FASTRACKS SYSTEM MAP: ALL CORRIDORS

FASTRACKS SYSTEM MAP: ALL CORRIDORS SOURCE: RTD NMC - 1403-09/06

FASTRACKS SYSTEM MAP: NORTHWEST RAIL CORRIDOR Current FasTracks Plan for Northwest Rail Corridor Final alignment, technology, and stations to be determined during the environmental study process. * Potential shared station with Gold Line - to be funded by Gold Line Pecos St.* 38 th Ave.* 0

NORTHWEST RAIL ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION DECISION-MAKING PROCESS PUBLIC INPUT Information Involvement Decision-Making Consultation with state and federal resource and regulatory agencies (such as FWS, SHPO) NW RAIL GOVERNMENTS TEAM RTD Cities / counties DRCOG Cooperating agencies (such as CDOT) NORTHWEST RAIL ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION Recommendations that integrate cost, technical / environmental, and public input Feedback loop to public - Here is how your input helped shape these recommendations. NORTHWEST RAIL EE RECOMMENDATIONS TO RTD (APPLICANT AGENCY) US ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT (LEAD FEDERAL AGENCY) NEPA documentation Resulting permits 07/07

PURPOSE AND NEED STATEMENT The Purpose and Need statement is a brief statement that identifies the reasons for proposing a major transportation improvement project. It helps to set the goals and establish the benchmarks from which the project s alternatives are evaluated. RTD would like to receive comments on the suggested Purpose and Need statement as shown below: PURPOSE: The purpose of the Northwest Rail project is to implement fixed guideway mass transit service between Denver, Boulder, and Longmont with the least-environmentally damaging, practicable alternative. NEED: Improve mobility Address increasing congestion Provide effective transit service Provide multimodal travel options Increase trip capacity 07/07

PROJECT SCHEDULE 2007 2008 2009-2010 2011-2014 EARLY 2015 Initial meetings Refinement of Station Location and design/ community review Updated ridership modeling and operating plans (2030 and opening year) Identify preferred alternative Begin preliminary engineering Draft document/ Public meeting Completion of 50% design documents Final Document Request Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) from Corps of Engineers Complete final design Complete railroad negotiations Initiate purchase of land needed for stations Construction Open for business

TECHNOLOGY LOCOMOTIVE-HAULED COACHES Powered by one diesel-electric locomotive Traditional commuter solution in Western USA Most efficient for longer trains (more than 4 cars) Longest end-to-end time due to limited acceleration Highest energy use Sometimes perceived as environmentally unfriendly due to noise and smoke experienced with freight trains Not currently under consideration by RTD primarily for operational reasons (too much capacity) and grades DIESEL MULTIPLE UNITS (DMUs) Power supplied by onboard diesel engines (similar to a bus) Each vehicle equipped with engines and transmissions Popular in USA in 1950 s and 1960 s on routes with limited ridership Very popular in Europe today Most efficient for shorter trains (less than 4 cars) Better end-to-end time than locomotive, but not as fast as EMU More environmentally friendly than locomotive, does not require electrification investment ELECTRIC MULTIPLE UNITS (EMUs) Power supplied by Overhead Contact System (25 kvac) Each vehicle equipped with traction motors Traditional commuter solution in Eastern USA Most efficient for shorter trains (less than 6 cars) Shortest end-to-end time due to high acceleration Lowest energy use Requires investment in electrification Suitable for most corridors with very frequent service

FEATURE COMPARISON: EMU VS. DMU COMMON FEATURES: Height 14-1/2 feet Length 85 feet Weight 145,000 to 155,000 pounds 76 to 110 seats (layout dependent) Service brake rate 2.0 to 2.5 mphps Emergency brake rate 2.8 to 3.0 mphps Practical maximum grade 4% Maximum operating speed 79 mph DMU EMU DIFFERENCES: ATTRIBUTE DMU EMU Power source Diesel Engines 25 kvac OCS Drive Mechanism Mechanical transmission Electric motor and gear box Energy recovery No Yes Acceleration rate 1.6 mphps 2.2 mphps

DIFFERENT FEATURES OF EMU / DMU CRITERION PASSENGER CAPACITY (PER CAR) ELECTRIC COMMUTER RAIL (EMU) Seated: 88-110 Standees: 225-265 DIESEL COMMUTER RAIL (DMU) Seated: 74 Standees: 235 ACCELERATION 2.2 mphps 1.6 mphps OPERATING COST Potentially lower Potentially higher VEHICLE COST (PER CAR) ~$3.2 million ~$3.2 million ELECTRIFICATION COST ~$145 million N/A NOISE Same (with horn) Less at lower speeds (without horn) Similar at maximum speed Same (with horn) More at lower speeds (without horn) Similar at maximum speed LOCAL AIR QUALITY Similar corridor wide Similar corridor wide VISUAL IMPACTS Overhead wires None 07/07

