From the Altamont Press, the latest on this dormant Colorado branchline:


Basalt hopes to take lead on rail vs. train debate

The Basalt, Colorado Town Council took a different position than Aspen or Pitkin County in the rail versus trail controversy, and it hopes to become a leader with its compromise strategy.

Basalt supports tearing up and salvaging the track along the old railroad corridor as well as giving the Roaring Fork Transportation Authority the "flexibility to use the rail bed where warranted."

RFTA's goal is to build a trail from Hook's Lane near the Basalt Business Center to Glenwood Springs by 2010. Its current policy is to use the rail bed only when geologic pinch points and wetlands prevent using other parts of the rail corridor.

The Aspen City Council decided earlier this month to oppose tearing up and salvaging the track. It wants to preserve it for a future commuter train by keeping a trail off the rail bed except when absolutely necessary.

The Pitkin County commissioners took the opposite position. They want the track torn up and salvaged so the rail bed can be used for a trail to reduce the costs. The commissioners said the corridor would be preserved for rail despite the presence of a trail.

"We're in between," Basalt Mayor Leroy Duroux said Wednesday night after his board deliberated.

RFTA's staff asked the board of directors to reconsider use of the rail bed as a cost-cutting maneuver. The staff estimates it would reduce the cost of trail construction by $2.2 million by using the rail bed completely rather than just when geology requires it.

The debate initially split Basalt officials. "I just think it would be so short-sighted to preclude the possibility of rail," said Councilwoman Anne Freedman.

She said RFTA would always have the legal right to develop rail in the corridor, but it would be politically tough if a trail is on the rail bed.

"It's a judgment, but I have been a political scientist for 40 years," said the retired professor.

Councilman Glenn Rappaport, an architect, joked that he's only been a political scientist for 20 years so his opinion was worth only half of Freedman's. He said "political will" will pose a bigger threat to developing rail than a trail when the time comes. He said the rail bed shouldn't be off limits for a concept that may or may not happen.

Mayor Leroy Duroux said any future commuter train technology is likely to wipe out the trail, whether it's on the rail bed or elsewhere in the rail corridor. Therefore, Duroux said, it doesn't make sense to force the trail off the rail bed on principle.

"I don't see what the big debate is about," he said.

Rick Stevens, a former mayor of Basalt, urged the board to reach its own conclusion and not necessarily follow the lead of Aspen or Pitkin County. He said valley residents are getting frustrated because the rail versus trail debate just keeps going and going.

"We need to take a position and stay there for a while so something can move forward," Stevens said.

Basalt's council decided on a three-pronged strategy. Its motion urged RFTA to complete the trail by 2010; it supports tearing up the rails and selling them where possible; and it created the concept of letting RFTA use the rail bed where it works best to create a meandering, interesting trail route through the corridor.

Town Manager Bill Efting reminded the board that "no decision in this valley" is made without revisiting it in six months. He said the council could always alter its direction depending on new information, but he also said the position might be adopted by other towns.

RFTA's board of directors is currently locked in ongoing debate over the rail issue in its monthly meetings. - Scott Condon, The Aspen Times, courtesy Larry W. Grant

And the dinner train proposal:

'Glitch' adds to dinner train controversy

An apparent administrative glitch within the Roaring Fork Transportation Authority has fueled suspicions among some people that the agency has a bias against restoring train service.

RFTA has asked train operators this month to send it proposals if they think they can economically operate a train that hauls diners, sightseers or freight between Glenwood Springs and Carbondale, Colorado. The deadline for responding to that "request for proposals" is Feb28.

But the general manager of a dinner train in Nebraska said he asked for the application packet from RFTA but never received it. Bruce Eveland, general manager of the Fremont Dinner Train, said RFTA Chief Executive Officer Dan Blankenship told him Feb. 4 that an application would be sent. It never arrived.

Eveland said he would like to give RFTA the benefit of the doubt and assume his request was forgotten. On the other hand, he said, it does raise doubts about the legitimacy of RFTA's request for proposals.

Jon Busch, a rail proponent from Aspen, wasn't as diplomatic.

"I'm smelling a rat," Busch said. "They didn't contact people who expressed an interest."

Blankenship said an administrative mistake was made that resulted in the failure to respond to Eveland.

"It's a mistake on our part - one I freely admit - but it wasn't intentional," Blankenship said.

He said he sent an e-mail to Mike Hermes, RFTA's director of properties and trails, on the night of Feb04 asking him to send the application packet to Eveland. Hermes never saw the e-mail, according to his boss. Blankenship said he doesn't know if there was an e-mail problem or it was simply an oversight on Hermes' part.

The issue was already emotionally charged. Some Roaring Fork Valley residents want the tracks ripped out of the old corridor and replaced with a trail. They see the investigation of a dinner train as a waste of time for an unrealistic idea.

Proponents of a future commuter train claim construction of a trail on the old rail bed would jeopardize their dream. They want the tracks preserved - perhaps by starting a dinner or tourist train.

Public debate over the rail corridor heated up six months ago. Some rail proponents have accused the RFTA staff of being biased against a train. Blankenship said this incident shouldn't reflect on RFTA's credibility.

After RFTA was contacted about the problem yesterday, RFTA immediately mailed Eveland a packet. Eveland will receive an extension of approximately three weeks to determine if he wants to make a formal proposal. That offsets the lost time, Blankenship said.

About 30 application packets were mailed to train operators who were identified by an RFTA consultant as parties with a potential interest, according to Blankenship. A few more applications were sent to parties that requested them. In addition, the application could be downloaded from RFTA's website.

Blankenship said Eveland never called him after their early February conservation to say the application didn't arrive.

Eveland confirmed that. He said he realized the application was also available from the authority's website but didn't download it. Other pressing business issues prevented him from following up, he said.

Eveland said he initially heard about RFTA's request for proposals from a train advocate in Colorado. He said he wanted to learn more to see if a legitimate business prospect existed. - Scott Condon, The Aspen Times, courtesy Larry W. Grant