|
|
 |
 |
|
Real Leadership
vs.
The Naysayers
Many affluent people in Colorado believe that their personal freedom in terms of the "right" to drive when and where they want is significantly more important than the environmental stewardship and sustainability of the incredible Colorado high country and other valuable US public land assets.
Their selfish (greedy) mobility and so called "economic development" interest in maintaining the status quo of highway expansion as their only means of transportation freedom is jeopardizing Colorado's natural environment and the ability of future generations to enjoy it.
The transportation decisions made by the new Ritter Administration over the next 4 to 8 years will significantly impact the future of Colorado and set the pace for environmental stewardship and sustainability for many years to come.
The vast number of Americans disapprove of the war in Iraq, and yet our elected policy makers continue to support automobile and oil dependent land use and transportation initiatives that make our presence in not just Iraq, but throughout the Middle East a necessity.
Instead of designing our future to accommodate people, our political leaders are designing our future to accommodate more cars. In essence, cars have become more important than people in our planning process.
How can such political behavior from both sides of the aisle be considered leadership?
Highway expansion results in the irretrievable consumption, exploitation and destruction of our natural resources and environment. Unanticipated consequences of highway expansion such as Global Warming, worldwide terrorism incidents and escalating political conflicts fueled by shrinking oil supplies, will not only eliminate personal freedoms for future generations, but possibly jeopardize the future of the Human Race.
The current Colorado political leadership agree with the typical highway proponent’s definition of "Multimodal" which assumes highway expansion is a given and that only after highway expansion is selected as the priority improvement for any highway corridor, should anyone in their right mind even consider a transit solution, bicycling facilities or pedestrian facilities.
I-25 TREX in Colorado is the highway proponent's definition of multimodal. Add two lanes in each direction and a rail line and you have a multimodal solution. Forget that you already had a multi-lane highway and no transit, pedestrian or bicycle facilities to start with.
Multimodal means to include pedestrian, bicycle and transit facilities in a transportation corridor and not necessarily add roadway capacity. It also means that pedestrian, bicycle and transit modes are on a par with the automobile in terms of creating access and mobility for people. Instead, the highway proponent envisions transportation solutions that only accommodate cars instead of providing accesss and mobility for people.
Real multi-modal transportation solutions treat pedestrian, bicycle and transit modes as not just an equal with the automobile, but in terms of sustainability and livibility, more important than the automobile.
The transportation discussion in Colorado is in desperate need of real leadership. Instead we are relying on concensus building processes that favor the status quo of roadway expansion.
Consensus building is not necessarily leadership. In order to achieve exceptional results, leadership demands the vision and courage to challenge the status quo and seek out truly innovative solutions.
The future of Colorado and the protection of our wonderful natural resources for future generations to enjoy may trump the immediate gratification of our citizens and businesses. Colorado's political leaders need to be looking at a very big picture and a much longer planning horizon than the next few years and next quarter's profits.
Colorado organizations are already pushing very hard to "blackmail" the general public with the concept that if you don't tax yourselves significantly to pay for more highway infrastructure, then the State's economical development and your well-being/quality of life will suffer. They are looking for a rapid plan to infuse massive dollars into our State highway system without consideration of the implications to future generations.
Virtually every organization involved in the Colorado transportation financing discussion has accepted (hook, line and sinker) the Norton/CDOT 2030 Billions and Billions and Billions "Build Highways and Add Lanes Everywhere" scenario, which predicts massive transportation funding shortfalls by 2030 - to the tune of $100 Billion or more.
It is unreasonable to expect that Colorado voters will ever agree to tax themselves at the rate necessary to fund this magnitude of highway infrastructure expansion.
The truth is that a significant amount of the CDOT projected 2030 highway projects are in fact, NOT needed; if effective land use and growth policies are implemented that discourage Vehicle Miles Traveled.
Travel System and Travel Demand Management programs that make better use of our existing transportation facilities, Compact Land Use Tax Incentives, Regulations and Enforcement along with significant Transit Development can make a big difference in reducing Vehicle Miles Traveled, reducing our energy consumption, reducing our dependency on foreign oil and reducing the number of highway lanes needed by 2030.
These programs will save Colorado's taxpayers billions compared to the exponential cost of continued highway expansion and the continued congestion that auto-oriented low density development and highway expansion creates.
Do we have the political will to recognize the flaws in our current transportation and land use planning process and the vision to challenge the "business as usual" approach?
Or will our future be just more of the same old thing?
Highway Expansion - Creating Tomorrows Transportation Today
The DPEIS Highway Expansion alternatives stimulate the vicious self sustaining automobile and oil dependent cycle as noted above by the Federal Highway Administration. Colorado needs a better option to continued highway expansion and CDOT must do better!
