---
title: "Colorado’s CoCo Train Proposal: What It Would Deliver—and What Remains Uncertain"
description: Colorado Issue 7A - More Funding & Debt for Colorado Connector Train (CoCo) | Congestion Relief or Waste of Money? | Links to All Colorado Ballot Measures
image: https://whatsupamericans.com/hubfs/Colorado%20COCO%20Train.png
---

[Skip to content](https://whatsupamericans.com/blog/colorado-coco-train-proposal#main-content)

- [HOME](https://whatsupamericans.com)
- [INTERVIEWS](https://whatsupamericans.com/interviews)
- [TALK TO US](https://whatsupamericans.com/interview-sign-up)
- [PRIVACY](https://whatsupamericans.com/privacy)
- [TERMS OF USE](https://whatsupamericans.com/terms)
- [CONTACT](https://whatsupamericans.com/contact)
- [BLOG](https://whatsupamericans.com/blog)

 Oct 18, 2026, 10:08:40 PM

# Colorado’s CoCo Train Proposal: What It Would Deliver—and What Remains Uncertain

[Marek Bobik](https://whatsupamericans.com/blog/author/marek-bobik)

Share: [facebook-f icon](http://www.facebook.com/share.php?u=https://whatsupamericans.com/blog/colorado-coco-train-proposal) [linkedin-in icon](http://www.linkedin.com/shareArticle?mini=true&url=https://whatsupamericans.com/blog/colorado-coco-train-proposal) [Twitter icon](https://twitter.com/intent/tweet?url=https://whatsupamericans.com/blog/colorado-coco-train-proposal) [pinterest-p icon](http://pinterest.com/pin/create/link/?url=https://whatsupamericans.com/blog/colorado-coco-train-proposal) [envelope icon](mailto:?body=https://whatsupamericans.com/blog/colorado-coco-train-proposal)

*Information reviewed as of October 19, 2026. Links to the underlying documents, reporting, and arguments are included throughout.*

Colorado’s proposed **Colorado Connector—“CoCo” for short—is a conventional intercity passenger train, not a high-speed bullet train**. The plan is to connect Fort Collins, Boulder, Denver, Colorado Springs, and Pueblo primarily by upgrading and sharing existing freight-rail infrastructure. The Front Range Passenger Rail District would oversee the system, with Amtrak expected to operate the initial service. ([frprdistrict.com](https://www.frprdistrict.com/plan))

The debate involves two separate decisions: launching a limited northern service using existing funding sources, and approving a new tax to extend the route south and eventually run more trains. Treating those as one fully funded, immediately available project obscures what voters are actually being offered. ([coloradansforcoco.com](https://www.coloradansforcoco.com/issue-7a-faq-the-colorado-connector-2026))

The proposition to increase sales in the Front Range Passenger Rail District by 0.333% is on the November ballot as Issue 7A within those districts. Voting NO on 7A does NOT mean the project won't go forward; it means the northern part of the project will begin using funds already allocated to it, and no additional taxes will be collected.

> IMPORTANT NOTE: There has been a [ballot error](https://whatsupamericans.com/blog/colorado-coco-train-proposal#ballot-error) (described at the end of this blog). Some voters outside the Front Range Passenger Rail District received ballots with Issue 7A included. Voters are asked to vote on it and trust the four county clerks’ election offices to carry out ballot-handling and tabulation changes to exclude ineligible votes on 7A. Reportedly, they will receive guidance and testing support from the Colorado Department of State’s Elections Division, in coordination with the Colorado County Clerks Association. (The rail district has clarified its boundaries but it does not count voters’ ballots.) ([pubt.io](https://pubt.io/view/C726ADA518BC54598C3912B2C3B3208FD1933B52))

## What exactly is proposed?

The district’s [delivery-plan summary](https://www.frprdistrict.com/plan) describes a phased system:

| Stage | Proposed service | Target |
| --- | --- | --- |
| **Starter service** | Three daily round trips between Denver and Fort Collins | **2029** |
| **Initial full-corridor service** | Additional northern service and two daily round trips between Denver and Pueblo | **2032** |
| **Later expansion** | Eventually ten daily round trips north of Denver and eight south to Pueblo | Phased expansion after 2032 |

The initial northern stops would be **Denver Union Station, Westminster, Broomfield, Louisville, Boulder, Longmont, Loveland, and Fort Collins**. This part is already funded, so it will go on regardless of the outcome of Issue 7A. Southern plans add Littleton, Sterling Ranch, northern Colorado Springs, central Colorado Springs, and Pueblo. That is **13 proposed permanent stations in 12 communities**, explaining why descriptions sometimes use different counts. ([frprdistrict.com](https://www.frprdistrict.com/plan))

The proposed maximum speed is **79 mph**. The district’s [current travel-time estimates](https://coloradoconnector.com/faq/) are:

- **Fort Collins–Denver:** approximately **90–105 minutes**.
- **Denver–Pueblo:** approximately **135–160 minutes**.

