To: [email protected] From: [email protected]

Transcription

To:webmaster@iͲ70east.com
From:[email protected]Ͳ70east.com
ThefollowingerroroccurredinFormMail:
verify_failed
**********
Error=Imageverificationstringmissing.Thisisprobablyafaultontheserver.
email:[email protected]
realname:MikeCondie@ChampionSafe
name:'MikeCondie@ChampionSafe'
address:'2055SouthTracyHallPkwy'
city:'Provo'
state:'UT'
zip_code:'84606'
phone:'1Ͳ801Ͳ377Ͳ7199'
comment_on_feis:'YES'
add_to_mailing_list:'YES'
add_to_online_list:'YES'
primary_interest_in_project:'Business'
interest_in_project:'[email protected]
knowthefollowingquestions.1.ͲWhatwillbethescopeoftheprojectinnourarea?2.ͲWhenwillit
start?3.ͲHowwillitimpacttheonandoffexitatourlocationbothEastandWest?4.ͲWhenwillitstart,
andfinish?5.ͲWillthisbedoneinphases?'
how_often_travel_corridor:'Everyday'
primary_reason_to_travel_corridor:'Onthejob'
how_transportation_can_be_improved_in_corridor:''
how_receiving_info:'Other'
rate_website:'Needmoreinfo'
comments_questions:''
From:
Subject:
Date:
To:
"[email protected]"<)>
Re:IͲ70EASTEISFEEDBACKFORM
Tue,March1,20165:33pm
webmastercc@iͲ70east.com,contactus@iͲ70east.com
name:ClaytonUnited(RegisteredNeighborhoodOrganization)
address:3338ColumbineSt.
city:Denver
state:CO
zip_code:80205
phone:2245585216
comment_on_feis:YES
add_to_mailing_list:YES
add_to_online_list:YES
primary_interest_in_project:Neighborhood/AreaResident
interest_in_project:Claytonissituateveryclosetotheprojectsite(justafew
blockssouth)andwewanttostandunitedwithourneighborsandmagnifytheir
concernsaswellasourown.
how_often_travel_corridor:Frequently
primary_reason_to_travel_corridor:Commute
how_transportation_can_be_improved_in_corridor:Seecommentsinthenexttextbox.
how_receiving_info:Flyers,Neighbors/Churches/Schools,Public
Meetings,Newsletter,Website
rate_website:Good
comments_questions:OverthelastfewmonthsClaytonresidentshavereviewedthe
availableinformationabouttheIͲ70EastEnvironmentalImpactStatement(referred
tohereinasIͲ70EIS)andhavebeenconsuminginformationfromvarious
sourcesthatexploretheconsequencesof,andalternativesto,theproposedPartial
CoverLoweredAlternative(referredtohereinasproposedalternative).We
havemadeitapointtoconnectwithotherRegisteredNeighborhoodOrganizationsand
residentsthatwouldbeimpactedbytheexpansionofIͲ70ifthecurrentproposed
alternativewasconstructed.Theoutcomeofthisresearch,analysisandconversation
isthatClaytonresidentsareconcernedabouttheseriousenvironmental,financial
andsocialjusticeconsequencesoftheproposedalternative.Inparticular,weare
concernedabout:ͲResidentsthatarenotdisplacedbythehighwayexpansionwill
findthemselvesevenclosertoanincreaseinthepollutantsthatwouldbecaused
byadditionalvehiclesontheroad.Thesepollutantshavealreadybeenshownto
causehighlevelsofasthma,heartdiseaseandcanceramongneighbors.ͲThe
projectareaissituatedwithinseveralsuperfundsites.Weareconcernednotonly
forthehealthofourfamiliesastoxicmaterialsaredugupandbecome
exposed/airborne,wearealsoconcernedfortheconstructionworkersonthejob
site.ͲTheproposedalternativerequiresdiggingbelowthewatertableintotoxic,
contaminatedsoilandexposingworkersandresidentstofloodriskandground
pollution.ͲSwanseaElementarywillbe100ftfromthewidenedhighway,whichwill
betheequivalentof23laneswide(315ft).Thehealthriskstoourstudents
cannotbemitigatedwithjustwindowsandairconditioningduringconstruction.Ͳ
Overonebilliondollarsoftaxpayermoneyisexpectedtobespent.Wedonot
believethattheproposedalternativewillbeaneffectivereturnonthat
investment.ͲTheimpactonsurroundingneighborhoodswillbedevastatingthrough
theuseofeminentdomain.
Thelossof55Ͳ75familyhomesandbusinesseswillaffectthefabricofour
neighborhoods.ThevalueofthosebuildingsclosetoIͲ70arealreadylowerthan
thevalueofbuildingsinsurroundingneighborhoods.Wherewillthoseresidentsand
businessesmoveinDenverthatisaffordableenoughaftertheirbuildingswere
eminentdomained?ͲThevaluesofhomesthatareevenclosertothehighwayatthe
conclusionoftheprojectwillbecomefurtherdepressed,disproportionatelyaffect
lowͲincomeandminorityhouseholdsͲSincethenewlanesaddedwillbetolllanes,
itisnotlikelytoreducecongestionforthemajorityofthehighway’susers,
manyofwhommaynotbeabletoaffordusingthetolllanes.Aftermuchdiscussion
atourFebruaryClaytonUnitedmeeting,wevotedtostandunitedwithourfellow
RNOsinthepotentiallyimpactedareas(Globeville,ElyriaandSwansea)Ͳweask
thatyouhalttheprojectandconsideradditionalalternatives(suchasthe
reͲrouteofIͲ70alongIͲ270andIͲ76,utilizingthefundstoincreasepublictransportation
options,etc.).Wewelcomeandrespectyourcommentsandlookforwardtoworking
withyou,collaboratively,toimproveonDenver’ssharedfuture.Sincerely,
ClaytonResidents
==================================
REMOTE_HOST=
REMOTE_ADDR=164.92.9.30
HTTP_USER_AGENT=Mozilla/5.0(WindowsNT6.1;WOW64)AppleWebKit/537.36(KHTML,like
Gecko)Chrome/48.0.2564.116Safari/537.36
REMOTE_USER=
HTTP_REFERER=http://www.iͲ70east.com/feedbackͲform.html
From:
Subject:
Date:
To:
"ClaytonUnited"<[email protected]>
ClaytonUnitedRNOIͲ70PositionStatement
Tue,March1,20165:39pm
"TonyStewart"<contactus@iͲ70east.com>
Hello,ItriedtoentertheClaytonUnitedpositionstatementintothe
feedbackformbutthequestionsontheformmadeitdifficulttoenter
informationinawaythatmadesensesoIamattachedourstatement(which
isinresponsetothefinalEIS).Pleaseletmeknowifyoureceivedand
recordedourRNOsfeedback.
Thankyou,
DanielleOngart
President,ClaytonUnited
Attachments:
ClaytonIͲ70StatementFinal.pdf
Size: 167k
Type: application/pdf
February 28, 2016
Dear I-70 East Environmental Impact Statement Team,
Over the last few months Clayton residents have reviewed the available information about the I-70 East
Environmental Impact Statement (referred to herein as “I-70 EIS”) and have been consuming information from
various sources that explore the consequences of, and alternatives to, the proposed Partial Cover Lowered
Alternative ((referred to herein as “proposed alternative”).
We have made it a point to connect with other Registered Neighborhood Organizations and residents that would be
impacted by the expansion of I-70 if the current proposed alternative was constructed. The outcome of this research,
analysis and conversation is that Clayton residents are concerned about the serious environmental, financial and
social justice consequences of the proposed alternative. In particular, we are concerned about:
‫ ە‬Residents that are not displaced by the highway expansion will find themselves even closer to an increase in
the pollutants that would be caused by additional vehicles on the road. These pollutants have already been
shown to cause high levels of asthma, heart disease and cancer among neighbors.
‫ ە‬The project area is situated within several superfund sites. We are concerned not only for the health of our
families as toxic materials are dug up and become exposed/airborne, we are also concerned for the
construction workers on the job site.
‫ ە‬The proposed alternative requires digging below the water table into toxic, contaminated soil and exposing
workers and residents to flood risk and ground pollution.
‫ ە‬Swansea Elementary will be 100 ft from the widened highway, which will be the equivalent of 23 lanes wide
(315 ft). The health risks to our students cannot be mitigated with just windows and air conditioning during
construction.
‫ ە‬Over one billion dollars of taxpayer money is expected to be spent. We do not believe that the proposed
alternative will be an effective return on that investment.
‫ ە‬The impact on surrounding neighborhoods will be devastating through the use of eminent domain. The loss of
55-75 family homes and businesses will affect the fabric of our neighborhoods. The value of those buildings
close to I-70 are already lower than the value of buildings in surrounding neighborhoods. Where will those
residents and businesses move in Denver that is affordable enough after their buildings were eminent
domained?
‫ ە‬The values of homes that are even closer to the highway at the conclusion of the project will become further
depressed, disproportionately affect low-income and minority households
‫ ە‬Since the new lanes added will be toll lanes, it is not likely to reduce congestions for the majority of the
highway’s users, many of whom may not be able to afford using the toll lanes.
After much discussion at our February Clayton United meeting, we voted to stand united with our fellow RNOs in the
potentially impacted areas (Globeville, Elyria and Swansea) - we ask that you halt the project and consider additional
alternatives (such as the re-route of I-70 along I-270 and I-76, utilizing the funds to increase public transportation
options, etc.).
We welcome and respect your comments and look forward to working with you, collaboratively, to improve on
Denver’s shared future.
Sincerely,
Clayton Residents
From:
Subject:
Date:
To:
"Citizens Exploratory Committee on Health and Safety" <[email protected]>
Re: I-70 EAST EIS FEEDBACK FORM
Wed, March 2, 2016 10:28 pm
[email protected],[email protected]
email: [email protected]
name: Citizens Exploratory Committee on Health and Safety
address: 4909 East 23rd Ave
city: denver
state: co
zip_code: 80207
phone: 7204403562
comment_on_feis: YES
add_to_mailing_list: YES
add_to_online_list: YES
primary_interest_in_project: Neighborhood/Area Resident
interest_in_project: As concerned citizen and member of Citizens Exploratory Committee for Health and Safety
how_often_travel_corridor: Frequently
primary_reason_to_travel_corridor: On the job
how_transportation_can_be_improved_in_corridor:
how_receiving_info: Website
rate_website: Need more info
comments_questions: Citizens Exploratory Committee for Health and Safety Questions regarding the Final Environmental Impact Statement
for the I-70 East Project
1.
Why was there no information regarding the required NO ACTION alternative Provided in the FEIS? The Viaduct was repaired in 2011
by CDOT and was considered NOT to be a danger.
2.
Why were the authors of each of the report sections in the FEIS not provided?
3.
Why was the EPA not consulted regarding the proximity of the Swansea elementary Not consulted regarding the approximately 50
feet distance from the PCL?
4.
How will windows, new doors, and an HVAC system protect the children at the Swansea school?
5.
Why was there no groundwater assessment included in the FEIS?
6.
Why is the EPA currently monitoring chemicals in the air near the PCL site?
7.
Why has no risk assessment been performed by the FHWA?
8.
Why was the FHWA not present at the hearings?
9.
What studies did the FHWA provide for the FEIS? It is reported they wrote the FEIS.
10.
Has the drainage been addressed in the floodplains near the PCL? FHWA reported they will not use their drainage plan because
Denver already provided the necessary offsite plan. Where is the FHWA drainage plan in the FEIS?
11.
Why does the FHWA believe they wrote the FEIS when all comments refer to CDOT?
12.
Why does the Region 8 EPA or CDPHE Hazardous Waste Divisions not comment in the FEIS?
13.
Why doesn’t the Storm Water Division of CDPHE not comment in the FEIS?
14.
Why doesn’t the Water Quality Control Division of CDPHE respond in the FEIS?
15.
Is there contamination of groundwater or soil near the areas of the PCL?
16.
The FEIS states, Rerouting I-70 along I-270/I-76 was studied during the EIS process and was determined to not meet the purpose
and need for the project; therefore, it was not considered a reasonable alternative and did not need to be studied further. What was the
purpose and Need of the PCL project to eliminate the reroute?
17.
Why did the FEIS not consider the recommendation of the EPA to locate the school half a mile from the interstate?
18.
The news reports, http://www.denverpost.com/news/ci_26841352/swansea-parents-worry-how-cdot-plan-i-70 that, CDOT
spokeswoman Amy Ford said the agency is well aware of the parents' concerns. CDOT plans to reconfigure the playground at Swansea, add
new classrooms, increase the acreage of the school property and provide new windows, doors and an HVAC system. There is a plan to
address air quality concerns, soil testing and proper removal of contamination. What contamination will be removed?
19.
Are there flooding concerns in or near the PCL project? Where is this info in the FEIS?
20.
The City of Denver will not proceed with their drainage plan if the PCL is rejected according to a CDOT and Denver agreement.
Wash the FHWA aware of the IGA financial agreement?
==================================
REMOTE_HOST=
REMOTE_ADDR=97.118.251.155
HTTP_USER_AGENT=Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10_7_5) AppleWebKit/537.78.2
(KHTML, like Gecko) Version/6.1.6 Safari/537.78.2
REMOTE_USER=
HTTP_REFERER=http://www.i-70east.com/feedback-form.html
CPFAN BOARD OF DIRECTORS VOTES "NO" ON 2 of DENVER’S STORM WATER DRAINAGE OPTIONS.
ASKS CITY TO SLOW DOWN AND DEVELOP BETTER OPTIONS.
"We must take the time to bring the neighborhoods together to find
a mutually satisfactory solution."
CPFAN's Board of Directors recently voted to reject the 2 OPTIONS proposed by the City of Denver and
the Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT) for storm water flood mitigation and asked the city for
different options that would have less impact on neighborhoods. The OPTIONS seem to be designed mainly to protect the Highway I 70 expansion from a 100 year flood.
See the I 70 Environmental Impact Statement. (EIS)
Storm water flooding is a concern for CDOT because it plans to lower and cover a section of Highway I 70,
40 feet down into a trench, 20 feet below the water table, next to the South Platte River and in the path of
a major drainage. If it were not for the requirement that the lowered, partially covered highway must be protected against a
100 year flood, it seems that neither the need nor the urgency to build such storm water detention basins
as Option 1 &2, would be necessary.
Denver Public Works has a backlog of $1.5 billion in projects of equal or more immediate concern to
neighborhoods, all outlined in its 2014 Storm Drainage Plan. Will citizens be asked to pay higher Storm
Water fees to help pay for this project?
These options were developed through a multi-agency task force which included representatives from
CDOT, RTD, Denver and Urban Drainage sometime in 2014 and never presented to any members of the
public until Nov. 2015 and Feb. 2016. Thousands of citizens are totally unaware that a major drainage
project is being quickly advanced by the City. They were presented in community meetings by GBSM, a PR
firm hired by the city.
The initial GBSM presentations seemed to imply that flooding in neighborhoods such as North Park Hill and
others would get some flood relief from the proposed Options , but it was later confirmed that the flood
relief from these Options would not extend to those neighborhoods.
O PTION 1:
Bulldoze 50 acres of Historic City Park Golf Course (NRHP) ( 1/3 rd of the course) designed by nationally
renowned course designer,Tom Bendelow. Cut down 280+ historic, mature trees and bulldoze the recently
completed ( 2001) Club House on 26th and York that houses Bogey's restaurant, a large community room
and the pro shop. Regrade the land to accomodate a 50 acre, industrial dry detention pond,a utility, to
hold toxic storm water run off. The visual is hard to imagine. OPTION 2:
Bulldoze 55 + historic homes in the Cole Neighborhood , and replace them with a dry detention pond, a
utility, and a 100 foot wide open ditch to capture fast moving storm water run off. The area is already, it
seems , impacted by PCE toxins and is an EPA Superfund site. This Option seems drastic, severe and totally
unnecessary.
CPFAN's REQUEST TO DENVER :CPFAN's Board of Directors asked that the city go back to the drawing
board, with neighborhood input from the start, and come up with options that protect existing
neighborhoods and parks.
THE CITY SEEMS ANXIOUS TO PUSH THIS THROUGH.... OVER NEIGHBORHOOD CONCERNS AND
PROTESTS.
The city seems to be pushing this project through very quickly. They want a decision on which OPTION will
be chosen by the Mayor as early as the middle of February , 2016. The city, through GBSM, may have done
an excellent job of telling people what they were going to do, at myriad meetings, but they never asked
what the citizens thought or wanted,in the beginning of the flawed process. This seems to be a recurring
issue with Denver.
WHATS the RUSH? CDOT SAYS THAT THEY DON’T EVEN NEED DENVER’S HELP.
The City of Denver and CDOT seem to take the position that their plans to share the costs of some
elements of I 70, are, somehow, NOT connected to The Denver Storm Water Mitigation plans, Options 1 &
2. See the Inter Governmental Agreement. (IGA)
CDOT’s Tony Devido has stated publicly, that CDOT doesn’t need Denver’s Storm Mitigation project to
protect I 70 from a 100 year flood. He says that CDOT has its own coverage. If there is no hurry to protect
I 70 from flooding then what is the rush? Denver has time to find more suitable storm water mitigation
options.
WHY WOULD THE CITY/CDOT NOT WANT I70 AND STORM WATER PROJECTS CONNECTED?
One theory is that by trying to seperate out the funding and the function of the flood mitigation project from I70, that gets federal money, the City and CDOT, will escape the Federal government's NEPA
requirements and the potentially expensive inclusion of Cole Neighborhood and Denver City Park Golf
Course in the I 70 Environmental Impact Statement.
ON THE BRIGHT SIDE.....IF THEY ARE NOT CONNECTED..
Then we have lots of time to consider better options. . We requested that locations with less impact on
neighborhoods be considered, namely parking lots, industrial sites, vacant lots, superfund clean up areas,
etc. and -- even better -- that the city adopt green infrastructure solutions to detain water and distribute the
load by requiring that all new development play a part in the solution.
WHAT IF THERY ARE CONNECTED?
The stakes could be high for Cole Neighborhood and/or City Park Golf Course AND Denver /CDOT. The National Environmental Protection Act(NEPA) seems to offer protections for all land and communities
impacted by a project that receives federal dollars or is connected to one by function, like I 70. The Cole
Neighborhood and the City Park Golf Course could be included in the Environmental Impact Statement
If they are connected, Cole could ,for example, receive an EPA reviewed , Environmental Justice report,
Many of the Cole neighbors are minorities and low income . The toxins that plague the Cole
neighborhood could be assessed by EPA. City Park Golf Course, on the National Register of Historic
Places, Could be eligible for many protections offered historic properties by the Federal government, in a
Section 106 Review. DO YOU THINK THAT THE TWO PROJECTS ARE CONNECTED?
When you read the Inter Governmental Agreement (IGA) you see references that the projects seem to be
connected. For example, on page 5H of the IGA, Denver agrees to pay $5000 a day in liquidated
damages, for each day that it is "late to deliver" its section of the I 70 flood mitigation project to CDOT.
And:
"The IGA provides that the City of Denver will provide funding support for the I-70 East Project in the form of an
annual availability payment totaling $37M net present value, in the form of equal annual installments of $2,688,010
over 30 years. Annual installments will commence upon completion of the project. In addition, the City will ensure inkind contributions to the efficiency and risk reduction of the I-70 East project, valued at $46M."
Click here to hear Denver city officials explain the terms that they negotiated on THE "I 70 East Montclair
Park Hill Drainage. "
If they are connected, by virtue of the fact that they are all a part of the I 70 project that is federally
funded, then the Cole Neighborhood and City Park Golf Course could be included in the Environmental
Impact Statement and could receive all of the protections afforded to them by Federal law. ___________________________________________________________________
CONSIDER LETTING THE MAYOR AND YOUR CITY COUNCIL PEOPLE KNOW WHAT YOU THINK
ABOUT OPTION 1 &2 AND THE NEED FOR OPTIONS THAT DON’T NEGATIVELY IMPACT
NEIGHBORHOODS.
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________
Extra Credit Reading:
This apparently flood prone I 70 Lowered alternative is not necessarily the preferred alternative of Denver
citizens and i70 neighbors. COPIRG has labeled a big Boondoggle. Consider: I70 Expansion Alternative I look forward to hearing your thoughts about this matter. Louis Plachowski,
CPFAN President
720.425.3768
[email protected]
January 17, 2016
Colorado Department of Transportation
Headquarters Offices
4201 E. Arkansas Avenue
Denver, CO 80222
To whom it may concern:
I am writing this letter as a representative of the Cross Community Coalition in Denver,
Colorado, a Registered Neighborhood Organization representing the Swansea Elyria
neighborhoods. Upon receipt of the I-70 Final Environmental Impact Statement, we are
requesting an extended public comment period.
I personally am a resident who lives three blocks away from the I-70 viaduct and I have lived in
the neighborhood my entire life. After a 13-year long process, I am not convinced that a
community request for an extension would significantly disrupt or delay the process in an undue
manner. It is our understanding that:
“NEPA requires projects that have a federal nexus and may have an impact on the
environment to be analyzed through a rigorous process that allows the public to
understand and comment on the benefits and impacts of the project. An EIS is prepared
when a proposed action may significantly affect the quality of the human environment.
The purpose of an EIS is to “serve as an action-forcing device to ensure that the policies
and goals defined in NEPA are infused into the ongoing programs and actions of the
federal government” (CEQ, 1978).”
“Per the CDOT NEPA Manual, “Public involvement is a process by which the influence
of various stakeholders is organized in relationship to decision making …” and that “the
overall goal of the community outreach and agency involvement process is to solicit
input through a transparent, open, and dynamic process that includes community
members, businesses, agencies, stakeholders, and community groups within the project
area.”
In an arduous process that started with nearly 90 different alternatives being considered and
evaluated the community should understand every detail of how and why the alternatives have
been narrowed down to the proposed “Preferred Alternative.” As a person with multiple degrees
and an avid reader, I find it slightly unreasonable to expect community members to review and
comprehend 3 volumes of data and comments in slightly over a month. The denial of an
extension would be yet another illustration of flagrant disregard for any real data collected about
the communities being impacted.
Please consider the following:
1. There is limited access to broadband internet access in households in Globeville Elyria
Swansea. Posting the data online and in local libraries is one level of accessibility that
