The tax, proposed as ballot question 7A by the Front Range Passenger Rail District, would apply only in communities the district says would be directly affected by service. They include Fort Collins, Denver, Pueblo, Arvada, Lakewood, Westminster and Trinidad.

The planned service, named the Colorado Connector and often called CoCo, is intended to run on existing freight rail lines. Its first step is a starter service between Denver and Fort Collins, planned for 2029. That service is already funded through existing agreements and is expected to offer three round trips a day with eight station stops.

If 7A passes, later phases could increase service to as many as 10 trips a day between Fort Collins and Denver and eight round trips daily between Denver and Pueblo. The district has said Trinidad would not receive immediate CoCo service, but tax revenue would support improvements and operations for a new Amtrak Southwest Chief station hall that could serve as a future CoCo stop.

Supporters argue the trains could ease the isolation of communities along the corridor and give travelers another option besides driving on I-25. Sal Pace, general manager of the rail district and a Pueblo resident, said the highway can make it difficult for southern Coloradans to reach communities farther north and sustain family and economic ties.

James Flattum, outreach director for the Coloradans for CoCo campaign, has described intercity rail as a basic part of transportation in large urban regions. He points to forecasts from the Denver Regional Council of Governments that traffic conditions currently associated with the evening rush could become common by midafternoon in 2050.

The service’s speed and travel times have not been established. Pace said the trains could run at up to 79 mph, with a Denver-to-Fort Collins trip expected to take about an hour before accounting for station stops and other contingencies. He cautioned that the estimate depends on infrastructure work, safety upgrades, new trains and testing.

The plan relies on access to tracks owned by BNSF Railway and Union Pacific. Pace said a proposed BNSF agreement would tie higher payments to on-time performance, and that a similar arrangement with Union Pacific is being developed for the Denver-to-Pueblo segment. The agreements have not yet been signed; Pace said he hopes to finalize the northern agreement before the end of the year.

The proposal has organized opposition. The Common Sense Institute has questioned whether subsidized transit meets its goals and cited a decline in public-transit passenger miles nationwide between 2019 and 2024. The Independence Institute has argued that ride-hailing and taxis are better investments and that CoCo may not beat driving during peak periods.

Pace said reliable travel-time comparisons will require completed upgrades and testing. For advocates, the central case for the project is not that trains will eliminate highway congestion, but that they would give people another way to travel as the region grows.