Citizens question widening of I-70

SILVERTHORNE - Nobody claims to have all the answers for Interstate 70's congestion problems, but some people believe mass transit has to be in the mix.

Summit County citizens who attended Our Future Summit forum last week on plans to improve the interstate appeared to be finding some common ground.

Most of the more than 40 citizens who attended the Silverthorne event said they were skeptical of the $4 billion, 20-year plan to add more lanes to the highway.

Instead, many called for some immediate remedies to address chokepoints, while at the same time urging the agency to plan well ahead for a long-term, mass-transit solution.

County Commissioner Bill Wallace spoke strongly in support of a mass-transit alternative, and said that was the message he would carry to an early May meeting of the coalition.

Wallace, who has been involved with I-70 planning for many years, said he was disappointed that the environmental impact statement didn't follow in the footsteps of a previous analysis that identified a high-tech mass transit option as the best potential solution.

"Support for mass transit died with the change in leadership at the state level," Wallace said, referring to the election of Gov. Bill Owens in 1998.

Summit was one of four counties voting in favor of creating a test track for potential mass transit technologies, including a monorail.

Wallace identified several flaws in the latest environmental impact statement. First and foremost, he called CDOT planners to task for failing to have any long-term vision for I-70 that acknowledges the "uniqueness" of the corridor.

At issue is the future of I-70 between Golden and Glenwood Springs. At peak travel times - Saturday mornings and Sunday evenings during ski season, for example - the highway often comes to a standstill, and traffic planners project that in 20 years, weekday traffic will equal those current weekend peaks.

The agency's $4 billion cap on what an I-70 improvement could cost impedes long-term planning, Wallace said.

"CDOT's vision for I-70 is Southern California, or Houston," Wallace said.

And in response to an audience question, Wallace said CDOT acknowledged that the six-lane option has the most negative impacts when it comes to the basic issue of highway safety.

At the same time, speakers recognized the potential limitations of mass transit, including fare pricing and getting the public to actually use it.

"I truly believe in a mass transit system," said Summit County Sheriff John Minor. "But it must be heavily subsidized and convenient."

In England, Minor's native country, people are driving more than ever despite $7 a gallon gas prices and the presence of highly developed mass-transit system, he said.

Any planning for mass transit should include a focus on moving commercial goods into Summit County and the rest of the High Country, he said, explaining that the elimination of trucks crawling along at 30 mph on steep hills could help alleviate some of the congestion.

Public Comment • A public comment period on the I-70 PEIS continues through May 24. For information, go to www.i70mtncorridor.com. • Our Future Summit is a new Summit County citizens group formed to address the county’s top quality of life issues. For information on upcoming Our Future Summit forums, including another I-70 discussion, visit www.ourfuturesummit.org.

Under the current timeline, the agency would choose an alternative sometime in the summer of 2006.

<b>Who's deciding</b>

Summit County and local towns are part of the 30-member I-70 Central Mountain Transportation Corridor Coalition formed after the environmental impact statement was released. Its goal was to produce a regional political consensus on improvements.

That consensus may be elusive just within Summit County, where some segments of the community are advocating for more lanes, while others press for mass transit or even argue for the do-nothing alternative.

"The coalition has its work cut out for it," said Silverthorne public works director Bill Linfield, who also serves on the coalition's technical committee.

Linfield said it would be difficult for all 30 entities to agree, especially given Clear Creek County's adamant opposition to highway widening. But he said finding that regional consensus could be the key to getting anything done.

"CDOT would love to have the coalition come up with an alternative," Linfield said, explaining that, with buy-in from the towns and counties along the corridor, it would be much easier to unify Colorado's congressional delegation. And that, in turn, would increase the chances of getting money for the project.

"I think CDOT went into this process with a preconceived idea of what it wants to do," Linfield said. "But coalition consensus could make a difference."

Fossil fuels not a solution

Other participants at the forum raised the fundamental question of current reliance on fossil fuel resources, and asked whether any plan geared toward use of gas-powered engines is a realistic vision for the long-term.

"There's a terribly flawed assumption that we're going to be dependent on cars in 2025," said Sandy Briggs, a local Democratic Party activist.

"Are people going to be willing to drive up here if gas is $6 or $10 per gallon?" Briggs asked, advocating for mass transit. "Gasoline prices are going to have a huge impact on our recreation economy," he added.

Other audience members questioned the accuracy of CDOT traffic predictions, asking the panelists whether state and federal highway planners have a good track record with this kind of modeling.

Linfield and Wallace said that's a good question, and explained that the coalition will ask CDOT to test their traffic projection model based on the last five years, since the models were developed.



<i>Bob Berwyn can be contacted at (970) 668-3998, ext. 228, or at bberwyn@summitdaily.com.</i>