still warrants time for communities to digest and comprehend the implications of the EIS.
Additionally, the literacy levels of many in the community require support beyond
merely translation.
2. I personally attended a visit to my brother’s home being acquired and the content of the
visit from Erika Martinez with City of Denver was limited and vague leaving me with
more questions than answers. The visits to homes were arguably ineffective.
3. In a recent survey completed by a community group, a substantial amount of residents
surveyed did NOT know about the I-70 “preferred alternative” being selected.
4. Flyers have been provided to homes at different points of the project inviting the
neighbors to attend meetings, however, the information contained in a one-page
document pales in comparison to the nine volumes total---three volumes from 2008,
2014, and now 2015 that are the EIS.
5. Copies were hand-delivered to a few community organizations placing the responsibility
for thorough community outreach onto those organizations rather than CDOT, City of
Denver, or City Council members. It is unfair to expect community organizations to
assume the burden of reviewing the full EIS with all community members on top of their
organizational workloads.
6. The delay of construction should not be the priority. The people whose lives daily
lives--and arguably entire futures--are being affected by this decision should remain at
the forefront of this decision. The process has been a 13 year long process because in
2008 over 90 alternatives failed to address the concerns of the community. The year long
PACT that followed arguably was designed to bulldoze the less powerful players in order
to move forward more swiftly. Even the PACT was unsuccessful in moving forward
because the alternatives did not address the needs of community effectively. To date we
have preferred alternatives that have not emerged from the communities that are
impacted.
7. The gap between the estimated cost of the project and the revenue available to build the
preferred alternative requires phased implementation. By default the limited revenue
available should warrant a pause in the process while as officials find the funds to
complete the entire project or find an alternative project that we can afford in order to be
good stewards of our local, state, and federal dollars.
8. As a community we are expecting that information regarding mitigation and potential
timelines be provided with or without the extension. Resources can be provided to
community regarding mitigation in spite of an extension.
We thank you in advance for considering our request for an extension and we hope that you take
the appropriate steps to make a decision that honors the community’s request.
Respectfully,
Candi CdeBaca, Member
Cross-Community Coalition
From:
Subject:
Date:
To:
"Candi CdeBaca" <[email protected]>
I-70 Public Comment
Mon, February 29, 2016 9:12 am
[email protected]
Please add my public comment to the record. My phone would not submit through the comment form
for some reason.
February 17, 2016
Denver, CO 80222
To whom it may concern:
I am writing this letter as a representative of the Cross Community Coalition in Denver, Colorado, a
Registered Neighborhood Organization representing Swansea Elyria residents. Our residents
overwhelmingly oppose the proposed plan for I-70’s expansion. It is our position that our
community has been misled and intentionally misinformed by our City and State agencies and
representatives and we would like our opposition noted. Additionally, we have concerns about several
of the commitments being made to our community.
Over the last 13 years we have endured the psychological and physical trauma of several impending
changes to our community. We have attended countless meetings where we expressed our comments
and concerns, we have written letters, we have garnered media coverage, we have obtained
data from national experts supporting our positions and we have proposed well-studied alternatives. I’m
disheartened to highlight that our resident’s needs and wishes have been neglected at every juncture.
The I-70 project is expected to cost over a billion dollars; $850 million of this would come from Motor
Vehicle Registration fees; $50 million in government pass through money; $270 million of SB228 money.
In 2011 $30 million dollars in repairs were made increasing the life expectancy of the bridge up to 15
years meaning based on what we were told we were paying for, the bridge should be stable until 2026.
We cannot count on revenue from the state for this projects as any revenues above the TABOR cap
require a vote from the public. A tollway is also not the answer and exacerbates the inequities inherent
in this project.
The I-70 expansion negative impacts to the Globeville, Swansea, Elyria neighborhoods are very clear. All
are low income, minority neighborhoods and with a high number of elderly and/or Spanish speaking
residents. Right now, housing prices in Denver are at an all-time high. School children (from these low
income areas) are directly impacted by this project and some are already experiencing health problems.
Eminent domain has been occurring before the EIS had been completed and before a ROD. While this
action is allowed under 23 CFR 710.501 and 23USC108 the residents have not been compensated fairly.
The average acquired homes, so far, have not been estimated to be above $150k. Housing prices in
Denver are at an all-time high averaging $300k. Additionally, BECAUSE of the I-70 division, pollution,
noise, and aesthetic--home values in these communities have been significantly depressed for decades.
In a study of all neighborhoods 5 miles from the city center, all of them had value increases over the last
three decades that would place an exact home in Swansea and Elyria between $500-700K in value if it
were in ANY of the other neighborhoods in the same distance from the city center. There shouldn’t be a
single home acquired through eminent domain that is not valued/compared to other homes 5 miles
from downtown. The depressed values are due purely to decades of injustices this city and state have
committed against the residents of our communities.
In sum, our residents oppose the proposed plan for I-70’s expansion. We stand with several RNOs in as
well as other Coloradans who support our position and we demand solutions that are equitable,
sustainable, and foster healthy communities. We have proposed a 270/76 Re-route alternative that is
not the same “re-route alternative” initially studied and we demand that it be studied thoroughly before
proceeding with this project.
Respectfully,
Cross-Community Coalition
Swansea and Elyria Residents
T: 720.289.7884
candicdebaca@ gmail.com
<http://t.sidekickopen36.com/e1t/c/5/f18dQhb0S7lC8dDMPbW2n0x6l2B9nMJN7t5XYgdF5F6W7fsSTg2
BgJ0lW8qC6LR56dFFgf2jpVV202?t=http%3A%2F%2Fgoog_2089833273%2F&si=6067836102901760&pi=
85add7e5-c41a-4f12-f577-f5b16205dcad>
Sent with MailTrack
<http://t.sidekickopen36.com/e1t/c/5/f18dQhb0S7lC8dDMPbW2n0x6l2B9nMJN7t5XYgdF5F6W7fsSTg2
BgJ0lW8qC6LR56dFFgf2jpVV202?t=https%3A%2F%2Fmailtrack.io%2Finstall%3Fsource%3Dsignature%26
lang%3Den%26referral%3Dcandicdebaca%40gmail.com%26idSignature%3D22&si=6067836102901760&
pi=85add7e5-c41a-4f12-f577-f5b16205dcad>
DenverLeagueofWomenVoters
Comments
FinalEnvironmentalImpactStatement
March2,2016
OverthepastseveralyearstheLeagueofWomenVotershasvoicedconcernsabouttheproposed
replacementoftheIͲ70EastViaductwithabelowͲgradehighway–the“preferredoption.”Our
primaryconcernwithCDOT’spreferredoptionhasbeenthedisruptionofadiverse,lowͲincome
neighborhoodwhenlessdisruptiveoptionsareavailable.Ofallthealternativesthe“noaction”
alternative,tosimplyreplacetheexistingviaduct,istheleastdisruptiveoption.
IncontinuingtopreferthebelowͲgradeoptionCDOThasofferedtofindcomparablehousingforpeople
whosehomesarescheduledfordemolitionatatimewhenDenver’sstockofaffordablehousingisatan
alltimelow.Onpage5.2Ͳ34oftheFEISCDOTstatesthatthevacancyrateinElyriawas8.1percentin
2010andthatitmightbepossiblefordisplacedpeopletoremainintheneighborhood.Thatisnotlikely
tobethecasenow.
ThereareliterallythousandsofpeopleintheDenvermetroareawhohavelosttheirhomesdueto
increasedrentsandthelackofaffordablehousing.Thedirectorsofoursheltersareexperiencing
increasesinthehomelesspopulationoftheseeconomicrefugees,includingelderlypeopleonfixed
incomes,lowͲwageearners,andpeoplewhoarepartofthecity’sworkforce.Thewaitinglistsarevery
longandtherearemanypeoplewhoareinurgentneedofhousing.Unlessthesenewlyunhoused
peoplearegivenemergencypriority,theymayfaceaprolongedperiodofhomelessness.
AlsoofconcernaretheenvironmentalimpactsofCDOT’spreferredoption.Underthepreferred,belowͲ
gradeoptionthereisnoadequatedescriptionofhowthetonsoftoxicsoilundertheviaductwillbe
cleaned,orwherethesoilwilleventuallybetaken.Theassurancethatbestpracticeswouldbeusedto
minimizetheadverseeffectofremovingtoxicsoilsisapartialanswer,butnotanexplanationofhow
successfulthosepracticescanbeexpectedtobe.
Theimpactofthepreferredoptiononthearea’swaterwaysisalsoaconcern.Pumpinglargeamounts
ofcontaminatedwateroutofthehighwayinto,eventually,thePlatteisnotonlycostly,itmaybe
anotherpromisethatismoredifficulttofulfillthanCDOTanticipates.Similarly,theproposeddrainage
systemwhichCDOThasagreedtopayforinpartunderitsinteragencyagreementwithDenvercanonly
beexpectedtobeapartialdefenseagainstfloodinginthispartofDenver.Italsothreatensanother
diverselowͲincomeneighborhood,theColeneighborhood,andoneofDenver’shistoricbuildingsinCity
Park.
Airqualityisamajorconcern,bothduringconstructionandafter.Tomakethecasethatitwouldn’tbe
anyworseunderthepreferredoptionthanwouldotherwisebethecase,andthatitmightnotexceed
allowablestandardsunderEPArequirements,isnotreassuring.WeagreewithCityCouncilmembers
OrtegaandNewthattheproposedmitigationforairqualityunderthepreferredoption,especially
duringconstruction,isnotadequate.TheMayor’sOfficeofSustainability,isseekingtoreducetraffic
volumeandimproveDenver’sairqualityintothefuture.The“noaction”alternativewouldforcetraffic
intoothertrafficpatternsduringconstructionandperhapsafterwardsasotheroptions,suchastheFast
Tracksnetwork,becomeavailableandareincreasinglyused.
Healthconsiderationsarealsoofconcern.CDOThasmaintainedthatthehighwaymaynotbethe
primarycauseofthehigherincidenceofasthmaandcancerinGlobevilleͲSwanseaͲElyria.There
certainlymaybeothercontributingfactors,butthereductionoftrafficinthisareacouldbeexpectedto
leadtoimprovedhealthoutcomes.
Finally,wecontinuetobeconcernedaboutthelackoftransparencyonCDOT’spartand,also,their
flawedapproachtopublicoutreach.ArecentauditlastfalldisclosedthatCDOTwasunableorunwilling
todisclosehowsome$1.4billionwasspent.TheintenttouseapublicͲprivatepartnershiptofinance
thepreferredoptionhasalsobeenquestionedinthatitobligatesanunknownamountofstatefunds
wellintothefuture.IntheonlyviablepublichearingontheFEISheldinDenveronFebruary4th,the
majorityofspeakerswerestronglyopposedtothepreferredoptionand,hasbeenthecaseinthepast
fewyears,tonoavail.
CDOT,understandably,hasthebestinterestsofmotoristsinmindaswellastheproblemsthatheavy
congestionholdsforcommunities.Astrafficcongestioncontinuestoincreaseinthemetroareathese
problemscanonlybecomemoreacuteforallofourneighborhoodsandforthepeoplewholiveinthem.
TheproposedbelowͲgradehighwaywouldaddressonlyaverysmallpercentageofthoseproblemsata
greatcost,financially,environmentallyandintermsoflivabilityinnearbyneighborhoods.Toimposeso
smallanimprovementtothesewiderproblemsononesmallgroupofpeoplewhoareamongourmost
vulnerableresidentsisunjustandunjustifiable.
Thankyou.MynameisBradMeuli.I'mthepresidentandCEOoftheDenverRescueMission.Wehave
ownedapropertyat3501East46thAvenuejustinͲͲupuntilafewmonthsago.I'vegoneaheadand
doneapreparedstatement,so,letmejustsharethatwithyouintheinterestoftime.TheDenver
RescueMissionistheoldestfullserviceChristianministryintheregionandfornearly125yearswe've
beenhelpingthosewhomostneedtotransformintohealthy,productive,andselfͲsufficientcitizens.We
havealargeandstrategicinterestinthisprojectbeingsuccessfulaswehaveemployeeswholiveinthe
areaandtwoofourninelargestfacilitiesareintheIͲ70EastCorridor,rightonSmithRoad,justwestof
Monaco.Over400peopleliveandworkinthesetwofacilities.Andwehavebeenat3501East46th
Avenue,asIsaid,upuntilafewmonthsago,beginningsincetheearly1990s.CDOTactuallyhashelped
usthroughthisprocessofsellingthatproperty.Andwe'reheretonighttoofferourstrongsupportfor
theIͲ70Eastproject.CDOThasworkedwithusextensivelyinthisprocessandtreatedusveryfairly.
Theyhavegoneoutoftheirwaytoensureourneedshavebeenmetandwehavefoundthemtohave
tremendousintegrityandresponsivenessinournegotiations,discussions,andengagement.Further,
andmoreimportantly,wearefundamentallyandstronglybelievethatthisprojectwillsignificantlyhelp
thisneighborhoodandthepeoplewholiveandworkhereeveryday.Thankyouforyourconsideration
ofouropinion.And,again,weverymuchwanttoseethisprojectcompletedasCDOThasplanned.
Thankyou.
From: "DrewDutcher"<[email protected]>
Subject:IͲ70EastFEISCommentsfromElyriaandSwanseaNeighborhoodAssociation
Date: Wed,March2,20162:37pm
To:
contactus@iͲ70east.com
Cc:
[email protected],[email protected],"AlbusBrooks"
<[email protected]>,"JonMurray"
<[email protected]>,[email protected],[email protected]
ToWhomItMayConcern:
PleaseseeattachedcommentsfromtheElyriaandSwanseaNeighborhood
Association.
Aswestateintheletter,theresidentsoftheElyriaandSwansea
neighborhoodsarethemmostaffectedstakeholdersoftheproject.
Sincerely,
DrewDutcher
President
ESNA
Attachments:
ElyriaSwanseaNAIͲ70FEIScomments.pdf
Size: 779k
From: "NolaJMiguel"<[email protected]>
Subject:IͲ70Eastprojectcomment
To:
"[email protected]"<[email protected]>,"[email protected]"
<[email protected]>,"[email protected]"
<[email protected]>,"contactus@iͲ70east.com"<contactus@iͲ
70east.com>,"[email protected]"<[email protected]>
Cc:
"BenjaminRoldanRojas"<[email protected]>,"StevenMoss"
<[email protected]>
Date:3/2/2016
Name(required):NolaMiguel
Organization:GlobevilleElyriaSwanseaLiveWell
Address(required):2501E48thAve
City/State/Zip:Denver,CO,80216
Email:[email protected]
DearColoradoDepartmentofTransportation,
WewouldliketocommentontheFEISforI70inattempttoportraysomeoftheconcernswithinthe
neighborhoodaroundthecurrentIͲ70EastPartiallyͲCoveredͲLoweredproposal.Theneighborhoodhas
notonlyhadtolivewiththeoriginalirresponsibleimpactofIͲ70comingintoGlobevilleElyriaand
Swanseabuthasnowhadtolivefor13yearsofprocessaroundwhatisgoingtohappentotheviaduct
throughElyriaandSwanseaneighborhoods.Peoplearelivinginfearandshockaroundthisproject,and
largelyfeelthereisnothingtheycandotochangethings.Theamountofimpactthisprojectisprojected
tohaveontheseneighborhoodsinunnecessaryandnotmitigateͲable.WeencourageCDOTto
reconsidertheprojecttohaveaslittleimpactonthelocalhomesandbusinessesaspossible.
Inaddition,pleaseconsiderthefollowingfeedbackontheFinalEnvironmentalImpactStatement(2016).
46thStreetand47/York
Thereisnofulldetailregardingthereplacementofthenecessarypedestrian/bikepassthatcurrently
existsas46thAvenuethatgoesundertheUPrailline.Thereisanimagethatportraysapedestrian
underpassthatappearstobeadjacenttothehighwayitselfbelowthefrontageroad.Forpedestrian
safetyandinordertomaintainasafepassforchildrenundertherail,theEISneedstocontaindetails
aboutthispassthatcontainsthefollowinginformation:safeandlightedpassthatdirectlyconnects
fromtheneighborhoodwithbikeandpedestrianfriendlyramps,thepathshouldhavemultiple
entrances(orbetotallyaccessible)includingoneentranceasclosetotherailaspossible,thepass
shouldnotbeinopenairofthehighwaytrafficandratherclosertothefrontageroad.
TheseareonlyadvisedifCDOTisdeterminedtonotprovideaccessat47/Yorkinagradeseparated
crossing(whichtheresponsestopreviouscommentsimply).SincetheElyriaSchoolclosedin1986,
therehasbeenanurgentneedarounddailysafetyofchildrenatthisrailͲblockedintersectionandthe
constructionandfutureIͲ70projectshowsnointentionofaddressingthis.47/Yorkgradeseparation
pathwayisabuiltenvironmentneedthatthecommunityisdemandinganditishightimethatCDOTdo
itsparttoimproveasituationthatthehighwayhasandwillcontinuetoaggravate.
Builtenvironmentimprovementsthatarenotadjacenttothehighway
CDOTneedstoconsiderthatwetheyareaddingbuiltenvironmentimprovementstoaneighborhood
thathasnotseenimprovementsordevelopmentsince1940Ͳ1970,andhalfoftheneighborhoodstreets
lacksidewalks(seeGESHealthImpactAssessment,2014).FormanydecadesthecommunitiesofGES
havebeendealingwithabuiltenvironmentthatisbelowthestandardsofmostoftheneighborhoodsin
DenverandinmanycaseswecantracethattheconsequencesofthisunhealthyenvironmentistheIͲ70
highway.Forexample,manyoftheindustrialusesthathavesurroundedtheneighborhoodhavedone
sobecausetheyhaveaccesstothehighway;thenoisethatemanatesfromthehighwaydisturbsthe
neighborhooddayandnightandthepollutionthatemanatesfromthehighwaynotonlyendangers
childrenandeldersbutalsocreatesdustthatisnuisanceinmanyrespects.Theproposedamenities
suchasthecap,walkways,frontageroads,etc.ofthisprojectwillbecomethenewestinthe
neighborhoodandwillthereforedrawpeopletothemtouse.Exerciselikebiking,jogging(heavy
respiration)nexttohighwayisnotidealforairqualityimpactsthatpeoplearealreadylivingwithdaily.
Wehaveallseenthedatathatshowsthepoorqualityofairwithin500feetofhighways,evenlowered
highways.
Manyofthecommunitywalkstoresources,friendshomes,andotheractivitiesandhavingachanceto
walkonaroadthathassidewalks,treesandagoodbufferbetweentheroadandthesidewalkwill
improvethehealth,wellbeingandsafetyoftheresidentsandthecommunityasawhole.CDOTshould
makesomebuiltenvironmentimprovementstotheneighborhoodthatarenotadjacenttothehighway
(apaththroughouttheneighborhood,perhaps),andtheseshouldbedonebeforetheconstruction
periodtohelpconnectivityduringconstructionaswell.CDOTshouldincludethereparationand
improvementof47thAve.asamainstreetintheneighborhoodssocommunitymemberscanmoveeast
towestandviceversaawayfromtheairandnoisepollutionofthehighwayandbeabletohaveasafe
andrelaxingcommutetotheirdestination.Itisunthinkabletohaveacommunityanditsamenities
centeredarounda10lanehighway.CDOTmustconsidertheimpactstothecommunityasawhole.
Righttoliveintheneighborhoodtheyhelpedcreate
TheElyriaSwanseaneighborhoodsarelosingviabilitybecauseofthelossof56homesandbusinesses;
andthe2millionproposedisnotsufficienttoreplacethesehomesandfamiliesleavingthe
neighborhood.DatalistedinhousinginthisFEISisgravelyinaccurateasweknowthereisnotasingle
residentthathasbeenabletorelocatewithintheneighborhoodsduringthefirstroundofdisplacement.
Rentandhomevaluesarenearlydoublinginthelastcoupleyearsandthevacancyisverylow.The
urgencyinourcityaroundtheneedforaffordablehousingisnotreflectedinthehousingdataCDOT
providesnoristhereproportionatemitigationfortheimpactitishavingontheneighborhoods.We
believethatanynewhousingneedstobeveryintentionallycreatedashealthyplacestolive,andshould
becontrolledbythecommunityandnotdictatedbymanagementlawsthatwillnotincludeexisting
residentsfrombeingabletogethousing.Thesocialfabricoftheseneighborhoodsisbeingdestroyed
andCDOTmustcontributetoeffortsthatwillkeepthecommunitytogetherandgivecontroltoexisting
residentstobeabletocontinuetoliveintheneighborhoodstheyhavehelpedcreate.Modelslikea
CommunityLandTrust(SeeLexingtonCommunityLandTrust,NewtonPikeextensionKYTCROD)could
helpensurethathousingmitigationactuallygoestoimpactedneighborsthataredisplacedbythe
highway,bytheNationalWesternCenterorbytherisingcostofrentandhomesthatareforcingpeople
toleavetheneighborhood.Theremustbewaysforthecommunitytobegintohavesomecontrol
withintheirownneighborhoodinsteadofbeingsubjectedtoandburdenedwithongoingagendas
outsideoftheirneighborhood.
Needforcommunitycontrolledhousingthatisreadytobeoccupiedbeforeanyadditionaldislocationof
currentresidents
Itisalsocriticalthatthereplacementhousingisinplacebeforeanymoredisplacementofresidentsfor
thisproject.ACommunityLandTrustorsimilarmodelcouldstartcontrollingpropertiesimmediately
thatcouldbeavailabletocommunitymembersdisplacedfromtheirhomes.CDOTneedsreplacement
housinginplacebeforeanymorehomesaretaken.ResidentͲledcouncilsthroughoutthenationhave
foundwaystokeeptheircommunitiestogetherbyhavingcommunalownershipandaffordability
principlesthatarenecessaryinthiscircumstance.EͲSresidentscantwaituntilaftertheconstruction
processforthepropertiestobeavailable.DisplacingcurrentlowͲincomeresidentsandmaking
mitigationforafuturecommunitythatishigherincomeisasocialjusticeandcivilrightsissueandapart
oftheimpactthatCDOTneedstodeeplyconsider.Ourcommunitydeservesahealthycommunity,and
toabletobeanongoingpartofthecommunitytheyhelpedcreate.
Thankyou,
NolaMiguel,GlobevilleElyriaSwanseaLiveWell
NolaMiguel,MSW
Director,GlobevilleElyriaSwanseaLiveWell
@FocusPointsFamilyResourceCenter,2501E.48thAve,80216
Cell303Ͳ596Ͳ6425,[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]
>
www.geslivewell.org<http://www.geslivewell.org/>,
www.focuspoints.org<http://www.focuspoints.org/>
Denver, CO 80222
January 26, 2016
Dear Director DeVito:
We are writing this letter together as a Globeville Elyria Swansea Non-profit Coalition that has
organized around a shared commitment to leverage our resources in these historically marginalized
communities to help ensure community revitalization without displacement of current residents. Upon
receipt of the I-70 Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS), we are requesting a 30-day extension
of the public comment period. We see that the comment period has been extended for an additional 15
days, but we believe a full 30 days is required. In the comment period for the SDEIS, this group
organized a petition with the neighborhood that consisted of a lengthy document that required extensive
outreach and work to compile. Our organizations need time to review the responses from CDOT and to
be able to re-address the concerns that we, local neighborhood residents and businesses may have. This
is the last chance that the public has to provide input before final decisions are made for this significant
project.
Our respective staff and community participants are already feeling confusion about the process in the
neighborhood, and the sentiment of being overwhelmed and powerless to influence a project that will
greatly impact the neighborhood in such a multitude of ways is dominating. A survey completed this
summer by one of our member agencies found that 66% of residents surveyed in Elyria and Swansea
knew little or nothing about the I-70 reconstruction. We do not have confidence that the process has
been fair to the most impacted neighborhoods (Elyria and Swansea). While we recognize that additional
time will not solve all of the uncertainties that remain in the implementation, actualization, and just
mitigation of this project, we are asking for further time to review, share with the community and
comment on the complex details that exist in this document.
We thank you in advance for considering our request for a 30-day extension of the comment period for
the I-70 East FEIS.
Respectfully,
Wendy Hawthorne
Executive Director
Groundwork Denver
And the following organizations
Nola Miguel
Director
Globeville Elyria Swansea LiveWell
Steven Moss
Executive Director
