If you can explain to your readers why a question or problem is worth addressing, then they will understand why it’s worth reading an essay that develops your thesis—and you will understand why it’s worth writing that essay.
How to get people to care about your arguement requires a strong thesis.
In reality, the poor would suffer most under the resulting higher taxes, stagnant wages, and fewer working-class jobs available to them. While many higher earners would stay in the state and navigate the higher-tax environment,
This may aid in the statement by Affordable Colorado, saying that the train will only be used by a few people who aren't in the target audience and not by people who need it.
overall tax burden disproportionally hurts the poor not because of the income tax, which is progressive, but because every other state and local tax is regressive.
Our income tax is progressive but other state and local tax is regressive, state sales taxes for CoCo will be regressive.
Co
Above is the data put into a graph, could be used as more proof.
reveals that Colorado’s flat income tax is effectively progressive; proportionate to their income, higher earners pay more than lower earners. This is because lower earners generally have more tax credits and deductions that reduce their taxable income compared with higher earners. They apply the same flat tax rate to a smaller portion of their income, reducing their effective income tax rate.
Our flat income tax is effectively progressive, proprtionate to our incomes.
Higher earns pay more then lower earners, but the data says otherwise.
Those making under $15,000 per year pay 21% of their income in state and local taxes while those making over $200,000 pay only 7%
If 7A passes, this would increase by .333% if the 2017 data is like 2026.
nt:
Below the highlight is a graph of a 2017 local tax rate vs state tax rate within income groups, this can be used a proof but the source is not current.
Regressive Taxation in Colorado: Two Competing Views
I will be annotating for proof of regressive tax and not if it is right or not.
Colorado has a regressive tax burden that punishes the poor. It’s not fair
Starts off with a opinion rather then fact.
that the tax is regressive because low-income households will spend a larger share of their income on purchases than higher-income households.
This is true because sales tax is the worse tax for peope with low-incomes, it makes them spend more because they have less.
they say that it is hard to evaluate the risks without complete specifics like final costs, fares and agreements with railroads in place, and the project needs more scrutiny and transparency.
Since the trains will be operated by Amtrak Crews according to my father and CoCo, the freight railroad companies have dealt with Amtrak before, causing their reputation to be bad depsite the delays they put onto the passenger railroad. What if this happens with CoCo?
They also say the measure does not specify a sunset for the tax if the project never happens.
This is what happened with the RTD B line, Residents paying the sales tax ended up paying still even after construstion wouldn't continue.
Critics also worry CoCo’s projected speeds are too slow to be considered high-speed, that local transportation isn’t adequate enough to get passengers to and from stations to their homes or destinations, and ridership numbers will not meaningfully reduce traffic on Interstate 25.
Critics are afraid of: * Slow speeds = slower time and would be better off driving * won't be local enough to get people from station to destination * Ridership numbers won't reduce I25 traffic
question paying for a project that's years away from being operational and is likely to cost billions of dollars.
Vaild concern, why should we fund something that is years away now from being operational? Not to mention the price tag.
They compare it to other transit projects that are delayed or remain incomplete and have cost overruns.
The RTD B line or RTD Fastracks as a whole.
There is no formal opposition to this measure
KRCC says theres no formal opposition to the measure, yet groups like affordable colorado exist to oppose it.
the campaign says the cost to individual taxpayers is small.
Small for those who make more then $15,000 but with our regressive tax system, will it be small for those who need it?
CoCo will cost less to build and will be operational sooner than projects that need to start from scratch.
But then why the 2029 start date when phase is funded?
Advocates say it would connect to existing local transit systems, providing commuters, students, and families a safer, affordable, less stressful way to get to the places they need or want to go.
This is reliable because RTD has accomplished this, I believe this train may do the same, but not with 3 daily round trips.
with a fare that stays the same no matter what gas costs,”
Will this stay consistent depsite our economic issues? Diesel is $6 per gallon.
“Benefitting even those who never ride the train.”
