would execute an interchange agreement, with the interchange point being determined
by the BNSF. The MRW foundation owns several diesel locomotives and on relocating to the
rail yards from the present location north of the City yards, would agree to make one locomotive
and whatever useful rail cars it had, available for the CSTR to use in receiving materials by rail,
17
even if the interchange point designated by the BNSF was located remote from the rail yard,
such as the yard east of the downtown area that is now used.
To the south of Fountain Blvd., the rail continues for about 0.3 miles to connect with the Joint
Line (a line shared by the UPRR and the BNSF). The surrounding property has been sold, and
the Foundation understands that the BNSF has retained rights to use the track across it. That
right would have to be a part of the purchase agreement, and the Foundation would then take
responsibility for maintaining the signaling where the tracks cross East Fountain Blvd. Since that
land is for the most part vacant, the potential exists for development that would make use of rail
or a further extension of the yard activities that would eventually occur. The value of that land
would certainly be enhanced by the presence of rail and/or streetcar activities.
8. FUNDING CONSIDERATIONS
The Foundation assumes no Federal, State, County or City dollars will be available. The FTA
favors highways over rail projects and while some local matches are only 20%, most are 50%
for any rail or streetcar project. The Feds would require consultants and contractors familiar with
the “FTA process” and way of doing business. That puts everything back up to the $32M per
mile meaning a $16M per mile match from Colorado Springs. The Foundation believes that City
officials and voters would not undertake to match funds at this stage of the system’s
development.
The FTA process requires a Feasibility Study, an Alternatives Analysis (essentially evaluating
routes), an Environmental Impact Assessment study, and a Design and Engineering Study in
that order, prior to any work on the system occurring. Interestingly the EIS for the RTD corridor
from downtown Denver to Golden never mentions any comparison between rail based electric
propulsion and internal combustion methods. This because the FTA process states that would
be imposing a design even if one compared all possible propulsion types available, which is not
permitted until the Design Phase. The process schema essentially ignores that engineering is
an iterative process, thus expending considerable funds by creating studies that privately
funded projects do very nicely without. Almost none of these studies, costing several million
dollars, would be done locally.
In addition to the above Federal process requirements, which consume years of time
money, Congress has added costly requirements to Federal grants: Davis-Bacon wages,
America requirements and others that, drive up overall costs. Design, engineering
contracting firms that must be retained, are paid based on a percentage of overall costs,
have little incentive to control them.
and
Buy
and
and
Funding alternatives for streetcar systems have been listed by Reconnecting America, Light Rail
Now, and APTA. The following comes from: www.heritagetrolley.org/planFinancingCapital.htm
Potential Sources of Capital Funding for Streetcar Lines
1. FTA New Starts
Portland’s heritage cars and maintenance facility were paid for by 80% UMTA funding
as part of the Banfield Light Rail project. New starts money is one of the best potential
sources of capital funding, however resources are limited and many cities are
competing to receive such funding for light rail, commuter rail, bus rapid transit, or
other transit projects.
18
2. FTA Small Starts
The reauthorization of the highway bill (TEA-LU) enacted by Congress in 2005
introduced a new source of funding for streetcar projects referred to as "Small Starts."
Inspired by the success of the Portland Streetcar and other downtown heritage or new
streetcar systems, the program is aimed at smaller projects than traditional regional
light rail projects and includes economic redevelopment as a means of justifying such
projects. The following link is to a PDF version of a presentation introducing the Small
Starts program given by Jeff Boothe of the Community Streetcar Coalition at the APTA
Heritage Trolley and Streetcar Subcommittee meeting in Dallas in September, 2005:
Small Starts Introduction
3. Transportation Enhancement funding
Some of the Federal Highway/Transit funding legislation has included what became
known as Transportation Enhancement Funding. This funding could cover historic
preservation or other projects not directly related to the large scale highway/transit
funding normally covered by the legislation. The availability of this funding varies with
each reauthorization. The Dallas heritage trolley operation received grants of $5.5
million in 1994 from this source. (See The Streetcar Renaissance in Dallas)
4. Build track and wire at same time other infrastructure work being done (street
reconstruction, sewers, other buried utilities)
In Dallas voters passed a bond bill to finance street improvements along the proposed
extension of the heritage trolley line, and officials planned to build track as part of the
project. (See The Streetcar Renaissance in Dallas) In Washington, DC and Charlotte
streetcar track was included as part of major street reconstruction projects before a
complete program to introduce streetcars was formulated or funded.