These are station-to-station estimates, not door-to-door travel times. The district says final schedules will depend on testing and coordination with the host railroads. ([coloradansforcoco.com](https://www.coloradansforcoco.com/issue-7a-faq-the-colorado-connector-2026))

**“Full service in 2032” does not mean the maximum advertised train frequency in 2032.** The financing plan places intermediate expansion in 2037 and the final frequency expansion around **mid-2045 at the earliest**, subject to revenue availability and railroad negotiations. ([coloradoconnector.com](https://coloradoconnector.com/finance/))

## What would voters approve in November?

[**Ballot Issue 7A**](https://www.frprdistrict.com/_files/ugd/3f188e_d228cf26794f408c829804aab32016c1.pdf), scheduled for **November 3, 2026**, asks district voters to authorize:

- A **0.333% sales and use tax** **with no expiration date**. So the tax would be collected even after the CoCo is up and running.
- Approximately **$295 million in annual revenue initially**, with subsequent collections allowed to grow.
- **$580 million in debt**, with a stated **repayment cost of $785 million** (**debt cost of $205 million - that is 35% more than paying as we go**).
- Funding for construction, operations, increased frequency, stations, and local connections.
- Annual independent financial review and citizen oversight.

The tax has **no stated sunset**. Specified essentials—including groceries, gasoline, residential electricity and gas, prescriptions, and medical supplies—are exempt. See the [ballot language and explanation published by Colorado Public Radio](https://www.cpr.org/2026/09/25/vg-2026-ballot-measure-7a-front-range-rail/). ([cpr.org](https://www.cpr.org/2026/09/25/vg-2026-ballot-measure-7a-front-range-rail/))

On a taxable $100 purchase, the additional tax would be approximately **33 cents**.

Importantly, **a “no” vote would not automatically cancel the northern starter service**. That phase is being advanced through separate state and RTD funding arrangements. ([cpr.org](https://www.cpr.org/2026/09/25/vg-2026-ballot-measure-7a-front-range-rail/))

## What was the original proposal—and its funding?

There is no single “original CoCo proposal.” Several generations of Front Range rail planning preceded the current brand.

### Earlier planning envisioned a more intensive railway

The predecessor rail commission’s **2020 alternatives analysis** evaluated a much more frequent system: **24 end-to-end round trips daily**. Its **2022 transition report** explained that freight railroads considered that level unnecessary for opening day and suggested a smaller initial service sharing freight infrastructure. See the [commission’s closeout and transition report](https://www.ridethefrontrange.com/_files/ugd/3f188e_99735f5e06804fc7bb16694d73f85e49.pdf). ([ridethefrontrange.com](https://www.ridethefrontrange.com/_files/ugd/3f188e_99735f5e06804fc7bb16694d73f85e49.pdf))

An [earlier district FAQ](https://www.frontrangepassengerrail.com/frpr-faqs) described:

- Approximately **$1 billion–$2.5 billion in 2020 dollars** for a limited initial service that would not cover the entire corridor.
- Approximately **$9 billion–$14 billion** for a 2045 system with double track, exclusive right-of-way, and 24 round trips daily.

Those were **planning estimates, not fully funded construction commitments**. They also describe a substantially different railway from today’s shared-track proposal. ([frontrangepassengerrail.com](https://www.frontrangepassengerrail.com/frpr-faqs?utm_source=openai))

### The district was created in 2021—not fully funded then

Governor Jared Polis signed **SB21-238 on June 30, 2021**, creating the district and authorizing it to plan, finance, build, and operate passenger rail. New district taxes and bonds required voter approval. The law did **not** supply the billions needed to construct the system. [Read the legislation](https://www.leg.colorado.gov/bills/SB21-238). ([leg.colorado.gov](https://www.leg.colorado.gov/bills/SB21-238))

Early money primarily supported development work:

| Funding action | Amount and purpose |
| --- | --- |
| **2020 federal CRISI planning award** | **$548,000**, accompanied by **$3.377 million in matching funds**, for preliminary service-development planning |
| **2022 SB22-176** | **$1.9 million** transferred toward the district; **$6.5 million** for Burnham Yard environmental work; **$500,000** for state-owned-property planning |

The Burnham Yard amounts should not be described as money that directly purchased an operating CoCo railway. Sources: [district grant library](https://www.frprdistrict.com/library) and [SB22-176](https://www.leg.colorado.gov/bills/SB22-176). ([frprdistrict.com](https://www.frprdistrict.com/library))

### Funding for today’s starter service

The current northern starter-service estimate is **$332 million**. The proposed funding arrangement includes approximately **$156 million from RTD’s FasTracks savings**, with state support from rental-car and oil-and-gas fee revenues established through 2024 legislation. ([coloradansforcoco.com](https://www.coloradansforcoco.com/issue-7a-faq-the-colorado-connector-2026))

However, **a funding framework is not identical to every construction appropriation being irrevocably approved**. Denverite reported in May 2026 that RTD had approved approximately **$5.6 million for design**, while the larger construction expenditure would require further board approval. [Read that reporting](https://denverite.com/2026/05/27/rtd-boulder-train-spending-colorado-connector-front-range-rail/). ([denverite.com](https://denverite.com/2026/05/27/rtd-boulder-train-spending-colorado-connector-front-range-rail/?utm_source=openai))

## What has actually been accomplished?

The documented accomplishments are meaningful, but mostly involve planning and project development:

- Establishing the district and its governing authority.
- Completing corridor alternatives analysis.
- Obtaining planning funding.
- Developing service, delivery, and financing plans.
- Negotiating a **BNSF term sheet for 25-year northern corridor access**.
- Advancing initial engineering and design.

