Trench vs reroute of i 70
•Download as PPTX, PDF•
1 like•472 views
Analysis of Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT) cost estimate of the rerouting of I-70 to I-270 and I-76 which has been misleading and politically motivated.
Recommended
More Related Content
Similar to Trench vs reroute of i 70
Similar to Trench vs reroute of i 70 (20)
Recently uploaded
Recently uploaded (20)
Trench vs reroute of i 70
- 1. An Overview of the I-70 Viaduct Debate Trench Warfare
- 2. Condition of the Viaduct • Built in 1964 and now deemed “functionally obsolete” • Replacement studies were started in 2003 • Coming: The Supplemental Draft Environmental Impact Statement (SDEIS), preliminary identification of the Preferred Alternative, and public hearings
- 3. Trench vs. I-270/I-76 Reroute Alternative
- 4. Partially Covered Lowered Alternative • 1½ mile long, 30-foot deep “trench,” from Brighton Blvd to Colorado Blvd • 350 feet wide (10 through lanes) • Four local lanes built at the surface • 800-foot long “cover” placed near the Swansea Elementary School • Cost estimating history: • $917 million in May 2012 • $1.785 billion in April 2013 • $2.2 billion in June 2013 • ? billion today Source: Colorado DOT
- 6. CDOT’s I-270/I-76 Reroute Version Source: CDOT I-270/I-76 Reroute/Bypass Alternative Draft Cost Estimate, July 9, 2012. 12.8 miles long 12 through lanes 16 built lanes $4.35 Billion
- 7. Reconnecting the Neighborhoods With the I-270/I-76 Reroute Alternative I-25 Colo. Blvd. York St. New 46th Ave Elyria Swansea
- 8. Artist Rendering of East 46th Ave With the I-270/I-76 Reroute Alternative Source: City Planning Department, 10-29-2008
- 9. Community Questions Persist • Is CDOT’s draft cost estimate of $4.35 billion for the Reroute alternative credible? • Why is CDOT double-counting their already planned widening of I-270? • Should the disadvantaged Globeville-Swansea- Elyria residents be wary of another big hit? – Will the planned trench actually separate the communities more? – Will reduced access place more trucks on the surface frontage roads? – What about snow and ice removal, debris removal, flooding?
- 10. I-270/I-76 Reroute Cost Estimate Issues Amount Cost 1.Route length 12.8 miles 2.Existing through lanes 4 3.Existing shoulder lanes 4 4.New through lanes 8 If only 50% of the traffic on I-70 is “through,” why does more than the entire number of existing I-70 (i.e. 6) lanes need to move to the I-270/I76 Reroute option? 5.New shoulder lanes 4 6.Total new lanes added 16 7.Total new lane-miles added 204.8 8.Roadway cost per lane-mile $8.8 M Should be around $2M per lane mile, based on other recent CDOT Interstate widening projects, such as I-225, I-25 Colorado Springs to Monument, and I-25 North Forty. Subtotal roadway cost Item 7 x Item 8 $1,800,000,000 This line item alone is more than twice the cost of the entire T-REX highway project. Additional structure cost $800 M $800,000,000 New interchanges $20M each x 4 $80,000,000 Total construction cost $2,700,000,000 Other costs: 30% contingency $680,000,000 This is a math error. 15% design and 20% CO $800,000,000 This is a math error. I-70 removal $47,000,000 Right-of-way $8.2M per mile $100,000,000 Total Project Cost Estimate $4,350,000,000 Key Issues Regarding CDOT’s Reroute Cost Estimate Source: CDOT I-270/I-76 Reroute/Bypass Alternative Draft Cost Estimate, July 9, 2012.