RTD FASTRACKS PROGRAM EVALUATION FasTracks developed in 2002 and 2003 based on best information available at the time (including previous major investment studies) Since then, RTD has faced financial challenges: Major increases in construction materials costs Railroad coordination and design issues Sales tax revenue lower than forecast Northwest rail corridor: capital cost increased from $565 million to current estimate of $685 million (year of expenditure dollars) Our challenge through environmental and design process: meet original budget and schedule RTD S NUMBER ONE GOAL: A commitment to delivering the FasTracks program within the general scope, timeframe and financial capacity afforded by the voters of the District in 2004. Cost reduction measures proposed by RTD staff: Single-track alignment between Boulder and Longmont Potential cost-sharing with Gold Line Value engineering during course of project for additional cost containment Retain original seven FasTracks stations for funding under FasTracks 07/07

COST EFFECTIVENESS: RECENT DEVELOPMENTS BNSF LETTER IN JULY 2007 SPECIFIED DESIGN REQUIREMENTS TO IMPLEMENT EMU IN NW RAIL ALIGNMENT: 26-foot high catenary (typical light rail height: 18-23 feet) for safety clearance for freight, maintenance equipment Most bridges in corridor are 23 feet above rail to meet typical non-electrified freight clearance requirements Would require reconstruction of at least 9 bridges in corridor, causing cost increases (additional $405-$565 million) and schedule delays ESTIMATED COST (IN MILLIONS) BRIDGE LOW HIGH I-76 $60 $80 Federal Blvd. $35 $50 Sheridan Blvd. $35 $50 92 nd Ave. $35 $45 US 36 $40 $60 US 287 $55 $70 Northwest Pkwy. $40 $60 Foothills Pkwy. (S. of Pearl) $35 $50 Foothills Pkwy. (N. of Pearl) $35 $50 Platt Pkwy.* $35 $50 TOTAL $405 $565 * Clearance of Platt Pkwy. bridge has not yet been verified

COST COMPARISON: EMU VS. DMU TECHNOLOGY DMU ($ MILLIONS) Fleet cost opening day (12 vehicles) $44 1 ($3.65/vehicle) EMU ($ MILLIONS) $38 1 ($3.17/vehicle) Electrification capital cost NA Up to $177 ($4.32/mile) BNSF EMU requirements cost per mile NA Up to $405-$565 ($9.87/mile to $13.78/mile) Total 2015 vehicle and related costs $44 $626 to $780 2 1 - Includes soft costs (testing, management, etc) 2 - Results in total electrification cost of between $582 and $742 million for 41-mile corridor Energy/fuel cost assumptions: Diesel at $2.52 per gallon Electric at $0.85 kwtt Both inflated at 3.4% per year DMU is least expensive up-front In this corridor the initial capital costs of EMU are not offset by the lower EMU operating costs within the 30 year timeframe ANNUAL COST ($ MM) $80 $70 $60 $50 $40 $30 $20 $10 EMU DMU $0 1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25 27 29 YEAR Note: This graphic does not take into account the additional $405- $565 million associated with bridge reconstruction to meet BNSF required clearances - see details later

AIR QUALITY ANALYSIS (REGIONAL) OVERALL NET BENEFIT TO REGIONAL AIR QUALITY FOR BOTH EMU AND DMU DUE TO REDUCTION IN REGIONAL VEHICLE MILES TRAVELED (VMT). RELATIVE LEVEL OF POLLUTANTS (COMBINED PM10, NOX+ HC, CO, GRAMS/ROUND TRIP) TO CARRY 300-400 PASSENGERS 50 MILES ROUND-TRIP: 10 buses = 15,000 grams/round trip combined 3 locomotive hauled bi-level coaches + locomotive = 7,800 grams/round trip combined 4 single-level DMUs = 7,400 grams/round trip combined EMISSIONS RATE (g/bhp-hr) 300 automobiles = 228,000 grams/round trip combined Source: Denver RTD and APTA Bus / Tractor Trailer DMU Locomotive NOx + NMHC CO 20 15 10 5 0 CO PM10 Current EPA Emission Standards Bus / Tractor Trailer DMU Locomotive PM10 NOx+NMHC 2011 EPA Emission Standards 15.5 0.1 2.5 15.5 0.01 0.34 2.6 1.5 0.15 0.2 3 5.8 2.6 1.5 0.02 0.08 1.64 2.9