Colorado needs Rail Transit in both the I-25 and I-70 Mountain Corridors.
New Mexico Rail Runner - Giving Congestion the bird!
Who isn't familiar with the weekend traffic on Colorado Interstate 70 as it winds through the mountains of Jefferson, Clear Creek and Summit Counties?
The popularity of Colorado's High Country has created a weekend traffic crush on I-70 as Colorado residents and visitors alike flock to the mountains almost every weekend of the year. Many have become frustrated with the accidents, construction, traffic and congestion and have turned to midweek trips to avoid the traffic or avoid the mountain corridor altogether.
The Colorado Rocky Mountains provide recreational opportunities that are nothing short of world class. Outdoor enthusiasts travel from all over the world to enjoy what the Colorado Rocky Mountains have to offer. Colorado Front Range residents and businesses also enjoy access to these same recreational amenities and the high country is a major reason that they choose to live and locate here.
Click Here to Learn about a World Class Transportation Solution for the I-70 Mountain Corridor
Colorado Department of Transportation
Highway Expansion - Creating Tomorrows Transportation Problems Today
Unfortunately the Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT) under the Owens/Norton Regime has prioritized Highway Expansion solutions for the I-70 mountain corridor in the Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement (DPEIS) released in December 2004. CDOT Officials have proudly adopted the slogan, "CDOT doesn't do transit".
I-70 highway expansion will be a net loss for Colorado as it will create more problems than it will solve.
A mountain highway is an extremely variable transportation medium and only as good as the quality and consistency of the vehicles and drivers using it.
Most I-70 motorists have seen significant multi-vehicle accidents and even roll-over incidents when there is just a dusting of snow. Even sun glare can cause significant delays and multi-vehicle accidents.
For most I-70 Mountain Corridor motorists, the most lengthy traffic delays they have or will experience are a result of highway construction, snow or rockslides, avalanche control, accidents and/or bad weather that cause substantial traffic interruption and even complete road closures.
Often the traffic ripple effect of an accident or construction activity can last for hours, well beyond the actual clearing of the vehicles or clearing of the construction equipment involved. Passing motorists may never actually see the accident or construction activity, but can experience the delays they caused for several hours.
A six lane I-70 will simply put more vehicles and drivers into the mountain corridor. A significant number of I-70 mountain corridor motorists are outdoor recreationists or casino patrons who tend to be fairly aggressive drivers. A six lane I-70 will invite more careless driving, more reckless driving in bad weather, more road rage incidents and more accidents, the impacts of which result in six lanes of congestion istead of four lanes of congestion and little or no improvement in travel times.
A six lane I-70 is just as vulnerable to bad weather, avalanche control, poor driver behavior, accidents and highway construction, as a four lane I-70 and will provide no option to these events, but to sit in traffic and wait with everyone else.
A highway expansion alternative is also the most destructive solution (environmentally, economically and socially) to Corridor Communities, Corridor Resorts and Colorado in general.
The "Preferred Alternatives" in the Draft PEIS will just bring more vehicles, more accidents, more asphalt, more traffic, more construction, more congestion, more noise, more back country sprawl, more road rage and more pollution to the beautiful Colorado High Country and will fail to provide Colorado's residents and visitors with an option to sitting in traffic.
Escalating world conflicts over our shrinking oil and gas supplies, global climate change, world peak oil production, auto-oriented sprawl, arterial congestion, drought, decreasing water supplies and increasing water and air pollution are significant and detrimental consequences of highway expansion nation wide.
Our political leaders need to learn how to just say no to roadway expansion instead of business as usual.
