(As seen on KDVR 31+ Streaming channel)
Transcript: “Colorado’s population is growing, and congestion is getting worse. There’s a better way. Vote yes on 7A. The Colorado Connector will run on existing tracks. A new, smarter, more affordable approach. With service starting as soon as 2029. Vote yes on 7A. Daily train service across the Front Range. Less traffic, less smog. More choices to get where you want to go. And a positive way to get cars off roads. Vote yes on 7A. Daily train service across the Front Range.”
-Paid for by Coloradans for COCO
Fact Check Summary:
COCO’s TV Ad makes wildly misleading and false claims to justify asking voters for a $300 million per year tax increase. The ad bases its numbers on outdated growth estimates for the Metro Area, which were recently revised heavily downward. Claims about reducing traffic and smog are not based on the train, but on assumptions about CDOT policy and uncertain investments in Transit-oriented Development. Claims that the railroad project is “New” and “Affordable” are laughably false.
“Colorado’s population is growing”: MISLEADING
CoCo’s planning process relied upon outdated demographic estimates that anticipated the Denver Metro Area would grow 40% by 2040 (to 4.3 million). Revised estimates show Denver Metro may NEVER reach that population.
In September 2026, the Denver Regional Council of Governments updated its 2050 plan with revised growth estimates of 19% by 2040 (to 3.8 million, or 500,000 fewer new residents), and 25% (4.01 million) by 2050.
There is strong reason to believe the revised estimates are still too optimistic, and that the Metro-Denver area may see population declines by 2040. Some counties in the Metro area experienced population declines from 2024–2025, including Denver, Arapahoe, Boulder, and Jefferson Counties.
Source: https://cdola.colorado.gov/press-release/colorados-state-demography-office-summarizes-county-level-us-census-data-released
As Colorado follows national fertility trends downward, planners have always counted upon robust in-migration from other states and countries. There are several reasons to doubt such migration trends can compensate:
1) Domestic in-migration is strongest when the state is adding jobs and keeping the cost of living under control. Colorado is losing corporate headquarters and jobs at an unprecedented rate, and is ranked among the top five most expensive states to live.
2) International immigration dropped dramatically in the wake of changing federal immigration policies, but there is reason to question whether immigration rates will ever recover. A recent global demographic study published in the National Bureau of Economic Research indicates that Central and South American fertility rates are now lower than those in the United States.
Source: https://www.nber.org/papers/w35651
“Congestion is Getting Worse”: MISLEADING
Bad growth estimates, CDOT’s pro-congestion policies, and basic math make this claim misleading.
This statement was further explained by FRPR Executive Director Sal Pace in a recent Denver Post Article, in which he cited a DRCOG study that Denver Metro Traffic would be almost perpetually jammed by 2040.
1. See Above re: Bad Growth Estimates. DRCOG estimates the demographic revisions described above will result in 17% percent fewer traffic jams than previously estimated (so the 2pm jams are not likely true anymore).
2. CDOT intentionally shelved highway projects to justify transit spending.
In 2024, the New York Times ran a feature story on “Colorado’s Bold New Approach to Highways— Not Building them.” The story details CDOT and DRCOG’s decision to shelve two major congestion-relieving projects (including I-25’s Central Corridor Express Lane expansion) and moving $1 billion from the highway budget toward transit and bike lanes.
It is disingenuous for a project like COCO, which is partially funded by CDOT, to bemoan congestion that CDOT intentionally neglected. For CDOT leadership, not all vehicle congestion is bad… sometimes it’s policy.
Source: https://www.nytimes.com/2024/05/31/headway/highways-colorado-transportation.html
3. Congestion does not just go North-South.
There is no evidence that COCO will relieve congestion in many parts of the Denver Metro Area, including all major east-west highways.
“A new, smarter, more affordable approach”: FALSE
1) Not New: The first passenger train to Denver arrived 156 years ago, in 1870.
2) Not Smarter: Travelers choose buses and express lanes over rail because it is more flexible. Rail transit ridership has dropped dramatically, while Express Lanes and Bustang service enjoy increasing demand.
3) Not Affordable: Based on COCO’s most optimistic projections, taxpayers would subsidize COCO at $600 per round trip. The project’s $4.7 billion cost is enough to expand capacity on every major Colorado highway and still have money left over.
“Less smog, less traffic….and a positive way to get cars off the road”: FALSE
COCO will have less than 1% impact on I-25 North traffic, and CDOT’s Bustang is already an affordable and expandable transit service for the corridor.
I-25 between Fort Collins and Denver sees 200,000 vehicles per day. If we accept CoCo’s old growth estimates, that could increase to 280,000 vehicles per day in the next 15-25 years.
Source: https://dtdapps.codot.gov/otis
CDOT’s Bustang 15–25 carries about 250 passengers per day, or 100,000 trips per year. COCO’s optimistic system-wide estimates for ridership are 990,000 annual trips by 2035, or roughly 2,500 passengers per day. That ridership number is less than 1% of the 280,000 vehicle trips anticipated by 2035. Unlike the $4.7 billion COCO system, Bustang is expandable beyond 10 trips per day, arrives in Denver faster than COCO, and costs exponentially less.
Source: https://www.rmpbs.org/news/housing-transportation/bustang-cuture-funding-colorado
$154,000/car smog reduction is not positive.
CoCo’s Blue Book summary claims the the project will deliver a smog-reducing equivalent to removing 29,000 cars off of the road. Taking the project’s $4.7 billion cost, that amounts to $154,000 per car removed.
Any number of policies would be more impactful in reducing smog for a fraction of the price, such as removing more old-car exemptions from the state’s vehicle emissions requirements, or resuming a “Cash for clunkers” tax credit program to get high-emitters off the road.
Not even COCO thinks the Train will reduce smog:
Smog reduction estimates for COCO come from anticipated community changes around Transit-oriented development that might be initiated due to CoCo. Such estimates are also overly optimistic when considering the mixed success of FASTRACKs TOD projects.