AIR QUALITY ANALYSIS (LOCAL) CO hotspot analysis conducted for two representative stations in corridor (Boulder Transit Village, South Westminster) Current FasTracks Plan for Northwest Rail Corridor CO concentrations at stations, with autos and trains, would be well below national air quality standards DMUs represent less than 1% of CO at stations; more than 99% is from autos entering and leaving the station No significant difference between DMU and EMU Final alignment, technology, and stations to be determined during the environmental study process. * Potential shared station with Gold Line - to be funded by Gold Line Pecos St.* 38 th Ave.*

ALTERNATE ENERGY SOURCES EMU VS. DMU EMU - ANYTHING THAT CAN PRODUCE ELECTRICITY Wind, hydro, fuel cells, solar Typically implemented by local utility not RTD Typically costs more per kilowatt DMU - ANYTHING THAT A DIESEL ENGINE CAN BE CONVERTED TO BURN Biodiesel Made from agricultural products Eco-friendly if spilled Closed CO 2 cycle Typically mixed with petro diesel Natural Gas Burns cleaner than petro diesel Lower power output and difficult to store Hydrogen Burns extremely clean No CO 2 released Not easy to make or store

NOISE BASICS - DMU (DIESEL MULTIPLE UNIT) AND EMU (ELECTRIC MULTIPLE UNIT) At top speed (79 mph), the noise levels between EMU and DMUs are nearly identical. At this speed the wheels are the loudest factor. At slower speeds and when stopped (for example, at the station) DMU is louder than EMU because the EMU electric motor is quieter than the DMU diesel engine. When an EMU or DMU train horn is sounded - as at a road crossing - there is no difference in the noise at any speed because the horn is louder than the engine and the wheels. DMU EMU Slowest Speed < 79 mph 79 mph HORN 79 mph < 79 mph Slowest Speed DMU louder DMU louder EMU + DMU nearly identical at highest speed HORN louder than either vehicle EMU + DMU nearly identical at highest speed DMU louder DMU louder STATION 07/07

NOISE COMPARISON: EMU VS. DMU NOISE SOURCE Wheel and rail contact Same type of contact Vehicle propulsion Electric vs. Diesel Cooling fans Same type of fans Vehicle warning devices (horn) Same type of horns WHAT DOES IT MEAN (EMU VS. DMU)? Noise is similar at higher speeds EMU VS. DMU Similar noise levels at higher speeds DMU louder at lower speeds & stations SOUND LEVEL Diesel Powered Commuter Rail Electric Powered Transit Train 70 Sample Comparison of Projected Noise Exposure for DMU and EMU Trains with Existing Noise Exposure along Northwest Rail Corridor (in Westminster at 60 ft. from BNSF Track) TRANSIT SOURCES TRAIN SPEED OTHER SOURCES Ldn (dba) 68 66 64 62 60 Existing Existing + DMU Existing + EMU Freight Train Horn Proposed Commuter Train Horn Rail Transit at Grade (50 mph) City Bus (Idling) Rail Transit in Station 100 90 80 70 60 OUTDOOR Jack Hammer Concrete Mixer Air Compressor Lawn Mower Air Conditioner 58 50 56 40 54 At 50 Feet At 50 Feet 52 Decibels (db) 50

PRELIMINARY RESULTS: NOISE No severe impacts with either DMU or EMU Some moderate impacts with both EMU and DMU EMU would have less impacts than DMU FTA defines noise impacts as follows: Severe impacts: a significant percentage of people would be highly annoyed by the new noise.* Moderate impacts: noticeable to most people, but may not be sufficient to cause strong, adverse reactions CORRIDOR SECTION *Source: FTA Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Manual, May 2006 NUMBER OF ADDITIONAL MODERATE IMPACTS WITHOUT MITIGATION (DMU) Single-family Residential Multi-family Residential TOTAL NUMBER OF ADDITIONAL MODERATE IMPACTS WITHOUT MITIGATION (EMU) Single-family Residential Multi-family Residential Denver 0 0 0 0 0 0 Adams 29 0 29 8 0 8 Westminster 0 0 0 0 0 0 Broomfield 0 0 0 0 0 0 Louisville 5 3 8 2 3 5 Boulder 0 0 0 0 0 0 Boulder-Longmont 0 0 0 0 0 0 TOTAL TOTAL 34 3 37 10 3 13 Note: This analysis is based on the assumption that horn noise at crossings will be 90 decibels. Noise impacts will be substantially higher if FRA requires RTD to sound horns at 109 decibels. RTD is awaiting a response from FRA on this issue.