- 11. Reroute Cost Estimates From CDOT’s 2012 Report I-270/I-76 Reroute Cost Estimate I-76 Segment Prorated I-270 Segment Prorated CDOT Planned I-270 Widening Amount Cost Amount Cost Amount Cost Amount Cost 1.Route length 12.8 miles 7 miles 5.8 miles 5.8 miles 2.Existing through lanes 4 4 4 4 3.Existing shoulder lanes 4 4 4 4 4.New through lanes 8 8 8 2 5.New shoulder lanes 4 4 4 4 6.Total new lanes added 16 16 16 10 7.Total new lane-miles added 204.8 112 92.8 58 8.Roadway cost per lane-mile $8.8 M $8.8 M $8.8 M $8.8 M Subtotal roadway cost Item 7 x Item 8 $1,800,000,000 Item 7 x Item 8 $980,000,000 Item 7 x Item 8 $820,000,000 Item 7 x Item 8 $510,000,000 Additional structure cost $800 M $800,000,000 Prorated $440,000,000 Prorated $360,000,000 Prorated $90,000,000 New interchanges $20M each x 4 $80,000,000 $0 $20M each x 4 $80,000,000 $0 Total construction cost $2,700,000,000 $1,420,000,000 $1,220,000,000 $600,000,000 Other costs: 30% contingency $680,000,000 Prorated $370,000,000 Prorated $310,000,000 Prorated $180,000,000 15% design and 20% CO $800,000,000 Prorated $440,000,000 Prorated $360,000,000 Prorated $120,000,000 I-70 removal $47,000,000 Prorated $26,000,000 Prorated $21,000,000 $0 Right-of-way $8.2M per mile $100,000,000 $8.2M per mile $55,000,000 $8.2M per mile $45,000,000 $8.2M per mile $45,000,000 Total Project Cost Estimate $4,350,000,000 $2,350,000,000 $2,000,000,000 $950,000,000 Source: CDOT I-270/I-76 Reroute/Bypass Alternative Draft Cost Estimate, July 9, 2012. Prorations (last three columns) were calculated by an independent expert.
- 12. A “Reasonableness” Check on CDOT’s Reroute Cost Estimate I-25 from Logan St to I-225: 12 lanes x 6.5 miles = I-25 from I-225 to C-470: 14 lanes x 6.5 miles = I-225 from I-25 to Parker Rd: 10 lanes x 4.0 miles = 78 lane-miles +91 lane-miles +40 lane-miles Total Lane-miles Constructed = 209 lane-miles 204.8 lane-miles Total Highway Cost $795 million $4.35 billion Total Highway Cost per Lane Mile $3.80 million/lm $21.2 million/lm Source: Southeast Corridor Constructors and CDOT. T-REX 17 miles long I-270/I76 Reroute Cost Estimate 12.8 miles long x 16 lanes =
- 13. Repair of CDOT’s Reroute Cost Estimate Trench Cost Widen I-270 Widen I-76 To 12 Lanes (16 built lanes) Net Cost Assigned to Alternative 6 Thru Lanes Per CDOT Plan (10 built lanes) Added Cost For 6 More Thru Lanes (16 built lanes) Trench Alternative $2.2 Billion $2.2 Billion CDOT I-270 Project Reroute Alternative From CDOT’s 2012 Draft Estimate ($21.2M/LM) $950 Million $1.1 Billion $2.35 Billion $4.35 Billion Source: Colorado DOT
- 14. Repair of CDOT’s Reroute Cost Estimate Trench Cost Widen I-270 Widen I-76 To 12 Lanes (16 built lanes) Net Cost Assigned to Alternative 6 Thru Lanes Per CDOT Plan (10 built lanes) Added Cost For 6 More Thru Lanes (16 built lanes) Trench Alternative $2.2 Billion $2.2 Billion CDOT I-270 Project $950 Million $950 Million Reroute Alternative From CDOT’s 2012 Draft Estimate ($21.2M/LM) $1.1 Billion $2.35 Billion $3.45 Billion Repair #1
- 15. Repair of CDOT’s Reroute Cost Estimate Trench Cost Widen I-270 Widen I-76 To 12 Lanes (16 built lanes) Net Cost Assigned to Alternative 6 Thru Lanes Per CDOT Plan (10 built lanes) Added Cost For 6 More Thru Lanes (16 built lanes) Trench Alternative $2.2 Billion $2.2 Billion CDOT I-270 Project $950 Million $950 Million Reroute Alternative From CDOT’s 2012 Draft Estimate ($21.2M/LM) $1.1 Billion $2.35 Billion $3.45 Billion Using T-REX’s Actual Costs ($3.8M/LM) $350 Million $425 Million $775 Million Repair #2
- 16. Repair of CDOT’s Reroute Cost Estimate Trench Cost Widen I-270 Widen I-76 To 12 Lanes (16 built lanes) Net Cost Assigned to Alternative 6 Thru Lanes Per CDOT Plan (10 built lanes) Added Cost For 6 More Thru Lanes (16 built lanes) Trench Alternative $2.2 Billion $2.2 Billion CDOT I-270 Project $170 Million $170 Million Reroute Alternative From CDOT’s 2012 Draft Estimate ($21.2M/LM) $1.1 Billion $2.35 Billion $3.45 Billion Using T-REX’s Actual Costs ($3.8M/LM) $350 Million $425 Million $775 Million Repair #3