5. Sale of naming rights to stations, cars
Used in Tampa (for an operating endowment— (See Tampa Project Description) and
Portland (See Portland’s New/Old Trolleys)
6. Municipal assessments on developers
As developers stand to reap financial benefits from a streetcar or heritage trolley
system, a city government may opt to require a contribution toward the system in
return for the right to develop along the line.
7. Voluntary investment by developers of parcels along line
In Dallas, developers of Cityplace contributed $1 million toward extension of the
heritage trolley line to serve their complex (See The Streetcar Renaissance in Dallas)
8. Development of adjacent land
Conceivably the organization building a streetcar line could be given the right to
develop parcels along the line, using profits to help pay for the line.
19
9. Foundation grants
In Galveston, the local match for federal funding used to build the heritage line was
contributed by two foundations, one of which later funded the entire cost of an
extension of the line. (See Heritage Trolleys in Memphis and Galveston).
10. Park funding – if line passes through park
If a streetcar line passes through a national or state park, funding from park service
sources may be available to help with the line. This approach is being pursued in
Lowell (MA), where the National Park Service owns the current heritage trolley line,
and may be pursued in San Francisco, where proposed a heritage trolley extension
would pass through another national park.
11. Hotel/motel tax
In New Orleans, part of the 20% local funding to match FTA new starts money for
reintroduction of streetcars to Canal Street came from extending a local sales tax to
the hospitality industry. The hotel and motel operators supported the measure as they
felt the streetcar line would be an added tourist draw, as has been the case with the
other two streetcar lines in New Orleans.
12. Donations from private sources
One quarter of the $6 million cost of the New Orleans Riverfront line opened in 1988
came from private sources. (See New Orleans Prepares for the Past)
In Portland (OR) heritage trolley service along the downtown portion of the light rail line
was funded initially by business taxes, business sponsorships, and other private
monies, plus fare box revenues. This included interest from a city trust fund
established in the middle of the 1980s through a Local Improvement District tax of
businesses along the route. Four businesses have already agreed to be “car sponsors”
by paying $100,000 each ($20,000 a year over a course of five years) for the right to
advertise (or sell advertising) on and inside their designated car. In addition, eight
other businesses have made donations of $30,000 each as “station sponsors” in
exchange for recognition in Vintage Trolley literature and in signage at stops along the
route.(See Portland’s New/Old Trolleys)
13. Donations for local match
Private sources may provide contributions in kind rather than cash contributions. In
New Orleans, an oil industry firm donated oil pipe worth more than $1 million to be
used as overhead wire support poles on the Canal Street route. This donation counted
as part of the local match to FTA funding.
Many of these alternatives are feasible, save Federal grants. The Foundation has explored
charitable foundation funding and matching funds from its members and friends through
pledges. It will be making direct approaches to individuals and organizations which contribute to
worthwhile causes or would contribute because they would financially benefit from the system in
place. It believes once the property is acquired, it can lease portions of it to other foundations
20
and developers for non-rail but complimentary uses. It will approach City officials prior to
construction about combining catenary wire construction with streetlights using period lamps. It
will also pursue organizations about sponsorship of restoration costs for our cars and naming
rights for cars or car stops.
The Foundation has a cost advantage over a municipality as it can attract cash and in-kind
donations, which are tax deductible. Additionally, it is in the El Paso County Enterprise Zone
and is registered there. Cash donations of $500 or more qualify for a 25% Colorado state tax
exemption (not a deduction) and in-kind donations, a 12.5% exemption, with appropriate
documentation of value.