Focus Points
Coby Gould
Executive Director
The GrowHaus
Beth Truby
Community Development Specialist
Habitat for Humanity of Metro Denver
Felicia Griffin
Executive Director
FRESC: Good Jobs, Strong
Communities
From:
[email protected],"Dr.MiguelDeLaTorreandDr.TinkTinker,IliffSchoolofTheology"
<[email protected]>
Subject: Re:IͲ70EASTEISFEEDBACKFORM
Date:
Wed,March2,201612:03pm
To:
email:[email protected],[email protected]
name:Dr.MiguelDeLaTorreandDr.TinkTinker,IliffSchoolofTheology
address:IliffSchoolofTheology2201S.UniversityBlvd.
city:Denver
state:CO
zip_code:80210
phone:
comment_on_feis:YES
primary_interest_in_project:Other
interest_in_project:We,ProfessorsatIliffSchoolofTheologyandothermembersof
thefaithcommunity,arereplyingtoCDOT'sresponsetoouroriginalcommentletter
thatwassentonbehalfofmembersoffaithcommunitiesfromallovertheStateof
Colorado.Seeourcommentletterstoseeourinterestsandconcerns.
primary_reason_to_travel_corridor:Commute
how_transportation_can_be_improved_in_corridor:Seeourcommentletters.
how_receiving_info:Neighbors/Churches/Schools,PublicMeetings,Other
comments_questions:Mr.ShailenP.BhattMarch2,2016ExecutiveDirectorColoradoDepartmentof
Transportation4201EastArkansasAvenueDenver,Colorado80222
DearMr.Bhatt,WehavehadtheopportunityreviewthewordsyourdepartmentprovidedintheIͲ70
FinalEnvironmentalImpactStatementinresponsetotheseriousconcernsthatwe,religiousleadersand
membersoffaithcommunitiesfromaroundthestateofColoradoexpressedtoyouintheletterwe
transmittedFall2014.Wearedisappointedandappalledthatthedepartmenthasoptedonlytooffer
bureaucraticstatementsthatprovidenospecificanswerswhatsoevertotheissuesandconcernswe
raised.Wearetakingthisopportunitytostateourconcernsonceagainandareaskingthatthistimeyou
provideuswithdirectanswers“notboilerplatedepartmentͲspeak”aswellasspecificinformationthat
addressesourconcerns.ThisprojectasproposedisatravestywhichtheStateofColoradoandtheCity
ofDenvershouldbehumiliatedtohaveevenmadepublic.Unfortunately,itdemonstratesablatant
disregardfordevastatingthelivesandwellͲbeingofchildrenandfamilieslivinginthemostly
impoverishedandHispanicneighborhoodsofElyriaandSwanseabetweenColoradoBoulevardandIͲ25.
Comment1:OurfirstpointistoaskforacorrectiontotheFinalEnvironmentalImpactStatement
containingourletter.Theletterwassubmitteddirectlytoyourofficewith18signatories,notjustthe
twoindividualslistedintheJanuary2016documentyoureleased.
Request1.1.Weaskthatyoucorrecttherecordtolistall18peopleandgroupswhosignedouroriginal
commentletter.
1.Dr.MiguelDeLaTorre,IliffSchoolofTheology
2.Dr.George“Tink”Tinker,IliffSchoolofTheology
3.Dr.SophiaArjana,AssistantVisitingProfessorofIslamicStudies,IliffSchoolofTheology
4.Dr.CatherineKelsey,GeraldL.SchlessmanChairinMethodistStudies,DeanoftheIliffChapel&
SpiritualFormation
5.Dr.HeikePeckruhn,IliffSchoolofTheology
6.Ms.AmyPetreHill,IliffStudentSenate
7.Rev.PeterSawtell,ExecutiveDirector,EcoͲJusticeMinistries,UnitedChurchofChrist
8.Rev.JohnPetty,AllSaintsLutheranChurch,RockyMountainSynod,EvangelicalLutheranChurchin
America
9.Rev.HollisBooker,ChristianMethodistEpiscopalChurch
10.Ms.CatharynBaird,DioceseofColorado,TheEpiscopalChurch
11.Mr.PeterSeverson,Director,LutheranAdvocacyMinistryͲColorado
12.UnitarianUniversalistStudentOrganizationatIliff
13.RabbiEvetteLutman,B'naiHavurah
14.ReverendDonaldMarxhausen,ZionLutheranChurch
15.ReverendAnneDunlap,ChadashCommunityUnitedChurchofChrist
16.ReverendAmandaHenderson,ExecutiveDirector,ColoradoInterfaithAlliance
17.RafaelEspinoza,DenverCityCouncilͲDistrict1
18.BrianScriber
Inaddition,atthetimetheletterwassubmitted,nearly200additionalmembersoftheclergy,
communityleaders,andcitizenshadalsosignedontoourletter.Theircontactinformationandnames
werealsoprovidedtoyou,yetyourFinalEnvironmentalImpactStatementdoesnotincludethemas
commenters.
Request1.2.Weareprovidingyouagainwithalistofalladditionalsignatories.Weaskthatyoucorrect
yourrecordtoproperlycitealltheindividualswhotookthetimetoaffirmourcommentletter.
Comment2.InourFall2014letter,wereferencedtheCityofDenver’sHealthImpactAssessmentwhich
showsthatresidentslivingwithin500feetofthepresenthighwayexperiencesignificantpollution
exposure,creatingasthmalevelsover40percent,comparedto28percentcitywide.Wenotedthattwo
elementaryschools(SwanseaandGardenPlace)arewithinthis500ͲfootdistancefromIͲ70.Itiswithout
questionthatwideningthehighwaywillexacerbatethesehealthconcernsforchildrenattendingthese
schools.Theseneighborhoods,likeothersalongtheIͲ70corridor,areburdenedwithaircontaminants
andgreenhousegasemissions,causinghighincidenceofrespiratoryillnessandotherchronicdisease
thatresultinearlydeath.HighwayDepartmentResponse‘A.’Yourreplystatesthathealthconcerns
relatedtoairqualityhavebeenadequatelyaddressed.’Youthenprovidecitationstoanothersectionof
yourdocumentandstatethat‘GardenPlaceElementarySchool’islocatedinanareawithminimal
constructionimpacts.’
Request2.1.Youhavenotaddressedtheseriousconcernweraised.Therefore,weaskyoutoprovidea
specificresponsetousregardinghowthehealthandwellnessofresidentsandstudentswithin500Ͳfeet
ofyourhighwaymegaprojectwillbebetterandimprovedaftertheprojectiscompleted,ascompared
totoday.
Request2.2.PleaseprovideuswithspecificinformationonhowpeopleinElyriaandSwanseawillbe
healthierandexposedtolessairpollutionwhenthewideningIͲ70willresultinexpandingthezoneof
seriousairqualityandhealthimpactsfurtherintotheseneighborhoods.
Comment3.Westatedpreviouslythatthisproposalwillseriouslyfracturethecohesivenessofthese
neighborhoods.ElyriaandSwansea,alongwithGlobeville,haveyettorecoverfromthedamageof
whenIͲ70wasfirstconstructedfiftyyearsago.Numeroushomesandlocalbusinesseswereremoved,
andthisaccessͲlimitinghighwayseparatedcloseͲknitfamiliesandneighborhoods.Thecommunities
becamedetachedfromtherestofcityandhadtolivewiththenegativeeffectsofanelevatedviaduct,
includingdirt,airpollution,noise,andshadows.WefurtherobservedthattheproposaltowidenIͲ70to
morethan300feetinwidthwillremovethefamilieslivingon7of14coreblocksinElyriadisplacingat
leastfiftyfamiliesandwillcreatefurtherbarriersbetweenfamiliesandneighborslivingnorthandsouth
oftheproposedexpandedhighway.Nearlyadozenexistingconnectionsofstreetsunderneaththe
currentviaductwillbelost,withconnectivitybeingreducedtothesoͲcalled‘lid’inyourproposal.
HighwayDepartmentResponse‘B’(paragraphs1and2).Yourreplystatesthatyouralternativewas
selectedinresponsetoconcernstoreconnecttheneighborhood.Youalsostatethatwalkabilityand
bicycleroutesimprovementsareoffered.
Request3.Youhavenotaddressedourconcernandwewouldlikeadirectanswer.Yourproposalis
actuallyreducingconnectivitynotreconnectingtheneighborhoodandweareaskingyoutoaddressthat
aspect.EliminatingmultiplenorthͲsouthconnectionsandofferingasanalternativea‘lid’attheschool
yardworsenstheexistingconnectivity.Walkingtripswillbelonger;bicycletripsfromnorthtosouthwill
belonger.Weasktoacknowledgethatandexplainhowyoujustifyfurtherseparatingandisolating
damagedneighborhoodswitha300Ͳplusfootwidemegahighway.
Comment4.TheFinalEnvironmentalImpactStatementoffersnoadditionalinformationtoaddressthe
concernweraisedaboutreplacingthehousingstockbeingdisplacedbythismassivewideningproject
withcomparablypricedhousinginthesamearea.Youaredestroyingneighborhoodswitharichsense
ofcommunitybydisplacedhomeownerswhoarenotbeequippedtofindsimilarhousing,andcertainly
notnearthesameneighborhood.HighwayDepartmentResponse‘B’(3rdparagraph).Yourreplystates
simplythatCDOTwillprovidefundingtooffsetthelossofsomeresidentialunits.
Request4.Youhavemissedthepointandhavenotaddressedourconcern.Yourprojectwillresultin
seriousdisruption‘ifnotpermanentdestruction’toanalreadydamagedsocialenvironment.Youfailto
demonstratethatyouunderstandthevalueof‘community’orwhatconstitutesa‘neighborhood.’We
werenotaskingyouaboutrealestatetransactionsaboutsome‘units.’Pleaseaddressspecificallywhat
stepsyouaretakingtokeepfamilies,households,andindividualswhoyouhavetargetedfor
displacementwithinthesesameneighborhoods.Also,pleaseprovideconcreteinformationon
maintainingandstabilizingthesocialcohesionoftheseneighborhoodswiththeresidentsthatareliving
therenow.
Comment5.Westatedpreviouslythatengineeringthatdoesnotstartwithanunderstandingof
neighborhoodsandpeopleisbadengineering.Engineeringthatdoesnotadvancecommunityvalues
andwhichresultsindisplacementissocialengineeringatitsworst.HighwayDepartmentResponse‘C.’
Weappreciatethatinyourresponsethatyouacknowledgethattheneighborhoodsyouaredisrupting
andwilldamageevenmoreseverelybythisprojectareidentifiedas‘environmentaljustice’
neighborhoods.However,yourreplyisdisconcerting.Youspeakof‘mitigation,’butthedocument
revealsamodestplantoprovidewindowupgradesandairconditionunitstohomeownersinthe
remnantneighborhoods.Thisinandofitselfisanunacceptableansweranddepressingtoreadfroman
agencyofthestateofColorado.However,yougoontociteaspectsoftheprojectintheParkHill
neighborhoodtotheeast,suchas,howimprovementswillhappenalongStapletonDrive.Youthenoffer
vaguecitationsaboutcoordinatingwithRTDandtheCityofDenverwithoutanyspecificinformation.
Request5.1.Youfailedtoaddressourconcerninanymeaningfulway.Aspeopleoffaith,wehave
statedouroppositiontothisproposalnotonlybecauseitisunjust,butalsobecauseitisimmoralfor
whatitdoestothedisenfranchisedofourcity.We,therefore,askyouonceagaintoprovideusspecific
concreteexamplesofdetailedsocialorenvironmentalbenefitsyouwillbeprovidingthethese
neighborhoods.Whatisthehighwaydepartmentdoingtomakethesecohesivecommunitiesbemore
vibrant,morecomplete,andhealthierthantheyaretoday?
Request5.2.Andweaskthatyouprovidespecificinformationon(a)improvingconnectivity,(b)
improvinghealthandwellnessofresidents,(c)makethecommunitymorelivable,and(d)forimproved
mobilityandaccessibility,particularlygiventhehighproportionofresidentswhodonotownoroperate
motorvehicles.Howwilltheseneighborhoodsbecomemorecompleteandbettercommunitiesafter
yourprojectthantheyaretoday?Comment6.WeaskedtheDepartmenttodevelopasolutionthat
doesnotdisplacehomes,families,orbusinessesintheseneighborhoods.Weaskedforasolutionthat
demonstrablyimprovesthehealthandwellnessofresidentsbeyondconditionsthatexisttoday‘€“that
is,asolutionthatresultsinmeasurablybetterhealthconditionsforresidents,schoolchildren,workers
andvisitorstotheseneighborhoods.Weaskedforasolutionthatimprovesmobilityandaccessibilityof
residentsoftheseneighborhoods.Weaskedforasolutionthatdoesnotcontinuetorelyonfossilfuel
technology,andinsteadprovidesnewinvestmentsintransit,sidewalkcompletion,separationof
railways,andbicycleconnections.HighwayDepartmentResponse‘D.’Youreplythatthereisnosolution
thatwillnotdisplacesomeresidentsorbusinesses.Thenyourepeatwordingabout‘appropriate’
mitigationand‘adequate’walkingandbicycleimprovements.
Request6.Youranswerisunacceptable.Yourproposalisdoingmorethandisplacing‘some’residences,
itisuprootingnearlyonethirdoftheentirecommunityofElyria.(Atleast50familiesoutofatotalof
150householdswillbedisplacedwithyourscheme).Surelythereareengineersthatcandesignoptions
thatthattakesadvantageofanentirearrayofmobilitysolutionsathand,includingimprovementsto
localroadways,investmentsinalternativestodrivingcars,andmore.Weaskonceagainforasolution
thatbeginsandendswithnotonlyunderstandingthehumantollofdisruptinganddestroying
neighborhoodsandlives,butintentionallyfocusesonimprovingthewellͲbeingofpeopleand
communities.Inconclusion,werequestonceagainasolutionthatstartsandendswithrepairingthe
unconscionabledamagecausedbylocatingIͲ70intheseunfortunateneighborhoodsmorethan50years
ago.RestoringandimprovingElyriaandSwanseashouldbethecityandstate’spriority,notdamaging
themfurtherthroughthistragicallymisguidedproposal.
Respectfullysubmitted,
Dr.MiguelDeLaTorreProfessorofSocialEthicsandLatino/aStudiesIliffSchoolofTheology
Dr.George‘Tink’Tinker,(wazhazhe/OsageNation),Ph.D.TheCliffordBaldridgeProfessorofAmerican
IndianCulturesandReligiousTraditionsIliffSchoolofTheology
Dr.SophiaArjana,VisitingAssistantProfessorofIslamicStudies,IliffSchoolofTheology
Dr.HeikePeckruhn
Ms.AmyPetreHill
Rev.JohnPetty,AllSaintsLutheranChurch,RockyMountainSynod,EvangelicalLutheranChurchin
America
Rev.HollisBooker,BoardPresidentofColoradoCouncilofChurches
Mr.DanLillieonbehalfofUnitarianUniversalistStudentOrganizationatIliff
ReverendAmandaHenderson,ExecutiveDirector,ColoradoInterfaithAlliance
Mr.SteveKinney,REͲMaxProfessionals,CityProperties
AttachmentSignatoriestoIliffLettertoColoradoDepartmentofTransportation|Autumn2014for
inclusionintherecordofcomments
1.AdamEvansDenverColorado80212UnitedStates2014Ͳ10Ͳ24
2.AdamTeczaDenverColorado80220UnitedStates2014Ͳ10Ͳ23
3.AlGalloDenverColorado80212UnitedStates2014Ͳ10Ͳ23
4.AlbertMelcherAuroraColorado80014UnitedStates2014Ͳ10Ͳ23
5.AlexNeumanOakParkIllinois60302UnitedStates2014Ͳ10Ͳ25
6.AliciaCalderonDenverColorado80219UnitedStates2014Ͳ10Ͳ27
7.AlisonYeagerDenverColorado80221UnitedStates2014Ͳ10Ͳ22
8.AlyshaTamuraDenverColorado80239UnitedStates2014Ͳ10Ͳ23
9.AmaliaEspinozaDenverColoradoUnitedStates2014Ͳ10Ͳ23
10.AmyAukemaDenverColorado80212UnitedStates2014Ͳ10Ͳ23
11.AmyHempeDenverColorado80207UnitedStates2014Ͳ10Ͳ26
12.AmyPetreHillAuroraColorado80014UnitedStates2014Ͳ10Ͳ28
13.AnthonyYelenickDenverColorado80216UnitedStates2014Ͳ10Ͳ23
14.AntoniaSmithTahoeCityCalifornia96145UnitedStates2014Ͳ10Ͳ23
15.AshleyGrahamWestminsterColorado80031UnitedStates2014Ͳ10Ͳ23
16.BarbaraAckerDenverColorado80230UnitedStates2014Ͳ10Ͳ23
17.BeverlyPiroDenverColorado80218UnitedStates2014Ͳ10Ͳ23
18.BobMayDenverColorado80204UnitedStates2014Ͳ10Ͳ22
19.BreannColpittsDenverColorado80221UnitedStates2014Ͳ10Ͳ22
20.BrentKozlowskiDenverColorado80216UnitedStates2014Ͳ10Ͳ26
21.CarolWarnerDenverColorado80212UnitedStates2014Ͳ10Ͳ23
22.CarolynBartelsWheatRidgeColorado80033UnitedStates2014Ͳ10Ͳ25
23.CassandraSuttonDenverColorado80205UnitedStates2014Ͳ10Ͳ26
24.CatherineKelseyDenverColorado80210UnitedStates2014Ͳ10Ͳ27
25.CathleenMcHughDenverColorado80210UnitedStates2014Ͳ10Ͳ23
26.CharlesBuchholzDenverColorado80212UnitedStates2014Ͳ10Ͳ25
27.ChrisWiegandDenverColorado80221UnitedStates2014Ͳ10Ͳ25
28.ChristopherDewhurstDenverColorado80211UnitedStates2014Ͳ10Ͳ23
29.ChristopherFlormanWheatRidgeColorado80033UnitedStates2014Ͳ10Ͳ25
30.ChristopherPatrickDenverColorado80221UnitedStates2014Ͳ10Ͳ24
31.ClairePhillipsDenverColorado80211UnitedStates2014Ͳ10Ͳ25
32.ClaudiaHernandezͲPonceDenverColorado80211UnitedStates2014Ͳ10Ͳ23
33.DanRileyStLouisMissouri63121UnitedStates2014Ͳ10Ͳ23
34.DaveDeckerDenverColorado80212UnitedStates2014Ͳ10Ͳ27
35.DavidCarlsonDenverColorado80209Ͳ2591UnitedStates2014Ͳ10Ͳ27
36.DeliaPalmisanoDenverColorado80221UnitedStates2014Ͳ10Ͳ22
37.DianaPachecoDenverColorado80216UnitedStates2014Ͳ10Ͳ23
38.DonnaGloverLongmontColorado80501UnitedStates2014Ͳ10Ͳ25
39.DrewDutcherDenverColorado80216UnitedStates2014Ͳ10Ͳ28
40.ElenSchaefferDenverColorado80218UnitedStates2014Ͳ10Ͳ23
41.ElenaStahlbergLakewoodColorado80228UnitedStates2014Ͳ10Ͳ28
42.EliaFisherDenverColorado80216UnitedStates2014Ͳ10Ͳ25
43.ElizabethFaulhaberDenverColorado80212UnitedStates2014Ͳ10Ͳ28
44.EmileeHoekstraEnglewoodColorado80113UnitedStates2014Ͳ10Ͳ23
45.EmilyLeeDenverColorado80203UnitedStates2014Ͳ10Ͳ23
46.ErinBuskenDenverColorado80211UnitedStates2014Ͳ10Ͳ24
47.ErinChilversͲWestDenverColorado80221UnitedStates2014Ͳ10Ͳ22
48.ErinMcCaffreyDenverColorado80221UnitedStates2014Ͳ10Ͳ23
49.ErinShayBoulderColorado80211UnitedStates2014Ͳ10Ͳ25
50.FeliciaMedinaDenverColorado80211UnitedStates2014Ͳ10Ͳ24
51.GabrielYoungDenverColorado80211UnitedStates2014Ͳ10Ͳ23
52.GabrielaRodriguezDenverColorado80221UnitedStates2014Ͳ10Ͳ23
53.GaryBregarDenverColorado80205UnitedStates2014Ͳ10Ͳ26
54.GlennHanley,Ph.D.DenverColorado80205UnitedStates2014Ͳ10Ͳ22
55.GraceSanchezDenverColorado80211UnitedStates2014Ͳ10Ͳ24
56.GregoryZamellDenverColorado80205UnitedStates2014Ͳ10Ͳ23
57.GretchenWodniakDenverColorado80216UnitedStates2014Ͳ10Ͳ23
58.HeikePeckruhnAuroraColorado80015UnitedStates2014Ͳ10Ͳ28
59.IanGreerDenverColorado80212UnitedStates2014Ͳ10Ͳ24
60.IreneGlazerDenverColorado80211UnitedStates2014Ͳ10Ͳ25
61.IsaiasVasquezDenverColorado80216UnitedStates2014Ͳ10Ͳ23
62.JaclynPickardWheatRidgeColorado80212UnitedStates2014Ͳ10Ͳ24
63.JamesMorseDenverColorado80205UnitedStates2014Ͳ10Ͳ23
64.JamesWebbDenverColorado80221UnitedStates2014Ͳ10Ͳ24
65.JamieChesserDenverColorado80212UnitedStates2014Ͳ10Ͳ27
66.JaneCadwalladerEvergreenColorado80439UnitedStates2014Ͳ10Ͳ22
67.JanePottsDenverColorado80210UnitedStates2014Ͳ10Ͳ27
68.JanetMatzenLakewoodColorado80215UnitedStates2014Ͳ10Ͳ22
69.JaredAckerDenverColorado80206UnitedStates2014Ͳ10Ͳ22
70.JeanAnnOldsDenverColorado80212UnitedStates2014Ͳ10Ͳ24
71.JeanaSmithDenverColorado80221UnitedStates2014Ͳ10Ͳ22
72.JeanneLawsDenverColorado80212UnitedStates2014Ͳ10Ͳ23
73.JenniferBaxterDenverColorado80212UnitedStates2014Ͳ10Ͳ26
74.JenniferLeighDenverColorado80236UnitedStates2014Ͳ10Ͳ23
75.JesseWoodworthDenverColorado80221UnitedStates2014Ͳ10Ͳ23
76.JillLivingstonDenverColorado80212UnitedStates2014Ͳ10Ͳ25
77.JillRichLakewoodColorado80214UnitedStates2014Ͳ10Ͳ23
78.JoeElliottDenverColorado80216UnitedStates2014Ͳ10Ͳ25
79.JohnD.SpanglerDenverColorado80237UnitedStates2014Ͳ10Ͳ27
80.JohnKovacikDenverColorado80212UnitedStates2014Ͳ10Ͳ25
81.JonTurnerDenverColorado80205UnitedStates2014Ͳ10Ͳ23
82.JonnaSandersDenverIsrael2014Ͳ10Ͳ25
83.JudyCisneyDenverColorado80212UnitedStates2014Ͳ10Ͳ26
84.JuneSchlesingerDenverColorado80212UnitedStates2014Ͳ10Ͳ23
85.KariCollinsDenverColorado80231UnitedStates2014Ͳ10Ͳ24
86.KariHenningsenDenverColorado80221UnitedStates2014Ͳ10Ͳ23
87.KarlaHorowitzDenverColorado80205UnitedStates2014Ͳ10Ͳ28
88.KatharineMarshArvadaColorado80002UnitedStates2014Ͳ10Ͳ23
89.KatherineCornwellDenverColorado80211UnitedStates2014Ͳ10Ͳ23
90.KatherineMcMannDenverColorado80221UnitedStates2014Ͳ10Ͳ23
91.KathrynJonesDenverColorado80211UnitedStates2014Ͳ10Ͳ25
92.KathyFalboLittletonColorado80125UnitedStates2014Ͳ10Ͳ22
93.KeithBillickWheatRidgeColorado80033UnitedStates2014Ͳ10Ͳ25
94.KelseyHillParkerColorado80138UnitedStates2014Ͳ10Ͳ28
95.KileyClippingerDenverColorado80206UnitedStates2014Ͳ10Ͳ23
96.KimYuskisDenverColorado80212UnitedStates2014Ͳ10Ͳ25
97.KimberlyMorseDenverColorado80205UnitedStates2014Ͳ10Ͳ23
98.KristiGriffithͲJonesDenverColorado80221UnitedStates2014Ͳ10Ͳ25
99.KristinBarnesDenverColorado80221UnitedStates2014Ͳ10Ͳ25
100.LaciGettingsDenverColorado80211UnitedStates2014Ͳ10Ͳ23
101.LarryScantlandArvadaColorado80004UnitedStates2014Ͳ10Ͳ27
102.LaVerneYelenickDenverColorado80216UnitedStates2014Ͳ10Ͳ27
103.LeaNorcrossDenverColorado80249UnitedStates2014Ͳ10Ͳ27
104.LilianaFloresAmaroDenverColorado80216UnitedStates2014Ͳ10Ͳ25
105.LilyLizarragaDenverColorado80205UnitedStates2014Ͳ10Ͳ23
106.LindaHollandDenverColorado80212UnitedStates2014Ͳ10Ͳ25
107.LisaEstradaDenverColorado80209UnitedStates2014Ͳ10Ͳ24
108.LisaForemanDenverColorado80231UnitedStates2014Ͳ10Ͳ26
109.LisaRomeroLakewoodColorado80227UnitedStates2014Ͳ10Ͳ23
110.LorettaIvoryCentennialColorado80111UnitedStates2014Ͳ10Ͳ25
111.LoriLeeDenverColorado80237UnitedStates2014Ͳ10Ͳ23
112.LorraineHethAuroraColorado80016UnitedStates2014Ͳ10Ͳ25
113.LorraineMunizDenverColorado80211UnitedStates2014Ͳ10Ͳ23
114.LouiseBuckleyDenverColorado80205UnitedStates2014Ͳ10Ͳ23
115.LynnKalinauskasDenverColorado80207UnitedStates2014Ͳ10Ͳ23
116.ManuelVasquezDenverColorado80216UnitedStates2014Ͳ10Ͳ23
117.MarcWalkerDenverColorado80221UnitedStates2014Ͳ10Ͳ22
118.MarciaNelsonFlorissantColorado80816UnitedStates2014Ͳ10Ͳ26
119.MargaretCongerDenverColorado80221UnitedStates2014Ͳ10Ͳ23
120.MariaCamposDenverColorado80216UnitedStates2014Ͳ10Ͳ25
121.MarinaChotzinoffDenverColorado80216UnitedStates2014Ͳ10Ͳ26
122.MarkBowesDenverColorado80211UnitedStates2014Ͳ10Ͳ23
123.MarleneDeLaRosaDenverColorado80221UnitedStates2014Ͳ10Ͳ23
124.MaryAnnVanBuskirkDenverColorado80209UnitedStates2014Ͳ10Ͳ24
125.MaryFitzpatrickDenverColorado80221UnitedStates2014Ͳ10Ͳ23
126.MaryLouEganDenverColorado80222UnitedStates2014Ͳ10Ͳ23
127.MarySkoogDenverColorado80212UnitedStates2014Ͳ10Ͳ25
128.MattJohnsonDenverColorado80221UnitedStates2014Ͳ10Ͳ23
129.MattOstrowskiSaintHedwigTexas78152UnitedStates2014Ͳ10Ͳ24
130.MaureenMcHughGlendaleArizona85301UnitedStates2014Ͳ10Ͳ26
131.MeganKobzejDenverColorado80212UnitedStates2014Ͳ10Ͳ24
132.MeganThompsonDenverColorado80203UnitedStates2014Ͳ10Ͳ23
133.MelissaRumseyLakewoodColorado80214UnitedStates2014Ͳ10Ͳ22
134.MeredithKrimmelDenverColorado80232UnitedStates2014Ͳ10Ͳ23
135.MerrittKananDenverColorado80205UnitedStates2014Ͳ10Ͳ23
136.MicahMcMillanDenverColorado80212UnitedStates2014Ͳ10Ͳ23
137.MichaelFuquaArvadaColorado80002UnitedStates2014Ͳ10Ͳ25
138.MichaelOrtegaDenverColorado80212UnitedStates2014Ͳ10Ͳ23
139.MichelleHuizarDenverColorado80216UnitedStates2014Ͳ10Ͳ23
140.MichelleZunigaDenverColorado33596UnitedStates2014Ͳ10Ͳ27
141.MindySinkDenverColorado80211UnitedStates2014Ͳ10Ͳ23
142.MorganElmerDenverColorado80212UnitedStates2014Ͳ10Ͳ23
143.NatalieSmithLosAngelesCalifornia90026UnitedStates2014Ͳ10Ͳ23
144.NicholasMcMannDenverColorado80221UnitedStates2014Ͳ10Ͳ22
145.NubiaMadridAuroraColorado80012UnitedStates2014Ͳ10Ͳ27
146.PatriciaTabuchiGoldenColorado80403UnitedStates2014Ͳ10Ͳ25
147.PatriciaTjadenDenverColorado80216UnitedStates2014Ͳ10Ͳ27
148.PaulFosterCentennialColorado80122UnitedStates2014Ͳ10Ͳ25
149.RachelRomeroDenverColorado80216UnitedStates2014Ͳ10Ͳ22
150.RebeccaCaldwellDenverColorado80211UnitedStates2014Ͳ10Ͳ23
151.RebeccaLuisColoradoSpringsColorado80908UnitedStates2014Ͳ10Ͳ23
152.RebeccaRomeroDenverColorado80204UnitedStates2014Ͳ10Ͳ23
153.RebekahKikRichlandMichigan49083UnitedStates2014Ͳ10Ͳ23
154.RitaBerberianDENVERColorado80211UnitedStates2014Ͳ10Ͳ25
155.RobBleecherDenverColorado80212UnitedStates2014Ͳ10Ͳ24
156.RoyChanleyDenverColorado80221UnitedStates2014Ͳ10Ͳ23
157.SarahMarvezDenverColorado80212UnitedStates2014Ͳ10Ͳ25
158.ScottLuisDenverColorado80216UnitedStates2014Ͳ10Ͳ23
159.SeanFitzgeraldColoradoSpringsColorado80903UnitedStates2014Ͳ10Ͳ25
160.ShannonJohnsonEnglewoodColorado80113UnitedStates2014Ͳ10Ͳ24
161.SherriRichLakewoodColorado80215UnitedStates2014Ͳ10Ͳ22
162.SoniaGonzalezͲOrtegaDenverColorado80221UnitedStates2014Ͳ10Ͳ22
163.SophiaArjanaBoulderColorado80301UnitedStates2014Ͳ10Ͳ27
164.SteveKinneyDenverColorado80212UnitedStates2014Ͳ10Ͳ22
165.SueOkersonDenverColorado80211UnitedStates2014Ͳ10Ͳ23
166.TammyKilgoreDenverColorado80220UnitedStates2014Ͳ10Ͳ23
167.TammyYoungsArvadaColorado80002UnitedStates2014Ͳ10Ͳ23
168.TatanishaPettesͲFlorenceSuffolkVirginia23434UnitedStates2014Ͳ10Ͳ23
169.TeresaCasillasDenverColorado80211UnitedStates2014Ͳ10Ͳ23
170.TerryZamellCentennialColorado80122UnitedStates2014Ͳ10Ͳ23
171.ThaddeusTeczaDenverColorado80211UnitedStates2014Ͳ10Ͳ22
172.ThomasCampbellDenverColorado80212Ͳ2847UnitedStates2014Ͳ10Ͳ25
173.ThomasMcHughDenverColorado80221UnitedStates2014Ͳ10Ͳ22
174.TimothyBryanWestminsterColorado80234UnitedStates2014Ͳ10Ͳ27
175.TimothyMcHughDenverColorado80210UnitedStates2014Ͳ10Ͳ23
176.TracyRackauskasDenverColorado80220UnitedStates2014Ͳ10Ͳ23
177.TyroneVincentDenverColorado80211UnitedStates2014Ͳ10Ͳ26
178.VeronicaMontoyaDenverColorado80211UnitedStates2014Ͳ10Ͳ23
179.WaltMortonDenverColorado80203UnitedStates2014Ͳ10Ͳ25
180.WilliamDeckerDenverColorado80207UnitedStates2014Ͳ10Ͳ22
Note:Nearly200moreindividualsappendedtheirsignaturestotheletteraswell,howeverafterthe
October31,2014CDOTdeadline.Thefinallistofsignatoriesincludesnearly400people.
==================================
REMOTE_HOST=
HTTP_USER_AGENT=Mozilla/5.0(Macintosh;IntelMacOSX10_11)AppleWebKit/601.1.56
