Verses

Highway Expansion - Creating Tomorrows Transportation Problems Today 

The Nightmare Scenario

I had a Nightmare last night.  In my dream a party was going on in an Executive suite in a gold domed building. They were celebrating a political victory over “some bunch of mountain hicks”. They had a signed Record of Decision titled “the Rape of the Central Rockies and Colorado’s Historical Places” that they were toasting.

“Here is to eight lanes including the bus lanes right up the middle of Clear Creek County. And to paving over those damn 23 old mill sites. That is mitigation for you.” “It seems that the difference between power politics and public fraud is whether you win or lose. When you have FHWA, EPA and the Press quietly in your pocket and lots of campaign funds from the highwaymen you can pull anything off. So what’s next?”

They then started talking seriously about doing just like the document says. Step 1: Cone zone the highway for 15 years. That will throttle down the ski industry and the second home industry.  Step 2: Take constructive possession of one half of Idaho Springs and all of the Georgetown Silverplume National Historic Landmark District because that is what we told that mayor we have the authority to do. Step 3: Call out the paving train. Step 4: Start cutting holes in the mountain.

Then someone in the crowd of merry men says, “But what about the injunctions and the lawsuits?” Who cares we don’t have enough money for construction anyway. Make the people think we are doing something, anything. There is only two years left in this administration anyway. Look at it this way; at the very least we are providing lawyers with work. What matters is that we sure put those upstart Monorail people down. Politics is politics and winning and gloating and rubbing it in now that is everything. Besides if we do get $2.6B in highway money out of the Feds in just twenty years we get to do it all over again. The only change is that the choke points have moved and the price of asphalt is astronomical provided of course that there is still oil or asphalt substitutes to be had. Then they sang “Cars, cars, cars, cars, aint it just delightful lines of endless cars”.

About that time I woke up. I reread the Draft PEIS beyond the glitzy graphics and guess what? The nightmare scenario is in fact CDOT’s preferred alternative.

The I-70 Dream Alternative

In my dream Senator Tom Norton and I were sitting in the courtesy bar at Coors. I was drinking a great Rocky Mountain Spring Water brew that Colorado is famous for and Tom was drinking a glass of stuff I did not recognize. He said it was mag chloride---brand name sublime slime---says it beats milk of magnesia for what ails you---favorite drink at CDOT.

Anyway, in my dream Tom said he figured out a new alternative to add to the mix of affordable, preferred and otherwise acceptable mix of alternatives. Said it came to him in a VISION.  His vision was a more sustainable future for Colorado that saves the most endangered places for future generations. Brothers and sisters, Say “Amen,” Say “Amen”.

He says: first we start now adding the safety improvements to the highway-- make everybody happy even the truckers. Then in 2008 we start the first leg of the monorail from the hogback to Frisco. At $17M per mile that is just a bit over $1B. So I whipped out my calculator and started keeping track. Say “hallelujah.”

He says, instead of a new tunnel we will take that squat little CHSST or its equivalent through the existing ventilation spaces—save billions of dollars and time too. That will make the tax payers happy. In three years we will have added the equivalent of six lanes to the capacity and it sure beats 15 years of cone zone delay. Say “Amen”.

Next we help Summit Stage to expand and ECO transit too—and encourage vans and busses to Keystone, Breckenridge, Copper Mountain and Vail or which ever trailhead folks want. We add climbing lanes to make the Interstate folks happy. Now the immediate crisis is solved and it is only 2015. Oh did I say we privatize that monorail and take it where ever the market will bear. Say “hallelujah”.

Then he downed his sublime slime, jumped up saying he had to go to the capitol to get a bill started to form the Colorado Monorail Authority—the capstone to his distinguished career. Don’t know if he will get out of the necessary room in time to make late bill status so maybe someone needs to help with that. Say, “Right on brother”.

Impressive Data—Paucity of Analysis—Violations of Law and Ethics

You can consider me a Whistleblower.  This draft I-70 West PEIS is in substantial violation of NEPA standards and is not in conformance with the Administrative Procedures Act. It is a not so cleverly crafted façade of legal sufficiency and an abuse of discretion in a manner “not in accordance with law and procedure”. It has all the earmarks of a “post hoc rationalization for a decision that has already been made” which is also a violation of law.

The question is: was this done with or without malice of forethought? If there was no malice then the product results from incompetence or perhaps a distorted institutional culture that condones mendacity. If it was done with forethought then there is malfeasance or perhaps even conspiracy to commit public fraud. That is for future courts to decide.

