CEC is continuing to work with local organizations and citizens in the northwest Denver metro area to prevent the construction of an unneeded superhighway between Broomfield and Golden (the "beltway"). Proponents of the superhighway, including Jefferson County, the City of Arvada, and the City of Broomfield, claim that it is needed to address traffic congestion in the area. However, no study or data in the last 20 years has backed up this claim. In fact, the studies indicate that an alternative that would widen existing roads to complete the "beltway" around Denver would better address traffic concerns.
CEC has two main concerns about the beltway: its impacts on development in open space between Golden and Boulder and its costs. For more information on the beltway project and some of its other problems, see CINQ's website.
CEC has worked to stop the beltway proposal through the approval process through the Denver Regional Council of Governments (DRCOG). A key vote on whether to include the beltway proposal on the list of approved transportation projects for the metro Denver area took place on January 20, 2010. Unfortunately, members of the DRCOG Board voted 35 - 17 in favor of the inclusion of the beltway proposal. This decision will allow proponents of the proposal to move forward in attracting private investors for the road and to get closer to making the superhighway a reality.
The good news is the DRCOG vote was not our last chance to stop this proposal. As proponents continue to work toward the construction of this unecessary toll road, there will be additional opportunities for CEC to take action. CEC will continue to work toward finding better, more sustainable transporation solutions for the Northwest Quadrant than this flawed proposal.
Sprawl
It appears that the real motivation behind the proposal is economic development. Because the beltway would be built through land in Jefferson County that is currently undeveloped, it would pave the way for commercial and residential development in the area. Just as we have seen with the construction of E-470, sprawling development follows superhighways. The type of development that would follow the beltway would be the worst kind of sprawl.
The growth pattern that has been most prevalent in the U.S. since the invention of the automobile is sprawling, low-density development, where people live further and further from where they work, worship, shop, and go to school. As development has sprawled ever further from city and town centers, this has meant Americans have had to drive more and more to meet their daily needs. In fact, since 1980 the number of miles we travel in our vehicles has increased at three times the rate of population growth. Colorado is no exception; we are number three in the nation in terms of vehicle miles traveled.
This ever-increasing driving has had some very negative impacts. Most Colorado drivers will confirm that we have terrible congestion, and it is predicted to get even worse. Projections by the Denver Regional Council of Governments predict that the amount of time we each spend stuck in traffic will increase by 360% by 2035. Colorado is also facing a global warming and air pollution crisis. Neither of these can be addressed without looking at the contributions made by vehicles. In fact, the Governor's Climate Action Plan states that 23% of Colorado's global warming pollution comes from the transportation sector. The Plan also recognizes that this cannot be addressed by decreasing the carbon content of fuel and making more fuel-efficient cars alone; we also need to reduce the amount of driving we do. We cannot hope to do this by building more developments on the urban fringe, far from places people need to get to.
Another problem with sprawling growth patterns is that they cost taxpayers more money. Sprawl is cheaper for developers than careful planning because it allows them to pass much of the cost on to taxpayers. While developers and residents of new developments may pay the costs of certain infrastructure, such as roads and water taps within the new development, taxpayers pay the bigger costs. These costs include the expansion of regional infrastructure to serve the new development, such as schools, expanded regional roads and highways, police and fire service, gas lines, and expanded water and sewer facilities. These costs are necessitated because sprawl is not built near existing infrastructure.
There is already one huge development proposal that has been approved by the Arvada City Council in the area the beltway would serve, and it typifies the type of dumb growth that concerns CEC. The Candelas development would be near the intersection of Highways 93 and 72, right next to the Rocky Flats National Wildlife Refuge. It would span nearly 1,500 acres and include at least 3,700 residential units, 500 acres of office space and 110 acres of commercial and retail space. Some of its buildings would be up to 18 stories high, blocking the view of Denver's Mountain Backdrop enjoyed by metro area residents everywhere. Essentially the Candelas proposal is for another Denver Tech Center, but on open space in Jefferson County near the foothills and a nationally-important wildlife refuge. For more information this development, please see the developer's website.
The approval of the beltway is very important to the Candelas development, as well as any other developments that may follow in that area, because it would provide a big, high-speed superhighway for the 39,000 plus residents who would live there, plus the tens of thousands of others who would work and shop there. Having the beltway right next to the development would increase the value of the property, and allow more commercial development on the site, which is more profitable for the jurisdictions involved. While this land may be developed eventually whether the beltway is built or not, the construction of the beltway would enable larger and more intensive development on the site.
Cost
Over the lifetime of the beltway fight, a number of financing options have been considered. The Colorado Department of Transportation has spent nearly $16 million dollars on an Environmental Impact Study (EIS) designed to plan the construction of the beltway. However, CDOT withdrew its support for the EIS process, which put the possibility of more funding from CDOT in serious jeopardy. For more information on this process, see CDOT's website.
As a result, the proponents of the beltway- Jefferson County, the City of Arvada and the City and County of Broomfield- have formed a public highway authority to plan and fund the beltway. Each local government has contributed $100,000 in taxpayer funds to the authority. Given that the beltway would not improve traffic congestion as its proponents claim, this would be a questionable use of taxpayer money.
In addition, the financing option that looks most likely is making the beltway a toll road. Under this scenario, a private company would finance the construction of the beltway in return for the right to collect tolls from users of the road in the future. While this may sound like a reasonable option, a major problem with arrangements of this nature is that the developer invariably requires a non-compete clause in the contract. This is because when private companies fund toll roads, part of their reward is a non-compete agreement, which prohibits local communities from fixing or expanding any local roads or building mass transit options that are seen as competing with the toll road. This means the local government, Arvada in this case, would commit to making its own roads so congested that its residents would have no choice but to drive on the toll road and pay a steep toll. This has happened in the two other segments of Denver’s beltway that have been financed by private companies: E-470 and the Northwest Parkway through Broomfield. This may be good for the private company, but it is not good for taxpayers, especially for a road like the beltway, which isn't needed and will serve no purpose other than to enable mega-development in land that is currently open space.
Another really big problem with the current proposal is that, even if the project is financed by a private company, the result will be a stranded highway segment that won’t actually connect to the rest of the beltway around the metro area on either its north or south ends (essentially a “Road to Nowhere”). The only way the beltway will actually be completed is if taxpayers pay to connect it! Beltway proponents assume in their proposal that $800 million to $1 billion in public money will be spent by the Colorado Department of Transportation or local governments to connect their road to nowhere to Highway 93 on the north end and C-470 on the south end.
Neither the State of Colorado nor local governments have this money to spend! If the beltway is built, connecting the beltway will have to compete with other projects from other jurisdictions for funding. Therefore, supporting the beltway will starve other projects in the region or around the state.