The district’s own materials distinguish the BNSF **term sheet** from the formal agreement, which they targeted for execution in 2026. A term sheet should not be represented as proof that all final contractual obligations are settled. ([leg.colorado.gov](https://www.leg.colorado.gov/bills/SB21-238))

Amtrak also operated an **inspection train between Fort Collins and Denver in March 2024**, according to its congressional testimony. That was a development milestone—not the start of regular passenger service. [Read Amtrak’s testimony](https://www.amtrak.com/content/dam/projects/dotcom/english/public/documents/corporate/testimony/2024/Amtrak-CEO-Gardner-House-Subcommittee-Testimony-on-Railroads-Pipelines-and-Hazardous-Materials-061224.pdf). ([amtrak.com](https://www.amtrak.com/content/dam/projects/dotcom/english/public/documents/corporate/testimony/2024/Amtrak-CEO-Gardner-House-Subcommittee-Testimony-on-Railroads-Pipelines-and-Hazardous-Materials-061224.pdf?utm_source=openai))

**CoCo has not yet delivered an operating, regularly scheduled passenger service.** Its advertised opening remains in the future. ([frprdistrict.com](https://www.frprdistrict.com/plan))

## What has not been accomplished as promised?

This question requires separating **CoCo’s future commitments** from **RTD’s older, unfulfilled commitments**.

### The older Northwest Rail promise remains unfulfilled

The Denver–Boulder–Longmont railway was part of RTD’s **2004 FasTracks program**, with completion originally anticipated in 2017. It remains unfinished. CoCo would use some of that accumulated funding and serve that corridor, but would initially provide **three round trips a day**, not the original broader commuter-rail concept. ([rockymountainvoice.com](https://rockymountainvoice.com/2026/04/29/the-3m-campaign-behind-colorados-coco-rail-tax-proposal/?utm_source=openai))

It is therefore fair to say that communities have waited years for promised rail. It is **not** accurate to assign every FasTracks failure to the newer Front Range Passenger Rail District.

### CoCo’s principal promises remain untested

The district has not yet demonstrated actual ridership, operating reliability, fare revenue, or highway-congestion reductions. Its 2029 and 2032 opening targets have **not yet been missed**, because those dates are still ahead. But final fares, costs, schedules, railroad agreements, and later delivery dates remain important uncertainties identified in the [2026 Blue Book’s arguments against the measure](https://content.leg.colorado.gov/sites/default/files/2026-blue-book-en-accessible.pdf). ([content.leg.colorado.gov](https://content.leg.colorado.gov/sites/default/files/2026-blue-book-en-accessible.pdf))

## What cost overruns have occurred—and why?

**I could not verify a documented CoCo construction overrun measured against a fixed, approved construction baseline.** The available records establish changing proposals and estimates—not a completed construction project that has exceeded its contract budget.

The district’s [August 2026 financing plan](https://coloradoconnector.com/finance/) provides these **year-of-expenditure** capital estimates:

| Phase | Estimated capital cost |
| --- | --- |
| 1 | $332 million |
| 2 | $1.772 billion |
| 3 | $611 million |
| 4 | $99 million |
| 5 | $2.027 billion |
| **Total** | **$4.841 billion** |

The figures include escalation and contingencies. **Trainsets are assumed to be leased, so their lease payments are operating expenses rather than part of this capital total.** The linked financing document is labeled a working draft, so these are not guaranteed final prices. ([coloradoconnector.com](https://coloradoconnector.com/finance/))

Earlier July commentary used a rounded **$4.7 billion** program figure. The difference from August’s table warrants clarification, but does not by itself establish a construction overrun. Likewise, comparing a $332 million northern starter service with a multibillion-dollar full-corridor system would confuse scope expansion with overspending. ([completecolorado.com](https://completecolorado.com/2026/07/24/money-train-colorados-front-range-rail-a-looming-debacle/))

The practical cost risks include construction-price escalation, host-railroad requirements, financing conditions, and the infrastructure needed for additional train frequency. The financing plan acknowledges those risks; it does not eliminate them. ([coloradoconnector.com](https://coloradoconnector.com/finance/))

## What are the ridership projections?

Several different figures circulate:

| Figure | What it represents |
| --- | --- |
| **Approximately 1.27 million annual passenger trips** | The full-buildout planning figure used in the 2026 environmental-benefits analysis |
| **Approximately 3,500 trips daily** | Rough daily equivalent used in the current debate |
| **Up to 2 million annual trips over time** | A higher longer-term expectation promoted by supporters |
| **As much as 2.6 million annually in 2045** | An older forecast associated with an earlier service concept |

These figures are not interchangeable forecasts for the same opening-year operation. Sources: [SWEEP’s analysis](https://www.swenergy.org/front-range-passenger-rail-could-deliver-major-transportation-and-environmental-benefits/), [current campaign FAQ](https://www.coloradansforcoco.com/issue-7a-faq-the-colorado-connector-2026), and [earlier district FAQ](https://www.frontrangepassengerrail.com/frpr-faqs). ([swenergy.org](https://www.swenergy.org/front-range-passenger-rail-could-deliver-major-transportation-and-environmental-benefits/))