This is true because it will lessen the amount of traffic on the roads.
The Colorado Connector is the practical way to get more cars off the road and reduce air pollution,” a spokesman for Coloradans for CoCo,
The spokesman says its "Practical", yet we haven't seen service yet and will only see it in 3 years. How can one say it is when theres no proven evidence yet?
You could also utilize a new station in Trinidad to board Amtrak’s Southwest Chief.
Why not just connect with the amtrak station already there?
A portion of the sales tax collections will be returned to each community with a station to use for infrastructure, affordable housing and more.
If the ballot does pass, our sales tax collections will be "returned" with a station to use for infrastructure and affordable housing, etc.
Funds from metro Denver's Regional Transportation District and the Colorado Department of Transportation are paying for the route north of Denver, which is expected to start three times daily round-trip service in 2029.
RTD is losing funding along with CDot to pay for the route north of Denver, this is also happening regardless in phase 1, but phase 2 may increase it more.
retain all such revenues, public and private contributions, and any investment income on revenues and debt proceeds, as a voter-approved revenue change under Section 20 of Article X of the Colorado Constitution; and requiring that all such dedicated revenues be reviewed annually by an independent auditor and a rotating group of citizen taxpayers who live in the District?
Funds must be reviewed annually by indepent auditors and a rotating group of tax payers in the district.
exemptions provided under Colorado law, including those for gasoline, food, residential electricity and gas, prescription drugs, and medical supplies;
Gas, food, electricity for homes, car gas, drugs, and medical supplies will not be effected.
Invest in station area improvements and local connections to rail stations;
the ballot will also invest station area improvements and its local connections to rail stations, this could fix the issue of isolated stations like what rail crtics say about RTD's Rail Stations.
R
Points of what CoCo will accomplish if this ballot passes.
whatever amounts are raised annually thereafter
Why whatever?
The measure does not take funding away from highways.
This makes sense to add since CoCo is funded and managed by Cdot.
The tax would fund a new station in Trinidad served by Amtrak’s Southwest Chief long-distance service between Los Angeles and Chicago.
I am not sure if this was stated in the other articles, but isn't this for phase 3?
Full KRCC Voter Guide
This website links a voter guide by KRCC on how to vote for this ballot.
Some RTD board members argued against the spending, saying it was the wrong thing to do when major bus and rail service cuts are also on the table.
RTD Board members argue against the spending because of it's potential cutes to bus and rail services.
That will be in effect a marketing effort also for the Colorado Connector sales tax vote.
RTD is spending money to get people to vote yes for this plan.
Rail supporters have registered an issue committee, Coloradans for CoCo, with the Secretary of State’s Office to raise and spend money in support of Ballot Issue 7A.
Supporters have registered an issue committee: Coloradans For CoCo, this is supported with the Secretary of State's Office.
“It's just not going to be convenient for people to use,” O’Toole said.
O'Toole says it is not convenient.
In my opinion I disagree, but I also disagree, theres really no way to tell because service has not started yet to prove this.
ail critics say users will be frustrated if there’s no way to get to and from isolated train stations to their destinations, whether that’s their jobs, neighborhoods, or to concert and sports venues in outlying areas.
This is a vaild point, many of RTD's stations such as stations along the R line and E line, A line, and the B line are very isolated from walkable distances to jobs, homes, and businesses. This has been a major issue brought up.
CoCo has stated they will not do this by having stations closer to walkable places, Fort Collins is a good example because the tracks run straight through town.
How Ballot Issue 7A appears on the ballot
Another example of how the ballot appears on the ballot sheet.
One deep-seated perception is that RTD spent hundreds of millions of sales tax dollars building out light rail lines under FasTracks, and yet sees falling ridership every year and now enormous maintenance bills coming due on older tracks. Drivers on Interstate 25 see empty or near-empty light rail cars passing by at rush hour many days of the week. Frequent service breakdowns, and the failure to deliver on trains to Boulder and other suburbs, add to public distrust.
