Don’t Widen I-70
‘50 Years of Negative Impacts Should Be Long Enough’
To the Editor:
I was extremely disappointed in Denver Planning Director Brad Buchanan’s response on Page 1 of the October Greater Park Hill News to the issue of replacing the aging viaduct on Interstate 70 and the Supplemental Draft Environmental Impact Statement (SDEIS) published by the Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT) for the I-70 corridor from Brighton Boulevard to Tower Road. (I-70 Point-Counterpoint with Brad Buchanan and Auditor Dennis Gallagher.)
Buchanan spends an inordinate amount of discussion on the relocation alternatives and what it would take to deal with them when they are already off the table – eliminated from consideration in the SDEIS. Maybe he should have had someone on his staff read the report first and brief him on the details.
As the header in the article stated “… In short, the devil is in the details.” This is what Denver Auditor Dennis Gallagher has tried to communicate to anyone who will listen. CDOT’s preferred alternative is 292 feet wide – or nearly three and a half times the width of the existing 86-foot viaduct. The four additional lanes being added for increased capacity are toll lanes. There is no additional capacity for the average resident/traveler who uses I-70.
As traffic grows, your choice is either pay the toll – which CDOT says could be as high as $20 for a car and $60 for a truck during peak periods – or sit in the congested general traffic lanes for longer periods. When you look closely at the published cross section, CDOT has added extra width so the roadway can be expanded to twelve lanes in the future.
I have to concur with depressing the roadway with a cover, since my staff and I from the City’s Transportation Engineering Division first suggested this back in the 1990’s when we were working on extending the reconstruction of the Mouse Trap. This is the one feature of the plan that truly improves conditions for the Swansea/Elyria neighborhood and is agreed upon by both Mr. Buchanan and Mr. Gallagher.
These neighborhoods were devastated in the 1960’s when I-70 was constructed. This plan removes another 49 homes and 20 businesses. I have to disagree with Mr. Buchanan when he calls this “a catalyst for true change.” Fifty years of negative impacts should be long enough. It is time to do something positive to improve living conditions while still recognizing our responsibilities for the region and future growth.
We should be building the smallest cross section possible to accommodate future growth. On I-25 through the T-REX Project we only built eight lanes through Denver with an adjoining light rail line. I-70 has a parallel commuter rail corridor similar to I-25 and volumes on I-70 will always be lower than I-25. T-REX was touted as a true success story for CDOT, so why not duplicate that success on I-70?
The reduced cross section proposed by Auditor Gallagher and the elimination of the second frontage road on the north side would go a long way towards minimizing the impact on these long besieged neighborhoods. It will also save several hundred million dollars, which can be better used elsewhere in our underfunded infrastructure system.
Dennis Royer, Park Hill
The author is the former Chief of Public Works and Transportation/Commissioner of Public Works in Boston. Prior to that he was the City Traffic Engineer for Denver Public Works for 15 years and then Deputy Manager for 7 years. He has lived in Park Hill for 28 years (other than his brief move to the East Coast) and has worked with the Colorado Department of Transportation and Regional Transportation District on every major environmental study and construction project for 30 years.