**Passenger trips do not mean unique people.** A person traveling out and back accounts for two one-way trips.

The Colorado Sun reported that the draft plan anticipated only **11% of trips being work-related**, with entertainment, sports, and visiting family forming important markets. That matters when assessing claims about relieving weekday rush-hour traffic. [Read the Sun’s July report](https://coloradosun.com/2026/07/21/front-range-rail-potential-vote-sales-tax-colorado/). ([coloradosun.com](https://coloradosun.com/2026/07/21/front-range-rail-potential-vote-sales-tax-colorado/?utm_source=openai))

## What studies support the forecasts?

### 1. Corridor alternatives analysis

The **2020 alternatives analysis** examined multiple routes and an enhanced-bus/no-action alternative. It assessed technical feasibility and helped identify the shared-freight approach. This counters the suggestion that no alternatives were ever studied—although an earlier alternatives study is not automatically a complete evaluation of today’s exact proposal. ([ridethefrontrange.com](https://www.ridethefrontrange.com/_files/ugd/3f188e_99735f5e06804fc7bb16694d73f85e49.pdf))

### 2. Travel-demand model calibration

CDOT published a [Front Range Rail Forecasting model-calibration and validation report](https://www.codot.gov/programs/environmental/greenhousegas/assets/model-calibration-and-validation-report.pdf), prepared by Cambridge Systematics. It used household surveys, traffic counts, transit data, and StreetLight location-based travel information.

An important limitation: the model was calibrated to **2015 conditions**, drawing on observations from **2010, 2015, and 2018**. It provides an evidence base, but not a direct measurement of post-pandemic travel behavior. ([codot.gov](https://www.codot.gov/programs/environmental/greenhousegas/assets/model-calibration-and-validation-report.pdf))

### 3. Public-interest surveys

The predecessor commission’s 2019 online survey attracted nearly 7,000 responses and strong support. However, its own report explicitly says respondents were **self-selected and not statistically representative**. An enthusiastic public survey is not equivalent to a validated forecast of paying customers. ([ridethefrontrange.com](https://www.ridethefrontrange.com/_files/ugd/3f188e_99735f5e06804fc7bb16694d73f85e49.pdf))

### 4. Current environmental and critical analyses

SWEEP published a supportive transportation-and-land-use analysis in August 2026. Common Sense Institute published a critical tax, ridership, and congestion analysis in October 2026. Both involve assumptions and should be read as modeled scenarios, not observed results. ([swenergy.org](https://www.swenergy.org/front-range-passenger-rail-could-deliver-major-transportation-and-environmental-benefits/))

## How many people currently travel between the proposed stops?

**I could not verify a current, complete city-to-city passenger-travel table for all proposed stations.** Highway traffic counts cannot substitute for that: a vehicle passing a counter may be making a local trip or traveling somewhere the train does not serve.

The closest substantiated origin–destination evidence I found is the CDOT modeling report’s **2018 StreetLight regional travel matrix**. Adding both directions gives:

| Regional pair—not individual station pair | Estimated daily travel movements |
| --- | --- |
| Northern Front Range planning region ↔ Denver planning region | **169,100** |
| Denver planning region ↔ Colorado Springs planning region | **65,700** |
| Colorado Springs planning region ↔ Pueblo planning region | **18,700** |
| Denver planning region ↔ Pueblo planning region | **3,700** |

These are **historical regional travel estimates, not unique travelers, current counts, or predicted rail passengers**. The northern region also covers communities beyond Fort Collins and Loveland. The report uses a custom primary-destination trip definition. They should not be labeled “Fort Collins–Denver riders.” ([codot.gov](https://www.codot.gov/programs/environmental/greenhousegas/assets/model-calibration-and-validation-report.pdf))

A current station-market origin–destination table, with methodology and uncertainty ranges, would materially improve public evaluation.

## Would CoCo meaningfully reduce highway congestion?

The evidence supports a narrower conclusion than either “it will solve I-25” or “it has no transportation value.”

### The skeptical estimate

[Common Sense Institute’s October analysis](https://commonsenseinstituteus.org/research/ballot-issue-7a-proposed-tax-for-front-range-rail/) assumes:

- 61% of rail trips would otherwise occur by car.
- Average vehicle occupancy of 1.52.
- Average replaced vehicle trips of 40 miles.

It estimates **20.5 million vehicle-miles avoided annually**, compared with **6.9 billion annual vehicle-miles on I-25 between Pueblo and Fort Collins**—approximately **0.3%**. That is CSI’s scenario, not a district-certified congestion forecast. ([commonsenseinstituteus.org](https://commonsenseinstituteus.org/research/ballot-issue-7a-proposed-tax-for-front-range-rail/))

### The supportive estimate

SWEEP estimates approximately **30.7 million vehicle-miles avoided annually directly through switching from cars to trains**. Its much larger estimate—approximately **233 million miles avoided**—depends mainly on future compact development near stations, not simply people boarding trains. SWEEP describes this as a **“reasonably optimistic”** scenario. ([swenergy.org](https://www.swenergy.org/front-range-passenger-rail-could-deliver-major-transportation-and-environmental-benefits/))

**Neither estimate establishes how many minutes the average I-25 driver would save.** The analyses concern travel volumes and land use; those are not the same as a demonstrated reduction in peak-hour congestion.