As previously stated the Foundation has a fleet of restorable streetcars. It also has the in-house
expertise to manage the restorations while meeting regulatory requirements and keeping costs
under control as stated earlier. A replica period streetcar, made by companies in Iowa and
Pennsylvania, now costs upwards of $1 million each. Modern cars produced in the Czech
Republic and to a lesser extent elsewhere, cost well over $2 million each. All these costs are
well above the restoration costs of the Foundation’s historic cars, as set out previously.
The Foundation additionally owns three track miles of 90# T-rail, donated to it years ago, along
with track components – plates, spikes, etc. On the open market, 90# rail (90 #/yard), common
in streetcar operations, sells at roughly $800/ton. It is in demand but not widely produced, as
railroads currently use much heavier rail for their main line operations. This rail will be ideal in
the yard, eliminating added cost.
9. PHASE I — PROPERTY ACQUISITION AND DEVELOPMENT
The Foundation’s first tasks would be purchasing the property, establishing the Class III carrier,
and then making the property usable as a base of operations for the streetcar system and a
host for the Class III operations.
If fourteen acres is determined to be the usable portion of the rail yard at $3.25/sq-ft, the total
would be $1,982,000 plus closing costs to acquire the property. The Foundation has contacted
land planners and architects in the recent past. After laying out the streetcar requirements and
those of the Museum of the Railway Worker it believes it can find such professionals to assist in
planning optimal uses and development schemes. It also believes retaining and leasing the land
as railroad property or property owned by a 501(c)(3) entity to developers and others for their
particular uses would preserve the tax exempt nature of that land, but this issue would have to
be thoroughly researched.
Concentrating on the northern third of the property, the Foundation could use the property for
the following:
1. Parking for staff and visitors. This area would definitely be paved and a grade
crossing of the existing track would be constructed.
2. Streetcar maintenance and inspection facility. The structure would hold two tracks
long enough to accommodate two full-length cars, each with inspection pits, equipped
with lighting, compressed air, power outlets and drains. The drainage system should go
to a sump with extraction via a filter system to remove all contaminants. The building
could be heated using infrared heaters, and if needed could be used in part for car
restoration purposes.
21
3. Shop areas for mechanical (restoring and maintaining mechanical sub assemblies),
electrical (restoring and maintaining electrical components – e.g. relays, instrument
panels, motor-generator sets, etc.), and wood (restoring and maintaining wood
components of the historic cars). These areas would be in proximity to the maintenance
and inspection facility.
4. A building housing offices for the Foundation, the Museum of the Railway Worker, and
the terminal railroad. It would contain a conference/classroom for the car operators,
dispatchers, and maintenance personnel plus fire, police and emergency services
related to the Class III and streetcar operations. A library, archival file storage, and
bathrooms would complete the space needs for this building.
5. Locomotive inspection and maintenance bay. This must be separate from the
streetcar work area due to the size required, the need to avoid engine exhaust being
directed against a trolley wire overhead, and the need for a smokestack. It could be
funded by the MRW.
6. Covered storage area for the streetcars. The building type most likely will be steel
framed because it provides most for the money and fire resistance. How to give the
exteriors a period look will be examined in more detail at a later date.
7. Additional track. One track traverses the length of the property. It will be repaired,
electrified, and used for streetcar operations over its 0.6 mile in length. That will be a
major improvement over the Foundation’s 100 yards of track at the present facility. At
least two other tracks will be needed connecting the northern portion of the yard to the
southern portion, crossing over the overpass, and serving the buildings where the
streetcars will be maintained and/or stored. A third track would be used for the
locomotive owned by the MRW for use by the Class III.
A railroad turntable, originally from Denver’s Rice Yards, donated to the Cumbres & Toltec
Scenic Railroad, is in Chama, New Mexico. The Colorado Historical Society, now called
Colorado History, considered it unsuitable for a narrow gauge operation and it never was
installed. It could be both an attraction and very useful in the rail yard here. Its availability is
being investigated.