In my opinion, this is not completely right, I ride the light rail along I-25 everyday and there is lots of people on them. The statements on the enourmous maintenance is true, and it has effect ridership.
These points although are somewhat vaild, the failure of the train to boulder has added LOTS of public distrust in RTD.
The expansion plan proposes spending hundreds of millions of dollars, “a lot of it coming from the pockets of low-income people, so a few snobs can ride a train who wouldn't ride a bus,” he said.
Argues that it would take millions of dollars from low-income people just so some people "snobs" can ride it.
The people who are going to ride it are people who are going to be relatively well off,” O’Toole said.
Quote by O'Toole, the policy analsyt for Affordable Colorado.
People who are going to ride it, don't need it because they are "well off" without it.
he cited a few main points against the new tax: It won’t take many cars off the roads, northern Colorado suburbs would be much better served by expansions of the well-used Flatiron Flyer comfortable bus service; and sales taxes are the most regressive form of tax.
registered to campaign against 7A
They're not for 7A.
Affordable Colorado
New side, and perpestive: Affordable Colorado
Northern suburban voters helped approve RTD’s FasTracks expanded sales tax for more rail service in 2004, yet have not seen train projects arrive in their part of the metro area.
Adds more to people not wanting to fund this line because of RTD's B line failure.
RTD is projecting a structural budget deficit of more than $200 million annually in 2027, and the transportation district’s board has proposed service cuts as ridership continues to lag behind pre-pandemic levels.
RTD's structural budget deficit.
This could be impacted if Ballot 7A is passed, hurting RTD.
Those extra trains face headwinds as voters grapple with inflation, high cost of living and rising fuel costs, as well as RTD’s record on past rail promises including failing to deliver on a northwestern rail line.
RTD's record of promise failure along with the economy adds lots of skeptism to deciding to vote yes, I plan to argue on the economic side of voting.
The district board said they can avoid some of RTD’s buildout problems by using existing tracks controlled by privately owned railroads, and have already negotiated such deals. They also eliminated some potential “no” votes by asking the state legislature to narrow down the original district boundaries to only those communities they could argue would be directly served by the new trains.
CoCo wants to fix RTD's issues by running on third-party rails, this though will also cause lots of problems, for example, Amtrak does this and they have their reputation of slow service because of this.
CoCo has also stated that using only the areas surronding the rails will help lessen the amount of 'no' votes.
the boosters say, there is an appetite to take rail instead of cars to special events or destinations, from college and professional sports to major concert venues.
People want faster transportation and to not deal with traffic, coco wants to fix this.
In Boulder, Longmont, they note, many residents have complained for years that RTD never fulfilled its promises in the 2004 FasTracks sales tax vote to bring commuter rail to their neighborhoods. They’ve paid additional sales tax into accounts accumulating unspent at RTD.
Voters may not want to vote for this ballot after what happened with the B Line and FasTracks. Voters have lost lots of money by funding this, will they be willing to do it again?
The Front Range district board and its supporters say there is pent-up demand for more passenger rail in populous counties with residents frustrated by the cost and time of driving crowded roads.
People want an alternative to the frustations of driving according to the Front Range district board.
$66.60 On $20,000 of taxable spending. $5.55 per month $1.28 per week 33.3¢ per $100 spent
The amount of money you will be losing in the sales tax if it passes
$2.7 billion
Wasn't it $1.7 billion in the other article?
The $332 million limited phase cost would come from a state transportation innovation fund built up by various fees, and RTD money set aside for FasTracks rail lines north of Denver that were never built. The state and RTD would split the $30 million to $36 million annual operating costs for that phase.
What the $332 million phase will cost and take from state funding, including RTD fastrack's budget.
where at least 20% of the population lives
this artile includes atleast 20% of the population that lives within the five miles .
Ballot Issue 7A will appear only on ballots in the district.
It will only appear in the affected districts.
The measure also asks voters to allow the Front Range Passenger Rail District to sell $580 million in bonds.
