National Academies Press: OpenBook

Navigating Multi-Agency NEPA Processes to Advance Multimodal Transportation Projects (2016)

Chapter: Appendix G - Case Study I-70 East Corridor Project, Denver and Aurora Counties, Colorado

« Previous: Appendix F - Case Study TRansportation EXpansion (T-REX) Project, Denver, Colorado
Page 75
Suggested Citation:"Appendix G - Case Study I-70 East Corridor Project, Denver and Aurora Counties, Colorado." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2016. Navigating Multi-Agency NEPA Processes to Advance Multimodal Transportation Projects. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/23581.
×
Page 75
Page 76
Suggested Citation:"Appendix G - Case Study I-70 East Corridor Project, Denver and Aurora Counties, Colorado." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2016. Navigating Multi-Agency NEPA Processes to Advance Multimodal Transportation Projects. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/23581.
×
Page 76
Page 77
Suggested Citation:"Appendix G - Case Study I-70 East Corridor Project, Denver and Aurora Counties, Colorado." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2016. Navigating Multi-Agency NEPA Processes to Advance Multimodal Transportation Projects. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/23581.
×
Page 77
Page 78
Suggested Citation:"Appendix G - Case Study I-70 East Corridor Project, Denver and Aurora Counties, Colorado." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2016. Navigating Multi-Agency NEPA Processes to Advance Multimodal Transportation Projects. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/23581.
×
Page 78
Page 79
Suggested Citation:"Appendix G - Case Study I-70 East Corridor Project, Denver and Aurora Counties, Colorado." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2016. Navigating Multi-Agency NEPA Processes to Advance Multimodal Transportation Projects. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/23581.
×
Page 79
Page 80
Suggested Citation:"Appendix G - Case Study I-70 East Corridor Project, Denver and Aurora Counties, Colorado." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2016. Navigating Multi-Agency NEPA Processes to Advance Multimodal Transportation Projects. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/23581.
×
Page 80
Page 81
Suggested Citation:"Appendix G - Case Study I-70 East Corridor Project, Denver and Aurora Counties, Colorado." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2016. Navigating Multi-Agency NEPA Processes to Advance Multimodal Transportation Projects. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/23581.
×
Page 81

Below is the uncorrected machine-read text of this chapter, intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text of each book. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

G-1 A P P E N D I X G Summary Project Description The I-70 East Corridor Project comprises a set of transit and highway improvements along the I-70 corridor east of Denver. The transit element was a 22.8-mile commuter rail transit line between Denver Union Station and Denver Inter- national Airport. The highway element is a proposed widen- ing and possible realignment of the existing I-70 between I-25 on the west and Tower Road on the east. Key U.S. DOT Agencies • Federal Transit Administration (FTA)—Lead for transit elements, cooperating for highway elements • Federal Highway Administration (FHWA)—Lead for highway elements, cooperating for transit elements • Federal Aviation Administration (FAA)—Cooperating • Federal Railroad Administration (FRA)—Cooperating • U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE)—Cooperating Key State and Local Agencies • Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT) • Regional Transportation District (RTD) • City and County of Denver • City of Aurora • Adams County Challenges Faced The I-70 East Corridor Project team faced three of the five common challenges related to multi-agency National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) activities (see Table G-1). Strategies, Tactics, and Lessons Learned • Adapt environmental guidance already developed for a nearby project to help address issues related to differing NEPA requirements. • Establish an Intergovernmental Coordination and Com- pliance Committee to provide technical guidance and support. • Establish several Technical/Issues Working Groups to pro- vide focused input in distinct areas, including reconciling differences between FHWA- and FTA-specific requirements. • Define study methodology and clearly identify roles and responsibilities early in the process. • Recognize that the best course of action may be to split a merged multimodal NEPA process into separate coordi- nated processes, even if NEPA activities have already begun. • Conduct a pre-scoping study to identify and vet potential issues associated with conducting a single NEPA process for multimodal NEPA projects. Case Study Detail Introduction The I-70 East Corridor Project was conceived as a single project combining highway and transit elements designed to improve safety, access, and mobility, while addressing conges- tion on the I-70 corridor. The project consisted of highway improvements along I-70 between I-25 and Peña Boulevard (the corridor was later extended east to Tower Road) and potential rapid transit options from Downtown Denver to Denver International Airport (DIA). The study area is depicted in Figure G-1. In July 2003, the NEPA action for the project was initiated as a single, joint EIS, but by June 2006, the highway and transit elements of the I-70 East Corridor were separated into two independent projects with distinct NEPA processes. Case Study—I-70 East Corridor Project, Denver and Aurora Counties, Colorado