(KHTML,likeGecko)Version/9.0Safari/601.1.56
REMOTE_USER=
HTTP_REFERER=http://iͲ70east.com/feedbackͲform.html
From:
Subject:
Date:
To:
"NeighborhoodDevelopmentCollaborative"<[email protected]>
name:NeighborhoodDevelopmentCollaborative
address:901W10thAvenueSuite2A
city:Denver
state:CO
zip_code:80204
phone:9709484614
comment_on_feis:YES
primary_interest_in_project:Other
interest_in_project:NeighborhoodDevelopmentCollaborativeisanassociationof12
affordablehousingandcommunitydevelopmentorganizationsinDenver.
http://ndcollaborative.org/.Ourmembersdevelophousinganddocommunity
developmentworkintheGlobeville/EllyriaSwanseaneighborhoodsalongtheI70
corridor.
primary_reason_to_travel_corridor:Onthejob
how_transportation_can_be_improved_in_corridor:CreategreaterNorth/South
connectivityacrossI70.
how_receiving_info:Other
rate_website:Good
comments_questions:Chapter5.2Section5.2.8Page5.2.34HousingandPopulation
Paragraph2SectionstatesthatthePartialCoverLoweredAlternativewillaffect56
housingunitsorapproximately3%ofthehousingunitsinElyriaandSwansea.
FiftyͲsixisthenumberofunitstobedemolishedbyCDOT.TheCityofDenver’s
Dept.ofEnvironmentalHealthstudiesontheairqualityandnoiseimpactsfromthe
construction,expansion,andcontinueduseofIͲ70showincreasedairandnoise
pollutionwillaffecthouseholdswithin500feetofIͲ70.Therefore,thehealthand
qualityoflifeoftheresidentsofapproximatelyanadditional286homeswillbe
impacted,inadditiontothe56unitsremovedfromtheneighborhood.Together,that
numberofhomesrepresents19%ofthehousingunitsinElyriaandSwansea.Change
thewordingtoreadthenegativeenvironmentalimpactsofthePartialCoverLowered
Alternativewillaffect342housingunitsor19%ofthehousingunitsintheElyria!
andSwanseaNeighborhoods.2.Exhibit5.23Ͳ3SummaryofEnvironmentalJustice
Benefits,Impacts,andMitigationspage5.23Ͳ7MitigationforthePartialCover
LoweredAlternativeincludesprovisionof$2.0millioninfundingtodevelop
affordablehousingunitsintheElyriaandSwanseaneighborhoods.CDOTappearsto
acknowledgethatthisreductioninhousingunitsisnegativelyaffectingthe
neighborhoodsbysuggestingthatitwillcontribute$2.0millionforthe
constructionofnewaffordablehousingasamitigationmeasure.Thisamountis
estimatedbyCDOTtoreplace10homes.TheIͲ70expansionwilldemolish56homes
valuedat$6.5million.Thereplacementcostofthosehomesintoday'sDenver
marketisestimatedat$14.5million.CDOT'soffertoprovide$2.0millionisnot
sufficienttoreplacethehomesbeingdemolished.CDOTshouldprovide$14.5
million,theamountoffundsrequiredtoreplacethe56homesintoday'smarket.
Initsproposaltoprovide$2.0millionforreplacinghousing,CDOTmusttakeinto
accountthatremoving56housingunitsisdamagingtheviabilityoftheElyriaand
Swanseaneighborhoods.Theloss
of56homesalone,withtheaveragehouseholdsizeintheneighborhoodof3.78
people,meansaminimumof3%ofthearea’spopulationwillbelost.Swansea
Elementaryisprojectedtolose8teachersnextyearduetoreducedstudent
population.Thesepopulationlossesareprimarilyduetodisplacement,rent
increasesanduncertaintyintheneighborhoods,resultingfromCDOTtakingsandthe
rippleeffectsoftheIͲ70reconstructionproposal.TheElyriaandSwansea
neighborhoodshavebeenseverelyconstrictedeversinceIͲ70wasoriginallybuiltin
themiddleofthesecommunities.Withhomedemolition,populationlossand
uncertainty,theneighborhoodwillcontinuetodecline.Withoutaminimumof
replacementofatleastthenumberofdemolishedhomes,theviabilityofthe
neighborhoodwillbesubstantiallyimpaired.3.Chapter9Exhibit9Ͳ1Preferred
AlternativeMitigationCommentspage9.6Mitigationnumbers19,20,21and22.
CDOTisrecommendingtwofreeportableor
windowmountedairconditionerswithairfiltrationandassistanceforadditional
utilitycoststomitigateincreasedlevelsofnoiseanddustduringconstruction.
DenverEnvironmentalHealthrecommendsatticinsulation,airsealing,windowand
doorreplacement,programmablethermostats,centralforcedaircooling/heatingwith
filtration,positivepressureairventilationwithfiltration,MERV16filters,and
carbonmonoxidedetectorstoadequatelyprotectthoseElyriaandSwansearesidences
thatwillbewithin500’ofthenewhighwayfootprintfromthenegative
environmentalhealthimpactsoftheIͲ70expansionduringconstructionandbeyond.
DEH'srecommendedmitigationforpeople’slivingspacesiscomparabletothose
measuresCDOTisrecommendingfortheSwanseaElementarySchool.ImprovementsCDOT
deemsasnecessaryforaschoolshouldbeapplicableaswelltothehomesthatwill
bejustasclosetothehighwayandwherefamilieswillreside.Estimatesforthe
costofthismitigationisapproximately$3.7millionandCDOTshouldprovide
thenecessaryamounttoimplementDEH'srecommendedmitigationstoeachofthehomes
between45thand47thStreetandBrightonandColoradoBoulevard.
==================================
REMOTE_HOST=
REMOTE_USER=
From: "EricHerbst"<[email protected]>
Subject:NortheastTransportationConnectionsCommentsfortheIͲ70EastFEIS
To:
contactus@iͲ70east.com,[email protected],[email protected],"Rebecca
WhiteͲCDOT"<[email protected]>
Cc:
"AngieMalpiede"<[email protected]>,"KarenStuart
([email protected])"
<[email protected]>,[email protected],"JesseLivingston"
<[email protected]>,"LaceyChampion"<[email protected]>
OnbehalfofheNortheastTransportationConnections(NETC)Iwouldliketo
officiallypresentourcommentsfortheIͲ70EastFEIS(seeattachment).
Weappreciatetheextendedpublicreviewperiodtosubmitcommentsatthis
timeandwearegratefulfortheopportunitytocommunicatetheimportance
ofTransportationDemandManagementalongthecorridoroftheIͲ70East
Project.
Sincerely,
*EricHerbst*
TransportationOutreachCoordinator
*NortheastTransportationConnections<http://netransportation.org/>*
8230ENorthfieldBlvd.Suite1350
Denver,CO80238
o:(720)865Ͳ2356
c:(303)261Ͳ7240
Attachments:
NETCTDMrecommendations.pdf
Size: 575k
Comments on the I-70 East FEIS, Submitted on Behalf of Northeast Transportation Connections
(NETC) - March 2, 2016
The FEIS does not appear to assess the benefits TDM strategies and programs will provide during
and after construction to help address air quality issues; community impacts, particularly as they
relate to environmental justice concerns, and increased traffic congestion during construction.
Our comments focus on Transportation Demand Management, or TDM, which reduces the number
of single-occupant vehicles on the road by implementing programs and strategies that encourage
the use of alternative modes of transportation. These modes include public transit, vanpooling,
carpooling, walking, and biking. TDM efforts are community-focused, providing residents and
commuters with accessibility options of which they might otherwise be unaware.
It is the recommendation of Northeast Transportation Connections that the Colorado Department
of Transportation (CDOT) should commit to the following TDM strategies:
■ TDM should be implemented both during and after construction of the I-70 project in order to
facilitate consistent traffic flow and minimize negative impact on the communities affected by
construction.
■ TDM should be a vital budget line item of the I-70 project, not paid for by grants or
reimbursement methods. We cannot stress enough that TDM should be funded for the entire
length of the project and as an ongoing program after construction is complete.
■ Toll revenues will be an ideal source of funding for TDM programs that allow for pedestrian
and bicycle improvements as well as better access to public transit.
■ Funding TDM through the project budget will greatly increase the effectiveness of TDM efforts
by allowing money to be spent directly on programs such as neighborhood EcoPasses. These
will allow all community members to have access to public transit, regardless of their economic
status.
■ The social justice issues raised by this project are significant and should be taken seriously.
TDM is especially important to this corridor, as 62% of households in the affected
neighborhoods have an income below the Denver median of $55,000.* As such, they are
unlikely to benefit directly from additional lanes on I-70. Funding TDM through the project
budget will help guarantee that all residents will be served equally.
■ The I-70 project should improve pedestrian and bicycle infrastructure rather than serving
motorists alone. These improvements should allow pedestrians and bicyclists to safely navigate
the I-70 corridor. They should also address the need for first/last-mile (FLM) connections to
provide residents of affected neighborhoods with access to the regional transit system. This
will go a long way toward mitigating the negative impact of the project on surrounding
neighborhoods.
We would like to thank CDOT for the chance to submit comments on the I-70 project. We know that
the public comment period has been extended, and we are grateful for the opportunity.
*Piton Foundation, Community Facts, Elyria Swansea neighborhood, http://www.piton.org/index.cfm?fuseaction=CommunityFacts.Summary&Neighborhood_ID=885
Goodevening.RebeccaEnglish.I'mheretonightonbehalfofSierraClub.WeareͲͲtheSierraClubis
opposedtothisprojectasoutlinedintheFEIS.Andwearefullysupportiveofthenorthernreroute
alternative,whichisnotproperlyexamined.Weareincompletesympathywithseveralofthespeakers
whohavespokenthisevening,andwewillbesubmittingalongwrittencomment.ButIjustwanted
everyoneinthisroomwhoisopposedtothisprojectonsomanyvalidgroundstoknowthattheSierra
Clubstandsbehindyou.Weverymuchwouldliketoworkwithyouonopposingthisproject.
MynameisCliffSmedley.I'mthestatechairoftheTransportationCommitteeoftheSierraClub,the
RockyMountainChapter.Andweareopposedtothisplan.We'reinfavorofthenorthernroute.And
we'rewantingtoengagewiththecommunity.Myphonenumberis(303)808Ͳ0117ͲͲMyeͲmailismy
name,CliffSmedley,[email protected](303)808Ͳ0117.Andanythingthat
theSierraClubcandotohelpcitizensinthisbattle,wewouldlovetohelp.ThisisͲͲIhategoingtothese
hearingsandseeinghowthegovernmenthasignoredthecitizeninputandisrailroadingsomechoice
thatthecitizensdon'twant,railroadingitdownourthroats.Ijusthateseeingthisrepeatedagain.And
theSierraClubwouldliketoengageandhelpthecitizensinthisfight.
SIERRACLUBCOMMENTSIͲ70FEIS
TheSierraClubsubmitsthefollowingcommentsontheIͲ70EastFinalEnvironmental
ImpactStatement(“FEIS”).ThesecommentsincorporatealloftheSierraClub’sprevious
commentsonpriorIͲ70EastNationalEnvironmentalPolicyAct(“NEPA”)planningdocuments
asifthosecommentswerefullysetforthbelow.WhileCDOTandtheFHWAhaveattemptedto
respondtomanyoftheconcernssetforthintheSierraClub’spriorcomments,thoseresponses
havebeenincompleteorinadequate.InadditiontheFIESitselffailstoresolvethe
inadequaciesoftheIͲ70Eastplanningprocess.Therefore,theSierraClubhasprovidedthe
followingadditionalcomments.
Insummary,theairqualityimpactsandimpactstocommunityhealthhavenotbeen
adequatelyanalyzedordisclosed.Thisisbecausetheagencieshavefailedtoemploythe
analysesrequiredundertheCleanAirActtodemonstratethatthepreferredalternativewillnot
resultinviolationsofCleanAirActstandards,orhaveconductedthoseanalysesusingthe
incorrectmethodologyorassumptions.Theagencieshavealsofailedtoadequatelyaddress
thehealthimpactsoftheproposedaction,andunlawfullyrefusedtoconductaHealthImpact
Assessment.
Inaddition,becausetheagencies’formulationofthepurposeandneedfortheproject
wasoverlynarrow,thealternativesconsidereddonotpresentanappropriaterangeofoptions
whichwillbothmeettransportationneedsandminimizenegativeimpactstohumanhealthand
theenvironment.Theagencieshavealsofailedtoproperlyconsidertheirownpolicesduring
thecourseoftheNEPAprocess.Finally,inthecaseoftheIͲ270/IͲ76rerouteoption,CDOTand
FHWAimproperlyeliminatedthisalternativebasedonincorrectassumptionsthatitwouldnot
meetthepurposeandneed.
I.
ProjectImpactsonAirQualityandCommunityHealthNotAdequately
AnalyzedandDisclosed.
IncommentsontheSDEIS,theSierraClubraisedconcernsaboutthemodelinganalysisfor
PM10performedtosupportthedraftconformitydeterminationundertheCleanAirAct,and
askedFHWAtoperformamodelinganalysisunderNEPAtoinvestigatewhetherProject
emissionswillcauseorcontributetoviolationsoftheNAAQSforPM2.5.Inaddition,TheClub
askedthatCDOTandFHWAinvestigatethecausalcontributionofhighwayemissionstothe
disparatelyhighincidenceofadversehealthoutcomesknowntobecausedbyexposuretothe
pollutantsemittedfromhighwaysandthelikelyeffectoncommunityhealthasaresultof
increasingcommunityexposuretohighwayemissionsinthefuture.
ThePMͲ10emissionsanalysisfortheProjectwassignificantlyimprovedthankslargelyEPA
oversightwhichresultedinimprovementsintheinputsusedtomodeltheimpactofProject
emissions,includingtheselectionofmorerepresentativemeteorologicaldata,andrequiring
receptorlocationsthatmorecomprehensivelyincludelocationswherethepublicislikelytobe
exposedtoProjectemissions.
However,theClubcontinuestobelievethatrequirementsofEPA’sconformityruleformaking
hotͲspotconformitydeterminations,23CFR§§93.116and.123(c),havenotbeensatisfied.The
Clubconcludesthatbecauseofthefailuretocomplywiththeserequirementstheairquality
analysisintherevisedAirQualityTechnicalReportdoesnotdemonstratethattheProjectwill
notcauseorcontributetoNAAQSviolationsintheyearofgreatestemissionsimpact,and
thereforehasnotbeenshowntoconform.
Inaddition,thefailuretoperformamodelinganalysisofPM2.5emissionstodetermineif
ProjectemissionswillcauseorcontributetoaviolationoftheNAAQSfailstocomplywiththe
NEPArequirementthattheEISmustdisclosewhethertheProjectwillcomplywithstandards
establishedtoprotectenvironmentalquality.ThereportofexpectedemissionsofPM2.5
publishedintheAirQualityTechnicalReportisnotanairqualityanalysistodemonstratethat
ProjectemissionswillnotviolatetheNAAQSforPM2.5atthereceptorlocationswhereProject
emissionsareexpectedtoexceedtheNAAQSforPM10.
TheFHWAandCDOTrefusedcategoricallytoconductanyinvestigationfortheFEISofthe
relationshipbetweenadversehealthoutcomesreportedinthecommunitiesaffectedbythe
ProjectandairpollutionemittedfromtheProject.Thereasonsofferedbytheagencies
misrepresentthefacts,failtoconsidertheevidencepublishedinthescientificliterature,and
areincorrectasamatteroflaw.Thefailureoftheagenciestoinvestigatethecausal
relationshipbetweenhealthoutcomesandProjectemissions,andtheirfailuretoconsider
alternativesthatcouldavoidorminimizethoseoutcomesviolatethebasicdutiesimposedby
NEPA,23U.S.C.§109(h),andtheobligationstopreventdisparateimpactsestablishedbyTitle
VIoftheCivilRightsAct,ExecutiveOrder12,andtheEnvironmentalJusticepolicyadoptedfor
theU.S.DOTbySecretaryPena.
A. AirQualityAnalysisDoesNotDemonstratethatNationalAirQualityStandardsforPM10
orPM2.5WillBeMet.
TheFEISincludesaproposeddeterminationthatthepreferredalternative(PA)forIͲ70Project
willconformundertheCleanAirAct(CAA).TheActrequiresthatthatProjectemissions“will
notcauseorcontributetoanewviolationofany[NAAQS].”42U.S.C.§176(c)(1)(B)(i).
Tomeetthestatutorytestforconformity,EPA’sconformityrulerequiresthataconformity
determinationbebasedona“hotͲspotanalysis.”
“HotͲspotanalysis”isanestimationoflikelyfuturelocalizedCO,PM10,and/orPM2.5pollutant
concentrationsandacomparisonofthoseconcentrationstothenationalambientairquality
standards.
40CFR93.101.Todemonstrateconformity,theProjectsponsorandFHWAbeartheburdenof
establishingthroughthehotͲspotanalysisthattheProjectwillnotcauseorcontributetoanew
violationofanationalairqualitystandard.EPA’sconformityruledefinesthisrequirementas–
Causeorcontributetoanewviolationforaprojectmeans:
(1)Tocauseorcontributetoanewviolationofastandardintheareasubstantiallyaffectedby
theprojectoroveraregionwhichwouldotherwisenotbeinviolationofthestandardduring
thefutureperiodinquestion,iftheprojectwerenotimplemented;or
(2)Tocontributetoanewviolationinamannerthatwouldincreasethefrequencyorseverityof
anewviolationofastandardinsucharea.
40CFR93.101.
FEISAirQualityTechnicalReportDoesNotAffirmativelyEstablishThatProjectEmissionswill
NotCauseViolations.
TherevisedairqualityhotͲspotanalysisofProjectemissionsshowsthatemissionsfromthe
Projectwillcontribute62μg/M3atthereceptormostimpactedbyProjectemissionsin2035.
ThiscompareswiththemodelinganalysispublishedwiththeDraftSupplementalEISwhich
showedthatemissionsfromthePAwouldcontributeonly38μg/M3atthereceptorsof
greatestimpact.
EPAGuidanceforHotͲspotanalysisrequiresthattheconcentrationscontributedbyProject
emissionsbeaddedtofuturebackgroundconcentrationsatthereceptorofgreatestimpact.
CDOTuses2011Ͳ13monitoringdatatoconcludethatbackgroundemissionscontribute89
μg/M3atthereceptorlocationsintheProjectstudyarea.Thiscompareswiththefindinginthe
SupplementalDraftEISthatbackgroundemissionscontribute113μg/M3.Whenthemost
recentestimateofbackgroundconcentrationsareused,andPM10concentrationsexpectedto
becontributedbytheProjectareaddedtothosebackgroundconcentrations,total
concentrationsfora24Ͳhourperiodarepredictedtoreach151μg/M3.The24ͲhourNAAQSfor
PM10is150μg/M3.ByapplicationofEPA’sroundingconventionfordeterminingcompliance
withtheNAAQSforPM10,151μg/M3istreatedascompliance.Butifthebackground
concentrationsfromtheanalysisintheSDEIS(113μg/M3)areusedtopredictfuture
concentrations,ProjectemissionswillcontributetoPM10concentrationsof175μg/M3which
exceedtheNAAQSby25μg/M3.
TheSierraClubcontendsthatthehotͲspotanalysisisnotconsistentwiththeActandEPA
conformityregulations,anddoesnotprovidealawfulorcrediblefactualbasisforfindingthat
theProjectconformsasrequiredbyCAAsection176(c). 1. ConformityNotDemonstratedDuringTimeFrameofTransportationPlan.
EPA’srulegoverningtheperformanceofhotspotanalysesformakinghighwayprojectlevel
conformitydeterminationsrequiresthat“estimatedpollutantconcentrationsmustbebased
onthetotalemissionsburdenwhichmayresultfromtheimplementationoftheproject,
summedtogetherwithfuturebackgroundconcentrations….”40C.F.R.§93.123(c)(1).EPA’s
HotͲspotrulerequiresthatconformitymustbedemonstratedduringtheentirefutureperiod
includedinthe“timeframeofthetransportationpan.”ProjectconformityissatisfiedonlyͲͲ
…ifitisdemonstratedthatduringthetimeframeofthetransportationplannonewlocal
violationswillbecreatedandtheseverityornumberofexistingviolationswillnotbe
increasedasaresultoftheproject.
40CFR§93.116(a).
EPA’sGuidancerequiresthattheemissionsanalysisbeperformedfor“oneormoreanalysis
yearswithinthetimeframeofthetransportationplanorregionalemissionsanalysiswhen
emissionsfromtheproject,anynearbysources,andbackgroundareexpectedtobehighest.”
TransportationConformityGuidanceforQuantitativeHotͲspotAnalysesinPM2.5andPM10
NonattainmentandMaintenanceAreas,3.3.3.,p.20(November2015)[hereinafter“HotͲspot
Guidance”].“Conformityrequirementsaremetiftheanalysisdemonstratesthatnonewor
worsenedviolationsoccurintheyear(s)ofhighestexpectedemissions–whichincludesthe
project’semissionsinadditiontobackgroundconcentrations.”Id..2.8,p.15.
Inthiscase,theProjectwasfirstaddedtotheDenverRegionalTransportationPlanin2015as
partofthe“2040FiscallyConstrainedRegionalTransportationPlan,”adoptedbytheDRCOG
boardonFebruary18,2015(“2040RTP”).Theemissionsanalysisperformedtodemonstrate
conformitywasfor2035.Thisisayearwithinthetimeframeofthe2040RTP,butitisnot“the
year(s)ofhighestexpectedemissions.”InthediscussionoffactorsconsideredbyCDOTtoselect
theanalysisyear,AQTechnicalReport,4.3.1.4(carbonmonoxide),and4.4.2(PM)no
considerationwasgiventoemissionsbetween2035and2040eventhough2040isincludedin
thetimeframeofthefirstRTPthatincludedtheproject.
SinceEPA’sobjectivewastomakesurethataprojectbothcamefromaconforming
transportationplan,asrequiredbytheCAA,§176(c)(3)and(4),andsatisfiedthestatutory
conformitycriteriaapplicabletotransportationprojectsin§176(c)(1)(B),EPArequiredthatall
yearsbeconsideredduringthetimeframeoftheemissionsanalysispreparedforthe
transportationplanthatincludedtheproject.TheIͲ70Projectwasnotincludedinthe2035
RTP,anditsemissionsimpactwasnotincludedintheemissionsanalysisusedtodeterminethe
conformityofthe2035RTP.Thefirstregionalemissionsanalysisthatincludedtheimpactof
emissionsfromtheIͲ70Projectwastheemissionsanalysisperformedforthe2040RTP.Itwas
notreasonableorlegallypermissiblefortheagenciesnottoconsiderallyearswithinthetime
frameofthe2040RTP.
TheFEISandtheproposedconformitydeterminationdonotaddressthequestionwhether
emissionswouldbehighestduringtheperiodofthetimeframeofthe2040RTPbetween2035
and2040.Giventhefactorsthattheagenciesconsideredrelevanttotheirselectionof2035
comparedtoearlierpotentialanalysisyears,2040shouldhavebeenselectedastheanalysis
yearbecauseemissionswouldbeexpectedtobegreaterin2040than2035.
Thefactorsidentifiedbytheagenciesasrelevanttoidentifyingtheyearofhighestcumulative
emissionsinclude1)VMTgrowth,2)emissionsfactors,3)congestionandspeeds,4)total
projectemissions,and5)backgroundemissions.Eachofthesefactorssupporttheconclusion
thattheyearofhighestemissionswithinthetimeframeoftheRTPwillbe2040.
CDOT’sanalysisoftrafficpredictsthattrafficinthecorridorandonIͲ70willcontinuetogrow
through2035.Although2040isnotaddressedinthetrafficmodeling,thereisnoevidencein
theagencyrecordtosuggestthattrafficgrowthwillendin2035.Continuedtrafficgrowth
through2040supportstheconclusionthat2040shouldbetheanalysisyear.
Theagenciesfoundthatmorestringentemissionfactorsforfuturevehicles,combinedwith
replacementofexistingvehicleswithfuturecleanervehicles,shouldproducenetreductionsin
emissionsthrough2030becauseemissionspermilewilldecreasefasterthantheincreasein
milesdriven.However,theyconcludedthatafter2030netemissionswouldbegintogrow
becauseemissionfactorsfornewvehicleswouldnolongerachievereductionsgreaterthan
VMTgrowth.Accordingly,theyconcludedthat2035wouldhavehigheroverallemissionsthan
2030orearlieryears.ThislogicwouldnecessarilysupporttheconclusionthatoverallProject
emissionswillcontinuetogrowalongwithVMTgrowthafter2035.Thisfactortherefore
supportstheconclusionthatemissionsin2040willbegreaterin2040than2035,andshouldbe
selectedastheanalysisyear.
Inaddition,asVMTincreasestrafficcongestionwillworsenandvehiclespeedswilldropafter
2035.Increasedcongestionafter2035willfurthercontributetoincreasingemissionsafter
2035.
Finally,theagenciesconcludedthatbackgroundemissionsareexpectedtocontinuetoincrease
throughoutthetimeframeoftheProject.
TheconsiderationofbackgroundPM10concentrationtrendsfurthersupportstheuseof2035as
theyearofpeakemissions.IntheAPCD’sColorado State Implementation Plan for PM10,
Revised Technical Support Document (September2005),Table5.1Ͳ1showsasummaryof
maintenanceyearmodeldemonstrationsinwhichthesixthhighestmodeledconcentration
increasessteadilyfrom2001throughatleast2030.Table3.1Ͳ1ofthatdocumentalsoshowsa
steadilyincreasingtotalPM10emissioninventoryfrom2001through2025.Inthat2005
document,theanalysisdoesnotinclude2035,buttheevidenceisclear—theoverallPM10
emissioninventoryisrisingovertimeduetoincreasesinalmostallsourcetypes.Therefore,itis
reasonabletoconcludethattheyear2035istheyearofpeakemissionstomodelforthePM10
hotspotanalysis.
AirQualityTechnicalReport,4.4.2,p.35.CDOTidentifiesnoevidencetosuggestthatthe
growthinbackgroundemissionsthrough2035willendthatyear,andnotcontinuethrough
2040.
Eachofthesefactors,separatelyandcollectively,supporttheconclusionthatbothProject
emissionsandbackgroundemissionswillcontinuetogrowbetween2035and2040.Basedon
thisevidence,itmustbeconcludedthattheyearofhighestemissionswithinthetimeframeof
theRTPwillbe2040.Inordertosatisfythestatutoryconformitytest,CDOTmustshowthat
emissionsfromtheProjectin2040“willnotcauseorcontributetoanewviolationofany
standard.”
Theemissionsanalysisperformedfor2035showsthatProjectemissionswillcontributetoa
concentrationabove150μg/M3in2035.Thisanalysiscannotbereliedupontoconcludethat