This ballot also allows FRPR to sell $580 million in bonds.
The sales tax increase is projected to increase revenue by $295 million annually.
This article says $295 million, while the denver group article says $300 million.
2.4 million voters in about 30 communities from 13 counties that would be served by Front Range passenger rail service to approve a 0.333% sales tax increase on top of other state and local sales taxes they already pay.
the ballot is asking 2.4 million voters in 30 communites from 13 counties.
It also says that it is a .333% increase on top of state and local taxes we pay.
to expand the service further — more trips and with a stop as far south as Pueblo.
This is to fund phase 2, adding a route from denver to pueblo through colorado springs.
increase sales taxes by about 33 cents per $100 in purchases
the ballot will increase sales taxes by 33 cents per $100.
Front Range voters will weigh sales tax hike to pay for passenger train service
Title focuses on voters opinion
The Denver Downtown Development Authority (DDDA) is a tax increment financing district authorized to issue bonds for downtown revitalization. Approved by property owners in 2023, it has $570 million in total bond authorization. Funds are deployed as low-interest loans to qualifying private development and public improvement projects, repaid through future property and sales tax revenues generated by the projects themselves. As of mid-2026, approximately $242 million has been approved, with roughly $328 million remaining.
This is another example of funding that COCO has for the project.
It only funds Phase 2 of the project.
This ballot only funds phase 2, phase is already happening.
$1.7 billion (contingent on a November 2026 tax vote)
The phase will cost $1.7 billion of tax payer's income.
2032 — Targeted start of Phase 2 service (Denver–Colorado Springs–Pueblo), contingent on the vote
Phase 2 would only begin in 2032, that is 6 years from now.
For commuters stuck in I-25 bottlenecks between the northern suburbs and downtown, or watching the same conversation happen for the southern corridor toward Colorado Springs, this is the closest the region has come to a funded alternative in decades.
What this project and ballot is targeted towards:
A 0.333% tax on communities within 5 miles of a station would raise close to $300 million a year
This tax would raise 300 million dollars a year.
if voters approve a new 0.333% sales tax on communities within five miles of a station.
Voters must approve a 0.333% sales taxes on communities within five miles of a station
Phase two extends service south from Denver to Colorado Springs and Pueblo, adding stops in Littleton and Sterling Ranch, with two daily round trips targeted for 2032.
What Ballot 7A will do: * Extends service to denver to Pueblo * 2 daily round trips * Targeted to 2032
Phase 2 — $1.7 Billion (On the November Ballot)
Focus and topic of my argument.
tarting in 2029, three daily round trips will run between Denver's Union Station and Fort Collins, with stops in Westminster, Broomfield, Louisville, Boulder, Longmont, and Loveland.
What phase 1 does, 3 round daily trips from DUS to Fort Collins in 2029.
This phase is already funded through existing RTD and Colorado Transportation Investment Office tax and fee revenue — no new taxes, no ballot measure required
The train will be happening, but only phase one will.
“We expect the trains to be full.” — Sal Pace, General Manager, Front Range Passenger Rail District
Quote by General manager, antisapating trains to be full.
The Colorado Connector is a proposed intercity passenger rail line running roughly 190 miles along the Front Range, linking 12 communities from Fort Collins in the north to Pueblo in the south, with a longer-term vision of reaching Cheyenne, Wyoming and New Mexico.The project traces back to 2021, when the Colorado legislature passed Senate Bill 21-238, creating the Front Range Passenger Rail District — a public agency with the authority to plan, finance, build, and operate the line, and to ask voters to fund it through a dedicated tax. The train got its public nickname, CoCo, after more than 25,000 people voted in a public naming contest earlier this year.
History of COCO, and how it was created by senate bill 21-238 and how it got its name.
$5 billion figure isn't one bill. It's three, stacked on top of each other, and only one of them is actually guaranteed to happen.
Project is three bills stacked on top of each other and one is only guaranteed to happen.
$5 Billion Train:
Project estimed to cost 5 billion dollars.