Front Range rail officials pitch 'Colorado Connector,' offer $75 million for Pueblo station

Front Range Passenger Rail District representatives on June 15 presented the Colorado Connector, a proposed intercity passenger-rail service that would link the Front Range from state line to state line and include a southern station in Pueblo. The presenters said a phased delivery strategy begins in the north with RTD helping to fund phase one and would extend service to Pueblo in a later phase contingent on voter-approved district taxes.

The presenters said RTD has committed $150 million to phase one and that the district has signed a term sheet with BNSF for operating the service. They described a modeled ballot referral that would ask district voters to approve about a third of a penny in district tax, which project modelers estimate could generate roughly $290 million annually and help finance service and expansion. Presenters proposed that municipalities own and operate station areas and said they want to direct an initial $75 million to the City of Pueblo for station-area investments, with an additional 10% payment if the city approves a station-area plan within 60 days.

The proposal envisions North‑to‑South phasing because RTD dollars and other secured northern funding allow an earlier start there; Pueblo would be served later in the build sequence. Project representatives said if a referral passes this November, district collections would begin in mid‑2027 and they are modeling Pueblo service coming online about five years after funding begins (presenters cited a goal of Q3 2032 under the current model). They also noted special-event stops and potential extensions to Trinidad and to link with New Mexico planners if federal funds become available.

Councilors pressed presenters on timing, fare estimates and local benefits. A presenter said the modeled Pueblo–Denver fare could start under $19 and described station funds as usable for sidewalks, bike access, transit, transit‑oriented development and other local improvements. Several councilors voiced skepticism that Pueblo would be last on the line and questioned how to maintain community buy‑in if benefits arrive late in the schedule. One councilor characterized Pueblo as being left “last” and urged stronger assurances that local investment would yield timely service.

Presenters said the delivery model is different from prior state-driven attempts because the district negotiated directly with BNSF (rather than relying on 209-driven state powers), which they said cut capital costs and created a revenue-sharing arrangement for performance. They noted ongoing stakeholder engagement in Pueblo, past station‑area planning work and a public-facing plan to be released in July.

Next steps identified by presenters included continuing stakeholder engagement, releasing the public-facing delivery plan in July and a possible district ballot referral later in the summer; presenters asked council to consider station-area approvals and local planning that would enable Pueblo to capture the proposed station funding.