Also, the frequently repeated **“29,000 cars off the road”** claim is an emissions-equivalence comparison in SWEEP’s analysis—not 29,000 fewer vehicles on I-25 every day. ([swenergy.org](https://www.swenergy.org/front-range-passenger-rail-could-deliver-major-transportation-and-environmental-benefits/))

## Who supports CoCo—and why?

### Coloradans for CoCo and its coalition

The campaign’s [endorsement list](https://www.coloradansforcoco.com/endorsements) includes business organizations, environmental advocates, labor groups, disability-access organizations, and sports teams. Examples include:

- Colorado Hispanic Chamber of Commerce.
- Boulder Chamber and Greater Pueblo Chamber.
- Conservation Colorado and Sierra Club Colorado.
- Colorado Cross-Disability Coalition.
- Southern Colorado Labor Council and LiUNA.
- Colorado Rail Passenger Association.
- Denver Broncos and Colorado Rockies.

These affiliations are listed by the campaign; they do not establish that every supporter endorses every numerical claim. ([coloradansforcoco.com](https://www.coloradansforcoco.com/endorsements))

Their central case is that existing tracks allow incremental construction, rail offers an alternative to congested highways, and station connections can expand access to jobs, education, events, and family visits. ([cpr.org](https://www.cpr.org/2026/09/25/vg-2026-ballot-measure-7a-front-range-rail/))

### Greater Denver Transit and ColoRail

[Greater Denver Transit’s response to CSI](https://www.greaterdenvertransit.com/2026/10/14/14526/) argues that CoCo should be judged as **an alternative to I-25, not a cure for I-25**. It emphasizes usable travel time, mobility for nondrivers, and the difference between intercity rail and RTD’s local transit network. It also disputes treating low all-day seat occupancy as proof that useful service is unnecessary. ([greaterdenvertransit.com](https://www.greaterdenvertransit.com/2026/10/14/14526/))

The [Colorado Rail Passenger Association’s guide](https://www.colorail.org/co-co-guide) similarly argues that shared infrastructure and phased expansion can provide a practical service sooner than a new, dedicated railway. Its ridership discussion relies partly on comparisons with other intercity services. ([colorail.org](https://www.colorail.org/co-co-guide))

## Who opposes CoCo—and why?

### Affordable Colorado and the Independence Institute

There **is organized opposition**. The Colorado Secretary of State’s [TRACER registration for Affordable Colorado](https://tracer.sos.colorado.gov/PublicSite/SearchPages/CommitteeDetail.aspx?OrgID=52352) expressly includes opposing Ballot Issue 7A. The Independence Institute also promotes an [Affordable Colorado campaign](https://i2i.org/affordablecolorado/). This updates earlier reporting that described no formal opposition. ([tracer.sos.colorado.gov](https://tracer.sos.colorado.gov/PublicSite/SearchPages/CommitteeDetail.aspx?OrgID=52352&utm_source=openai))

Independence Institute transportation-policy director **Randal O’Toole** argues that the project would deliver too little ridership and congestion relief for its cost, and that buses offer a cheaper, more adaptable alternative. He also argues that the starter service should demonstrate demand before voters fund expansion. These are his policy conclusions, not established project outcomes. See his [Complete Colorado commentary](https://completecolorado.com/2026/07/24/money-train-colorados-front-range-rail-a-looming-debacle/) and [Denver Gazette argument](https://www.denvergazette.com/2026/09/27/perspective-coco-is-cuckoo/). ([completecolorado.com](https://completecolorado.com/2026/07/24/money-train-colorados-front-range-rail-a-looming-debacle/))

### Other skeptical arguments

The Blue Book’s opposing arguments include:

- A permanent tax before final costs and service details are settled.
- On-going tax burden for taxpayers to cover operational losses.
- Difficulty competing with door-to-door driving.
- Limited initial frequency.
- Dependence on freight corridors and station connections.
- Risk of repeating earlier rail delays and shortfalls.
- The possibility that buses and existing transportation investments could provide greater benefits at lower cost.

These are arguments submitted against the measure, not findings independently established by the Blue Book itself. ([content.leg.colorado.gov](https://content.leg.colorado.gov/sites/default/files/2026-blue-book-en-accessible.pdf))

## Bottom line

**CoCo is neither a completed transportation success nor a demonstrated construction-budget failure.** It is a phased passenger-rail proposal with a more developed funding framework and railroad negotiations than earlier concepts—but no operating record yet. ([coloradoconnector.com](https://coloradoconnector.com/plan))

The strongest supportive case is travel choice, regional connectivity, and potential station-area development.

