I am writing regarding the July 21, 2025, Denver Gazette editorial, “Front Range rail is a fake shiny fantasy.” As a newly elected RTD Board Member, I am acutely focused on the financial viability of the agency, including whether or not we can deliver on past promises.

Last month, the RTD Board agreed to be a party to an intergovernmental agreement with the state of Colorado and the Front Range Passenger Rail District. The simple purpose of this IGA is to unite the parties and establish the State as the single negotiator with BNSF railroad to establish the cost of using BNSF tracks and right of way for the service. The current estimates do not give a full financial picture of those costs.

In 2004, the voters in the RTD district voted for FasTracks, approving a number of projects, including rail service from Denver’s Union Station along US 36 to Boulder and Longmont, known as the Northwest Corridor.

The budget for this ambitious program was underestimated and several communities have been left without promised service, including the Southwest Corridor extension to Highlands Ranch in my district. RTD admitted several years ago that these unfinished corridors would not be completed for years, if ever. There are many aggrieved taxpayers beyond the highly publicized Boulder and Longmont line.

The state of Colorado revived the completion of the NW Corridor with a modified plan, potentially fulfilling the mandate from voters for this service through a Joint Service with the Front Range Passenger Rail District using BNSF’s tracks for the route. There is no doubt this would be cheaper than RTD’s original plan to build the service on its own, however, no one knows how much an agreement with BNSF would cost under this plan.

Last month, I voted in favor of the IGA to stop the guesswork on what BNSF would charge us and find out whether it is cheaper than RTD’s go-it-alone historical plan. Colorado taxpayers are historically cautious about increasing taxes, making the voters’ mandate to build FasTracks even more significant.

We need the BNSF price before we can make a final decision. I am skeptical that it will be feasible, but no one has the facts, yet, and we should pursue every legitimate idea to fulfill these projects approved by taxpayers.

There are two outcomes to this IGA. One is the costs are lower than expected and the other is the costs outweigh any commitment made to voters. No matter the outcome, I agree we need better planning and realistic budgeting before going to voters.

We don’t need any more evidence or studies to prove that point.

Patrick O’Keefe is first vice chair and District H director on the Regional Transportation District Board of Directors.