higherProjectemissionsin2040,alongwithhigherbackgroundemissions,“willnotcauseor
contributetoanewviolation”in2040.Theemissionsanalysisinthisrecorddoesnot
demonstrateconformityasrequiredbytheCAA.
2.DeterminingBackgroundConcentrationsforthePMͲ10ConformityEmissions
Analysis.
EPAexplainedthepurposeoftherequirementtoanalyzetheimpactofProjectemissions
duringtheyearofhighestemissionsistoensurethatNAAQSwillcontinuetobeattainedas
backgroundemissionsgrowovertime.
EPAintendsthatthehotͲspotanalysiscompareconcentrationswithandwithoutthe
projectbasedonmodelingconditionsintheanalysisyear.Thehotspotanalysisis
intendedtoassesspossibleviolationsduetotheprojectincombinationwithchangesin
backgroundlevelsovertime.[Emphasisadded].
72Fed.Reg.12,497(March10,2006).Inselectingthe“analysisyear,”theagenciesproperly
consideredthegrowthinbackgroundemissionsasarelevant,butseparatefactorin
determiningtheyearofhighestemissions.HavingdeterminedthatbothProjectemissionsand
backgroundemissionswouldbehighestin2035,itisnotreasonabletouse2011Ͳ2013
backgroundemissionsasthebasisfortheconformitydetermination.Basedonevidence
derivedfromtheairqualitymodelingperformedbyCDPHEtodemonstratethatattainmentof
theNAAQSforPM10wouldbemaintainedduringthenext20years,agencies’concludethat
“the evidence is clear—the overall PM10 emission inventory is rising over time due to increases in almost
all source types. Therefore, it is reasonable to conclude that the year 2035 is the year of peak emissions to
model for the PM10 hotspot analysis.” AirQualityTechnicalReport,4.4.2,p.35.TheU.S.EPA
approvedthismodeleddemonstrationofexpectedfutureairqualitywhenitapproved
Colorado’sAirQualityMaintenancePlan.
ThemodelingperformedfortheMaintenancePlandemonstrationshowedthatfuture
concentrationsofPM10intheDenverMetroareaareexpectedtoincreasesteadilythroughthe
forecastperiod.Predictedpeakconcentrationsreachlevelswellabovecurrentmonitored
levels.
Table5.1Ͳ1.SummaryofMaintenanceYearModelDemonstration
ModeledYearSixthͲHighestModeledConcentration(ug/m3)
2001ͲBaseYear
126.1
2009
134.9
2010 135.1
2015 137.5
2020 142.0
2022(interpolated) 145.1
2025 149.9
2030 157.6
TheconcentrationspredictedtooccuratthelocationoftheWelbymonitoringstationareless
thantheregionalpeak,buttheupwardtrendfrom2010to2025isconsistentwiththetrend
showninthepeakconcentrations.ThemodeledisoplethspresentedinthePlanpredictthatby
2025backgroundlevelsofPM10willbeabove110ug/m3acrossmostoftheIͲ70corridor,with
higherlevelsnear140ug/m3intheareaaroundtheIͲ25/IͲ70interchange.
Insomerespectsinputsusedfortheregionalmodeloverestimatecurrentemissions.For
example,emissionfactorsforonͲroadmotorvehiclesusedinEPA’sMOVESmodelarelessthan
thefactorsusedintheMOBILE6.2modelthatprovidedestimatesofmotorvehicleemissions.
ButthosereductionsaremorethanoffsetbysignificantlygreaterpopulationgrowthandVMT
thanwasassumedintheMaintenancePlanmodeling.ThePlanused2005DRCOGpopulation
andVMTprojectionstoestimatefutureemissions.Thoseprojectionsseriouslyunderestimated
actualpopulationgrowthandfutureVMT.
TheMaintenancePlanestimatedthatpopulationwouldnotreach3millionby2030,1whereas
themostrecentpopulationestimateusedbyDRCOGshowsthatDenverMetropopulation
reached3millionduring2015,andnowDRCOGanticipatesthatregionalpopulationwillbe
closeto4millionby2035.2
VMTisthemostsignificantvariabledrivingfuturevehicleemissions.TheMaintenancePlan
baseditsfuturemodeledairqualityonemissionprojectionsthatexpectedVMTtogrowto76.8
millionmilesofvehicletravelby2025.3ButDRCOGreportsinitsrecentlyadopted2040
RegionalTransportationPlanthatVMTwillreachthatlevelthisyearornext,andthatby2035
regionalVMTshouldexceed100millionmilesoftravel.4
Clearly,theassumptionsregardinggrowthandvehicletravelusedforthemodelinginthe
DenverMaintenancePlanwerebasedonconservativeregionalvehicleemissionprojections.
Thefuturemodeledconcentrationsprovideacompellingbasistosupporttheagencies’
1
DenverMaintenancePlanforPM10,TechnicalSupportDocument,Table3.2,p.9(CDPHE2005).
2040FiscallyConstrainedRegionalTransportationPlan,Table1,p.6(DRCOG,2016).
3
MaintenancePlan,op.sit,Table3.4Ͳ1,p.12.
4
2040RTP,Fig.5,p.10.
2
conclusionthattheemissionsanalysisfortheIͲ70Projectshouldbeperformedfor2035,ifnot
2040,astheyearofhighestexpectedemissions.Havingmadethatdetermination,itwasnot
consistentwithEPA’sconformityruleandisarbitraryandcapricioustousehistorical
concentrationsofPM10asthebackgroundconcentrationratherthanestimatesoffuture
backgroundconcentrationsthatareavailablefromthemodelingperformedforthePM10
MaintenancePlan.
EPA’sQuantitativeAnalysisGuidanceforPMHotSpotConformityDeterminations
(November2015),8.3.2,p.124,specificallyprovidesfortheuseofPMSIPmodelingto
determinefuturebackgroundconcentrations.“To account for future emission changes, it may
be appropriate in some cases to use future background concentrations that have been calculated
based on modeled outputs from a CTM. CTMs are photochemistry models that are routinely used
in regulatory analyses, including attainment demonstrations for PM SIPs ….”
ThedataavailablefromthePMMaintenanceSIPmodelingdemonstratethatfuturebackground
concentrationswillatleastexceed110ug/m3intheareaaffectedbytheProject,whichissignificantly
greaterthanthe89ug/m3valueusedasbackgroundtodeterminethedesignvaluesfortheIͲ70Project.
Thefailuretousebackgroundvaluesthatreasonablyestimatefutureconditionsin2035isinconsistent
withEPA’sconformityrule,andisunlawful.TheProjecthasnotbeenshowntoconformandmaynotbe
approvedbyFHWAwithoutmodificationstoreduceemissionstolevelsthatwillensureattainment
throughoutthetimeframeofthe2040regionaltransportationplan.
3.DesignValueCalculationFailstoDemonstrateAttainment.
EvenifitwerepermissibletousehistoricalPM10concentrationsasasurrogateforexpected
futureconcentrationsin2035(or2040),themethodologyusedtocomparepredicted
concentrationscausedbyProjectemissionswiththeNAAQSdoesnotdemonstratethatthe
ProjectwillnotcauseorcontributetoaviolationoftheNAAQS.
TheregulatoryappendixtotheNAAQSforPM10definestheconditionsthatmustbe
demonstratedtomeetthestandard.
2.0AttainmentDeterminations
2.124ͲHourPrimaryandSecondaryStandards
(a)Under40CFR50.6(a)the24Ͳhourprimaryandsecondarystandardsareattained
whentheexpectednumberofexceedancesperyearateachmonitoringsiteislessthan
orequaltoone.
40CFR50.6,AppendixK.EPAallowsthestandardtobemetifthenumberof24Ͳhourperiods
exceedingthestandardis3orless,whichisanaverageofnotmorethanoneexceedanceper
year.ThemethodologyappliedbyCDOTdoesnotconsiderwhetherthefivehighestpollution
daysintheanalysisyearwillexceedtheNAAQSandthereforecauseorcontributetomultiple
violationsoftheNAAQS.CDOTconfirmedtotheSierraClub,inanemaildatedMarch1from
VanessaHenderson,5thattheconcentrationsresultingfromProjectemissionsreportedinthe
AirQualityTechnicalReport,Tables19and20,arethe6thhighestconcentrationsproducedby
theAERMODmodel.TheActimposesaburdenontheagencyseekingfederalfundingfora
highwayprojecttoestablishthatprojectemissions“willNOTcauseorcontribute”toaviolation
ofthestandard.CDOTdoesnotdisclosethefivehighest24Ͳhourconcentrationspredictedby
themodel,andthereforedoesnotdemonstratethatProjectemissionsonthose5dayswillnot
causeorcontributetoaviolation.Sincetheconcentrationsonthe6thhighestdayareexpected
tomarginallyexceedthestandard,itisnotreasonableorlegallypermissibletomerelyinfer
thathigherconcentrationsonthe5highestdayswillnotcauseviolationsoftheNAAQS.
IntheAirQualityProtocoldevelopedtopreparetheairqualityanalysisfortheSDEIS,itwas
determinedthat“EPA’sguidancerequiresuseofthehighestPM10valueovera3Ͳyearperiod,
excludingexceptionalevents,torepresentbackground.”DraftAirQualityAnalysisProtocol,4.2,
p.7(Feb.2013).Basedonthisguidance,thebackgroundconcentrationusedtodeterminethe
designvaluesatreceptorsaffectedbyProjectemissionswas113ug/m3.Inaddition,the
Protocolstatedthatthe6thhighconcentrationpredictedbythedispersionmodelingwouldbe
addedtothebackgroundconcentrationtodeterminethedesignvaluetobecomparedwiththe
NAAQS.Themodelpredictedthatthe6thhighestconcentrationcontributedbytheProject
wouldbe38ug/m3.Whenaddedtobackground,theresultwas151ug/m3.Byapplicationof
EPA’sroundingprocedure,anyvaluefrom151to154isroundedto150andconsideredto
meettheNAAQS.
Thisprocedureleavesunansweredwhetherthe1stthrough5thhighestconcentrationswill
causeatleastthreedayswhenthetotalofProjectemissionsaddedtobackgroundwilltotal
155ug/m3,andthereforeviolatetheNAAQS.
Hi Bob - Sabrina forwarded me your questions on the Final EIS to answer for you. I'm providing the
answers below in the same order as your questions in the email.
5
x
x
x
x
We are not able to send you the 1st through 5th high values for the dispersion model. We use
the 6th high as you note the EPA's guidance allows. In order to get the 1st through 5th values,
we would have to re-run the models and that is not something we are planning to do.
The values for the receptors at Swansea Elementary on Table 21 are, as you note, the design
values. As note 1 to the table indicates, the concentrations noted are the modeled value plus the
background concentration of 89 micrograms per cubic meter. Those values are then
rounded. We are not able to get the actual model values themselves to you before the end of
the review period.
The VMT mix reported in Table 9 is composite data from the 9 county ozone nonattainment area
that varies by road type and hour of day. Table 9 represents the average of those values.
Yes, the DPM emissions are based on the vehicle mix in Table 9.
If you have any further questions, please submit them as part of your official comments by the end of
tomorrow, March 2nd.
Thanks!
Vanessa
ForthehotͲspotanalysisintheFEIS,thisprocedurewasmodifiedtoignoreevenmoredays
whenProjectemissionswouldlikelycauseNAAQSviolations.Insteadofaddingthepredicted
Projectimpacttothehighestbackgroundvalue,the6thhighest24Ͳhourconcentrationresulting
fromProjectemissionswereaddedtothefourthhighestbackgroundconcentration.That
procedurehadtheeffectofeliminatinganycushionforthe5highestpollutiondaysresulting
fromProjectemissions.
InthehotͲspotanalysispreparedfortheFEIS,the6thhighestconcentrationresultingProject
emissionswasmodeledtobe62ug/m3,andthe4thhighestbackgroundlevelwasdetermined
tobe89ug/m3.Thetotalisadesignvalueof151ug/m3.Butinthiscaseweknowthaton
threedaysthedesignvaluewillbehigherthan151becausethebackgroundconcentrations
includethreedayshigherthan89ug/m3.Eachoneofthosedayscouldbeaviolationdayifthe
backgroundconcentrationsexceeded93.
Theninaddition,themodelpredictsthatProjectemissionswillcontributeconcentrations
greaterthan62ug/m3on5days.Whenthese5higherProjectpollutiondaysareaddedto
threehigherbackgroundpollutiondays,itishighlyprobablethatatleastthreeofthosedays
willexceedtheNAAQSandcauseaviolation.
ButCDOThasnotdisclosedthethreehigherbackgrounddays,orthefivehighestProject
pollutiondays.Withoutprovidingthisinformationtothedecisionmakerandthepublic,CDOT
hasnotmetitsburdentoestablishthatProjectemissionswillnotcauseorcontributetoa
violationoftheNAAQS.Thefactualpredicaterequiredforaconformitydeterminationisnotin
theagencyrecord.FHWAcannotlawfullydeterminethattheProjectconformsbasedonthese
facts.
4. EmissionsInventoriesUsedtoModelProjectImpactsUnlawfullyOmit
EmissionsfromHalfofTruckTripsatHighwaySegmentswithPeakTruck
Traffic.
IntheemailfromVanessaHenderson,CDOTexplainsthattheVMTmixusedtoestimate
emissionsonIͲ70istheregionalVMTmixdevelopedforozonemodeling.Thismixisnotbased
onthemixofvehiclesusingtheIͲ70corridor.Asaresultitunderrepresentsthenumberof
trucksonIͲ70,andthereforefailstofullyaccountfortheemissionsfromtrucksinthecorridor.
TheVMTmixusedinthehotͲspotanalysisassumesthattrucksarelessthan5%ofvehicletrips
inthecorridor.ButTrafficcountsreportedbyCDOTfor2012showAADTatthemousetrapas
nearlydoubletheshareoftripsusedformodelingemissionsinthehotͲspotanalysis(truck
shareshowninparenthesis)6:
IͲ25southofinterchange:243,000(9.1%)
IͲ25northofinterchange:198,000(10.9%)
6
ColoradoDepartmentofTransportation,TrafficDataExplorer,2013.Availableonlineat:
http://dtdapps.coloradodot.info/Otis/TrafficData(lastaccessedOctober30,2013).
IͲ70westofinterchange:150,000(9.1%)
IͲ70eastofinterchange:140,000(9.3%)
Inaddition,thetrafficmodelingperformedbyCDOTfortheEISshowsthattheProjectwill
resultinincreasedtrucktripsinthesegmentbetweenIͲ25andBrightonBoulevardcompared
tothenoͲbuildoption.SeeAQReport,Fig.3,p.16,showingIͲ70segmentswithincreasedtruck
trafficcomparedtoNoBuild.
TheseadditionaltripsresultingfromtheProjectarealsonotrepresentedintheregionalVMT
mixusedtocalculateemissions.Together,theactualtruckuseonthissegmentofIͲ70reported
byCDOTcombinedwiththeadditionaltruckusewhentheProjectisbuiltmeansthatonlyhalf
offuturetruckemissionsareaccountedforinthehotͲspotanalysis.
GiventhatthissegmentoftheIͲ70ProjectbetweenIͲ25andWashingtonBlvdiswherethe
modelingshowsthepeakPMhotͲspotisexpectedtooccur,andwherethedesignvaluewith
onlyhalfofexpectedtruckemissionsisreportedas151ug/m3,thefailuretoincludeemissions
forhalfofthetrucktripsintheemissionsanddispersionmodelingdoesnotcomplywithEPA
Guidance,andunlawfullyunderestimatestheimpactofProjectemissionsatthehotͲspot
receptors.AhotͲspotemissionsanalysisthatomitshalfofthetruckemissionscannotberelied
upontosupportaconformitydetermination.
5. ModelingFailstoAccountforTrueImpactofVehicleEmissionsundertheCover
(Tunnel)NexttoSwanseaPlayground.
TheReportnotesthatonlyhalfoftheemissionsneedbeaccountedforateachendofthe
tunnel.ThismakessenseonlyoncalmdayswhicharenotcommonintheSo.PlatteRiver
drainagebasin.TheprevailingwindsintheareablowfromtheSSWfollowingthelayofthe
riverbottom.Duringtheseperiods,thewindwillforceemissionstoexitfromunderthecover
(tunnel)totheeast.Duringwarmandhotafternoons,theprevailingwindsflowupslopeinto
themountains.ThishasbeenwellͲdemonstratedbythedatadevelopedbytheNationalPark
ServiceandCDPHEshowingthatozonevisibleaerosolsformedintheurbanairshedare
transportedintoRMNationalParkbyupslopewinds.Underthosetransportconditions,local
windsattheProjectwillblowallemissionsoutfromthewestendofthecoverintotheblock
adjacenttotheplaygroundatSwanseaElementarySchool.
TorepresenttotheparentsoffamilieswithchildrenattheschoolthatProjectemissionswill
notbeconcentratedfor800feetandthenreleasedinitsentiretyfromoneendofthecover
defiesrealityandcommonsense.Thisistheessenceofarbitraryandcapricious
decisionmaking.
B. ModelingtoDemonstrateAttainmentofPM2.5NAAQSUnlawfullyNotPerformed.
IncommentssubmittedontheSupplementalDraftEIS,theSierraClubandcommunitygroups
concernedabouttheadversehealthoutcomesoccurringinthenorthDenverneighborhoods
affectedbytheProjectrequestedthatamodelinganalysisbeperformedforPM2.5,inaddition
toPM10,todemonstratethatProjectemissionswillnotcauseorcontributetofuture
concentrationsofPM2.5intheambientairthatviolatetheNAAQSforPM2.5.TheFEISdoes
notincludeamodelinganalysisforthispollutant.
TheprimaryreasonsgivenforCDOT’sandFHWA’srefusaltoperformthisanalysisare1)the
DenverregionhasnohistoryofviolationsoftheNAAQSforPM2.5,andtheemissionsincreases
expectedfromtheProjectarenotlikelytobeenoughtoexceedtheNAAQS.Thesereasonsdo
notconsidertheimpactofhighwayemissionsbeingmeasurednowatthenewnearͲhighway
monitorsrequiredbyEPA’s2012revisionoftheNAAQSforPM2.5.Itisnotconsistentwith
NEPAtoomitconsiderationoftheseexistingmeasuresofhighwayemissionsintheMetroarea.
TheIͲ25monitorhasbeeninoperationsincemidͲ2014.Itshowsoneannualconcentrationfor
2015thatisnearly30%higherthantheconcentrationsmeasuredatWelbywhichisthesite
CDOTchosetorepresentbackground.Thepeak24ͲhourconcentrationsattheIͲ25siteexceed
theNAAQS,butnotthe98th%ilevaluewhichisusedtomeasureattainment.However,the
98th%ilevalueatthissiteisalso30%abovethebackgroundsite.
VMTattheIͲ25monitorlocationislessbyroughly1/3thanVMTattheMousetrap.TheAADT
alongIͲ25at8thAvenueisonly249,000,asreportedonthespreadsheetprovidedbyMr.Will
AllisonatameetingwithCDPHEinlate2013,whereasatthemousetrapthetotaltripspassing
throughtheinterchangeare326,000,morethan30percentmoretraffic.Inaddition,theshare
oftrafficrepresentedbytrucktripsisapproximately40%greaterattheMousetrapthanatthe
IͲ25monitoringstation.
Forthesereasons,theSierraClubandcommunitygroupsdemandedthatanearͲhighway
monitorbelocatedtomeasuretheairqualityimpactofhighertrafficattheMousetrap.That
monitorwaslocatedinGlobevilleat47thandAcoma.ItbeganoperationOctober1.PM2.5
measuredforthelastquarterof2015atthatlocationaverage14ug/m3,7whichfarexceeds
thelevelsbeingmeasuredattheIͲ25monitororattheWelbybackgroundsite.Most
importantly,themeanvalueforthequarterexceedstheannualNAAQSof12ug/m3.
ThesedatadonotsupporttherationaleintheFEISfornotmodelingtheimpactofProject
emissionsonPM2.5.IfPM2.5concentrationsreportedduringthe4thquarterof2015continue
tobemeasuredattheGlobevillemonitor,theNAAQSwillbeviolatedandtheareawillrequire
redesignationundertheCAAasnonͲattainment.
Thedecisionmakerneedstoknow,andmustdisclosetothepublic,howmuchtheincreasein
trafficbetweennowand2035canbeexpectedtoworsenPM2.5exposuresinthe
neighborhoodssurroundingtheMousetrap.IftheProjectwillexacerbateexceedancesofthe
standardsettoprotectpublichealth,theColoradoandDenverregionalairqualityplanning
agenciesneedtoknowsotheycanbegintodevelopacontrolstrategy,taxpayersneedtoknow
becausetheywillincuradditionalcoststocontrolCDOT’spollution,andthepublicneedsto
7
SeeCommentAppendix1,whichsummarizesthemeanconcentrationsforPM2.5andPM10attheGlobeville,IͲ
25andYuma,andtheWelbymonitoringstations.AnnualmeansarereportedbyEPA.FourthQuartermeanswere
calculatedbyLisaWarrenfromthehourlyand24ͲhourconcentrationsreportedontheEPAAIRDatawebsite.
knowsotheycandecidewhethertotakeactiontoprotectthemselvesandtheirfamiliesfrom
dangerouspollutionlevels.
Furthermore,NEPArequiresthatFHWAmustconsiderreasonablealternativesthatwillreduce
emissionsandpollutantexposuresattheMousetraptoenhanceairqualitytolevelsthatwill
notviolatehealthstandards.ItisnotreasonableorlegallypermissibleunderNEPAand23USC
section109(h)tonotusethebestscienceavailabletoestimatetheimpactofProjectemissions
onconcentrationsofPM2.5,thepollutantthatEPAhasidentifiedashavingthestrongestcausal
impactoncardiovasculardiseaseandmortalityfromheartattacksandisamajorcauseof
childhoodasthmaepisodesrequiringurgentcare.Theseimpactscannotlawfullybedisregarded
byFHWA.
C. HealthImpactAssessmentNotPerformed.
TheSierraClubrequestedthatahealthimpactassessmentbeperformedtoestimatetheeffect
ofcurrenthighwayemissionsasacontributortotheadversehealthoutcomesreportedby
DenverEnvironmentalHealthinnorthDenverneighborhoodsaffectedbytheProject.CDOT
andFHWArefusedtoperformthisanalysisforinvalidreasons.
TheFEISstatesthatthereisnoneedtoaddressthehealthimpactsoftheexpandedproject
becausea)despitethe15Ͳ20%increaseintrafficandasignificantincreaseinemissionsfrom
theProjectnonationalairqualitystandardwillbeviolated,and2)toxicairpollutionemissions
areexpectedtodecrease.
1. FHWAIgnoresEvidenceShowingthatProjectEmissionsWillViolatetheNAAQS.
FHWA’sfirstreasonfornotperformingahealthimpactassessmentignoresalloftheevidence
intherecordshowingthatProjectemissions,iffullyaccountedfor,whencombinedwithfuture
backgroundconcentrations,willviolatetheNAAQSforPM10,andthemonitoredPM2.5data
showingthattheNAAQSisbeingviolatedneartheProjecthotspotrightnow.
2. NAAQSComplianceDoesNotResolvetheIssueofHealthImpactsCausedby
HighwayPollution.
Thisresponsealsoignoresthevastbodyofhealtheffectsresearchthatlinkstheadversehealth
outcomesbeingreportedinnorthDenvercommunitiestobothPM2.5specifically,andtothe
fullmixofairpollutionemittedfromhighways.Mostoftheliteraturedoesnotlinkthesehealth
effectstomobilesourceairtoxic(MSATs)pollutants.ThefactthatMSATemissionsare
expectedtodeclineoverthelifeoftheProjectdoesnotrelieveCDOTofthedutytoinvestigate
thelikelyhealthimpactsofcommunityexposuretoincreasingconcentrationsofPM10and
PM2.5,andtheoverallmixofcriteriapollutantsandMSATsemittedfromhighways.
Theagencyfailuretorespondtorequestsfrommanyresidentsandcommunitygroupsasking
foraninvestigationofthelikelyrelationshipbetweenamuchgreaterincidenceofdiseasesof
airpollutionreportedbyDenverEnvironmentalHealthinnorthDenvercommunitiesand
exposuretoemissionsfromheavilytraffickedfreewaysmerelydemonstratesthedisregardthat
transportationagencieshavetraditionallyshownfortheimpactsofProjectemissionson
communityhealth.DEHreportedmuchgreaterfrequencyofthehospitalizationofchildrenwith
asthmaandhigherratesofdeathfromcardiovasculardisease.Thesearethetwohealth
outcomesthatEPAidentifiedasmostcausallylinkedtoexposuretoPM2.5.Inaddition,recent
researchshowsadirectcorrelationbetweenthesediseaseoutcomesandtheportionofPM2.5
thatiscontributedbycarbonparticlesemittedfromdieseltrucksandautomobiles.
TheFEIScitestostudiesperformedin2002and2004whichhadambiguousresultsregarding
thehealthimpactsofexposuretohighwaypollution,andtoanHEIreportpublishedin2010
thatfoundalinkbetweenhighwayemissionsandasthma,butwasinconclusiveregardingthe
linkwithcardiovasculardisease.TheFEISdoesnotaddressEPA’sfindingsregardingthelink
withcardiovasculardiseasethatwasreportedinEPA’sIntegratedScienceAssessmentforPM
whichreviewedallofthehundredsofpublishedscientificresearchreportsavailablein2011,
andnotjustthefewselectedstudiesdiscussedintheFEIS.Thatreviewoftheresearch
convincedEPAto(i)tightentheNAAQSforPM2.5in2012,and(ii)mandateforthefirsttime
thatstatesmonitorPMairqualityincommunitiesadjacenttohighwaysbecauseoftheelevated
levelsofpollutionfoundnearhighways,andthelinkbetweenexposuretohighwayemissionsof
PM2.5andadversehealtheffects.
NordoestheFEISreviewandconsiderthemorerecenthealtheffectsresearchpublishedsince
theSDEISwaspreparedthatconclusivelylinkstheadversehealtheffectsassociatedwithPMto
theportionofPMemittedfromhighways.Highwaysemitparticlescontainingcarbonfromfuel
combustion,tirewearandasphalticroadsurfacematerial.Themostrecentresearchpublished
byateamfromtheKeckSchoolofPublicHealthatUSC,8andanotherstudypublishedbythe
CaliforniaOfficeofEnvironmentalHealthHazardAssessment9identifiescarbonparticlesasthe
componentofPM2.5mostassociatedwithcardiovasculardisease.
ResearchperformedinArkansasshowthatcardiovasculardiseasedecreasedsignificantly
duringthedecadebetween2000and2010becauseannualPM2.5concentrationswere
reducedduringthatperiodby3ug/M3atlevelsbelowtheNAAQS.10Thisresearchshowsthat
reducingPMconcentrationsinnorthDenvercanhavepublichealthbenefitsevenifthePM
NAAQSarenotviolated.
8
“NearͲRoadwayAirPollutionandCoronaryHeartDisease:BurdenofDiseaseandPotentialImpactofa
GreenhouseGasReductionStrategyinSouthernCalifornia,”Ghosh,etal(EHP,July2015)
http://dx.doi.org/10.1289/ehp.1408865.
9
“AssociationsofMortalitywithLongͲTermExposurestoFineandUltrafineParticles,SpeciesandSources:Results
fromtheCaliforniaTeachersStudyCohort,”Ostro,B,etal.(EHP,January2015)
http://dx.doi.org/10.1289/ehp.1408565.
10
“TrendsofNonͲAccidental,Cardiovascular,StrokeandLungCancerMortalityinArkansasAreAssociatedwith
AmbientPM2.5Reductions,”Charbot,M.,etal.Int.J.Environ.Res.PublicHealth(2014),11,7442Ͳ7455.
ThesehealtheffectsresearchreportswerehanddeliveredbySierraClubrepresentativesto
CDOTDirectorBhattduringameetinginhisofficelastAugust,andtoFHWADivisionDirector
CaterduringameetinginhisofficelastSeptember.TheClubbroughtthesereportstothe
attentionofthedecisionmakersbecausetheyrepresentthemostrecentdevelopmentofa
bodyofresearchthatlinksexposuretohighwaypollutionwiththeexcessiveincidenceof