The strongest skeptical case concerns permanent taxation, uncertain demand, limited initial frequency, and meager direct highway-volume reductions. ([greaterdenvertransit.com](https://www.greaterdenvertransit.com/2026/10/14/14526/))

But there are many reasons for a wait-and-see approach:

- **The first segment of the project is already on the way and funded. Let's wait and see how it pans out before investing any more money**.
- **The spending estimates are vague**. We should have a much better understanding of costs before agreeing to more spending.
- There was **only one study done to investigate alternative means of congestion reduction**. Is 7A really the best and most cost-effective way to relieve congestion?
- **The proposal's own estimates of congestion reduction are meager. They range from 0.3% to 0.45% reduction, cost billions of dollars to build, and require ongoing expenditures even after the project is finished, if it ever is**.
- If the project is finished, ongoing taxpayer funding will be necessary to cover operational losses, but how much is not clear. If Amtrak performance is any indicator, taxpayers will have to pay over $121 per train mile. That figure comes from [Amtrak's](https://www.amtrak.com/content/dam/projects/dotcom/english/public/documents/corporate/financial/Amtrak-Management-Discussion-Analysis-Audited-Financial-Statements-FY2025.pdf)[FY2025 MD&A and Consolidated Financial Statements](https://www.amtrak.com/content/dam/projects/dotcom/english/public/documents/corporate/financial/Amtrak-Management-Discussion-Analysis-Audited-Financial-Statements-FY2025.pdf).
- 7A also asks for a debt increase of $580 million, with repayment cost of $785 million. So, the **cost of borrowing is $205 million, more than 35% higher than paying as we go**. Debt is not a responsible way to spend taxpayers' money here.

---

 

# The CoCo Ballot Error: What Happened With Issue 7A—and What Voters Should Do

*Updated October 19, 2026.*

**Voters who received Issue 7A by mistake should still complete and return their ballots.** Election officials say they will count the other eligible contests normally, but exclude the 7A selection if the voter lives outside the Front Range Passenger Rail District. A replacement ballot is not required merely because 7A was incorrectly included. ([douglasco.gov](https://www.douglasco.gov/elections/election-information/on-the-ballot/?utm_source=openai))

## What caused the confusion?

Approximately **800,000 ballots in Adams, Arapahoe, Douglas, and Weld counties** incorrectly included the CoCo passenger-rail funding measure for voters outside the district. The problem followed a **2026 legislative change to the district’s boundaries** that was not adequately communicated to county election offices before ballots were prepared. ([cpr.org](https://www.cpr.org/2026/10/07/front-range-passenger-rail-incorrect-ballots/?utm_source=openai))

Douglas County offers a particularly clear example: its elections office says the boundary map supplied by the rail district showed **the entire county inside the district**, so 7A appeared on every Douglas County ballot. The updated boundaries do not include the entire county. ([douglasco.gov](https://www.douglasco.gov/elections/election-information/on-the-ballot/?utm_source=openai))

There was also an error in the opposite direction: **some eligible Columbine Valley voters received ballots without 7A**. Arapahoe County discovered the omission on **September 30**, and says it learned of the broader outside-district inclusion problem on **October 6**. ([files.arapahoeco.gov](https://files.arapahoeco.gov/news_detail_votes_T90_R1698.php))

**Having 7A printed on a ballot does not, by itself, establish that the voter is eligible to vote on it.** Eligibility depends on residence within the updated district boundaries. ([pubt.io](https://pubt.io/view/C726ADA518BC54598C3912B2C3B3208FD1933B52))

## Who made the mistake—and who is blaming whom?

### State and county officials blame the rail district’s boundary communication

The Colorado Department of State and Colorado County Clerks Association explicitly attributed the problem to the **Front Range Passenger Rail District’s failure to adequately communicate its updated boundaries**. Arapahoe County similarly says the district did not verify its new boundaries with the affected clerks. ([pubt.io](https://pubt.io/view/C726ADA518BC54598C3912B2C3B3208FD1933B52))

County offices prepared and distributed the ballots, but their explanation is that they were working with outdated district information. Douglas County specifically identifies the map supplied by the rail district as the reason for its countywide inclusion of 7A. ([douglasco.gov](https://www.douglasco.gov/elections/election-information/on-the-ballot/?utm_source=openai))

### The rail district acknowledged its communication failure

General Manager **Sal Pace and the district’s board** apologized to county clerks. They said the legislation arrived on a compressed timeline and that the district’s unusual legal structure meant the changes were not communicated through the usual channels. They acknowledged that they should have contacted clerks earlier. That is their explanation—not an independent finding that the mistake was unavoidable. ([sentinelcolorado.com](https://sentinelcolorado.com/metro/rail-district-miscommunication-sends-wrong-ballots-to-800000-voters-in-and-near-aurora/))

### Opponents say the error raises broader competence concerns

**Jon Caldara**, president of the Independence Institute and head of the **Affordable Colorado** committee opposing 7A, argued that the error undermines confidence in the district’s ability to manage the railway. He also criticized the boundary changes as strategic and called for the election on 7A to be invalidated. Those are opposition arguments, not findings by election administrators or a court. ([sentinelcolorado.com](https://sentinelcolorado.com/metro/rail-district-miscommunication-sends-wrong-ballots-to-800000-voters-in-and-near-aurora/))

