After more than two decades of planning – and sometimes wishful thinking – Union Station is ready to claim its role as the hub of metro Denver’s mass transit system.
Two teams are vying for the opportunity to connect the century-old train station with the upcoming FasTracks rail system.
Both teams also have their eyes on the lucrative urban housing, retail, office and community gathering space that can be built around the new transit station. Before they can cash in on that portion of the project, however, they must convince civic boosters and decision makers that theirs is the better solution to the transportation puzzle.
The teams have very different ideas about how to combine bus, light rail and heavier commuter rail on a site.
Both involve spending considerably more money than the $213.7 million provided by taxpayers for the FasTracks expansion, but master planners know their original designs would now cost more than three times that amount.
Until the winning bid is chosen in late October, members of both teams will be caught in a swirl of public and private presentations. And members of the selection committee will be busy sorting out which will provide the better platform on which to create something that could become Denver’s best-known public project.
Burying commuter rail
The Union Station master plan was developed in 2003, with a price tag of $560 million. Construction costs have risen considerably since then, raising the inflation-adjusted price to about $700 million, said Liz Orr, executive director of the project’s master developer. Based on the old price estimate, the plan required:
$230 million to bury light-rail lines so trains could run past the station in both directions. That would require massive relocation of utilities.
$120 million to bury heavier commuter-rail lines.
$125 million to relocate and bury regional bus lines. They currently operate out of the Market Street Station.
$85 million to restore historic Union Station, design surrounding streetscape, add public art and install safety and security systems.
Eleven teams originally responded to a request for qualifications by Union Station’s Executive Oversight Committee, but nine dropped out or formed alliances.
Only two – one led by Continuum Partners and East West Partners, the second called Union Station Partners and led by Cherokee Investment Partners and Phelps Development – submitted final proposals in July and unveiled their proposals at a public meeting that drew nearly 1,000 people.
Neither proposal follows the master plan to the letter, but both offered ways to save money on the original transit plan. The Continuum/East West team estimates its plan will cost $300 million. Union Station Partners prices its plan at about $513 million.
Both teams would bury commuter rail on the west side of the station. Both also suggest burying bus lines to the west so they can begin developing the east side while that work is in progress.
Both teams say they’ll complete the transit portion and at least some new buildings by 2011.
“There is no place to build buildings until you bury commuter rail,” said Tom Gougeon, Continuum’s chief development officer.
The biggest difference is how the teams would handle light rail.
Union Station Partners would bury the light-rail lines but, by modifying the route to the station, would require less of the costly tunneling envisioned in the master plan. That route would use about a third of the track originally anticipated, said architect Brad Buchanan, who’s on the Union Station Partners team.
Continuum/East West also would modify the light-rail route, but would save money by leaving those lines above ground.
Neither team has revealed precisely how it plans to pay for the project, but both would use a combination of tax-increment financing, metro districts and tax credits.
Another difference that could affect funding involves development plans for land surrounding the station. Union Station Partners would sell parcels to other developers, while Continuum/East West would develop the land itself.
“Different kinds of development create very different revenue streams,” said Orr. “If you’re looking at tax-increment financing, retail development – even certain kinds of hotels – generate a certain amount of sales tax that residential development does not. It’s not just how many square feet, it’s what kind of property is it.”
Evaluating the two plans without knowing the financial details is impossible, said Marilee Utter, president of Citiventure Associates Inc., a Denver advisory and development firm that specializes in mixed-use and transit-oriented development.
Cherokee is a land developer, selling property to vertical developers such as its partner Trammell Crow Co. Its strategy likely is to finance the project by putting additional density on the site, Utter said.
Continuum and East West are long-term landholders in the Central Platte Valley and own an additional 13 acres near the Union Station site.
“If you’re investing with Cherokee, they’ll say, ‘We need the money for five years. We’ll do the infrastructure, then sell the land to Trammell Crow and pay you back,”‘ Utter said.
“Continuum will say, ‘Give us the money for 20 years.’ They’re not depending on selling it to other people. The risk with them is that they’ll underdevelop it because they’re being conservative.”
Staff writer Margaret Jackson can be reached at 303-954-1473 or mjackson@denverpost.com.