adversehealthoutcomesintheneighborhoodsofnorthDenveralongIͲ70.Noneofthis
researchpublishedsincethe2010HEIreportisdiscussedintheexplanationfornotpreparinga
healthimpactassessment,orintheresponsetocomments.
FHWAdoesnothavediscretiontocherryͲpickamongthepublishedscientificresearchwhich
studiesitwilldiscuss,andwhichnot.Theagency’sdutyunderthelawistoconsiderallthe
evidencerelevanttoitsobligationsunderNEPAandsection109(h).Probativeevidencecannot
simplybeignored.Cotterv.Harris,642F.2d700,706Ͳ07(3rdCir.,1980);Seev.WashingtonMetro.
TransitAuth.,36F.3d375,384(DCCir,1994).Reasoneddecisionmakingrequiresthat“theagencymust
examinetherelevantdata.”MotorVehicleMfrs.Assn.v.StateFarmMut.,463U.S.29,43(1983).
FHWA’sfailuretoconsiderevidencerelevanttoitsdutiesunderNEPA,i.e.,theobligationto
consideralternativesandmitigationthatcanminimizetheadverseimpactsofhighway
pollutiononcommunityhealth,isarbitraryandcapricious.
II.
ProjectAlternativesNotAdequatelyConsidered
TheSierraClubjoinedwithnumerouscommunitygroupsandresidentsinrequestingthatCDOT
andFHWAfullyinvestigatetwoalternativesthatofferedthepossibilityofsignificantlyreducing
VMTthroughtheneighborhoodsofnorthDenverandtherebyminimizingresidentexposureto
highwayemissionsfromthecurrentalignmentofIͲ70innorthDenver,andprovidinga
significanthealthbenefitfortheseresidents.Werepeatthatrequesthere:
Ataminimum,twoalternativesshouldbeconsideredtoreduceemissionsandpollutant
exposuresintheneighborhoodsadjacenttoIͲ70:
1)reͲsigningIͲ70toroutethe40%oftrafficthatis"through"trafficoutoftheneighborhoods
wheredenseurbandevelopmentandelementaryschoolsarelocatedwithinafewhundred
metersofIͲ70ontoIͲ76andIͲ270;and
2)routingalltrucktrafficoffofthecurrentalignmentbetweenWashingtonStreetandColorado
BlvdwhichwouldrequirethroughtrucktraffictouseIͲ76andIͲ270,andlocaltrucktrafficto
disperseonlocalstreetsleadingtotheirlocaldestinationratherthanconcentratingonthe
currentalignmentnexttoschoolsandhousesalongthehighway.
Thesealternativesarereasonablebecausetheywilladdmobilityfortraffictravelingthroughthe
metroarea,withoutsignificantlyincreasingthecostofmobility,whileatthesametime
providinghealthbenefitsforcommunitiesalongthecurrentIͲ70alignment.Thesealternatives
havenotbeenevaluatedinpriorNEPAdocuments.
CDOTandFHWAdeniedthisrequest,citingthelackofanyevidenceofairqualityviolations,the
absenceofevidencethatdivertingtrafficwouldprovidehealthbenefits.WithrespecttothereͲ
routealternativetheresponsedeclaredthatreͲroutingIͲ70ontoIͲ76and270wouldnotmeet
thepurposeandneedfortheProject,andthatthecostofthisalternativewouldbeexcessive.
Thesereasonswerenotofferedasjustificationfornotanalyzingthetruckdiversionoption.
Instead,CDOTclaimedthatmovingthetruckstoanotheralignmentwouldprovidenohealth
benefitsbecauseitwouldsimplymovethepollutiontoexposeotherresidentialareas.
Theseresponseswerenotbasedonanydetailedanalysisoftrafficdemand,impactson
congestion,emissions,pollutantexposuresorthenumbersofpeopleexposed.Theyrelyon
assumptionsthatarenotbasedonevidenceintherecord.Thefailuretofullyinvestigatethe
potentialcostsandbenefitsofthesealternativesisnotconsistentwiththeobligationto
consideralternativesandmitigationunderNEPA,andnotconsistentwiththeobligationunder
23USC109(h)toidentifymeasuresthatcanfullymitigateadverseimpacts,determinethecosts
ofsuchmitigation,andweighthosecoststodetermineiftheprojectisintheoverallpublic
interest.
A. PurposeandNeedIsNotLawfulReasonforRejectingtheseAlternatives.
NEPArequiresthatanenvironmentalimpactstatementbrieflydescribethepurposeandneedtowhich
theagencyisrespondinginproposingthealternatives,includingtheproposedaction.See,e.g.,40
C.F.R.§1502.13.Chapter2ofboththeDEISandFEISdescribethepurposeandneedforIͲ70East
project.Assetforthinsection2.4oftheFEIS,forexample,“[t]hepurposeoftheprojectisto
implementatransportationsolutionthatimprovessafety,access,andmobilityandaddresses
congestiononIͲ70intheprojectarea.”Theneedfortheproject,describedinsection2.5oftheFEIS,
“resultsfromtransportationinfrastructuredeficiencies,increasedtransportationdemand,limited
transportationcapacityandsafetyconcerns.”
1. TheAgenciesImproperlyDefinedthePurposeandNeedfortheProject.
Inthiscase,theagencies’formulationofthepurposeandneedisflawedbecauseitistoonarrow.
Specifically,thepurposeandneedstatementshouldincludepreservationorimprovementstoair
quality,justasithasincludedconcernswithsafety,congestionandmobility.Thisisnotacasewhere
NEPA’smoregeneralrequirementstoevaluatethenegativeeffectsofitsactionscansufficetoproduce
areasonablerangeofalternativesthatwillachieveprojectobjectiveswhileprotectinghumanhealth
andtheenvironment.Rather,theIͲ70Eastprojectpresentsenvironmentalconcernswhicharesoacute
andinextricablyboundupwiththefundamentalnatureoftheaction,thatimpactstoairqualitymustbe
includedinthepurposeandneeditself.
Inaddition,theoverlyingframeworkofpreͲexistingpolicyalreadyrequiresthatsignificant
transportationprojectsinColoradoreduceairqualityimpacts.Forexample,theColoradoDepartment
ofTransportationdevelopeditsownAirQualityActionPlan(the“AQAP”)toimplementtheagency’sair
qualitypolicyin2012.AsstatedintheAQAP,oneofitsprimarygoalsisto“reducetransportation
relatedGHG,airtoxicsandotherrelatedemissionsstatewide,therebyreducingtheneedtonegotiate
suchmeasuresinanadhocmannerinsubsequentNationalEnvironmentalpolicyActdocuments
initiatedbyCDOT.”AQAPat3.TheAQAPalsoexplains“CDOT,asatransportationagency,hastakena
regional,programmaticapproachtoemissionsreductions,targetingstatewidevehiclemobilitywhere
theDepartmenthasthemostdirectinfluence.”Id.at5.Thus,emissionsreductionsarecentraltothe
agency’smissionandgoals,andCDOT’sstatedpolicyistoaddressemissionsreductionsprimarilyby
focusingonvehiclemobility(oneofthestatedpurposesoftheproject).
Yetvehiclemobilityisnottheonlymeanstheagencyhasstateditwillusetoaddressemissions.CDOT’s
AQAPalsoaddresshowtruckroutesandrestrictionsshouldbeconsideredineachprojecttoreduce
emissionandexposuretosensitivereceptors.AQAPat7.TheagencyhasexplainedthatitsNEPA
documentsshouldevaluate“opportunitiestomodifytruckrouting,deliveryscheduling,etc.tominimize
MSATandotherpollutantexposuretovulnerablepopulationssuchasschools,hospitals,etc.”AQAPat
7.TheAQAPalsorequirestheagencyto“[e]xplorecongestion,lanerestrictionsand/orspeed
limitationsformotorcarriers.”Id.at10.Theselimitationrestrictionsmayincluderighthandonly
locations,congestionrestrictions,timeofdaylanerestrictionsandspeedrestrictions,allinaneffortto
reduceemissions.
Here,thefailuretoincludeemissionsreductionsasapartofthepurposeandneedfortheIͲ70East
project—aprojectthatdirectlyaffectsvehiclemobilityͲͲconstitutesafailurebytheagencytofollowits
ownpolicy.Moreimportantly,thefailuretoincludeairqualityconcernsinthepurposeandneed
constitutesafailuretoformulateapurposeandneedstatementthatcomplieswithNEPA,andthat
addressesthenationaltransportationobjectivesenactedbyCongresstominimizefuelconsumptionand
airpollution.23USCsection134(c).Thisfailureskewstheconsiderationofalternativesbyexcluding
considerationofthebenefitsofalternativesthatreduceemissions,orplacetheminareaswherethey
arelikelytohavefewerenvironmentalimpactsorlessimpactonpublichealth.
2. TheAgenciesFailedtoDiscusstheInconsistencyofthePreferredAlternativewithPreͲ
existingPlansandPolicies.
NEPArequiresagenciestoaddressthe“[p]ossibleconflictsbetweentheproposedactionandthe
objectivesofFederal,regional,Stateandlocal...landuseplans,policiesandcontrolsforthearea
concerned.”40C.F.R.§1502.16(c);seealso,40C.F.R.§1506.2(d)(“Tobetterintegrateenvironmental
impactstatementsintoStateorlocalplanningprocesses,statementsshalldiscussanyinconsistencyofa
proposedactionwithanyapprovedStateorlocalplanandlaws(whetherornotfederallysanctioned).
Whereaninconsistencyexists,thestatementshoulddescribetheextenttowhichtheagencywould
reconcileitsproposedactionwiththeplanorlaw.”).
Assetforthabove,CDOThasalreadydevelopedaplan—theAirQualityActionPlanͲͲwhichsetsforth
considerationsandtoolstheagencyshouldemploytoreduceemissionsassociatedwithtransportation
projects.Morespecifically,theAQAPrequirestheagencytoconsidervehiclemobility,truckrouting
modifications,timeofdaylanerestrictions,congestionrestrictions,andothermeasurestoreduce
emissionsorotherwisereducepublicexposuretoharmfulpollution.Yetmanyofthesetoolsarenot
substantivelyconsideredintheFEIS.Further,theconflictsandinconsistenciesbetweenthepreferred
alternativeandthemandatesoftheAQAParenotdescribed,andthereisnoexplanationofhowthe
agencywouldreconciletheproposedactionwiththeAQAP.
3. TheAgenciesImproperlyEliminatedtheIͲ270/IͲ76RerouteOptionin2008.
a. The2008DEISAnalysiswasInsufficienttoJustifyEliminationoftheIͲ270/IͲ76
RerouteAlternative
AsdiscussedpreviouslyintheSierraClub’scomments,theIͲ270/IͲ76reroutepotentiallyoffers
substantialadvantagesoverthealternativesreviewedintheSDEISandFEIS,includingless
significantimpactsonhumanhealthandtheenvironment,andtheenhancementofthehuman
environment(anindependentrequirementforanyalternativeevaluatedintheNEPAprocess).
Unfortunately,theIͲ270/I76reroutealternativewaseliminatedin2008,withoutadequate
consideration,basedontheagencies’claimthatthisalternativedoesnotmeetthepurposeand
needoftheproject.
The2008DEISconsideredseveral“OffExistingAlignment”alternatives.SeeDraftEISat3Ͳ11.
Amongthemwasthealternativeto“ImproveIͲ270andreclassifyIͲ70.”Underthisalternative,
theconstructionwould“[c]onverttheexistingportionofIͲ70fromIͲ25toIͲ270toalimited
accessroadway.AdditionalcapacitywouldbeaddedtoIͲ270andIͲ76.Theviaductbetween
WashingtonStreetandColoradoBoulevardwouldbereconstructedorremoved.”Id.Seealso,
DEISatExhibit3Ͳ11.
Thereasonsgivenforitseliminationweredescribedinasingleparagraph:
[ThealternativetoimproveIͲ270andreclassifyIͲ70]wouldrequirethe
reconstructionoftheIͲ76/I25interchangetoprovideforalltrafficmovements
andwouldrequiremajorwideningtoIͲ270andIͲ76forapproximately12miles
(5.5ofwhichareeastofIͲ25)toaccommodatetherelocatedtraffic.These
existingfacilitiesarecurrentlyonlyfourlaneswide.Thisalignmentwouldalso
requireimprovementsonIͲ25betweenIͲ76/I270andtheexistingIͲ70/IͲ25
interchangefortrafficthatwantstogosouthonIͲ25towardsdowntownDenver,
amajordestinationfromtheIͲ70corridor.ThesetripsonIͲ25toaccessIͲ70
resultinalmostfourmilesofoutofdirectiontravel.
DEISatExhibit3Ͳ15.Thesejustificationsfallfarshortofjustifyingthisalternative’selimination.
First,theDEISpresentsnoanalysisofwhethertheIͲ270/IͲ76reroutealternativeactuallymeets
thefactorsdefiningthepurposeandneedfortheproject.Inotherwords,theagencyfailedto
addresswhetherthisalternativeimprovessafety,access,andmobilityandaddresses
congestiononIͲ70intheprojectarea.TheDEISalsofailstoaddresswhetherthisalternative
addressedtransportationinfrastructuredeficiencies,increasedtransportationdemand,limited
transportationcapacityandsafetyconcerns.Theseshortcomingsalonedemonstratethatthe
decisiontoeliminatetheIͲ270/IͲ76alternativefromfurtherconsiderationwasinviolationof
NEPA.Whentheagenciesdecidedtoeliminatethisalternative,theydidsobasedonan
inadequateanalysisandanunsupportedconclusionthatitwouldnotmeetthepurposeand
needfortheproject.
Infact,theIͲ270/IͲ76reroutealternativemeetsthestatedpurposeandneedfortheproject.
Safety,accessandmobilitywouldallbeimprovedbyreroutingthehightrafficvolumesand
resultingairpollutionfromthecurrentIͲ70corridortothelesspopulatedandlesscongestedIͲ
270/IͲ76corridorwherethetrafficandpollutionwouldimpactfewerlocalresidents.See2016
IͲ70HealthImpactZoneComparisonStudy,submittedherewith.Moreover,themyriad
potentialreconfigurationsofthecurrentIͲ70corridoralong46thAvenuewhichcanbe
implementedunderthereroutealternative,includingreconstructionorremovaloftheviaduct
betweenWashingtonStreetandColoradoBoulevard,havethepotentialtoimproveboththe
infrastructureandsafetyconcernsstatedinthepurposeandneed,andpresentopportunities
toenhancemobilitybyreͲestablishingnorthͲsouthconnectivityforvehicular,bikeand
pedestriantrafficalongthiscorridor.
Second,evenifthisalternativedidnotfullymeetthepurposeandneed,itremainsa
reasonablealternativeandshouldneverthelessbeaffordedmoredetailedanalysis.WeretheIͲ
270/IͲ76reroutealternativetobemorefullyconsidered,itmayleadtheagenciestoconclude
thatmeetingonlypartofthegoalsofthestatedpurposeandneedmaybeworththetradeoffif
theimpacts—particularlythosetoairqualityandhumanhealth—arelesssignificantormore
readilycapableofmitigation.
Third,theagencymadethedecisiontoeliminatethisalternativeafterconsideringitonlyin
isolation,ratherthantogetherwithotheralternativesorinconjunctionwithadditional
measuresthatmightaddressitsperceivedshortcomings.Forexample,oneoftheprimary
concernstheagencyexpressedinrelationtotheIͲ270/IͲ76alternativewasthepotentialfor
increasedtrafficvolumeinandaroundthereconstructed46thAvenue.Yettheagenciesfailed
toconsidertheIͲ270/IͲ76alternativeinconjunctionwiththeuseofanytheManagedLane
OptionsanalyzedinthealternativesconsideredintheFEIS,orinconjunctionwithanyconcrete
accesslimitations11suchastemporaltrafficortrucktravelrestrictionson46thAvenue,orthe
incorporationofenhancementsto58thavenue.Allofthesemeasuresmighthavealleviatedthe
concernsassociatedwithpotentialincreasedtrafficvolumesonandaround46thAvenue.
Becausetheagencieseliminatedthisalternativesoearlyintheprocess,thealternativenever
receivedtheappropriatedetailedconsideration
Fourth,thejustificationsdonot,ontheirface,provideabasisforeliminatingfurther
consideration.Eachofthealternativesretainedforfurtheranalysisincludedsignificant
construction,includingmajorwideningandimprovementstointerchanges.Inaddition,the
agenciesfailedtoassesstheactualnegativeimpactsofoutͲofͲdirectiontravel,orevento
definewhatconstitutesoutͲofͲdirectiontravelforaninterstatehighwaythataccommodates
significanttrafficoriginatingoutsidetheprojectareaandmovingtomultipledestinations
beyondit.Whilethisroutemayresultinadditionalmilestraveledforsometraffic,the
additionalmilesdonotnecessarilytranslateintolongertraveltimes,increasedairpollutionor
othernegativeeffects—particularlysincethereroutewilldecreasecongestion.
Lastly,whiletheagencyostensiblyundertookadditionalanalysisoftheIͲ270/IͲ76alternative
laterintheNEPAprocess,itisclearthatthis“analysis”wasperformedonlytosupporta
decisionthathadalreadybeenmade.Followingreceiptofpubliccommentsquestioningthe
11
TheIͲ270/IͲ76alternativeoriginallycontemplatedthatthecurrentIͲ70alignmentwouldbecomea“limited
accessroadway,”yetthereisnoevidencethattheanalysisusedtoeliminatethisalternativeincludedanyaccess
limitations,suchastheManagedLanesOptionsconsideredwithotheralternatives.
eliminationoftheIͲ270/IͲ76alternative,theagencysought,explicitly,toconfirmthatits
eliminationofthisalternativewassupportable.InAugustof2014,theagenciesincludedan
AlternativesAnalysisTechnicalReport(the“TechnicalReport”),intheirSupplemental
EnvironmentalImpactStatement(“SEIS”).SeeSEISatAttachmentC,AlternativeAnalysis
TechnicalReport.Section4.1oftheTechnicalReportaddressestheeliminationoftheIͲ270/IͲ
76reroutealternative.ThisdocumentstatesunequivocallythattheIͲ270/I76reroute
alternative“waseliminatedfromconsiderationearlyintheprojectalternativeanalysisprocess,
asdocumentedIthe2008EIS.”Italsoexplainsthattheadditionalanalysiswasperformed“to
confirmthevalidityof[reroute]elimination.”Thisispreciselythekindofposthoc
rationalizationthatNEPAwasintendedtoavoid.
b.
AdditionalDiscussionsoftheIͲ270/IͲ76AlternativeintheSDEISandFEISdonot
SupportitsElimination.
AdditionalDiscussionintheSDEIS:
i. AdditionalTrafficonLocalStreets
TheprimaryjustificationofferedintheSDEISTechnicalReportforrejectinganyanalysisoftheIͲ
270/IͲ76alternative(andonewhichwasdevelopedwhollyaftertheagencieshadmadetheir
decisiontoeliminatethealternative)isthatitwillcauseadditionaltrafficonlocalstreets.The
agenciesbasedthisclaimona“TravelAnalysisperformedusingtheDRCOG2035Regional
TravelDemandModel.”SeeTechnicalReportat§4.1.1.However,thisTravelAnalysisdoes
notappeartohavebeenincludedintheSDEIS,makingitimpossibletoindependentlyassessits
scope,methodology,analysisorconclusions.ForexampleitisnotclearwhethertheTravel
Analysiswasperformedusingtheupdatedinformationutilizedformoreaccurateanalysisof
theretainedalternativesincludingthemostrecentlandusescenariosintheDRCOGregional
plan,updatedsocioeconomicladusedata,orupdatedroadwaygeometries.SeeFEISatCh.4,
p.4Ͳ2(discussinguseofupdatedinformation).Inaddition,itisnotclearthattheagencies
employedthesameDynusTmodelingtoolintheTravelAnalysisasthatusedinthealternatives
analysisfortheFEIS.
Morefundamentally,inusingtheTravelAnalysisasabasistorejecttheIͲ270/IͲ76alternative,
theagenciesreferencedonlytheallegednegativeimpactsonlocaltrafficwhen,infact,the
informationpresentedintheTechnicalReport(twofiguresandonetablepurportingto
describetheresultsoftheTravelAnalysis)indicatessignificantpositiveimpactsonlocaltraffic
insomeareasandnegativeimpactsinothers.Inotherwords,itisnotatallclearfromthe
informationpresentedintheTechnicalReportthattheoveralleffectonlocaltrafficwouldbe
negative.Inaddition,theagencies’conclusionsbasedontheTravelAnalysisdonotaccountfor
potentialmitigationofincreasedlocaltrafficvolumesthatcouldbeachievedifthealternativeis
consideredtogetherwithotheralternativesorinconjunctionwithadditionalmeasuresthat
mightaddressitsallegedshortcomings.Thisfailureisparticularlyacutegiventhattheoriginal
IͲ270/IͲ76reroutealternativespecificallycontemplateda“limitedaccess”roadwayinthe
currentIͲ70/46thAvenuecorridor,wheretheproblemofadditionaltrafficonlocalstreetsis
claimedtobethemostsevere,thoughtheTravelAnalysisconsidered46thAvenueonlyasa
fourorsixlane“principalarterial.”Inaddition,theTravelAnalysisdidnotconsidertheeffectof
usinganyofthestrategiestocontroltrafficflow(e.g.theManagedLanesOptions)considered
inconjunctionwiththeretainedalternatives,oranyotherstrategiestoreducetrafficvolumein
thearea.
ii. OutͲofͲDirectionTravel
TheTechnicalReportclaimsthattheIͲ270/IͲ76alternativewaseliminated,inpart,becauseit
wouldinvolveoutͲofͲdirectiontravelforhighwayusers.Morespecifically,theagenciesclaim
that“60percentofthetrafficheadingwestonIͲ70continuespastIͲ25,stayingonIͲ70.The
reroutealternativeaddstwomilesofoutͲofͲdirectiontravelforthesevehicles.Twentyfiveto
thirtypercentofthetrafficheadingwestonIͲ70exitstosouthboundIͲ25.Thisalternativeadds
fourmilesofoutͲofͲdirectiontravelforthesevehicles.”Withabsolutelynosupportinganalysis
ordata,theagenciessimplyclaimed“[t]headditionalvehiclemilestraveledresultsinincreased
delays,fuelcostsandairpollutioninthearea.”Bare,conclusorystatementsofthissortdonot
satisfyNEPA’smandatestotakeahardlookattheeffectsofitsactions.Asexplainedabove,
theagenciesfailedtoeventodefinewhatconstitutesoutͲofͲdirectiontravelforaninterstate
highwaythataccommodatessignificanttrafficoriginatingoutsidetheprojectareaandmoving
tomultipledestinationsbeyondit.EvenfortravelerswhocontinuewestonIͲ70orexiton
southboundIͲ25,itisnotnecessarilythecasethattheIͲ270/IͲ76rerouteresultsinͲoutͲof
directiontravelwhenhighwayusers’finaldestinationsareconsidered.Morefundamentally,
evenifthisalternativeresultsinadditionalmilestraveledforsometraffic,theadditionalmiles
donotnecessarilytranslateintolongertraveltimes,increasedairpollutionorothernegative
effects—particularlysincethereroutewilldecreasecongestionandshifttrafficandairquality
impactstolesspopulatedareas.
iii. AlternateHighwayRoute
TheTechnicalReportassertsthatthe2008DEIS“didnotfullydescribe”theimportanceofIͲ270
servingasthealternateroutetoIͲ70foremergencyaccessduringmajorincidentsorextreme
congestion.SeeTechnicalReportatp.17.Infactthe2008DEISdoesnotappeartomention
the“alternateroute”justificationforeliminatingtheIͲ270/IͲ76alternative,andthusitdoesnot
appeartohavebeenaconsiderationwhenthedecisionwasmadetoeliminatethisalternative.
Inanycase,theTechnicalReportitselffailstofullydescribetheimportanceofIͲ270’sfunction
asan“alternate”routebecauseitpresentsnodataoranalysissupportingthisassertion.
Additionally,theagenciesagainfailedtoconsidertheIͲ270/IͲ76alternativeinconjunctionwith
otheralternativesormeasuresthatcouldalleviatethisconcern.
iv. AdditionalCost
TheTechnicalReportalsojustifieseliminatingtheIͲ270/IͲ76alternativeonthebasisthatits
estimatedconstructioncostwouldbetwicethatofotheralternatives.However,ahigher
capitalcostforanalternativedoesnotnecessarilyjustifyitselimination,particularlywhen
NEPA’srequirementstoconsiderthedirect,indirectandcumulativeeffectsofaproposed
actionaretakenintoaccount.Analternativewithhighercapitalcostsmayactuallyresultin
longͲtermsavingswhenfactorssuchasmaintenanceandoperationalcostsareaccountedfor,
andparticularlywhencostsresultingfromnegativeimpactstohumanhealthandthe
environmentarefactoredin.Insum,whiletheinitialconstructioncostoftheIͲ270/IͲ76
alternativemaybegreater,theagencieshavenotdemonstratedthatitsultimatedirect,
indirectandcumulativecostsaregreater.Finally,theagenciesprovidednodetailwithrespect
tohowthecostoftheIͲ270/IͲ76alternativewasdetermined,statingonlythatitisa“highͲlevel
costanalysisbasedontypicalconstructioncostsforbridgeandhighwayconstructionperlane
mileandaveragerightͲofͲwaycosts.”TechnicalReportatp.18.Becausenodetailwasshared
withthepublicitisimpossibleforthepublictoindependentlyevaluatetheagencies’
assumptions,analysis,orconclusions.Finally,itdoesnotappearthatthesamekindofdetailed
costanalysisperformedfortheretainedalternativeswasundertakenfortheIͲ270/IͲ76
alternativebeforeconcludingitwastoocostly.Giventheseshortcomings,additional
constructioncostdoesnotprovideabasisforeliminatingtheIͲ270/IͲ76alternativefrom
furtherconsideration.
AdditionalDiscussionintheFEIS:
IntheFEIS,theagenciesattemptedonceagaintostrengthentheirjustificationsforthe2008
eliminationoftheIͲ270/IͲ76alternative.Theagenciesproducedan“AlternativeAnalysis
TechnicalReportAddendum”(the“Addendum”),whichpurportedlypresented“additional
analysisperformedsincethe2014SupplementalDraftEISwaspublished.”SeeFEIS,
AttachmentC,TechnicalReportAddendumatp.1.Section5oftheAddendumistitled
“TechnicalReportErrata,”andpresentsinformationtheagenciesdescribeas“revisionsand
clarificationstotheAlternativesAnalysisTechnicalReport...thatdonotconstitutenew
findingsoranalysis.”Section5.1oftheAddendumaddressestheIͲ270/IͲ76reroute
alternative.Inthissection,theagenciesnowclaimthatafterremovalofIͲ70fromitscurrent
alignment,trafficvolumesonlocalstreetswillincreaseandtransferthesafetyandmobility
problemsfromIͲ70tothelocalnetwork.Inessence,thesameissuesthatunderlaythepresent
needfortheprojectwouldonlybeduplicatedandcompoundedinthesamelocationalbeiton
differentinfrastructurebytheremovalandrerouteofIͲ70.”Addendumatsection5.1,p.9.
Whiletheagencieshavenowattemptedtomoredirectlyconnectthepurportedincreasein
localtrafficundertheIͲ270/IͲ76alternativewiththepurposeandneedoftheproject,theystill
fallshort.ThesameinfirmitiesfoundintheSDIESregardingtheTravelAnalysisandthe
conclusionstheagenciesbaseduponitremainintheFEIS.
Similarly,theagenciescontinuetojustifyeliminationoftheIͲ270/IͲ76alternativebasedon
concernsassociatedwithoutͲofͲdirectiontravelandhighercosts.SeeAddendumat10.
However,theFEISstillprovidesnosubstantiveconsiderationofwhatoutͲofͲdirectiontravelis
inthebroadersense,andnoanalysistosupporttheassertionthatitresultsinincreasedtravel
times,higherfuelconsumption,highercostsoradditionalemissions.These“revisionsand
clarifications”donothingtocuretheinadequateanalysisundertakenpriortoeliminatingtheIͲ
270/IͲ76alternativein2008.Astheagenciesthemselvesacknowledge,theextraverbiageadds