**The documented administrative explanation is principally a boundary-information failure attributed to—and acknowledged by—the rail district.** The sources reviewed do not establish individual misconduct or a judicial allocation of legal liability. ([pubt.io](https://pubt.io/view/C726ADA518BC54598C3912B2C3B3208FD1933B52))

## What should voters do?

| Your situation | What to do |
| --- | --- |
| **You live inside the district and 7A appears on your ballot** | Vote on it according to your preference and return your ballot normally. |
| **You live outside the district but 7A appears** | Complete and return the ballot you received. Officials will exclude the ineligible 7A selection while counting your other eligible votes. |
| **You already marked 7A but live outside the district** | You do not need a replacement solely for that reason. Douglas County expressly says marking 7A—or leaving it blank—does not affect the rest of your ballot. |
| **You believe you live inside the district but 7A is missing** | Contact your county elections office about a corrected ballot. This is a different problem from an extra question appearing. |

These instructions reflect the state’s joint guidance and county election-office notices. ([pubt.io](https://pubt.io/view/C726ADA518BC54598C3912B2C3B3208FD1933B52))

The district provides an **[address lookup tool](https://coloradoconnector.com/check/)**, but warns that it is informational—not an official determination of voting eligibility. **Your county elections office is the authority if your eligibility is uncertain.** Ballots must be received by **7 p.m. on November 3, 2026**. ([coloradoconnector.com](https://coloradoconnector.com/check/))

## How will officials resolve the problem?

**The correction is primarily in ballot processing and tabulation—not a mass replacement of the affected ballots.** State Elections Director **Judd Choate** issued instructions on October 7; state election staff worked with the counties on testing protocols on October 8. ([sentinelcolorado.com](https://sentinelcolorado.com/metro/rail-district-miscommunication-sends-wrong-ballots-to-800000-voters-in-and-near-aurora/))

### 1. Configure voting systems to exclude ineligible 7A votes

Where ballot styles or precinct divisions distinguish eligible from ineligible voters, counties are instructed to configure—and test—their voting systems so that **7A is counted only for eligible district voters**. Other contests remain countable normally. ([cpr.org](https://www.cpr.org/2026/10/07/front-range-passenger-rail-incorrect-ballots/?utm_source=openai))

### 2. Separately review mixed-eligibility ballot groups

The more complicated cases include **Bow Mar in Arapahoe County and Sterling Ranch in Douglas County**, where some ballot groups include both eligible and ineligible voters.

The instructions require counties to:

- Divert the relevant return envelopes for eligibility review.
- Process eligible voters’ ballots normally.
- Signature-verify and open ineligible voters’ ballots, then reproduce their eligible selections onto a ballot style **without 7A** for tabulation.

This is a ballot-processing correction, not permission to change a voter’s choices in other contests. ([cpr.org](https://www.cpr.org/2026/10/07/front-range-passenger-rail-incorrect-ballots/?utm_source=openai))

### 3. Supply corrected ballots where 7A was omitted

For affected Columbine Valley voters, Arapahoe County says a corrected ballot will replace the original. If the voter already returned the original, it will be set aside; the replacement will count and the original will be voided. **Only one ballot per voter will count.** If no replacement is returned, the original ballot’s other contests will still count. ([files.arapahoeco.gov](https://files.arapahoeco.gov/news_detail_votes_T90_R1698.php))

## Who is responsible for implementing the fix?

The **four county clerks’ election offices** carry out the ballot handling and tabulation changes, with guidance and testing support from the **Colorado Department of State’s Elections Division**, in coordination with the **Colorado County Clerks Association**. The rail district has supplied clarification of its boundaries; it is not the office counting voters’ ballots. ([pubt.io](https://pubt.io/view/C726ADA518BC54598C3912B2C3B3208FD1933B52))

The county clerks are:

- **Adams:** Josh Zygielbaum
- **Arapahoe:** Joan Lopez
- **Douglas:** Sheri Davis
- **Weld:** Carly Koppes

They participated in the October 9 joint update describing the response. ([pubt.io](https://pubt.io/view/C726ADA518BC54598C3912B2C3B3208FD1933B52))

## Has the problem been resolved?

**A corrective procedure has been issued, but that is not the same as a completed, verified election outcome.** The October 9 update said processing would begin **October 19**. As of this October 19 review, the sources establish the instructions and testing arrangements—not a completed post-election verification that every affected ballot was handled correctly. ([pubt.io](https://pubt.io/view/C726ADA518BC54598C3912B2C3B3208FD1933B52))

Caldara’s demand to invalidate the measure also should not be confused with an actual cancellation. CPR reported that the Secretary of State’s office said invalidation would be a matter for the courts; the published voter guidance remains to use the ballots already sent. ([cpr.org](https://www.cpr.org/2026/10/07/front-range-passenger-rail-incorrect-ballots/?utm_source=openai))

### Bottom line

**Do not discard or withhold your ballot because 7A appears unexpectedly.** Return it normally. If you are outside the district, election officials—not the voter—are responsible for excluding that contest. If you believe you are eligible but **7A is missing**, contact your county elections office promptly about a corrected ballot. ([douglasco.gov](https://www.douglasco.gov/elections/election-information/on-the-ballot/?utm_source=openai))

