12 Jan 05. For the record my name is Edward G. Rapp of Dumont, CO. I am an engineer and a retired army officer, college professor and County Commissioner. I hold an appointment on the Minerals, Energy, and Geology Advisory Board to the DNR and as such my credentials and resume are a matter of public record.

This evening I have a single albeit complex question to read into the record.

Why did you, CDOT, select a small firm excluding all other competition to conduct a major PEIS that is 50 times greater in magnitude than that firm's prior experience, and to what degree were Small Business Administration rules to protect other business from improper incursion into free enterprise and interstate commerce compromised, and to what degree was the PEIS manipulated by a dominate client/consultant relationship, and
why did you reduce the planning horizon for this analysis from 50 to 20 years thus biasing the analysis toward solutions with short design lives e.g. pavements, and
why did you segment the distances of the study thus also favoring incremental rather than comprehensive solutions, and
why did you collect only limited anecdotal traffic data when you stated publicly that the information would not be adequate for use in modeling, then with duplicity used that data for the critical traffic demand analyses, and
why did you create then deliberately subvert the critical TDM model such that the outputs are not reproducible and verifiable, and
when did FHWA first know about the intellectual dishonesty in use of the model, and why have you persisted in a fallacious cost comparison of 38 miles of highway widening which do not meet the stated purpose and need for the PEIS versus 160 miles of high speed monorail e.g. CHSST or its equivalent that does meet the purpose and need, and
why has the original purpose and need statement been modified if not to accommodate a short term incremental highway widening solution, and
why have you suppressed from public view and general knowledge the feasibility data known to you about CHSST and other deployable high speed monorail systems, and
why did you fail to consider high speed monorail fundability using a public purpose corporation, its commercialization potential, its freight potential, its utilities transmission potential and other emerging funding sources, when speculative sources were used for other alternatives, and
why did you arbitrarily and capriciously set a $4 B ceiling on affordability when considering systems and modes with very different design lives, life-cycle cost factors, fundability profiles, impacts and long term benefits, and
why were cumulative construction period mobility, environmental, economic, and social impacts not a factor in the decision processes comparing other alternatives to AGS, and
why has the public not been told of the 15 year (yr 2010 to 2025) mobility constraints which also result in cumulative social and economic impacts in the Mountain Resort Region, and subsequent impacts on the Front Range, and
why have you suppressed known historical and cultural impacts from public view under the guise of a future tier II analysis thus biasing results toward highway widening, and
why have you failed to alert the public to known environmental hazards existing in the I-70 right of way e.g. mercury, arsenic, lead, cadmium and other amalgam residuals left over from ore processing at 23 historic mill sites, and
why have you not disclosed to the public that highway widening presents a 47 times greater chance of uncovering and mobilizing these amalgam materials than is presented by the construction of monorail stanchions, and
why have you failed to note the potential water quality impacts and treatment costs and business impacts on downstream communities and industries accustomed to and dependent on Rocky Mountain spring water, and
why have you failed to examine the continued availability of asphalt over the 75 year life cycle of the highway system you propose, and
why have you failed to examine the cumulative impact of this I-70 highway widening on other HUTF needs for asphalt elsewhere for county roads and state highways where a high speed monorail option is not feasible and available, and
why have you failed to make a true actuarial analysis of the costs of safety in lives among alternatives at critical choke points such as Kermits, and
why have you continued in public statements to define high speed monorail as "pie in the sky" when you have in your possession since June 2004 but have not yet released to the public a Federal Transit Administration document as extensive as the I-70 PEIS that concludes that the CHSST system being deployed in Japan is feasible and immediately deployable on this corridor, and
why has FHWA allowed the release of the draft PEIS with no travel time and congestion information years 2010 to 2025 and no impact analyses except following completion of construction nominally year 2025, knowing that no jurisdiction can make rational choices and comments about alternatives without being provided these essential items of information, and
why has CDOT not modeled comparatively the cumulative impacts to the State's economy of impaired mobility during construction of at-grade modes versus the elevated off-line impacts of AGS, and
why have you failed to be responsive to public wants or to build a consensus that meets the original stated purpose and need for this PEIS when such a consensus existed in 1999 at the end of the I-70 MIS, if not to fallaciously and arrogantly push forward a biased environmental impact statement that frustrates the intent of the National Environmental Protection Act in order to move quickly to a Record of Decision thus fulfilling a campaign promise made by this administration to the highway only interests of the State?

The consistent pattern of duplicity coupled with motive highlighted above should create reasonable doubt of integrity and cause for an Inspector General investigation from Washington D.C. I hope that the problems uncovered are not malfeasance or conspiracy to commit fraud, but an organizational culture gone array to please the boss. In any case the public needs to know the NEPA essential elements of information so that we can rationally rather than emotionally comment. To that degree the process and product have failed.

Back to top