G-2 The I-70 East EIS focused on highway improvements and was sponsored by CDOT. The East Corridor EIS focused on tran- sit improvements and was sponsored by RTD. The East Rail Line, a 22.8-mile electric commuter rail line between Denver Union Station (DUS) and DIA, emerged as the preferred alternative for the transit element. The project is shown Figure G-2. FTA issued a Record of Decision (ROD) for the project in November 2009. Construction began in August 2010 as part of the larger Eagle P3 Project, a public- private partnership constructing a total of 36 miles of new commuter rail and a commuter rail maintenance facility, with the line scheduled to open in 2016. The preliminary preferred alternative for the highway ele- ment was identified in May 2012. The alternative adds lanes in each direction between I-25 and Tower Road, removes an existing viaduct between Brighton Boulevard and Colorado Boulevard, rebuilds I-70 along this segment below grade on the existing alignment, and places a cover on the highway between Columbine Street and Clayton Street next to Swansea Elementary School. The preferred alternative, shown in Fig- ure G-3, was identified in supplemental environmental work subsequent to the issuance of the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) for the highway element. The Supplemental DEIS was released for public comment from August 29, 2014 through October 31, 2014. Lead, Cooperating, and Participating Agencies For the I-70 East Corridor EIS process, which included both highway and transit elements, FTA and FHWA initially served as joint lead agencies. After the project was split into Unique agency- specific program requirements under the NEPA umbrella Differing agency interpretations of NEPA requirements Anticipating which agencies will have a major federal action Efficient coordination among agencies Securing funding for multimodal NEPA studies Table G-1. Challenges summary. Figure G-1. I-70 East Corridor EIS study area. Source: CDOT and RTD

G-3 Figure G-2. Preferred alternative for the East Rail Line. Source: RTD FasTracks Figure G-3. Preferred alternative for I-70 East. Source: CDOT