- 17. Parsons proposes $3.5B project for I-70 - The plan calls for reconstruction all of the existing general- purpose lanes on I-70. - The plan also would add a two or three lane reversible toll way or bus way 53 miles long from C-470 and Silverthorne. - Parsons says it will also add bores at the Eisenhower-Johnson Memorial Tunnel and at the Twin Tunnels at Idaho Springs. Source: Denver Post, July 29, 2013 and Summit Daily, July 29, 2013.
- 18. Recap of Three Projects Project Cost T-REX Rebuild 17 miles with 209 new lane-miles $795 million Parsons Corp. I-70 Mountain Proposal Rebuild 53 miles, approx 550 lane miles plus new tunnels $3.5 billion CDOT Reroute Cost Estimate Rebuild 12.8 miles with 204.8 new lane-miles $4.35 billion ?
- 19. Safety, Health and Welfare Impacts • Social justice • Health concerns – Air pollution – Noise pollution • Property values and economic opportunities • Social cohesion Sources: American Institute of Architects of Denver, Letter to CDOT, Sept. 12, 2013. United Community Action Network of Metro Denver Statement, May 18, 2013.
- 20. Bottom Line • The Reroute Alternative will cost much less than CDOT’s Preferred Trench Alternative. • The Reroute Alternative will have significantly fewer environmental impacts. • Taxpayers must pressure CDOT to include the Reroute Alternative in the EIS process, providing a more credible analysis.
- 21. Key resources used in this presentation • Websites – www.i-70east.com – www.unitenorthmetrodenver.com – www.parsons.com/projects/pages/t-rex.aspx • Reports – I-70 East Draft Environmental Impact Statement, November 2008 – CDOT I-270/I-76 Reroute/Bypass Alternative Draft Cost Estimate, July 9, 2012 • Letters – American Institute of Architects Denver to CDOT – 09/12/2013 – United Community Action Network Statement – 05/18/2013
- 22. Questions?
Editor's Notes
- Good morning, everyone and thank you for allowing me to be here today. My name is Cynthia Thorstad and I’m a member of the Legislative Action Committee for the Colorado League of Women Voters covering transportation issues. Originally I was a member of the City Government Committee of the Denver League of Women Voters when we started studying the issues surrounding the I-70 viaduct debate. I’m here to share information on the debate regarding the I-70 Viaduct Replacement between Brighton Blvd and Colorado Blvd. It is a large complex engineering and political undertaking, so I will focus on the cost elements of the on-going debate between the supporters of the so-called Trench Option and the supporters of the so-called Reroute Option. A David and Goliath battle of epic proportions, as you will see.
- All of us at one time or another have driven under the viaduct and witnessed the dismal conditions. (Read the bullets)
- On the other hand, very little information on the Reroute Alternative has been developed by CDOT. CDOT states a reroute option was originally eliminated early in process – although the Reroute Supporters claim it was NOT the current reroute being proposed. They state the community rejected CDOTS version because it ripped through the recreation center of the local community. They contend that this specific reroute now being discussed in the community, has never really been fully studied. CDOT has quickly drafted reasons why this reroute won’t be considered. The community lead reroute option is 12.8 miles long, ONLY 1.8 miles longer than the I-70 link. It wouldn’t demolish any homes or current businesses, unlike the new I-70 trench proposal which will demolish 57 homes and 15 businesses that you see in red– including all current businesses which distribute food in the Swansea and Elyria area.