Two-thirds of the property lies south of the overpass. Being south of Transit Mix, more open
than the north section, and with a nice foliage by the creek, it is more eye appealing. The
existing through track lies on the west side of the property, with a short siding and north of that,
a spur crossing west over Wahsatch, and ending in the block between Wahsatch and Weber. It
served a newsprint warehouse formerly owned by the Gazette; now under contract to a
purchaser who wishes the streetcar to serve the property again, and even wants several
railroad cars to serve as a diner and kitchen respectively.
It may be desirable to locate the streetcar and rail museum (if the BNSF desires it) museums in
the southern portion of the property, as the area is more aesthetically pleasing. The Foundation
owns a dozen 100+ year old iron streetlights cast in Colorado Springs, donated by the
Evergreen Cemetery. These could be erected around the museum for a “period” look.
Additional tracks would probably be laid adjacent to the existing track on the western side of the
property, to leave room for other development on the east side, fronting the creek. One or two
22
tracks could be devoted to the cars owned by the Museum of the Railway Worker. This effort
would be inexpensive since the tracks would be laid on the ground using the 90 lb rail the
Foundation already owns and there would be no need for utility relocation.
It will be imperative to protect the historic vehicles from vandalism, as there are homeless
people living in the forested areas along the creek, and the property is not easily seen from the
streets. Buildings will have to be constructed and alarmed, fencing and lighting systems
installed, and a security guard service retained. No vehicles should be introduced to the
property until there are buildings in place to protect them.
Costs of the above improvements, which could be phased in, are estimated to cost $1-1.5M.
Until the property is acquired, and land planners and architects have developed plans, it is not
feasible to project costs in any great detail.
If the Colorado Springs Public Market project were to locate on the property, space would be
allocated for a building of approximately 25,000 s.f., containing stalls for permanent and
seasonal vendors selling organically and/or locally grown or produced foodstuffs. Open stalls
could be erected to serve as a farmers’ market during the growing season. Greenhouses have
also been discussed as venues for public gardens.
The City has espoused more housing units in the downtown area, and City Planning has
indicated that it could support such an endeavor. A suitable developer would have to be found
for a project such as this, which might include some retail businesses to serve it.
If this type of development were to occur, the southern portion of the property would need to
remain open for residents, whereas the northern portion, with its streetcar and rail related
functions, could be fenced and closed off during non-business hours. A road would have to be
punched through the property’s southern section; the optimum location would be an extension
of Rio Grande St. That would give the CSPD ready access to the property as well, to deal with
any problems that might occur. The developer(s) would experience an increase in land lease
costs, commensurate with the additional costs incurred by the Foundation in providing roads
and extending utilities to the site.
10. STREETCAR SYSTEM
Phase II will be implementing the streetcar system with a downtown loop and phase III will be
an expansion of the system north to UCCS. The charter granted to the Foundation requires the
system design and construction methods pass muster with all City departments concerned,
followed by City Council approval.
Construction Method
Tracks would be installed using track slab construction. This method dates back over a hundred
years and is currently the preferred method in the U.S. for tracks in pavement. A trench dug in
the street contains supporting steel with the rail attached and a rubber composition strip to
protect the flangeway. Concrete poured in the trench locks the supporting steel and rail together
into a structure capable of bridging over a trench as needed to access underground utilities
crossing the right-of-way. Conventional “T” rail would be used. Switches and diamonds must be
fabricated specifically for in-street use.
23
In any location where a future branch line seems likely, the construction could use conventional
ties to support the rails with asphalt paving between the rails and flange way protection. The
reason for doing this would be the greatly reduced cost of having to tear out track slab
construction to add a switch to the branch line.
The overhead catenary will consist of a 4Φ trolley wire supported by span wires designed for
minimal visual impact. The span wires will provide double insulation and will be anchored to
poles designed to resemble period light poles. Building supports for the span wires, though a
very viable attachment method, will probably be avoided to eliminate the engineering analysis
cost required since every attachment being a different structure would have to be calculated and
approved.
Power supplies are box like structures that can be located in any number of places to minimize
their visual impact. They can also be camouflaged to blend in with other nearby structures.