### Key sources

- [Douglas County Elections: ballot instructions and explanation](https://www.douglasco.gov/elections/election-information/on-the-ballot/)
- [Arapahoe County: affected-voter FAQ](https://files.arapahoeco.gov/news_detail_votes_T90_R1698.php)
- [October 9 joint state/county update, republished by Public Technologies](https://pubt.io/view/C726ADA518BC54598C3912B2C3B3208FD1933B52)
- [Colorado Public Radio: error and detailed correction procedures](https://www.cpr.org/2026/10/07/front-range-passenger-rail-incorrect-ballots/)
- [Sentinel Colorado: responsibility, apology, and opposition response](https://sentinelcolorado.com/metro/rail-district-miscommunication-sends-wrong-ballots-to-800000-voters-in-and-near-aurora/)

---

 

[voting](https://whatsupamericans.com/blog/tag/voting), [political research](https://whatsupamericans.com/blog/tag/political-research)

## Related posts

[![Colorado Proposition 134: Male and Female Participation in School and Collegiate Sports](https://whatsupamericans.com/hs-fs/hubfs/Colorado%20Proposition%20134.png?height=200&name=Colorado%20Proposition%20134.png)](https://whatsupamericans.com/blog/proposition-134-2026-election)

[voting](https://whatsupamericans.com/blog/tag/voting)

## [Proposition 134: Male and Female Participation in School and Collegiate Sports | The Scoop on Colorado’s November 2026 Proposed Measures – Part 11 of 14](https://whatsupamericans.com/blog/proposition-134-2026-election)

[Marek Bobik](https://whatsupamericans.com/blog/author/marek-bobik) 

 Oct 16, 2026, 6:01:28 PM

Should Colorado establish a statewide biological-sex requirement for school sports—or leave...

[Read more](https://whatsupamericans.com/blog/proposition-134-2026-election)

[![Colorado Amendment 83, November 2026 Election](https://whatsupamericans.com/hs-fs/hubfs/Colorado%20Constitution%20Amendment%2083.png?height=200&name=Colorado%20Constitution%20Amendment%2083.png)](https://whatsupamericans.com/blog/colorado-amendment-83-2026-election)

[voting](https://whatsupamericans.com/blog/tag/voting)

## [Amendment 83: Constitutional Right to Hunt and Fish | The Scoop on Colorado’s November 2026 Proposed Measures – Part 3 of 14](https://whatsupamericans.com/blog/colorado-amendment-83-2026-election)

[Marek Bobik](https://whatsupamericans.com/blog/author/marek-bobik) 

 Oct 9, 2026, 8:01:36 PM

On November 3, 2026, Colorado voters will decide Amendment 83, a proposed amendment to the Colorado...

[Read more](https://whatsupamericans.com/blog/colorado-amendment-83-2026-election)

[![Colorado Amendment 85: Plain Language Ballot Titles](https://whatsupamericans.com/hs-fs/hubfs/Colorado%20Constitution%20Amendment%2085.png?height=200&name=Colorado%20Constitution%20Amendment%2085.png)](https://whatsupamericans.com/blog/htcolorado-amendment-85-2026-election)

[voting](https://whatsupamericans.com/blog/tag/voting)

## [Amendment 85: Plain Language Ballot Titles | The Scoop on Colorado’s November 2026 Proposed Measures – Part 5 of 14](https://whatsupamericans.com/blog/htcolorado-amendment-85-2026-election)

[Marek Bobik](https://whatsupamericans.com/blog/author/marek-bobik) 

 Oct 10, 2026, 8:49:51 PM

A ballot should test your judgment—not your ability to untangle a paragraph that sounds like it was...

[Read more](https://whatsupamericans.com/blog/htcolorado-amendment-85-2026-election)

facebook-f icon linkedin-in icon Twitter icon instagram icon

- [Our Blog](https://whatsupamericans.com/blog)

- Privacy
- Terms of Use

[![WUA Favicon-1](https://whatsupamericans.com/hubfs/Branding/WUA%20Favicon-1.png "WUA Favicon-1")](https://www.whatsupamericans.com)

---

**9249 S Broadway, Unit 200-536, Highlands Ranch, CO, 80129**

Copyright © 2024,

```json
{
  "@context" : "https://schema.org",
  "@type" : "BlogPosting",
  "author" : {
    "@type" : "Person",
    "name" : "Marek Bobik",
    "url" : "https://whatsupamericans.com/blog/author/marek-bobik"
  },
  "dateModified" : "2026-10-19T22:42:49.861Z",
  "datePublished" : "2026-10-19T04:08:40.000Z",
  "headline" : "Colorado’s CoCo Train Proposal: What It Would Deliver—and What Remains Uncertain",
  "image" : [ "https://whatsupamericans.com/hubfs/Colorado%20COCO%20Train.png" ],
  "mainEntityOfPage" : {
    "@id" : "https://whatsupamericans.com/blog/colorado-coco-train-proposal",
    "@type" : "WebPage"
  },
  "publisher" : {
    "@type" : "Organization",
    "logo" : {
      "@type" : "ImageObject",
      "url" : "https://whatsupamericans.com/hubfs/Branding/WUA%20Logo.png"
    },
    "name" : "WhatsUpAmericans.com"
  }
}
```