- - This slide has a picture directly taken from CDOT’s website – which is deceptive. The cover is only 2 and ½ blocks of the 1.5 mile long trench. This cover is only 10% of the construction. It does however potentially illustrate the 4 toll lanes (2 in each direction) which will require a 75 year contract with private partner/s. Keep in mind that this cover can’t be any larger because ventilation would be required beyond 800 feet long. This alternative is now being advanced by CDOT as their “preferred alternative” for the Draft Environmental Impact Statement or EIS. If the CDOT Commission eventually approves this alternative, funding will be secured and construction will begin soon. (Read the bullets) By the way, the reason for the ? mark is due some additional enhancements being considered. Drainage hasn’t even been addressed which will be significant as it’s below the water table, and the sun will not hit the roads between December and March, further complicating maintenance. Note: There will be many numbers in this presentation, so please make notes if you get lost and save your questions until the end. I might luck out and even answer them before I finish.
- Here are some additional CDOT renderings of CDOT-preferred Trench Alternative. Please note that these renderings are also misleading as a sound barrier from 8-12 feet is not illustrated next to the sidewalks. In addition to the 10 through lanes (5 each way) plus the 4 shoulders in the trench, there are also 4 more through lanes on the surface (2 each way). Documentation of this alternative is being provided in the on-going “Supplemental” Draft EIS effort.
- CDOT suggests this reroute should have 12 driving lanes, 6 lanes each way. With 4 shoulders, they insist that 16 lanes would need to be built. Community leaders with guidance from many civil engineers contend that this is more than is necessary. After much pressure from the community, a draft cost estimate of $4.35 billion (please remember that number) was documented by CDOT in 2012 (4 years after they killed a reroute option), in a page-and-a-half article which I have copies of with me for anyone interested . One final note here: the $4.35 billion price tag has been recently rephrased by some at CDOT as: “$3.5 to 4.5 Billion.” No documentation for this change has been provided.
- Reroute community leaders have presented what the reconnected communities of Elyria and Swansea would look like with removing the I-70 viaduct and rerouting interstate traffic.
- This is an artist’s rendering of what East 46th Avenue could look like after the viaduct is removed provided by the city of Denver back in 2008 when a reroute option was being discussed. This could be the gateway to the city which would continue with the Brighton Blvd improvement planned by our Mayor. A typical six lane street with landscaping would be a great improvement to these blighted areas of Globeville, Swansea and Elyria.
- Okay, lets get to a few pivotal questions the community has raised regarding CDOT’s brush off of the Reroute Alternative. (Read the bullets) They will be removing Steel and York exits due to the trench. AND the access to Colorado Blvd will be extended due to the trench. Therefore more trucks will run on the frontage roads to gain access to the highway.
- In reviewing CDOT’s hastily prepared reroute cost estimate, it’s apparent that it’s loaded with mistakes, even mathematical errors!
- However, taking their calculations we can prorate their costs for the I-76 and the I-270 segments. Notice that by using CDOT’s same methodology and prorating the costs between the I-76 and the I-270 segments, we are able to generate a hidden cost for widening I-270, both for a full widening ($2.0 billion) and a smaller widening of just one more lane in each direction ($950 million). It turns out that CDOT is already planning to build that smaller I-270 widening project. Hence, this initially widening cost should not be “charged” to the Reroute Alternative costs. CDOT is planning to build this anyway, regardless of the Reroute proposal. Otherwise, CDOT is “double counting” of the cost of this planned project.