These supplies take the local AC power and convert voltage as necessary and from AC to DC
to create the 600 Volts DC needed to operate the cars. Feed lines will connect the supplies to
the overhead wire. All of the cars will be equipped with battery backup units to supply
emergency lighting and marker lamps in case of a local power outage.
10.1 Phase II — Initial Downtown Loop
If funding is acquired, the Foundation estimates it would be able to commence construction in
the street within two years. The streetcar could exit the yard on Moreno, which has tracks in the
ground to Weber and would pass by the old Gazette newsprint warehouse. Moreno had rail in
the streets until the 1920s and there appear to be no issues involving buried utilities, except
bridging over them at the cross streets. One additional yard switch would allow a yard exit by
either a northbound or southbound car.
Cucharras St. could also serve as an exit point, but two new switches would be needed to exit
the yard, and the tracks would have to detour north or south on Nevada Ave., thus it is not
recommended. Vermijo St. would serve as the preferred entry point to the yard by rail as
eastbound, it is virtually free of buried utilities. Tejon St. is the preferred north route to Colorado
College, as it was singled out in the feasibility study, has the support of most downtown
business interests and is free of buried utilities, except for a clay wastewater line which it
appears can be avoided. Tejon and Nevada are both candidates for the southbound line, with
Nevada having the advantage of passing by City Hall, the City Administration building and
several parking structures. There is a 12” water line in southbound Tejon. There is a wastewater
line and some electrical lines in southbound Nevada, which it might be possible to avoid.
At this writing (4/2014) the City of Champions proposal for the two downtown venues – stadium
and a museum – are in the conceptual stage and will most probably require a vote of the people
to cement the funding. One involved party approached the Foundation stating his desire for the
streetcar system to serve the project. Given the current situation, the Foundation’s plans do not
include extending a line west two blocks to do so, but should the proposals become reality and
its developers assist in funding an extension, a line could branch west from Tejon on Cucharras,
turn north on Sahwatch, east on Vermijo back to Tejon St. Northbound Sahwatch is free of
buried utilities. Sierra Madre is ruled out because of the many buried utilities in that street. The
only way to get that far west would be to bridge over Sierra Madre into the old Crissy Fowler
property.
24
Not being able to use Sierra Madre would result in a negative and very costly solution for the
ultimate purchasers of the old Rio Grande Depot, west of Antlers Park, should they want
streetcar service.
Short of extending north to Colorado College, a downtown streetcar loop could turn east on
either Platte Ave. or Boulder St., which would be free of buried utility lines, before going south
on Nevada again. If it were to extend to the CC campus it would turn east on Dale St., a block
south of the campus and a block east of the Fine Arts Center, both of which support the
streetcar system. Cache la Poudre St. has too many buried lines to deal with.
Two possibilities exist at this point. The tracks could be extended to Cache la Poudre and bridge
over that street into the CC parking lot, where there would be a loop, or at Dale St., loop west to
Cascade with a return south on Cascade to Boulder or Platte. A layby track in this area would
be desirable for streetcars loading students, etc. for events or waiting to move at a specified
time.
Mileage data (from where the existing track ends):
Moreno at Weber to Tejon to Boulder to Nevada to Vermijo to yard – 2.0 miles
Moreno at Weber to Tejon to Dale to Nevada to Vermijo to yard – 2.8 miles
Loop west from Tejon on Costilla to Sahwatch to Vermijo back to Tejon – 0.4 miles
10.2 Phase III – North to UCCS
Extending the streetcar line north from the intersection of Dale St. and Nevada Ave., through the
Old North End Neighborhood, past Penrose Hospital, over the new Nevada Ave. bridge to the
intersection of Nevada and Eagle Rock, would serve both the University shuttle service parking
area on the east and the University Village Shopping Center on the west. That intersection has
a stoplight and Nevada is wide enough for an in-road turnaround. The stoplight would have to
include a 4-way stop feature to accommodate the streetcar.