You need to be aware that this I-70 draft PEIS is already a case study being recorded and under scrutiny for ethical behavior by a class at the Colorado School of Mines. As part of the required curriculum this class of 10 seniors and graduate students is doing research and analysis about what goes on here. Since you have not been forthcoming with answers to questions posed to you over the past four public hearings, this team supported by five distinguished professors is particularly focused on the lack of vision, the 20 year construction disruption not described in analysis and the ethics and legality of the process. The team of students represents almost all disciplines taught at mines. Among the professors is the former head of the environmental engineering department, the acting head of engineering (civil, mechanical, and electrical), an engineering ethicist, the former head of mineral economics and operations research systems analysis, and a former lawyer from the Department of Justice in Washington D.C. who litigated cases in transportation and water law. This distinguished group intends to provide the needed answers to the particular questions posed by the mountain communities and the State as a whole. I will leave with the court recorder a copy of the course notice. The products of this work will be available prior to the close of the public comment period. The existence of this course on this subject at this time is evidence of your failure to give the public a decision basis for their rational comment.

I-70 MACRO ECONOMICS

My questions concern the macro economics of this proposed Federal action.

Question: Why has CDOT not presented the true and total costs of the proposed highway widening to the taxpayers of Colorado and the people of the I-70 corridor? From Chart 3.9-17 the reader is forced to interpolate costs through year 2025. The first cost is $2.2B for road construction in 2010. This construction induces a cone zone recession over 15 years that costs approximately $15B in Gross Regional Product in the nine county mountain region. Plus there is a local issue to provide more parking spaces to handle the additional cars. The $15B will cost the State several billion in lost taxes and revenues. The bill to the State is about $4.2 B in costs and lost revenue. Cost to the economics of the 9 county mountain region is about $15.2B.The major bill payers are Summit, Eagle and Grand Counties. The highway alternatives are all pain, no gain through the year 2028.

Question: Why have you hidden from public view the returns available to the State by an early deployment of the monorail CHSST or its equivalent? The FTA study shows a six year construction period for monorail that could begin as early as 2008. Since the major feature is constructed off line, the existing highway is not impaired during construction. The early deployment first costs are $ 6.6 B. The early deployment economic gain is approximately $55B between years 2014 and 2025.

Financing a $6.6 B investment that produces a $55B gain in the first 15 years and continue the return on investment for the system design life of 75 years is a no brainer. There is no affordability issue. The gain is measured in business success, employment, personal income, improved tax base, recreation days, improved travel times, and improved movement of people, goods and services and State revenues. This is already documented by the REMI model in the PEIS. And for those who still wish to drive, the road remains open but with 40,000 less cars on the passes and in the tunnel backups.

Question: Why would any rational decision maker involved in a Tier 1 transportation policy decision wish to inflict 20 years of pain costing $4.2B in direct cost and lost revenue and a $15B recession in Colorado recreation industry unless as a procurer for a powerful highway lobby?

Question of Practice II

My concern is for historic sites and your apparent violation of the law pertaining to their protection. Why has CDOT failed to conform to Department of Transportation requirements, NEPA requirements and the Provisions of the Administrative Procedures Act as follows?

Your comment on page ES-37 of the draft PEIS has the issue backwards and is in substantial error. These protected places have already been designated as “significant.” That is not your agency’s decision to make. Nor is it within your “discretion” to postpone section 4(f) analyses until after a tier 1 Record of Decision.

All of the highway widening alternatives make “constructive use” of protected properties. The proximity impacts are believed to be so severe that the historical setting or other protected uses are substantially impaired through vibration, noise, air, water, land use or other degradations.

The law requires that these impacts be evaluated early in the development of the action when the wide range of alternatives is under study. The law specifically prohibits the agency from “arbitrarily or capriciously” eliminating any alternative to avoid the full protection provision.

The law also speaks to and prevents “a post hoc rationalization for a decision that has already been made”. Your agency has widely paraded the decision that AGS is dead based on a self created threshold of affordability. In doing so, your agency has abused its discretion and acted in a manner that is “not in accordance with law and procedure”. The remedy is to perform the 4(f) analyses for each alternative including AGS and IMC before a record of decision. These systems are both “feasible and prudent”. The case law is quite clear about this.

We call for an investigation by USDOT into possible malfeasance. We add to that a call for a third party technical and procedural review of the data and models used in developing this PEIS. This review should be conducted by the National Academy of Engineering and the National Research Council. The National Trust for Historic Preservation is believed to be an interested party.