no“newfindingsoranalysis.”
OneapparentlynewadditiontheTechnicalReportfoundintheFEISTechnicalReport
AddendumisitsAppendixA,TechnicalMemorandum,EliminationofIͲ270ͲIͲ76Reroute
Alternative(the“TechnicalMemorandum”)which,asisnowdescribedintheAddendum,
explains“thereasons,inmoredetail,whytheIͲ270/IͲ76RerouteAlternativewaseliminated.”12
Again,accordingtotheagencies,thisportionoftheFEISpresentsonly“revisionsand
clarificationstotheAlternativesAnalysisTechnicalReport...thatdonotconstitutenew
findingsoranalysis.”However,aswiththeSDEIS,thisdocumentpresentsjustificationsfor
eliminatingtheIͲ270/IͲ76reroutealternativethatwereabsentfromthe2008EIS,andmostof
theconsiderationsitpresentswereobviouslynotevaluatedwhentheIͲ270/IͲ76alternative
waseliminatedin2008.13AswiththeFEISTechnicalReportAddendum,thisnewTechnical
MemorandumislargelyareͲhashofargumentsmadeintheSDEIS,andsuffersfromthesame
flaws.14Thisdocumentconstitutesnothingmorethananadditionalattempttobackfillthe
recordtosupporttheagencies’2008decision.
4. Conclusion
CDOTandFHWAfailedtoproperlyformulateapurposeandneedfortheprojectthatwould
resultintheconsiderationofalternativesprovidingbothtransportationimprovementsand
protectionofhumanhealthandtheenvironment,andfailedtoassesshowthepreferred
alternativewillconflictwithexistingplansandpolicy.
CDOTandFHWAalsoeliminatedanysubstantiveconsiderationoftheIͲ270/IͲ76alternativein
2008,withoutsufficientanalysis,andbasedonanerroneousassumptionthatthisalternative
wouldnotmeetthepurposeandneedfortheproject.Infact,thisalternativemeetsboththe
purposeandneed,andmayprovidesubstantialadvantagesoverthealternativesreviewedin
theSDEISandFEIS,includinglesssignificantimpactsonhumanhealthandtheenvironment,
andtheenhancementofthehumanenvironment.
Theagencies’additionaltreatmentofthisalternativesinceitseliminationin2008constitutes
nothingmorethanposthocrationalizationandanattempttobackfilltherecordtosupporta
decisionthatdoesnotcomplywithNEPA.Theagencies’conclusionsarebasedonfaulty
reasoning,unsupportedassumptions,anddataandanalysisthatareunclearorhavenotbeen
sharedwiththepublic.Accordingly,theeliminationoftheIͲ270/IͲ76reroutealternativewas
arbitrary,capricious,notinaccordancewiththelaw.
12
TheTechnicalMemorandumisdated“June2012—UpdatedAugust2015.”Whileitmayhaveexistedin2012,it
doesnotappeartohavebeenincludedorreferencedinthe2014SDEIS.Inaddition,itisnotclearwhat
informationinthisdocumentwasupdatedin2015.
13
AsintheotherNEPAdocuments,theTechnicalMemorandumisclearthat“CDOTandFederalHighway
Administration(FHWA)eliminatedtheIͲ270/IͲ76reroutealternativefromconsiderationaspartofthefirstlevelof
thisscreeningprocessasdocumentedinthe2008DraftEIS.”SeeTechnicalMemorandum,EliminationofIͲ270/I76
RerouteAlternativeatp.2.
14
Insection2.1oftheTechnicalMemorandum,theagenciesexplainedthatmoreinformationregardingthe
reroutemodelingeffortsandassumptionscanbefoundintheFEIS2035ReRouteScenarioTravelDemand
Summary...intheappendixofthisdocument.”However,itdoesnotappearthattheReRouteScenarioTravel
DemandSummarywasincludedintheTechnicalMemorandumorelsewhereintheFEIS.
B. SmallerExposedPopulationsandLowerPollutantConcentrationsProvide
SignificantHealthBenefitsfromReͲRouteAlternativeandTruckDiversion
Alternative.
InviewofCDOT’srefusaltoinvestigatethepotentialhealthbenefitsofreͲroutingallinterstate
trafficorheavydutyportionofvehicletrafficoutofthenorthDenverneighborhoodsaffected
bytheProject,andCDOT’sunsubstantiatedassertionthatmovingtrucksoffoftheIͲ70
alignmentwouldmerelymovethepollutiontootherneighborhoodswithnohealthbenefit,the
SierraClubundertookanindependentinvestigationtodeterminethedifferenceinexposed
populationsbetweenthetwointerstatealternatives.
Thestudyassumedforthepurposeofestimatingexposedpopulationsthattheelevated
pollutantlevelsassociatedwithhighwayemissionsextend300meters(1000feet)oneither
sideofthepavement.Using2010censusdata,weobtainedblocklevelpopulationdataforthe
censusblocksincludedinthe300MzonesonbothsidesoftheIͲ70andtheIͲ76/IͲ270
alignments.The300MzoneandthecensusblocksarepresentedinmapformatinSierraClub
Comment,Figure1.ThepopulationresultsarereportedinAppendix2.
Theanalysisdemonstratesthat,afteradjustingforresidentswholikelylivewithintheportion
ofacensusblockthatextendsbeyondthetwo300Mhealthhazardzonesadjacenttothe
highwayalignment,thepopulationresidingwithinthe300MzonesalongIͲ70fromthe
interchangewithIͲ76andWadsworthonthewesttotheinterchangewithIͲ270ontheeast,is
9,464.Theseresidentsarealmostthreetimesmorepeoplethanthe3,427whoresidewithin
the300MzonesalongIͲ76andIͲ270betweenthesametwointerchangesonthewestand
east.
Inaddition,theAirQualityTechnicalReportshowsthatpollutantconcentrationsare
significantlyloweralongthe76/270alignmentsthanalongIͲ70,andthePM10concentrations
attheIͲ25andIͲ76interchangeareexpectedtobe20Ͳ30ug/m3lessthantheconcentrations
expectedattheMousetrapifIͲ70isexpanded.
Giventhat–
1)thehotͲspotanalysisforPM10willshowviolationsofthePM10NAAQSatreceptorlocations
neartheMousetrapafteralltruckemissionsandfutureincreasesinbackgroundconcentrations
thatwillresultfrompopulation,employmentandVMTgrowthareproperlyaccountedfor,and
2)thenewnearͲhighwayGlovevillemonitorisalreadyreportingPM2.5concentrationsthat
exceedtheNAAQS,
theprojectwillcauseorcontributetoviolationsoftheNAAQS.Itcannotbebuiltwithout
significantreductionsinVMTorothercontrolmeasurestoreduceemissions.
TheSierraClubthereforeurgesCDOTandFHWAtoreconsidertheIͲ70expansion,andtogive
carefulconsiderationtoreͲroutingIͲ70ontotheIͲ76/IͲ270alignments.
CONCLUSION.
TheFEISisnotadequatetosatisfytherequirementsofNEPA,FAHAortheCAAforthereasonsdiscussed
above.ARODfortheproposedIͲ70Projectmaynotbesigned,ortheprojectfundedorapproveduntil–
1) arevisedFEISispreparedthatremediesthedeficienciesdescribedinthesecommentsandis
madeavailableforpublicreviewandcomment.
2) TheProjectcanbefoundtoconformbaseduponahotͲspotanalysisthataccountsforalltruck
emissionsexpectedinthevicinityofthehotͲspotreceptors,andfuturebackgroundemissions
thatapproximateexpectedconditionsintheyearofhighestemissionswithinthetimeframeof
the2040RTPareusedtocalculatethedesignvalues.
Respectfullysubmittedby
RobertYuhnke
JosephG.Middleton
BeckyEnglishTemkin & Hardt LLP
1900 Wazee Street, Suite 303
Denver, CO 80202
Main (303) 292-4922
Direct (303) 382-2906
s
er
t
In
te
ta
76
I n te
rs
t
a
t
e 25
Interstate 70
In
te
rs
ta
te
27
0
SierraClubCommentAppendix2.IͲ70AlternativeHealthImpactZones:2000and2010CensusBlockHousingandPopulation
2000CensusBlockData
2010CensusBlockData
Segment/
HIZ
Households
Population
Blocks
HousingUnits
Population
AdjustedPopulation
BlockGroups
IͲ70
50mHIZ
1,953
5,784
222
2,059
5,276
331
150mHIZ
2,703
8,148
290
2,843
7,474
419
300mHIZ
4,848
14,468
407
5,097
13,278
9,464
549
IͲ270andIͲ76
50mHIZ
766
1,816
137
772
2,300
264
150mHIZ
1,186
2,937
173
1,328
3,808
328
300mHIZ
2,433
6,149
250
2,260
6,031
3,427
445
IͲ25
50mHIZ
28
150
50
28
143
78
150mHIZ
79
320
63
76
300
98
300mHIZ
290
1,091
81
373
1,200
119
Source:U.S.CensusBureau.2000and2010Censusdata("Rev_Block_2000SF1"and"tabblock2010_08_pophu",respectively).Availableonline
at:https://www.census.gov.RetrievedFebruary14,2016.
Site
IͲ25
IͲ25
IͲ25
IͲ25
IͲ25
IͲ25
Globeville
Globeville
IͲ25andGlobevilleNearͲHighwayAirQualityMonitoringStations
PM2.5andPM10MeanConcentrationsderivedfromHourly/DailyAverages
Micrograms/cubicmeter(25C)
Parameter
POC
Duration
Mean
PM10
3
Hourly
25.6
PM10
3
Hourly
25.7
PM2.5
1
Daily
9.0
PM2.5
1
Daily
9.0
PM2.5
3
Hourly
10.0
PM2.5
3
Hourly
10.4
PM10
3
Hourly
28.1
PM2.5
3
Hourly
14.1
AveragingPeriod
2015
Oct.ͲDec.2015
2015
Oct.ͲDec.2015
2015
Oct.ͲDec.2015
Oct.ͲDec.2015
Oct.ͲDec.2015
SierraClubComments,Appendix2(contd)
2010CensusDataandHealthImpactZones:DataSourcesandMethodology
PreparedbyLisaWarrenfortheSierraClub.
DataSources:
A. “major_streets_and_highways”
Description:MajorRoadsCenterlines,MajorStreetsCenterlines,Denver,DenverCounty,Colorado,USA
Source:CityandCountyofDenverTechnologyServices
data.denvergov.org
B. “Rev_Block_2000SF1”
Description:SummaryFile1ofthe2000Census,containinghousingandpopulationinformationattheblock
level
Source:USCensusBureau
http://www.census.gov/geo/mapsͲdata/data/tigerͲdata.html
C. “tabblock2010_08_popuh”
Description:geographyforthe2010CensusBlocksalongwiththeir2010housingunitcountandpopulation
Source:USCensusBureau
http://www.census.gov/geo/mapsͲdata/data/tigerͲdata.html
Methodology:
1. Exposurezoneswereidentifiedaroundcenterlinesofthealignmentsof(1)IͲ70and(2)IͲ270/IͲ76(between
theIͲ70/IͲ270interchangetotheeastandtheIͲ70/IͲ76interchangetothewest)and(3)IͲ25(betweentheIͲ
76interchangetothenorthandtheIͲ70interchangetothesouth)usingdatasource“A”atthefollowing
intervals,andincludedanallowanceof20moneithersideofcenterlinetoaccountforhighwaywidth:50m,
150m,and300m.
2. Eachbufferzonewascomparedagainst2000and2010Censusblockdatacontainedindatasources“B”and
“C”,respectively.BlocksintersectedbyeachbufferzonewereidentifiedastherespectiveHealthImpactZone.
3. HousingandpopulationdataforblockscontainedwithineachHealthImpactZoneweretalliedintothe
associatedtable.2010Censusdataaregraphicallyrepresentedasfollows:
2010Censusblocksintersectedbythe50mbufferoftheIͲ70alignment
a. Red–IͲ7050mHIZ:
b. Orange–IͲ70150mHIZ: 2010Censusblocksintersectedbythe150mbufferoftheIͲ70alignment
c. Yellow–IͲ70300mHIZ: 2010Censusblocksintersectedbythe150mbufferoftheIͲ70alignment
d. MutedRed–IͲ270/IͲ7650mHIZ: 2010Censusblocksintersectedbythe50mbufferoftheIͲ270/IͲ
76alignment
e. MutedOrange–IͲ270/IͲ76150mHIZ:
2010Censusblocksintersectedbythe150mbufferof
theIͲ270/IͲ76alignment
2010Censusblocksintersectedbythe300mbufferof
f. MutedYellow–IͲ270/IͲ76300mHIZ:
theIͲ270/IͲ76alignment
4. The2010Censusblocksfromdatasource“C”containedwithinthe300mHeathImpactZoneforeach
alignment(IͲ70andIͲ270/I76)werecomparedtotherespective300mzonetodeterminewhichblockswere
containedcompletelywithinthezone,andwhichblockswereonlypartiallycontainedwithinthezone.For
blockspartiallycontainedwithinthezone,anassumptionismadethatpopulationisdistributeduniformly
acrosstheblock.Toavoidcountingpopulationwithinthe300mexposurezonethatdoesnotresideinthe
exposurezone,thepercentareaoftheblockcontainedwithinthezonewascalculated.Thispercentwas
appliedtothepopulationcountforeachrespectiveblocktoestimatethefractionofthepopulationwithinthe
exposurezone.Theresultingadjustedpopulationcountsweresummedwiththosefromtheblockscontained
completelywithinthe300mzoneforeachalignmenttodeterminetherespective“AdjustedPopulation”.
From: "KarenStuart"<[email protected]>
Subject:SmartCommuteTMOcommentsonIͲ70EastFEIS
To:
contactus@iͲ70east.com,"VanessaHenderson"<[email protected]>,"WhiteͲ
CDOT,Rebecca"<[email protected]>,[email protected]
Cc:
angie.malpiede@rtdͲdenver.com,"JeanneShreve"
<[email protected]>,[email protected]
ThankyouforthisopportunitytocommentontheIͲ70EastFEIS.Pleasefind
ourcommentsattached.
KarenStuart,ExecutiveDirector
SmartCommuteMetroNorth
12200PecosStreet,Suite100
Westminster,Colorado80234
303Ͳ913Ͳ0806
[email protected]
www.smartcommutemetronorth.org<http://www.smartcommutemetronorth.org/>
Attachments:
SCMNCommentsonIͲ70EastProject.docx
Size: 99k
Type: application/vnd.openxmlformatsͲofficedocument.wordprocessingml.document
Comments on the I-70 East FEIS, Submitted by Smart Commute Metro North
Transportation Management Organization
March 2, 2016
Smart Commute Metro North is a non-profit Transportation Management Organization
providing information, education and advocacy for transportation improvements that
reduce congestion and improve air quality in the north metro Denver region.
Transportation Demand Management (TDM) strategies are highly effective tools that
can provide customized options that encourage the use of public transit, ridesharing,
bicycle and pedestrian travel, as well as teleworking and congestion aversion
programs.
The FEIS does not appear to assess the benefits TDM strategies and programs will
provide during and after construction to help address air quality issues, community
impacts; particularly as they relate to environmental justice concerns, and increased
traffic congestion during construction. TDM has been shown on other construction
corridors to be a low cost- high benefit component.
It is our recommendation that the Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT)
should commit to a comprehensive TDM plan as a project component for the I-70
East Project as follows:
x
x
x
x
x
Commit to a vigorous TDM Program both during construction to reduce
construction related traffic impacts, and as an on-going program after
construction in order to maximize the transportation benefits of the
investment and decrease negative impacts.
Include the cost of TDM during construction into the project budget and
identify a source of funding for on-going TDM activities after construction and
for the life of the management contract.
TDM should be a fully funded program within the construction project and not
funded by reimbursable grant contracts or mechanisms.
Because project construction will impact through- traffic on I-70 from I-25 to I270 to I-70 as well as impact multiple community neighborhoods, there should
be dedicated funding for transit service, and neighborhood Eco Pass
programs.
Provide a dedicated funding stream for improved bicycle and pedestrian
connections in affected neighborhoods that will provide a safe alternative to
driving and insure access to the regional transit system.
Thank you for this opportunity to submit comments on the I-70 East Project.
SmartCommuteMetroNorth
12200PecosSt.,Suite100
Westminster,Colorado80234
303.913.0806
www.smartcommutemetronorth.org
From: "WillToor"<[email protected]>
Subject:
SubmittingcommentsonTheIͲ70EastEIS
To:
contactus@iͲ
70east.com,[email protected],[email protected],[email protected]
o.us
Iwasunabletomakethewebsiteworkforsubmittingcomments,soamusingthis
emailtosubmitcommentsonbehalfoftheSouthwestEnergyEfficiencyProject.
WillToor
Director,TransportationProgram
SouthwestEnergyEfficiencyProject
[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]
>
303Ͳ447Ͳ0078ext6
www.swenergy.org
Attachments:
SWEEPfinalFEISComments.docx
Size: 1.8M
Type: application/vnd.openxmlformatsͲofficedocument.wordprocessingml.document
Original2035vs2040DRCOGProjectVolumes.xlsx
Size: 29k
Type: application/vnd.openxmlformatsͲofficedocument.spreadsheetml.sheet
CommentsontheIͲ70EastFEIS,SubmittedonBehalfof
theSouthwestEnergyEfficiencyProject
March2,2016
WewouldliketosubmitthefollowingcommentsonbehalfoftheSouthwestEnergyEfficiency
Project.Ourcommentsarestructuredasfollows.
1. Stepsthatcanbetakentoimprovethefunctionandmitigatesomeoftheimpactsofthe
preferredalternative.
2. DiscussionoftheVMTtrendsandtrafficmodelingusedintheFEIS
3. ThetreatmentofGHGemissionsintheEIS
Stepsthatcanbetakentoimprovethefunctionandmitigatesomeoftheimpacts
ofthepreferredalternative.
Investintransportationdemandmanagementbothduringconstructionandafterproject
completion
TransportationDemandManagementreferstoabroadsetofstrategiesdesignedtoreducethe
numberofsingleoccupantvehicletrips,andinsteadmeetaccessibilityneedsthroughencouraging
theuseofpublictransit,carpoolingandvanpooling,bicycleandpedestriantravel,orreducedtrip
lengthduetosmarterlanduse.TDMcanbothallowbetteruseofinfrastructureandcanlimitthe
needforinfrastructureexpansion.
Aswediscussinthesecondsectionofthisdocument,adetailedreviewofpeakhour2035traffic
projectionsintheEISshowonlyafewsegmentswithvolumeshighenoughtorequireallofthe
lanesproposedinthepreferredalternative.AvigorousTDMprogramcouldbesufficienttoreduce
volumesenoughsothatasignificantsectionoftheeastboundcorridorcouldbeservedbyonlyone
additionallane.Thus,CDOTcouldnarrowthecrosssectionoftheproject,oravoidthenecessityof
stripingtwoadditionallanesineachdirection.WerecommendthatacomprehensiveTDMplanbe
developed,includinganevaluationofthereductionsinpeakperiodvehicletripsthatcouldbe
achieved.
OthermajorprojectsintheDenverareahaveincludedsubstantialTDMinvestmentsduring
construction.Forexample,theTͲRexprojectincludedaprogramduringconstructionknownas
TransOptions.Theprojectinvested$3millionintransitsubsidies,vanpoolsubsidies,community
outreachandeducationfunds,andasmartcommunitywebsite.Duringthedevelopmentofthat
EIS,therewasalsointenttoprovideanongoingTDMprogramafterconstruction,butno
commitmentoffundingwasmadetoimplementthis.
CDOTshouldcommittoavigorousTDMprogrambothduringconstruction,toreduceconstruction
relatedtrafficimpacts,andasanongoingprogramafterconstructioninordertobothmaximizethe
transportationbenefitsoftheinvestmentanddecreasenegativeimpactssuchasincreasedGHG
emissions.
ThecostofTDMduringconstructionshouldsimplybebuiltintotheprojectbudget.Forongoing
TDMactivities,tollrevenuesfromtheprojectareanidealsourceoffunding.
DedicatetollrevenuestoTDM,transitservice,andbicycleandpedestrianimprovementsinthe
corridor
Currently,thereisflexibilityintheuseoftollrevenuesfromtheproposedmanagedlanes.Other
managedlanesprojectsinColoradohaveeitherdedicatedthetollrevenuestoaprivatepartnerin
apublicprivatepartnershipforaperiodoftime(US36);committedtollrevenuestoaloantocover
projectcostoverruns(IͲ70mountain),orareplanningtobondagainsttollrevenuestocovera
portionoftheconstructioncost(CͲ470).IͲ70isuniqueinthattheproposedpublicprivate
partnershipwillcommitavailabilitypaymentsratherthantollrevenue,leavingCDOTgreat
flexibilityinhowthatrevenueisused.
UnderSB09Ͳ108,theFASTERlegislation1,tollrevenuesarerequiredtobereinvestedinthesame
transportationcorridor.FASTERspecificallyauthorizestheuseoftollrevenuesfor“COSTͲ
EFFECTIVEMULTIMODALTRANSPORTATIONPROJECTSTHATPROMOTEMOBILITY,REDUCTIONSIN
EMISSIONSOFGREENHOUSEGASES,andANDENERGYEFFICIENCY.”
Inaddition,in2014GovernorHickenloopersignedanexecutiveordergoverningtheHigh
PerformanceTransportationEnterprise,whichwasthencodifiedbytheHPTEboardthroughthe
adoptiononJuly16,2014ofapolicythatrequiresconsiderationofmultimodaltransportationin
managedlaneprojects,includingconsiderationoftheuseoftollrevenuesforbothtransitcapital
andoperatingcosts.
IntheUS36managedlanesprojectCDOTandHPTEsignedaMemorandumOfUnderstandingwith
thelocalgovernmentsalongtheUS36corridorgoverninghowfuturetollrevenueswillbeused.2In
1
https://www.colorado.gov/pacific/sites/default/files/108_enr.pdf
2
MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING US36 BRT/Managed Lanes Project, May 2013, entered into by Colorado
Department of Transportation and US 36 Mayors’ and Commissioners’ Coalition.
thenearterm,tollrevenueswillgotopayingoffthebondingandprivateequitythatishelpingto
payforconstruction.However,atsomepointrevenueswillbegintoflowbacktothestate.The
MOUspecifiesthatrevenuesmaybeusedforpublictransit,firstandfinalmileimprovementsnear
transitstations,andtransportationdemandmanagementprograms(suchassupportingtransit
passpurchases)inadditiontoroadwayexpenditures.Thedistributionoftheserevenueswillbea
jointdecisionbyCDOT,HPTEandthelocalgovernments.
IͲ70isaparticularlyimportantcorridorinwhichtoinvesttollrevenueinTDM,giventhesignificant
environmentaljusticeissuesraisedbythisproject.Thesurroundingneighborhoodhasamedian
incomeof$38,000,and62%ofhouseholdshaveanincomebelowtheDenvermedianof$55,0003,
implyingthatthemostdirectlyimpactedpopulationsareatanincomelevelthatisunlikelyto
directlybenefitfromtheadditionofmanagedlanes.Inaddition,thesearethepopulationsthatare
mostdirectlyaffectedbythenegativeimpactsoftheproject.Dedicatingongoingtollrevenuesto
TDMprojectsthatbenefitthecorridorandthesurroundingneighborhoodscanhelpensurethat
thisprojectthatserveseveryone,ratherthanprimarilyupperincomeresidents.
WedorecognizethattheraillinetoDIAwillpassthroughthisneighborhood.Werequestthatthe
projectteamconsideraneighborhoodEcopassprogram,fundedbytollrevenues,toensurethat
residentsoftheseneighborhoodsareabletoaffordthisnewtransitservice.
Investinimprovedbicycleandpedestrianconnections
Nocorridorprojectshouldmoveforwardwithoutimprovingthebicycleandpedestriansystem,not
justtheroadwaysystem.Atleastoneotherrecentproject,theUS36managedlanes,includeda
significantinvestmentinabikewaytheentirelengthofthecorridor.InthecaseofIͲ70,webelieve
thatprioritiesshouldincludesafeandcomfortablebicycleandpedestriancorridorscrossingthe
highway,aswellasfirstandfinalmileconnectionsinthesurroundingneighborhoodstoensure
thatresidentshaveaccesstotheregionaltransitsystem.
InvestinincreasingHOV+3VehicleOccupancy
OnepositiveaspectofthepreferredalternativeisthattheadditionallanesareHighOccupancyToll
lanesratherthansimplyadditionalgeneralͲpurposelanes.CDOTwillbeimplementingapolicy
changebeforetheselanesareconstructed,transitioningallHOVandHOTlanesfromHOV2+to
HOV3+.InordertomaximizethevalueoftheHOTlanesinmovingpeople,notjustmovingcars,a
concertedeffortshouldbemadetoincreasevehicleoccupancyalongthecorridortomaximizethe
numberofpeoplethatthemanagedlaneswilltransport.
Inthelastfiveyears,theapplicationofinformationtechnologytotransportationhasbegunto
3
PitonFoundation,Communityfacts,ElyriaSwanseaneighborhood,
http://www.piton.org/index.cfm?fuseaction=CommunityFacts.Summary&Neighborhood_ID=885
openupnewpossibilitiesindynamiccarsharingandappͲenabledcasualcarpoolingand‘virtualslug
lines.”Inaddition,transportationnetworkcompanieslikeLyftandUberhavecomeintothe
market,andinsomecitieshaveintroducedserviceslikeUberCommutethatallowtheuseofthe
Uberapptoenabledrivingcommuterstosharecostsforcommutetripswithpassengerswhohail
theirservices.
OnestepthatCDOTcantaketoreducepercapitaemissions,allowmorelowerͲincometravelers
accesstotheHOTlanes,andmakethebestuseoftheroadwayinfrastructureistoactivelysupport
effortstoformHOV3+carpools.CDOTshouldcommittoactivelysupportthisthroughdirect
investmentandongoingmarketing.
DiscussionoftheVMTtrendsandtrafficmodelingusedintheFEIS
OnVMTTrends
WhilepreliminarydatadoesshowgrowthinoverallVMTinColoradoduring2014and2015,thisis
notconclusiveevidencethatVMTgrowthtrendsarereturningtothesamelevelsthatwere
experiencedbefore2005.
SeveraltimestheresponsetocommentsontheSDEISstatesthatthereductioninpercapitaVMT
duringthefirstdecadeofthe21stcenturywassimplyanoutgrowthoftheeconomicdownturn,
dismissingthebroadliteraturethatlooksatdemographicandculturalshiftsaffectingVMTtrends.
Theresponsereferstotheeconomicdownturnashavingoccurredbetween2005and2009,which
isnotaccurate.Theeconomicdownturn,orgreatrecession,didnotbeginuntil2008.Bygrouping
thedatafor2005,2006and2007inwiththeeconomicdownturnCDOTdismissestheslowing
downoftheVMTgrowthrateandthefallinVMTpercapitathatoccurredpriortotheeconomic
downturn.
IfnineyearsofslowornegativeVMTgrowth(2005Ͳ2013)isnotindicativeofatrend,itishardto
understandwhytwoyearsofVMTgrowthareaclearsignalofanewgrowthtrend.Asexplainedin
muchgreaterdepthinourcommentsontheSDEIS,wehavearguedthattheEISlikely
overestimatesfuturetravelvolumes.However,wealsobelievethattheliteratureoninduced
demandsuggeststhatiftheroadisexpandedwiththeadditional4managedlanes,thatnew
demandwillbeinducedthatwillfillthecapacityinthe6generalpurposelanes.Theadditionof
multiplelanestoIͲ25inthe“TͲRex”projectillustratesthisphenomenon.Within4yearsof
constructionendingin2006,trafficonIͲ25grewtofillallavailablecapacity,sothatthecongestion
asmeasuredbyV/CgrewtopreͲconstructionlevelsby2010,despitethefactthatoverallVMTin
themetroareawasflatduringthistime.