NEW FEASIBLE ELEVATED RAIL ALTERNATIVE
for the I-70 Mountain Corridor
Fast Light Innovative Regional Train
Overview of Swiss Stadler “FLIRT”
Electric Multiple Unit Train
(new in 2004)
Stadler FLIRT
Stadler FLIRT Elevated Rail Alternative Attributes:
- 100 mph (160 km/h) Maximum continuous speed, on continuous grades less than 5%. Train is capable for speeds up to 120 mph (200km/h)
- 65 mph (105 km/h) speed on 7% grade over 20 miles, 50 mph (80 km/h) speed on 7% grade in continuous operation (limitation due to thermal loading on electrical traction equipment with all 154 seats occupied)
- The above speed limitations due to thermal loading on electrical traction equipment have no relevance for current I-70 alignment (thermal loading is not critical)
- 9% grade capability for short distances (approx. 300 yards, due to adhesion limits for safe braking and reliable starting)
- Minimum horizontal curve radius, 150 meters (approx. 500 feet) on primary alignment, 80 meters (approx 260 feet) in rail yard
- Braking systems include: regenerative braking (returns braking energy to power network); electro-resistive braking (saves wear on pneumatic braking components); pneumatically actuated disc brakes (safe, reliable and quiet); track brake (aka. rail grabber)
- Pneumatic braking system designed fail-safe and equipped with proven, reliable and redundant components
- Power inverter configured to network supply (network can be AC or DC at any typical voltage or frequency) plus multiple power systems can also be simply accommodated
- Power supplied from catenary or third rail (or both e.g. dual voltage network)
- 154 Seats with equipment storage room and toilet (example train with 3 cars, 4 entrance platforms and 1800mm seating groups)
- Walk/roll-through end-to-end passenger compartment with platform-height floor (boarding and alighting without steps)
- Currently operating in winter conditions in the Alps on standard gauge and without a cog system (over 330 trains sold between Switzerland, Germany, Italy, Hungary, Algiers, Poland and Finland –status from June, 2007)
Roomy design for even greater passenger comfort
FLIRT is a cost-effective, use-optimised vehicle concept featuring proven, tested system modules. Its great advantage is clear:
The unit can be fully and completely adapted to the customer’s regional or urban transit needs.
On-Board Equipment Storage Room
Platform Height Floor for
Roll-on/Roll-off Equipment & Baggage Access
Toilet Facility
Passenger Compartment
Business Compartment
Elevated Rail Guideway:
- Elevated Guideway to be used in or near CDOT Right of Way in general, but flexible in appropriate locations
- An Elevated Guideway avoids the unacceptable large footprint, construction disturbance area and other related impacts on adjacent terrain, water bodies, wetlands, communities, historic properties and wildlife associated with Highway Expansion
- An Elevated Guideway can be located away from snowslide, mudslide and rockfall hazards, and can facilitate better highway snow removal
- Allows for 12 to 14 Stations at towns and resorts throughout the mountain corridor
- Construction cost of a Rail Elevated Guideway system can be less than a “Context Sensitive” six lane Highway (Glenwood Canyon style design)
-
Elevated Guideway can be prefabricated off-site and delivered to the mountain corridor when necessary for construction
-
Construction can be fairly rapid and much less disruptive to I-70 traffic than highway expansion
- The Elevated Guideway and Rail System can be constructed NOW with no Research and Development, testing or demonstration project and no need to wait for the development of future technologies
Environmental Benefits:
- Elevated Rail Transit facilitates Sustainability by Minimizing Irreversible and Irretrievable commitments for consumption of non-renewable resources, especially the burning of fossil fuels that impact global climate conditions
- Wind Farms can provide electricity for Rail Transit decreasing the need for fossil fuel consumption
- Elevated Rail Transit will have Minimal Impact on water, stream and wildlife ecology in the mountain corridor compared to Highway Expansion
- Elevated Rail Transit will have Minimal Impact on historic and cultural values throughout the mountain corridor compared to Highway Expansion
- Elevated Rail Transit will facilitate health, air quality and safety improvements throughout the mountain corridor far better than Highway Expansion
- Elevated Rail Transit will facilitate faster construction, thus greatly reducing the construction impacts relating to Highway Expansion alternatives
- Elevated Rail Transit will maintain the Aesthetic and Scenic values of corridor communities (no Sound Walls in towns and no “T-REX" caliber construction and congestion impacts in Mountains)
- Elevated Rail Transit will improve mountain air quality and visibility by reducing motor vehicle emissions
- Elevated Rail Transit will optimize the application of the Context Sensitive Solutions process by minimizing impacts on adjacent terrain, water bodies, wetlands, communities, historic properties and wildlife compared with Highway Expansion
- Elevated Rail Transit will effectively address Environmental Justice in the mountain corridor by facilitating inter-regional and local job access for low-income and non-driver travel
Where do we go from here?
-
The Colorado Department of Transportation, the Denver Regional Council of Governments, the I-70 Mountain Coalition, the Front Range jurisdictions, the Mountain Corridor jurisdictions and the Rocky Mountain Rail Authority jurisdictions must cooperate in a joint effort to determine the best transportation solution for the I-70 mountain corridor that is beneficial to all Stakeholders.
-
The Final PEIS must prioritize an effective and efficient means of moving people in the mountain corridor and provide Colorado's residents and visitors with an option to sitting in traffic.
-
The Final PEIS must prioritize innovative rail transit alternatives that focus on moving people and not just on moving vehicles.
|
|
|
|