That extension would add four destination points to the line; the Old North End, Penrose
Hospital, UCCS and the University Village Center, making six in all and virtually guaranteeing
good ridership without the need to add tourists or fun-seeking locals.
The one-way distance from Dale St. to Eagle Rock is 5.4 miles, but there are enough variants of
the exact route that doubling the distance for a two-way system would not be accurate. There
are too many alternatives at this time for accurate estimates of exact distance.
1. The grassy median on N. Nevada from Uintah to Harrison or Van Buren Streets has an open
area between the rows of trees, and a one-way or two-way line could be put there, with perhaps
two lay-by tracks in that stretch if it were a two-way line A two-way line would not be
recommended.
2. North of Fillmore and the U-Haul rental business, there is a ¾ mile stretch of abandoned
Santa Fe right-of-way on the east side of Nevada. It is roughly 100 feet wide and crosses over
Winters and Mount View before terminating at a self-storage lot. The Foundation has
considered acquiring this land after its system was completed, for storage of vehicles not yet
restored, remote parking for downtown venues and for other purposes. One or two tracks could
be laid on this ground, and a turnaround for the parking area patrons at either Winters or Mount
View would be desirable. The BNSF consultant indicated the purchase price would be
comparable to that of the rail yard.
25
3. It is possible that the owners of the shopping center at the northern terminus of the line,
would have an interest in a loop system serving the various retailers and restaurants that have
located there.
11. POTENTIAL REVENUE SOURCES AND COSTS – MARKETING THE SYSTEM
The Foundation’s goal is to operate this system on a positive cash flow basis using revenue
sources other than just the fare box. No transit system in the U.S. has been able to operate from
the fare box alone since the 1970s. Revenue sources can include the following:
Charging a fee per ride or an all-day fee with discounts for seniors, students and
handicapped persons.
Soliciting advertisements solicited for both exterior signage and interior car cards.
Selling of naming rights for cars and passenger stops
Soliciting charters, especially of the Foundation’s oldest, historic cars for tours, weddings,
birthdays, etc. Movie or television coverage will be solicited as well.
Deriving revenue from a car specially modified for fine dining with food catered by
different restaurants, in something possibly called a restaurant crawl along Tejon Street.
This car would also be suitable for breakfast meetings, lunch meetings, and related
activities. Our historic cars could be used for small parties. As an example, our Birney car
even before restoration is complete, has already hosted two weddings.
Working with both local, regional, and national charter bus firms, tourist railroad
operations in Colorado, hotels/motels, senior homes, and business clubs to actively
promote charter service. This will include using trained docents answering any questions
passengers may have and noting points of interest along the route.
Developing a strong relationship with the Convention and Visitor's Bureau.
Soliciting merchants to offer discounts or services with the presentation of the trolley ride
stub, to promote riders using the system.
Investigating the possibility of sales to the two universities to include discounts in their
student activity cards.
Leasing portions of the property to generate a continuing stream of income
Linking downtown parking areas to the merchants to the maximum extent possible
Coordinating with Mountain Metro Transit in any way mutually beneficial including
exchanging transfers and possibly sharing revenues for passengers riding both streetcars
and buses. The existence of the streetcar system would have the beneficial effect of
allowing MMT to extend its services to areas it cannot now serve due to cost constraints.
26
Soliciting retailers to promote the system with information about the system and possibly
stocking specialized merchandize, maps, etc., not just along the streetcar routes, but
across the city including the Colorado Springs Airport.
Operating with volunteer operators and on-board docents to the greatest extent possible.
They will receive in-depth training with background checks and meeting regulatory
requirements such as drug testing. Paid operators will be employed where required to
maintain service levels.
Expanding the volunteer staff to handle the bulk of repair and maintenance activities inhouse. This will include using expanded shop capabilities to assist other museums, both
rail and non-rail, as an additional source of revenue.
Continuing to promote our 501(c)(3) and Enterprise Zone designations, in working with
vendors to obtain the best possible prices on goods and services, and in continuing to
solicit donations and memberships from the private sector.
27