Tonight—in fact, right now— CDOT is holding the third of two public meetings about their proposal to revamp a portion of east I-70 in North Denver. Third of two? Snow caused the cancellation of last night’s meeting, so this is the big’un. If you feel like zooming on over to Bruce Randolph Middle School at 40th & Steele, c’mon over; the meeting started at 5 and goes until 8.
For those who aren’t familiar with the I-70 plan, and the opposition to it, read on. And because this is a CDOT plan, the budget involved affects the entire state, even though the geographical footprint is North Denver.
I-70 was built in Colorado in the 60s. What the older neighbors tell me though is that originally, I-70 was not going to cut through old North Denver neighborhoods, but rather go around those neighborhoods via a further north route: something similar to the I-270/I-76 route we have now. The effect on the neighborhoods is subtle to the new and visiting eye. Certainly when I moved here as a new college student, I was years from acquiring a sense of place (I’d come from Phoenix; what is this “sense of place” of which you speak?) and a refined ability to consider a neighborhood as impacted by streets, industry, and other development.
I haven’t gotten the full history of why I-70 was instead plowed through existing neighborhoods, but I’m guessing that those neighborhoods weren’t in the best condition to defend themselves in the early 60s, for other social reasons. And who would stand against the mighty progress of our Interstate System, which was and remains a terrific infrastructure accomplishment, despite the occasional oversight and error? I dunno, I wasn’t there. But what I see now is problematic, and I’ve gained more of an appreciation for the true scope of the undertaking and that there are many who have a personal experience of the neighborhoods that see a better way.
That way runs counter to the current plan. As described by our Mayor, and as approved by a lame duck City Council mere days before the swearing in of new Council members:
The purpose of the project is to implement a transportation solution that improves safety, access, and mobility and addresses congestion on I-70. The need for this project results from the following issues:
Increased transportation demand Limited transportation capacity Safety concerns Transportation infrastructure deficienciesWell, no argument on the last two, and the second one is probably right. But there’s plenty of debate on number one: we're driving LESS, yet still pursuing new highway construction.
It would have been difficult to predict back in 2004 that Americans were about to cut back on driving.
After all, Americans had been doing just the opposite for decades. By 2004, the average American drove 10,000 miles each year, up from just 5,400 miles annually in 1970.
But from 2004 to 2014, the trend reversed. Americans drove less in each year than they had the year before. The average miles traveled over the course of the year fell nearly 1 percent each year over the 10-year period.
So… yeah, congestion is a thing, so regardless, these freeways must be expanded to solve that, and THEN given the decreasing trend in driving, everything ‘ll be fine. Or Not.
How could a 26 lane freeway outside Houston POSSIBLY FAIL to solve that congestion problem? I mean, that is WIDE. And yet, it immediately did just that, making congestion worse. The new mayor of Houston is not a fan of highway expansion as a result.
So, if driving trends are decreasing, *should* east I-70, which DOES need to be rebuilt, be rebuilt as a freeway? And even if it is, should it be trenched through an old Superfund site that has yet to experience full soil remediation, AND should that happen next to the Platte River?
I think that sounds stupid and dangerous. And increasingly expensive for the WHOLE STATE.
This is where Unite North Metro Denver comes in. They want a plan that removes a stretch of I-70 and replaces it with a neighborhood-reinvigorating boulevard where 46th Ave currently languishes beneath the freeway viaduct.
And it’s a pretty sweet plan. Here’s the long discussion:
x YouTube VideoShorter video just showing the proposal rendering is available here.
They’ve been holding their own meetings to discuss this alternative, in which the viaduct is replaced by the boulevard and the 270-76 corridor becomes the route for through travel, mostly interstate and commercial rather than local.
There will be skepticism, but remember, there’s evidence that driving trends are down and that expansion encourages congestion. The increased width of the CDOT plan for a tunneled I-70 is, according to experience, now asking for tunneled congestion, for which well over a billion dollars will be paid in order to put the Platte River closer to a huge amount of contaminated dirt.
Naw.
Now, the odds of a successful citizen revolt against CDOT are slim. But litigation seems likely, and the goal is just to force CDOT to conduct a study of an alternate proposal similar to this one. This alternative would be MUCH more affordable, in large part because there’d be no tunnel, and no potential for cost spiraling due to Superfund cleanup requirements.
However, UNMD welcomed the local CBS affiliate to their meeting last Wednesday, so we have some coverage of this issue out there.
It’s hard getting this story out to people who don’t live right next to I-70; who have heard of the impoverished, food-desert ghettos of Globeville, Elyria and Swansea. These neighborhoods were sliced through 50 years ago, and it is time to right that wrong, rather than exacerbate it. Hundreds of these nice old homes will be demolished by the CDOT plan, but saved by UNMD’s alternative.
If you live there, or if someone you know lives near there, we need you involved. I know there’s this big Presidentin’ deal happening, and I could easily be making calls for Bernie tonight, but it is to a great degree my Bernie friends who live near this freeway and who know the history of the decline of these once beautiful North Denver neighborhoods who I am helping out by being present at this meeting tonight.
The Environmental Impact Statement is out; it’s undergoing public comment currently for about a month. The comment form is here.
Let’s rethink this.