|
||||||||||
|
|
||||||
 |
 Custom Search
|
Letter from Colorado State Representative Gwyn Green Mr. William McDonnell Mr. Stephen A. Holt RE: Comments on the Northwest Corridor EIS process Dear Bill and Steve, As the State Representative for Golden and part of Fairmount, and a member of the Colorado House Transportation Committee and House Transportation Legislative Review Committee, I hereby register the following grave concerns about the manner in which the Environmental Impact Statement for the Northwest Corridor has been conducted. These concerns are: 1. The entire process has been skewed towards a preconceived course of action. The manner in which the Environmental Impact Statement study was conducted for the Northwest Corridor has led me to believe the course of action was first determined, and then the EIS was designed, to "prove" that the best alternative would be along State Highway 93 and through the historic city of Golden . I have even been so informed in private conversations with a high ranking official of the Colorado Department of Transportation, who said a top priority for the executive director of CDOT, Tom Norton, was to complete the beltway through Golden. I was told by this official that the EIS process was designed to make certain this would happen. 2. This skewed process is typified by the process itself. During the Corridor Consensus meetings for well over the first year, I listened to the participants repeatedly state that they did not want a connection between State Highway 36 and C-470. They repeatedly stated that their major concern was traffic congestion in the Northwest Corridor, but CDOT and FHWA brushed this aside, even changing the Purpose And Need Statement without a discussion nor informing the CCC until such decision was already made. The Corridor Consensus Committee is merely window dressing for this process, and the participants have no shared decision-making with CDOT and FHWA. Furthermore, CDOT's Region 6 Director Pamela Hutton wrote me that the purpose of the EIS was never to relieve traffic congestion, but for "system improvement" - or more clearly put, to complete the beltway. Her letter was in response to my request for any traffic data justifying CDOT's claim that this would improve traffic congestion. The fact of the matter is that there is no such supportive data. Yet this is what the Corridor Consensus Committee had repeatedly asked CDOT to provide. It seems that this project is about economic development and not about traffic needs. There will be properties taken because of this ill-conceived project, and I object to private properties being taken without a clear need for traffic mitigation. 3. Environmental analyses were not properly conducted to eliminate alternatives. Alternatives with greater traffic were summarily - and I do mean summarily - eliminated because, we were told later, these alternatives were in more developed areas and so would require the taking of more homes. Yet no homes need to be taken. Furthermore, it is precisely these areas which are more congested and it is these areas which will, conversely, experience even more congestion should a toll road be built. The point must here be made that: 4. The only need for a beltway is to fulfill the Governor's stated goal of completing the beltway around the Denver metro area. Traffic modeling does not support completing the beltway along the Northwest Corridor. Yet these facts were ignored in this whole contrived process. I was personally informed by an official with the Colorado Department of Transportation that "the Governor wants this beltway, Tom Norton wants this beltway, so all of us who work for him know that we must design this process to have a beltway." 5. The alternatives along State Highway 93 go along the mountain backdrop and vast areas of Open Space. Traffic is light at a projected rate of 26,000 by 2030 under the no action alternative, and economic development is not expected to significantly change in that area by 2030. Yet the issues of taking the remaining mountain backdrop from the metro area, the very serious issues of paleontological treasures along U. S. 6, which is part of the ill-conceived route by CDOT and FHWA, the issues of wildlife crossing areas along both SH-93 and US 6, the issues of Clear Creek and the storage area for Golden abutting SH93/US6, the issues of air quality for the valley which is Golden and through whose boundaries both SH 93 and US 6 run, the issue of the proposed beltway being just 80 feet from an elementary school with a day care a block away as well as two parks - one adjacent to the school and one adjacent on the west side of SH-93, were never publicly addressed or discussed during the Corridor Consensus meetings. Furthermore, as far as I am aware, there has been absolutely no consideration of the dangerousness of a high speed beltway along SH-93, which is regularly closed whenever we have high winds in this area - a common occurrence. I invite FHWA and CDOT to come see the rocks loaded into the trains which are along the tracks in Golden. The rocks are not there for show, but to keep the trains from blowing down.just as the semi truck already capsize on windy days along SH-93. In short, this entire process seems to be a cynical game played by the Colorado Department of Transportation for a pre-conceived outcome, at a great cost to the communities I represent, a serious safety hazard and a significant financial cost to the state whom I represent. I seriously object to the manner in which the Environmental Impact Statement has been conducted, from its very start. In this, I join the communities of Boulder County , and the cities of Boulder , Louisville and Superior with concerns about the manner in which this EIS has been conducted. Sincerely, State Representative Gwyn Green Cc: Speaker of the House Andrew Romanoff |
|
The following organizations endorse CINQ’s position: Colorado Environmental Coalition, Jeffco League of Women Voters, Plan Jeffco, Friends of the Foothills, former Colorado Gov. Dick Lamm, Canyon Area Residents for the Environment (CARE), Blue Mountain Land & Homeowners Association, Apple Meadows Homeowners Association, Village at Mountain Ridge Homeowners Association, Meadow Run Homeowners Association, and Harmony Village Community Association. |