POSSIBLE NOISE MITIGATION MEASURES & QUIET ZONES Quality track design Directional horn devices Sound walls or berms Quiet zones (community must apply) Sound insulation on muffler for DMU NOISE PATH WITHOUT MITIGATION Denver Union Station SOUND WALL Denver Union Station SOUND BERM Denver Union Station FRA Rules state that trains must sound their horns when approaching grade crossings Quiet Zone Definition: Segments of railroad lines where train crews are exempt from sounding the horn at grade crossings. The Municipality must apply for the quiet zone, in coordination with other involved agencies. Note - The grade crossing must be made as safe without the horn as with the horn. RTD will hold workshops on quiet zone process as part of the Northwest Rail Project. More information can be found at http://www.fra.dot.gov/us/content/1318

PRELIMINARY RESULTS: VIBRATION CORRIDOR SECTION NUMBER OF ADDITIONAL VIBRATION IMPACTS WITHOUT MITIGATION (DMU) Single-family Residential Multi-family Residential School TOTAL NUMBER OF ADDITIONAL VIBRATION IMPACTS WITHOUT MITIGATION (EMU) Single-family Residential Multi-family Residential School TOTAL Denver 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Adams 24 0 0 24 0 0 0 0 Westminster 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Broomfield 15 0 0 15 10 0 0 10 Louisville 46 6 0 52 32 0 0 32 Boulder 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 Boulder-Longmont 1 0 1 2 0 0 1 1 TOTAL 86 6 2 94 42 0 1 43 POSSIBLE MITIGATION MEASURES: Planning and design of track work Vehicle specifications Note: Louisville impacts primarily from coal mines in area. Special track support systems Operational changes HUMAN/STRUCTURAL RESPONSE Velocity Level* TYPICAL SOURCES (50 ft. from Source) Threshold, minor cosmetic damage fragile buildings Difficulty with tasks such as reading a VDT screen Residential annoyance, infrequent events Residential annoyance, frequent events Limit for vibration sensitive equipment. Approximate threshold for human perception of vibration 100 90 80 70 60 50 Blasting from construction projects Bulldozers and other heavy tracked construction equipment Freight rail typical Proposed commuter rail typical (EMU or DMU) Bus or truck, typical Typical background vibration 40 *RMS Vibration Velocity Level in VdB relative to 10-6 inches/second

VISUAL IMPACTS: SIMULATIONS BIG DRY CREEK: EXISTING BIG DRY CREEK: WITH DMU BIG DRY CREEK: WITH EMU

VISUAL IMPACTS: SIMULATIONS EAST FLATIRON CIRCLE: EXISTING EAST FLATIRON CIRCLE: WITH DMU EAST FLATIRON CIRCLE: WITH EMU

VISUAL IMPACTS: SIMULATIONS SOUTH OF NIWOT: EXISTING SOUTH OF NIWOT: WITH DMU SOUTH OF NIWOT: WITH EMU

SUMMARY OF ANALYSIS Criteria EMU DMU Cost Cost Effectiveness: Recent Developments Not affordable within FasTracks corridor budget Additional cost & extreme complexity related to bridge reconstruction Affordable Simple to construct Noise Fewer impacts than DMU More impacts than EMU Vibration Fewer impacts than DMU More impacts than EMU Air Quality (Local) Minimal local impacts Minimal local impacts Air Quality (Regional) Similar Similar Visual Impacts More impacts than DMU Fewer impacts than EMU Community Input More support Some support

PRELIMINARY RECOMMENDATION INITIATE SERVICE IN 2015 WITH DMU Lower up-front capital cost than EMU Lower life-cycle cost than EMU over horizon year of project (2030) Less complexity for construction than EMU Current FasTracks schedule and budget cannot accommodate construction of infrastructure needed for EMU Both EMU and DMU provide air quality benefits Noise impacts for both EMU and DMU are in the moderate range and can be further reduced with mitigation. RTD WILL RE-EXAMINE THE USE OF ELECTRIC OR OTHER ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY OR ALTERNATE FUELS IF IT IS DEEMED ADVANTAGEOUS AND COST-EFFECTIVE TO DO SO IN THE FUTURE.

HOW TO STAY INVOLVED Visit the Web site for current information about the project Sign up on the Web site to receive project updates and meeting announcements Attend a public meeting or issue-focused workshop Submit a comment by phone, email, fax, mail, or through the project Web site Request a meeting with your organization Call the RTD FasTracks information line HOW CAN YOU CONTACT US? Web site: www.rtdnorthwestrail.com Email: nwrail@rtd-fastracks.com Phone: (303) 299-2000 Fax: (303) 299-2425 Mail Comments to RTD: Karen Morales Northwest Rail Project RTD FasTracks 1560 Broadway #700 Denver, CO 80202