- First, lets take a look at the $4.35 billion cost estimate for the Reroute Alternative and compare it to T-REX, constructed by CDOT in 2006 just a few miles away. I-25 was widened to 8 lanes in the north section, 10 lanes in the south section, and I-225 was widened to 6 lanes. Adding 4 shoulders to each widening, approximately 209 “lane-miles” of Interstate highway was constructed for $795 million. A “lane mile” is one mile of one lane. According to CDOT, the Reroute Alternative would require about the same number of lane-miles (204.8) at a cost of $4.35 billion, or 5½ times T-REX. Even if you consider the small differences in right-of-way costs or “soft” costs such as planning and management, one would actually expect the very complicated and constrained T-REX project to cost much more than the Reroute project. The $4.35 billion estimate for the Reroute option just fails a basic reasonableness test. (OPTIONAL NOTE) Description of the T-REX project from website: “Highway design involved improvements to 17 miles of I-25 and I-225, and included reconstruction of the University/I-25 and I-25/I-225 interchanges, upgrades at eight other interchanges, 60 bridges, and drainage enhancements. Additional highway capacity was achieved by adding one through-lane in each direction along the northerly portion of I-25 and on I-225, and by adding two through lanes in each direction along the southerly portion of I-25. For this project, more than 350 retaining walls were designed and built, a total of more than 2.2 million square feet of retaining walls. Additionally, three-quarters of a million square feet of sound walls were designed and constructed, many with wall art.”
- This table summarizes what we’ve review thus far, that the Trench option is estimated to be at least $2.2 Billion and CDOT’s draft estimate of the reroute is $4.35 Billion. But we’ve separated the planned I-270 improvement and,
- Now we’ve moved that planned expense into it’s own project and taken it out of the reroute costs because we don’t want to count the costs twice in two different projects. That would be double counting!
- Using the costs from T-REX of $3.8 Million per Lane Mile to redo the cost estimate of the reroute, we see a much more reasonable estimate, one that is in fact less costly than the trench!
- In fact, if we use the T-REX $3.8 Million per Lane Mile pricing structure to look at what the I-270 planned widening should be, it is more like $170 Million.
- This additional project spanning Denver to Silverthorne was reported in the Denver Post on July 29, 2013. The details of this proposal from Parsons are confidential, so only the basic facts have been disclosed to the public. Total lane-miles built = 53 miles x (2.5 new lanes on average + 4 existing lane replacements + 4 new shoulders) = approx 550 lane-miles. Total cost per lane-mile = $3.5 billion ÷ 550 = $6.4 million per lane-mile, including new tunnels! Again, compare this to CDOT’s estimate for the Reroute option of $21.2 million per lane-mile
- When you review all three projects, the completed T-REX, and the I-70 Parson’s Mountain Proposal, with the CDOT Reroute cost estimate – it doesn’t pass the “reasonable” test.
- Remember that I’ve focused this review on costs issues, however before I summarize I’d like to point out there are other critical issues in this debate. I’ve passed out two letters – one from Denver chapter of the American Institute of Architects dated 9/12/2013, and the other from the United Community Action Network dated 5/18/2013. They both identify areas that are not being properly addressed by the city, state, and CDOT officials. As just one example, California doesn’t permit a school within 500 feet of an interstate, yet Swansea Elementary will be within 50 feet of the Trench! Although CDOT is addressing some school issues by putting in all new windows, doors and ventilation system they neglect the fact that the playground AND the trench cover will both expose children to significant air and noise pollution. The communities will be further separated, and over 55 homes and 15 businesses will be demolished! These two letters are just a sampling of the community outrage.
- As I’ve illustrated, the Reroute alternative should costs approximately $775 MILLION instead of the $3.5 to 4.35 BILLION suggested by CDOT. That’s less than the climbing $2.2 Billion recently projected by CDOT for the Trench. Doesn’t it make sense that a trench would cost more to build and maintain than simply expanding I-270 and I-76? According to the University of Colorado Denver study on an improved 46th Ave development – there would be a $1.5 BILLION direct and indirect benefit to the communities of Elyria, Swansea and Globeville by rerouting I-70. I haven’t had an opportunity to review that study, but it is evident that the reroute would have fewer environmental impacts. By including the reroute alternative into the official EIS process, independent companies would accurately access the potential, true costs of this project, providing a more credible analysis.