All aboard for mass transit on I-70?

SUMMIT COUNTY — Using mass transit could help relieve Interstate 70 congestion, but would result in a new challenges for mountain towns along the interstate. Transit is emerging as the preferred option for key stakeholders along the corridor, but not everyone is sure it’s a panacea.

“How much will it really help?” asked Breckenridge town manager Tim Gagen. “The best transit systems in world take about 15 percent of the cars off the road. Everybody seems to have this love affair with transit, but what are we opening the door to? We are facing the question.”

Local leaders have been discussing the ramifications of mass transit in the I-70 corridor recently, Gagen said. And while growth in the mountain resorts seems inevitable, it’s time to start assessing how transit might tax the infrastructure of local towns, he added.

“Not all the mayors and managers are so keen on transit,” said Dillon Town Councilmember Don Parsons. “Nobody wants to get down to the nitty gritty. What happens when we increase the volume of people coming here? Where do we site the transit stations? We’re already struggling with things like parking and affordable housing.

“These are questions that nobody is scratching their heads about. Where should these conversations start? The people who ought to be taking the lead are elected officials,” Parsons said.

At a recent public forum about I-70, Parsons asked panelists if the do-nothing option is still on the table. He cited the viewpoint held by some locals that leaving the highway as-is would limit growth in the High Country.

Clear Creek County Commissioner Harry Dale and affordable housing developer David O’Neill echoed Parsons’s comments at the forum. Communities should first figure out what they want to be, then design a transportation system to meet those goals, they said, seeming to suggest that the coalition is letting the cart get ahead of the horse.

<b>Doing nothing?</b>
The I-70 coalition probably won’t take the lead in answering those questions.

“I’m not sure it’s the coalition’s job to do that,” said director Flo Raitano. “The coalition was developed to respond to the elements of the draft programmatic environmental impact statement,” Raitano said, referring to a massive Colorado Department of Transportation study. “It was developed to respond to congestion.”

With that as its reason, it makes sense that the coalition wouldn’t consider a do-nothing approach.

Responding to Parsons’ comment at the Forum, Raitano said that, if the corridor communities don’t take the lead in addressing I-70, someone else will. A recent push for I-70 tolls by Front Range lawmakers was “shot across the bow,” Raitano said.

In a follow-up interview, Raitano said, “That horse is already out of the barn. For those who say, ‘shut the gates,’ that’s not going to happen. Our economy is based on those people coming up here.

“It’s already been proven that the Dick Lamb school of growth control doesn’t work,” Raitano said, referring to the former Governor’s efforts to limit growth by controlling transportation.

<b>More questions</b>
At this point, nobody knows exactly what the result of a transit system would be. It’s clear that more people will come to Summit County, but nobody is willing to say if local towns can handle the added influx.

“I don’t think I know all the ramifications of what transit might do to our community,” said Dillon Mayor Barbara Davis. “How can we say we want transit as an option unless we know what it will do to us. I think we have to answer these questions. ... To me, it makes sense to have an alternate route,” Davis said. If transportation planning is done on a truly statewide scale, it might be worth looking at Highway 285, rather than focusing narrowly on I-70, Davis said.

“Everything we’ve done is predicated on increasing capacity,” said I-70 coalition member Eric Turner. “If the communities along the corridor don’t want that, it brings up a different set of questions,” said Turner, general manager of the Breckenridge Lodge and Spa and member of the Breckenridge Resort Chamber.

“Transit planning is not set up to encourage or discourage growth,” Turner continued. “Some communities have said they don’t want transit. They don’t want the growth that comes with it,” Turner said, naming Silver Plume in Clear Creek County as an example of a town that has been very clear about not wanting to be a stop along an I-70 mass transit system.

Turner said a transit system offers enough flexibility to take such concerns into account. And along with the challenges, transit may offer some solutions to other issues. Fast transportation between the High Country and the Front Range could contribute to long-term economic sustainability by making the Front Range labor pool available for employment in the High Country. Along with easing a chronic labor shortage in the resort towns, that could also mitigate the affordable housing and childcare crunch, Turner suggested.

Turner’s perspective on the transit option flips the coin on concerns that a high-speed train connection might turn High Country towns into bedroom communities. Instead, Denver could become a bedroom community for the resorts, he said.

“I don’t know if that’s what we want,” Turner said. “For now, there are more questions than answers.”


<i>Bob Berwyn can be reached at (970) 331-5996, or at bberwyn@summitdaily.com.</i>