OntheSensitivityAnalysisofthe2035and2040DRCOGModels,andthenumberoflanesthat
areneeded
InAttachmentE,AppendixFoftheFEIS,CDOTperformsasensitivityanalysiscomparingtheresults
fromthe2035and2040DRCOGmodels.CDOTfoundthattheuseofthe2040FOCUSmodel
resultedinadecreaseintrafficvolumesofaroundtenpercentcomparedtousingthe2035
COMPASSmodel.
CDOTstatesthat‘thevariationsindriverbehaviorwillbeverysmallbetweenthetwomodels’
becausethe2040FOCUSmodelisbasedonthepreͲ2000householdtravelsurveydata.Thisisnot
completelyaccurate.The2010householdtravelsurveyhasbeenpartiallyincorporatedintothe
2040modeloverthelastfewyears,makingitmuchmoreuptodatethantheoldermodel
regardingregionaltravelbehavior.Andtherearelargedifferencesintravelbehaviorbetweenthe
twomodels.The2035modelshowsVMTpercapitaincreasingfrom25.8to27.4between2010
and2035whilethe2040modelshowsVMTpercapitafallingfrom25.4in2015to24.3in2040.
Whilethismayseemlikeasmalldifferenceofonly3VMTperpersonperday,thisaddsuptoover
1,000fewermilestraveledperpersonperyear.
The2035(2010Ͳ2035)modelrunshowsa60.2%increaseinregionalVMTcomparedtoa32.4
increaseinregionalVMTinthe2040(2015Ͳ2040)modelrun.
TheFEISisbasedonthe2035modelresultsandshowsa66%increaseinstudyareaVMTbetween
2012and2035,althoughVMTalongthecorridorisexpectedtoincrease80%overthesametime
period.
Todetermineifthereductionintotalvehiclevolumeinthe2040modelwouldimpactthenumber
ofadditionallanesneededfortheIͲ70corridor,CDOTthendoesanadditionalanalysis,whichwas
providedtoSWEEP.Weareprovidingthisdatainaseparatespreadsheet.
TheAMandPMpeakperiodvolumesforeachdirectionaredividedby2,000foreverygeneral
purposelaneand1,800foreachmanagedlanetodeterminehowmanylanes(shownintheTable
below)areneededineachdirectionbasedonthetwomodelsresults.
Oneobservationonthisanalysisisthattodeterminethenecessarynumberoflanes,theEIS
consistentlyroundsuptothenextwholenumber,whichincreasestheestimateofthenumberof
lanesneededforthecorridor.
RecreationofTable4,inAppendixE,AttachmentFofTrafficTechnicalAnalysisinFEIS
MinimumnumberoflanesneededonIͲ70
From
To
Eastbound
Westbound
2035
2040
2035
2040
IͲ25
Washington
4
4
3
3
Washington Brighton
5
6
5
5
Brighton
Steele
6
5
6
6
Steele
Colorado
5
5
5
5
Colorado
Quebec
5
5
6
5
Quebec
IͲ270
4
4
5
4
IͲ270
Havana
5
5
6
5
Havana
Peoria
5
5
7
6
Peoria
IͲ225
6
5
4
3
IͲ225
Chambers
6
5
4
3
Chambers Airport
3
3
3
3
Airport
Tower
3
3
3
3
Forexample,intheeastboundlanesgoingfromIͲ25toQuebec,thenumbersthattheEISusesfor
theneededlanesaregenerallyatleastonelanehigherthanifyouaddedthefractionsoflanes
together.
ExampleofLaneVolumesandMinimumLanesNeededCalculation
GPLane
Volume
IͲ25to
Washington
Washington
toBrighton
Brightonto
Steele
Steeleto
Colorado
Coloradoto
GPLane
Volume/2000
with/without
roundingup
ML
Volume
ML
Volume/1800
with/without
roundingup
Minimum
Lanes
Needed
Rounding
Up
Minimum
Difference
Lanes
NeededNo
Rounding
Up
4254
3/2.1
1000
1/0.6
4
2.7
1.3
6971
4/3.5
1000
1/0.6
5
4.1
0.9
6654
4/3.3
1824
2/1.0
6
4.3
1.7
5007
3/2.5
1824
2/1.0
5
3.5
1.5
5161
3/2.6
1824
2/1.0
5
3.6
1.4
Quebec
Applyingthesamemethodologyacrosstheentirecorridorshowsthatforthemajorityofsegments
theEISoverestimatestheminimumnumberoflanesneeded.
NumberofCurrentLanesandNewLanescomparedtoNeededLanes
IͲ25to
Washington
Washingtonto
Brighton
Brightonto
Steele
Steeleto
Colorado
Coloradoto
Quebec
QuebectoIͲ270
IͲ270toHavana
HavanatoPeoria
PeoriatoIͲ225
IͲ225to
Chambers
Chambersto
Airport
AirporttoTower
#ofNew
LanesinFEIS
#ofTotal
LanesinFEIS
EBNeeded
Lanes(SWEEP
calculation)
Difference
WBNeeded
Difference
Lanes(SWEEP
calculation)
0
3
2.7
0.3
2.3
0.7
1
4
4.3
Ͳ0.3
4.6
Ͳ0.6
2
5
4.4
0.6
5.0
0.0
2
5
3.8
1.2
4.1
0.9
2
2
2
2
2
5
5
6
6
6
4.0
3.9
4.7
4.8
5.1
1.0
1.1
1.3
1.2
0.9
4.4
4.1
5.3
6.0
3.5
0.6
0.9
0.7
0.0
2.5
2
5
5.4
Ͳ0.4
3.3
1.7
2
1
4
3
2.6
2.4
1.4
0.6
2.9
2.9
1.1
0.1
InmanyofthecorridorsegmentswheretwonewlanesareplannedaspartoftheFEIS,thisanalysis
suggeststhatoneadditionallanewouldbesufficienttomeetfuturedemand.Now,werecognize
thatinpracticeanyadditionallaneswilllikelybelongercontinuouslanes,notsegmentsthatcome
andgo.However,examiningtheeastboundlanes,theentirewesternportionofthecorridor,from
IͲ225west,couldbeservedwithonlyoneadditionalmanagedlaneintheEastbounddirection,with
theexceptionoftwoshortsectionswheretheprojectedpeakhourvolumeisonlyslightlyhigher
thancapacity.Thetablebelowshowswhatlevelofpeakvolumereductionsarenecessarytomake
onelanesufficient.Notealsothatinthe2040model,thepeakvolumeintheWashingtonto
Brightonsectiongoesdownby150,reducingthediscrepancyto504vehicles,or5.9%ofthe
projectedvolume.
ItisveryplausiblethatvigorousTDMefforts,includingtheuseofappenabledcasualcarpooling
andTNCbasedcarpoolingcouldmakeadifferenceofthisorderofmagnitude.Forexample,the
SouthCarolinaDOTconcludedthatTDMstrategiescouldreducepeakperiodtrafficonIͲ526by
5.2%,beforeappͲenabledcarpoolingwasdeveloped4And,sincethiswestendincludesthemost
controversialandexpensiveportionofthecorridor,thebenefitsofnarrowingthissegmentbyone
lanecouldbesignificant.Baseduponthis,webelievethattheprojectteamshouldevaluatethe
maximumpotentialforTDMtoreducedemand.
ReductionsinPeakVolumeNecessarytoOnlyNeedOneAdditionalLane
PeakVolumein2035
model
Washingtonto
7,971
Brighton(EB)_
BrightontoSteele(EB) 8,478
ReductioninVolume
NeededtoOnlyNeed
1AdditionalLane
171
%ofTotalVolume
654
7.7%
2.4%
Addedtothis,bythetimethattheEISprojectsvolumesatthislevel,itishighlylikelythattherewill
besignificantpenetrationofautonomousvehicles,whichwillallowagreaternumberofvehicles
perlane,furthercallingintoquestionthenecessityforthefullnumberoflanescalledforinthe
preferredalternative.
OnGreenhouseGasEmissions
ThefinalEISshowsthatgreenhousegasemissionswillincreasefrom4,146tonsperdayin2015to
5,443tonsperdayby2035,a31percentincrease.Phaseoneofthepreferredalternativewould
alsoslightlyincreaseGHGemissionscomparedtothenoͲactionalternative,from5,355to5,433
tonsperday.
Wedonotagreethatgreenhousegasemissionsfromthisprojecthavebeen‘adequately
addressed’intheFEIS.TheFEIScomparesprojectlevelemissionstototalglobalanthropogenic
GHGemissions,andconcludesthattheprojectlevelemissionsareirrelevant.Thisisan
inappropriatemeasure.Bythisstandard,nolocal,regional,stateorevennationallevelactionon
GHGemissionswouldbeconsideredsignificant.AsnotedinSWEEP’spreviouscomments,the
DRCOG2035MetroVisionPlanhasthegoalofreducingGHGemissionsfromthetransportation
sectorby60%by2035.Shouldn’tmajornewtransportationinvestmentshelptomeetthisgoal,
4
,table5.4
ratherthanmovingtheregionfurtherawayfrommeetingthegoal?
Inaddition,underFASTER(SB09Ͳ108),Coloradoisrequiredtodevelopastatewidetransportation
planthatwilladdressthereductionofgreenhousegasemissions.Theinclusionofmajorprojects
thatincreasestatewideGHGemissionsisastepawayfromthisrequirement.
OneadditionalstepthatcouldbetakeninthisprojecttoreduceGHGemissionswouldbeto
incentivizetheuseofplugͲinhybridelectricvehicles,batteryelectricvehicles,andotherlow
emissionstechnologies.Currently,CDOThascappedthenumberofpermitsgiventothesevehicles
forfreeaccesstoHOTlanestoatotalof2,000vehicles.Essentiallyallofthesepermitshavebeen
assigned,soalmostnopermitsareavailable,sothisisnotcurrentlyausefulincentive.CDOTshould
raisethiscapforIͲ70,creatingameaningfulincentiveforloweremittingvehiclesinthiscorridor.
Eastbound
I‐70 Segement
From I‐25 Washington Brighton
Steele
Colorado
Quebec
I‐270
Havana
Peoria
I‐225
Chambers
Airport
To
Washington
Brighton
Steele
Colorado
Quebec
I‐270
Havana
Peoria
I‐225
Chambers
Airport
Tower
AM GP Volume
2035
2040 % diff
4254
4124
3%
6971
7993
‐15%
6654
5628
15%
5007
4686
6%
5161
3352
35%
5343
5685
‐6%
7775
8364
‐8%
7239
8165
‐13%
6896
7979
‐16%
6651
8199
‐23%
3024
3134
‐4%
2467
2462
0%
PM GP Volume
2035
2040 % diff
3807
3941
‐4%
7633
8074
‐6%
6541
5931
9%
5337
5184
3%
5924
4326
27%
7723
7192
7%
9326
8884
5%
9627
9051
6%
10132
9305
8%
10873
9830
10%
5115
4395
14%
4779
4058
15%
AM Toll Volume
2035
2040 % diff
1000
500
50%
1000
500
50%
1824
2700
‐48%
1824
2700
‐48%
1824
2700
‐48%
0
0 #DIV/0!
0
0 #DIV/0!
0
0 #DIV/0!
0
0 #DIV/0!
0
0 #DIV/0!
0
0 #DIV/0!
0
0 #DIV/0!
PM Toll Volume
2035
2040 % diff
850
900
‐6%
850
900
‐6%
1955
3600
‐84%
1955
3600
‐84%
1955
3600
‐84%
0
0 #DIV/0!
0
0 #DIV/0!
0
0 #DIV/0!
0
0 #DIV/0!
0
0 #DIV/0!
0
0 #DIV/0!
0
0 #DIV/0!
AM Total Volume
2035
2040 % diff
5254
4624
12%
7971
8493
‐7%
8478
8328
2%
6831
7386
‐8%
6985
6052
13%
5343
5685
‐6%
7775
8364
‐8%
7239
8165
‐13%
6896
7979
‐16%
6651
8199
‐23%
3024
3134
‐4%
2467
2462
0%
PM Total Volume
2035
2040 % diff
4657
4841
‐4%
8483
8974
‐6%
8496
9531
‐12%
7292
8784
‐20%
7879
7926
‐1%
7723
7192
7%
9326
8884
5%
9627
9051
6%
10132
9305
8%
10873
9830
10%
5115
4395
14%
4779
4058
15%
Daily Total Volume
2035
2040 % diff
58100
55700
4%
105100
96000
9%
105400
106500
‐1%
94300
94100
0%
100800
87000
14%
93500
84500
10%
129000
132000
‐2%
125700
125700
0%
128000
123000
4%
133400
129000
3%
61100
42100
31%
59000
35700
39%
Westbound
I‐70 Segement
Steele
Colorado
Quebec
I‐270
Havana
Peoria
I‐225
Chambers
Airport
To
Washington
Brighton
Steele
Colorado
Quebec
I‐270
Havana
Peoria
I‐225
Chambers
Airport
Tower
AM GP Volume
2035
2040 % diff
4564
4681
‐3%
9029
8560
5%
7885
6552
17%
5991
5593
7%
6744
5059
25%
8141
7583
7%
10687
9332
13%
12069
10249
15%
6952
5916
15%
6580
4975
24%
5893
4479
24%
5737
4101
29%
PM GP Volume
2035
2040 % diff
4595
4721
‐3%
9173
8200
11%
7287
6038
17%
5528
5083
8%
5160
4229
18%
6372
5881
8%
8422
8146
3%
8563
8455
1%
4981
4817
3%
4398
4086
7%
3940
3222
18%
3541
2538
28%
AM Toll Volume
2035
2040 % diff
0
0 #DIV/0!
0
0 #DIV/0!
1903
3400
‐79%
1903
3400
‐79%
1903
3400
‐79%
0
0 #DIV/0!
0
0 #DIV/0!
0
0 #DIV/0!
0
0 #DIV/0!
0
0 #DIV/0!
0
0 #DIV/0!
0
0 #DIV/0!
PM Toll Volume
2035
2040 % diff
0
0 #DIV/0!
0
0 #DIV/0!
1720
2100
‐22%
1720
2100
‐22%
1720
2100
‐22%
0
0 #DIV/0!
0
0 #DIV/0!
0
0 #DIV/0!
0
0 #DIV/0!
0
0 #DIV/0!
0
0 #DIV/0!
0
0 #DIV/0!
AM Total Volume
2035
2040 % diff
4564
4681
‐3%
9029
8560
5%
9788
9952
‐2%
7894
8993
‐14%
8647
8459
2%
8141
7583
7%
10687
9332
13%
12069
10249
15%
6952
5916
15%
6580
4975
24%
5893
4479
24%
5737
4101
29%
PM Total Volume
2035
2040 % diff
4595
4721
‐3%
9173
8200
11%
9007
8138
10%
7248
7183
1%
6880
6329
8%
6372
5881
8%
8422
8146
3%
8563
8455
1%
4981
4817
3%
4398
4086
7%
3940
3222
18%
3541
2538
28%
Daily Total Volume
2035
2040 % diff
57500
54900
5%
106500
95000
11%
111000
106200
4%
93800
93400
0%
96000
88700
8%
94400
87700
7%
131300
133700
‐2%
133600
132000
1%
78800
76400
3%
71200
65400
8%
58400
39900
32%
57200
36400
36%
Eastbound
I‐70 Segement
Steele
Colorado
Quebec
I‐270
Havana
Peoria
I‐225
Chambers
Airport
Westbound
I‐70 Segement
Steele
Colorado
Quebec
I‐270
Havana
Peoria
I‐225
Chambers
Airport
2000
1800
GP
2035
3
4
4
3
3
3
4
4
4
4
2
2
2040
3
4
3
3
2
3
5
5
4
5
2
2
AM Lanes
ML
2035
2040
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
2
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Total
2035
4
5
6
5
5
3
4
4
4
4
2
2
ML
2035
0
0
2
2
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Total
2035
3
5
6
5
6
5
6
7
4
4
3
3
2040
4
5
5
5
4
3
5
5
4
5
2
2
GP
2035
2
4
4
3
3
4
5
5
6
6
3
3
2040
3
5
6
5
5
4
5
6
3
3
3
3
GP
2035
3
5
4
3
3
4
5
5
3
3
2
2
AM Lanes
GP
2035
3
5
4
3
4
5
6
7
4
4
3
3
2040
3
5
4
3
3
4
5
6
3
3
3
3
2040
2
5
3
3
3
4
5
5
5
5
3
3
PM Lanes
ML
2035
2040
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
2
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Total
2035
3
5
6
5
5
4
5
5
6
6
3
3
2040
3
6
5
5
5
4
5
5
5
5
3
3
I‐70 lanes Needed
2035
2040
4
4
5
6
6
5
5
5
5
5
4
4
5
5
5
5
6
5
6
5
3
3
3
3
ML
2035
0
0
1
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Total
2035
3
5
5
4
4
4
5
5
3
3
2
2
2040
3
5
6
5
5
3
5
5
3
3
2
2
Needed Lanes
2035
2040
3
3
5
5
6
6
5
5
6
5
5
4
6
5
7
6
4
3
4
3
3
3
3
3
PM Lanes
2040
0
0
2
2
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2040
3
5
4
3
3
3
5
5
3
3
2
2
2040
0
0
2
2
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
UNITED COMMUNITY ACTION NETWORK of METRO DENVER
4707 Pearl St Denver, CO 80216-2816
[email protected]
_____________________________________________________________________________________
March 2, 2016
Submission of Public Comment to:
Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT)
Regarding the Reconstruction of I-70E
Through the Elyria and Swansea Neighborhoods
And in Support of: The Elyria, Swansea, Neighborhood Association’s (ESNA) March 2, 2016 Letter of
Comment submitted with prior 2014 EIS comments from Elyria and Swansea neighbors attached.
UCAN Metro Denver agrees the historic Elyria and Swansea neighborhoods are the most impacted and most
vulnerable neighborhoods facing the stresses of construction and project design build of the I-70E Reconstruction.
And, UCAN agrees issues of health, loss of homes, and segmentation of these neighborhoods are injustices first
imposed by the placement of I-70 through the Elyria, and Swansea, and Globeville neighborhoods over 50 years
ago. And, UCAN agrees this egregious imposition is a social injustice that must not be worsened with this Rebuild.
We understand something has to be done to replace the aging I-70E Viaduct. We acknowledge this has been a long
and arduous public process for both our neighborhoods and CDOT. And, we are concerned the collaboration
between CDOT and the City of Denver has not provided an honorable method and measure of public outreach and
education concerning the impacts and alternatives for the I-70E Reconstruction.
Therefore, despite many years of discussion, there is virtually no confidence in the most impacted neighborhoods
that the proposed CDOT I-70E preferred alternative won’t “further and deepen the great harm done to Elyria and
Swansea” neighborhoods the ESNA testifies to in their March 2, 2016 comment to CDOT, with 2014 EIS comments
attached.
Therefore, given that the Elyria and Swansea neighbors, in public testimony and comment, strongly reject CDOT’s
claim that the current preferred alternative CDOT is asking the Federal Highway Commission (FHWA) to approve is
the best alternative for the health, safety, preservation, and vitalization of their neighborhoods, UCAN Metro
Denver joins ESNA in urging CDOT to sincerely address ESNA’s 2016 letter of comment and each of the concerns
and issues the Elyria and Swansea residents submitted in the 2014 Draft Supplemental EIS 2014 comments, and
consider other I70E project alternatives.
Submitted as unanimously approved at a meeting of the United Community Action Network, Inc
Board of Directors on February 27, 2016
[ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ]
United Community Action Network of Metro Denver, Inc, is a Colorado Non-Profit Tax Exempt 501(c)3 Corporation
and a Registered Neighborhood Organization with the City of Denver, Colorado
From:
Subject:
Date:
To:
"UrbanLandConservancy"<[email protected]>
name:UrbanLandConservancy
address:305ParkAvenueWest
city:Denver
state:CO
zip_code:80205
phone:1303377447722
comment_on_feis:YES
primary_interest_in_project:Business
interest_in_project:UrbanLandConservancy(ULC)isanonͲprofitnonprofitrealestatecompany
establishedin2003.Ourmissionistoacquire,develop,andpreserveurbancommunityrealestate
assetsinMetroDenverhavinginvestednearly$70millioninrealestate,(leveragingover$400M)
servingover12,000lowandmoderateincomepeople.ULCinpartnershipwiththeDenverOfficeof
EconomicDevelopment,acquireda6acreparcelinElyria/Swanseatargetedforredevelopmentasa
TransitOrientedCommunitywithaccesstothenewfutureNorthMetrorailtransitstationservingthe
NationalWesternStockshowredevelopment.ULCanticipatesprovidingupto400unitsofnewhousing
(acombinationofmixedincomemultifamilyrentaland38townhomes)plusupto61,000sfof
commercialspace(apossiblecombinationofflexindustrial,retailandofficespace).Theentireproject
willbedevelopedinmultiplephasesovera10yearperiod.
how_transportation_can_be_improved_in_corridor:Increasedneighborhoodphysicalconnectivity
north/southacrossIͲ70isessentialtostabilizetheadjacentcommunitiesandallowlocalresidentsto
accessessentialservicessuchasfreshfood,schoolsandemploymentcenters.
how_receiving_info:PublicMeetings,Newsletter,Website
rate_website:Good
comments_questions:Currentlythereislittleevidencethatsubstantialcommentsandquestions
regardingairquality,mitigationanddisplacementarebeingseriouslyconsideredwithadjustments
madetoCDOT'splans.Whenwillthatbeaddressedotherthansimplydisplayingthecommentsfor
publicviewing?
==================================
REMOTE_HOST=
REMOTE_USER=
From:
Subject:
Date:
To:
"UrbanLandConservancy"<[email protected]>
name:UrbanLandConservancy
address:305ParkAvenueWest
city:Denver
state:Colorado
zip_code:80205
phone:303Ͳ377Ͳ4477
comment_on_feis:YES
primary_interest_in_project:Business
interest_in_project:
how_transportation_can_be_improved_in_corridor:
how_receiving_info:Neighbors/Churches/Schools,PublicMeetings,Newsletter
rate_website:Good
comments_questions:March2,2016IͲ70EastEISTeamColoradoDepartmentofTransportation2000S.
HollyStreetDenver,CO80222Viaemail:contactus@iͲ70east.com
TheUrbanLandConservancy(ULC)isanonprofitorganizationthatinvestsinrealestatetoachievea
varietyoflongͲtermbenefitsforDenvercommunities.Asastakeholderandpropertyownerat4800
RaceStreetintheGlobeville,EllyriaͲSwansea(GES)neighborhoods,weareprovidingourcommentson
therecentlycompletedIͲ70EastFinalEnvironmentalImpactStudy(FEIS).Thankyoufortheopportunity
tocommentonthiscriticalphaseoftheplanningprocesstoreconfiguretheIͲ70corridor.ULCwould
liketocallattentiontoourconcernsregardingpotentialimpactsincludingsocialandeconomic
conditions,environmentaljustice,relocationsanddisplacements,historicpreservation,visualresources
andaestheticqualities,parksandrecreation,airquality,noise,andhazardousmaterials.Potential
residentialdisplacementduetoadditionalrightofwayacquisitionfortheprojectrequiresrelocation
serviceswithqualityreplacementhousingwithinthesamecommunityforupto53householdsinthe
ElyriaandSwanseaneighborhoods,whichmaybeaffectedbytheexpansionofIͲ70.Ataminimumthat
istheobviousbaselinedisplacementmitigationstrategy.Lessobviousbutnolessimportantisthe
following:
1.Replacementoflosthomesthroughthecreationofnewaffordablehousingunitsata3:1ratioWe
believethat,asthepublicentityresponsibleforthepotentialdisplacement,theColoradoDepartmentof
Transportation(CDOT)shouldcommitfundstoprovidenewaffordablereplacementhousingoptions
limitedtoareaswithinGES.CDOTsfirstpriorityshouldbetoreplaceimpactedexistingsinglefamily
homesata1:1ratioforatotalof53newqualitysingleͲfamilyhomesatapriceaffordabletothe
impactedhouseholds.Ifhomesaretobereplacedbymultifamilyunitsbecauseoflandpriceand
assemblageissues,CDOTshouldreplacetheimpactedhomesata3:1ratioforatotalofupto159
affordablerentalunitstocompensateforthepotentiallowerdensityofresidentsperunitinmultifamily
developmentsvs.singlefamilyhomes.CDOTshouldmakenolessthan$14.5MavailabletotheCityof
DenverearmarkedfortheproposedGESaffordablereplacementhousing.Initsproposaltoprovide$2.0
millionforreplacinghousing,CDOTmusttakeintoaccountthatremoving56housingunitsisdamaging
theviabilityoftheElyriaandSwanseaneighborhoods.Thelossof56homesalone,withtheaverage
householdsizeintheneighborhoodof3.78people,meansaminimumof3%ofthearea’spopulation
willbelost.SwanseaElementaryisprojectedtolose8teachersnextyearduetoreducedstudent
population.Thesepopulationlossesareprimarilyduetodisplacement,rentincreasesanduncertaintyin
theneighborhoods,resultingfromCDOTtakingsandtherippleeffectsoftheIͲ70reconstruction
proposal.TheElyriaandSwanseaneighborhoodshavebeenseverelyconstrictedeversinceIͲ70was
originallybuiltinthemiddleofthesecommunities.Withhomedemolition,populationlossand
uncertainty,theneighborhoodwillcontinuetodecline.Withoutaminimumofreplacementofatleast
thenumberofdemolishedhomes,theviabilityoftheneighborhoodwillbesubstantiallyimpaired.CDOT
shouldresearch,examineandimplementinnovativetransportationimpactedneighborhood
preservationandmitigationstrategiessuchastheLexingtonCommunityLandTrustwhichwasfunded
andoriginatedfromtheNewTownPikeextensionprojectbytheKentuckyDepartmentof
Transportation.
2.Commitmenttosourcing30%ofhiringneedsfromlocalarearesidentsandgivingfirstprioritytolocal
businessesforprojectͲrelatedcontractsPotentialmitigationforadverseimpactstoexistinglocal
businessesandGEScommunityresidents,suchastrafficandtransportationdisruptionduringthe
projectconstructionprocess,shouldincludeaccesstoworkforcetrainingandmiddleskillleveljobsand
bysupportingexistingbusinesseswhereverpossiblethusinjectingmuchneededcapitalintothelocal
neighborhoodeconomy.Thisshouldbeaccomplishedbyimplementingtargetededucationand
workforcetrainingprogramsatlocationswithintheaffectedGESarea,focusingonlocalresidentsand
givingfirstprioritytolocalbusinessesforprojectrelatedcontracts.
3.Commitmenttheextensionofmitigationandrelocationoptionstohomesw/in500ft.ofthefuture
bordersofIͲ70.Withoutintervention,theIͲ70reconfigurationwillnegativelyaffectthepropertyvalue
ofadjacenthomesandthequalityoflifeofaffectedresidents.WebelievethatCDOTshouldimplement
attractiveandefficientmitigationstructuresthatinsulatehomesfromnegativeeffectssuchasnoise,
atmosphericpollutantsandvisuallyunappealingcircumstances.Therefore,extendingtothe500foot
limitwillenhanceandprotectthehealthandqualityoflifeoftheresidentsofapproximatelyan
additional286homeswillbeimpacted,inadditiontothe56unitsremovedfromtheneighborhood.
Together,thatnumberofhomesrepresents19%ofthehousingunitsinElyriaandSwansea.
4.CommittoengagingtheNorthDenverCornerstoneCollaborative(NDCC)andtheDenverUrban
RenewalAuthority(DURA):CDOTshouldengagewiththeNorthDenverCornerstoneCollaborative,the
DenverUrbanRenewalAuthorityandRTD’sFasTracksinitiativetoeffectivelycoordinateaunified
strategyforplanning,fundingandimplementingtheactivelargescalemultipleredevelopmenteffortsin
GES.Afocusonidentifyingsustainablenewjobtraining,employment,andaffordabletransitoriented
developmentopportunitiesapartoftheMayor’sNDCCCorridorofOpportunityInitiativecanrevitalize
thesocial,economicandphysicalfabricofGEStosignificantlyimprovethequalityoflifeforimpacted
residents.
5.Wheneverpossible,prioritizetheuseoflongtermlandleasesinprovidingpermanentlyaffordable
newhousingopportunitiesinGES:Wherecommunityrealestateassetssuchasaffordablehousingare
created,CDOTfundingandresourcesshouldopttorequirelongͲtermlandleasesusingtheCommunity
LandTrustmodeltoensureaffordabilitybeyondthe15Ͳ30yearcovenantstypicallyrequiredbyfederal
affordablehousingprograms.Thiswillensurethatinvestmentsinthecommunityandaffordabilityinthe
GESneighborhoodswillexistinperpetuitywithnoadditionalpublicsubsidiesrequiredandmultiple
familieswillbenefitfrombothaffordabilityashareoffutureequityincasesofhomeownershipon
groundleasedproperty.TheCommunityLandTrustmodelhasprovenhighlysuccessfulinover250
neighborhoodsacrosstheU.S.inbothpreventingdisplacementandstabilizingunderserved
communities.Thankyouagainfortakingthetimetoconsiderourcommentsonthisimportantissue.
==================================
REMOTE_HOST=
REMOTE_USER=

To: [email protected] From: [email protected]

Transcription

Similar documents

standard food and beverage concession agreement

The Denver Post

COLORADO HEIGHTS UNIVERSITY CHU at a Glance

Meet the “Mother of the Colorado Trail”

January Newsletter 2016

Parent Newsletter - Mountain View Elementary

hyatt regency denver at colorado convention center 650 Fifteenth

here - Rishona Studios

Thank you 2015 Donors!

pdf