Jefferson County's Beltway Fallacies
November 6, 2007

by Rob Medina
President, Citizens Involved in the Northwest Quadrant

Jefferson County Commissioner, Kevin McCasky is touting a new study funded by the county and the Jefferson Economic Council, a pro-business entity to promote the "economic benefits" of completing the beltway in northwest Jeffco. No third-party municipalities or citizen groups participated in the study. Taken at face value, consider these gaps in the study's key findings, and other relevant points.

The study, "The Economic Impacts & Fiscal Impacts of Development in the Northwest Corridor" by Development Research Partners only consider two transportation options -- build the beltway or don't. The moderate transportation approach of improving SH93 and Indiana-McIntyre is not considered in the study. Improving existing streets is about half the cost of a beltway ($1.25 billion in public money for a beltway versus $800 million for improving existing streets). This begs the question, why wouldn't improving existing streets provide the same or more economic benefit than a beltway, especially considering the disparity in construction costs?

Another glaring omission in the study is its failure to mention that a substantial potion of the beltway will be a toll road – the section through northwest Arvada. Since a toll road is not considered in the study, the economic impacts of a toll road are not considered, either. This questions the credibility of the study's conclusions since a toll road would likely have a substantial affect on economic development by limiting the amount of potential traffic. The debacle in Broomfield with the Northwest Parkway toll road, including a 99-year lease to a foreign company and non-compete agreement should also raise a red flag.

Tax payers should know that the tolled portion of the beltway will cost $600 million. Private money will only fund 40-percent with tax payers picking up the balance of $360 million. CDOT has admitted that toll revenues alone will not fund the toll road. It would seem that if a private toll road can't be funded by toll revenues, it may not be viable. We could be looking at a repeat of the Broomfield debacle.

The study also claims at a beltway will result in more commercial development, which sounds like a good deal since commercial development provides 3-times the tax revenue to the county. But, this notion is a fallacy because the county cannot dictate to any municipality or private developer what type of development may occur. If the past is any indication of the future, the exact opposite is likely. Arvada is building rows of homes in this area with very little commercial development. The bottom line – a beltway doesn't guarantee or even make more likely commercial development.

Finally, this new study claims that Jefferson County will reap $180 million in tax revenues over a 20 year period if a beltway is built - that's the apparent upside. The downside is the cost is $1.25 billion to state tax payers. Since we are both state and county tax payers, the return on investment doesn't appear to be adequate. Simply put, for every $1 the state puts in, the county gets back 14-cents in economic benefit. Not exactly a stellar return on investment.

In a recent opinion letter (Denver Post 10/9/07) by Jefferson County Commissioner, Kevin McCasky, he says:

• Denver stands alone as the only major American city encircled by only three-quarters of a beltway.

Not true. Many major American cities don't have completed beltways. However, of the cities that do have beltways, including Washington D.C. and Atlanta, traffic congestion is terrible. Beltways are not a magic bullet when it comes to increased mobility.

• The missing connection in northwest Jefferson County wastes time, money and gasoline.

According to the Northwest Corridor EIS, the average daily travel time in Denver would decrease by less than .05% if a western beltway is built. It doesn't seem like much benefit relative to the $1.6 billion cost.

• The missing link in the beltway adds noise and pollution by forcing traffic onto neighborhood streets.

Not true. People are currently driving major arterials including SH-128, SH-72, and SH-93 relatively comfortably. According to the Northwest Quadrant Feasibility Study (2000), if existing roads are widened to four lanes, and stop lights removed, traffic will flow efficiently for the next 25 years – and at half the construction cost compared to the cost of a beltway.

• The population of Denver is estimated to grow by a million people in 25 years, so we need a beltway.

Jefferson County will only account for 5% of Denver's future growth because most of the land in Jeffco is built out. According to DRCOG, 95% of Denver's growth will be to the east, north and south -- not the west. The vast majority of land in north Jeffco is undevelopable including Rocky Flats, Open Space and the Leyden dump and gas fields. This area will never be another Highlands Ranch. Since we should build new roads where there will be more people, this population growth argument doesn't hold water.

• Completing the beltway has been part of regional plans for decades, and Golden agreed to this a long time ago.

This is another myth. Golden knew that SH93 would be a major arterial, but the type of road was never specified. Documents from decades ago never say anything about a 6 or 8 lane highway or toll road.

State tax payers should also question the rationale to build a new highway toll road based on "economic benefit." Consider that CDOT's mission is to improve mobility and relieve congestion. There is absolutely no evidence that a western beltway meets this acid test. In fact, the most professionally acclaimed study on the subject, the Northwest Quadrant Feasibility Study (2000) says the exact opposite – don't build a beltway, but rather improve existing streets at half the cost. Unlike Jeffco's new economic study, the Northwest Quadrant Feasibility Study was supported and paid for by several municipalities and counties, including Jeffco. McCasky downplays the Northwest Quadrant Feasibility Study, saying, "I can produce a study and make it say anything I want." One must wonder if the new economic impact study says what the commissioner wants.

Interestingly, the goal of the current beltway EIS (initiated by Owens and Norton) has no reference to "mobility" or "easing traffic congestion". Rather, the goal of the EIS is to "connect the dots" – a corrupted EIS goal, indeed.

From a broader perspective, gasoline won't likely be getting cheaper. Oil is nearing $100 a barrel. Business-minded elected officials should recognize potential trouble. Do we really want to sink our hard-earned tax money into a new superhighway toll road that is highly controversial when future driving habits are likely to change?

The real motivation to build a western beltway is greed. Developers hope to get rich by developing their land around Jeffco airport, and Arvada wants to build more homes. Elected officials support these special interests, who in turn support the politician's re-election.

Jeffco residents realize SH93 and Indiana-McIntyre are roads that need improvements. But elected officials are wasting time and money pursuing a "beltway pipe dream." Moreover, the state has no money to build a controversial western beltway, and many DRCOG officials scoff at the notion.

This new study, The Economic Impacts & Fiscal Impacts of Development in the Northwest Corridor concerns me because of the motivations and the people behind it. Studies with integrity typically involve stakeholders, and point out both upsides and downsides. This study is all blue sky. Before the citizens of Jefferson County take this study as gospel, it may be wise to consider all aspects. Improving existing streets is far less costly and may provide the same or better economic benefit, and most of all, better mobility.

<-- List of Articles

Home | Press | Action | Free 93 | About CINQ | History