G-4 two separate but coordinated NEPA processes, FHWA served as lead agency for the highway project (I-70 East EIS) and FTA served as the lead agency for the transit project (East Corri- dor EIS). Each agency continued its participation in the other modal project as a cooperating agency. For the East Corridor EIS, the FAA also served as a coop- erating agency, as the proposed rail alignment was situated near a Runway Protection Zone (RPZ) at DIA. An RPZ is a two-dimensional trapezoidal area at ground level prior to the threshold or beyond the runway end to enhance the safety and protection of people and property on the ground. While it is preferred to keep this area clear of all objects, certain uses are permissible. FAA maintains strict guidelines and has strict requirements for protecting RPZs from being encroached upon by land uses not expressly permitted. The FRA also served as a cooperating agency, as the alignment would be located largely within an existing freight rail corridor. The USACE served as a cooperating agency for both the transit and highway projects, as the alternatives presented impacts to wetlands within the study area. Among the local agencies, the I-70 East Corridor EIS was initially launched as a joint effort of CDOT, RTD, and the City and County of Denver, which owns and operates DIA. CDOT and RTD funded the project, with RTD contributing funding on behalf of the City of Denver. All of the agencies maintained involvement in the separate highway and transit projects, with CDOT sponsoring the I-70 East Project and RTD sponsoring the East Corridor Project. Coordination for the I-70 East Corridor EIS was conducted largely through an Executive Oversight Committee, comprised of agency leadership for the primary federal, state, and local entities involved in the project. After the split, CDOT interfaced with FHWA directly and RTD interfaced with FTA directly. FHWA and FTA coordinated with one another directly—the two regional offices are located in the same building, which facilitated communication. RTD also interfaced directly with FRA, but allowed most coordination with FAA to be con- ducted through DIA as the airport was familiar with FAA’s related procedures and requirements. NEPA Process/Approach The I-70 East Corridor Project dates back to Denver Regional Council of Government’s (DRCOG) 2015 Interim Regional Transportation Plan, published in 1993, which designated the East Corridor, defined as the area between downtown Denver and DIA, as a Major Transportation Investment Study cor- ridor. In July 1997, DRCOG completed a major investment study (MIS) for the East Corridor that identified 23 miles of commuter rail transit between DUS and DIA, an extension of the Central Corridor Light Rail one mile north to intersect with the proposed commuter rail, widening I-70 to five lanes, and transportation management elements. I-70 East Corridor EIS Six years later, in July 2003, CDOT, RTD, the City and County of Denver, FTA, and FHWA initiated an EIS for the commuter rail and highway elements that emerged from the MIS. The stated purpose of the I-70 East Corridor EIS was to improve transportation along the I-70 highway corridor from I-25 to Tower Road and to explore potential rapid tran- sit options from Downtown Denver to Denver International Airport. The process was modeled after the successful Trans- portation Expansion (T-REX) Project which simultaneously rehabilitated I-25 and I-225 and constructed a 19-mile light rail transit extension within the highway envelope in south- east Denver (see Appendix F). FHWA and FTA served as joint lead agencies for NEPA. Coordination with CDOT, RTD, and the City and County of Denver was primarily conducted through an Executive Over- sight Committee, which met regularly and included represen- tatives from the key agencies. Given experience on projects such as T-REX and U.S. 36, a joint highway-transit project between Downtown Denver and Boulder, the project team anticipated and proactively worked to address potential chal- lenges related to differing NEPA requirements between FHWA and FTA. The project sponsors adapted the Environmental Pol- icies and Procedures Manual developed for the U.S. 36 project to help address issues related to differing NEPA requirements for the I-70 East Corridor EIS. In addition, an Intergovern- mental Coordination and Compliance Committee (ICCC) was established, tasked with providing technical guidance and support related to members’ agencies, regulations, and areas of expertise. Participants included FTA, FHWA, CDOT, RTD, the City and County of Denver, FAA, DRCOG, DIA, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, and the consultants for the NEPA process. The ICCC also provided a forum for staff to work toward balancing potentially conflicting needs from a corridor-wide perspective, provide technical review of the vari- ous project processes and deliverables, and assist in develop- ing and screening project alternatives. The project sponsors also established several Technical/Issues Working Groups to provide focused input in distinct areas. An early task of these working groups was to draft memos that would direct the technical analyses of the project, specifically as related to such areas as environmental justice and air quality, where federal U.S. DOT agency requirements differed. As NEPA work for the combined highway and transit proj- ect progressed, two issues between the highway and transit elements of the project emerged. First, evaluation of project alternatives revealed that the highway and rail elements did not need to be co-located within the I-70 right-of-way. The

G-5 two elements would effectively serve two different travel mar- kets, and it was determined to be more logical for the transit alignment to follow the existing rail corridor rather than I-70, mainly due to right-of-way issues and economic development interests. Second, in 2004, the local funding match for the transit element of the project was secured when Denver-area voters approved a 0.4 percent regionwide sales tax increase to fund the $4.7 billion FasTracks regional transit initiative. With the local match for the transit element secured, advanc- ing the rail project became a priority for RTD. Funding for the highway element remained uncertain, and advancement was less urgent. In June 2006, three years into the combined NEPA pro- cess, the NEPA process for the highway and transit elements was split into two parallel processes. Separating the two proj- ects did take some time. CDOT and RTD had to work with FHWA and FTA to document that the projects had indepen- dent utility. This was accomplished primarily through a series of large workshops. There was substantial work involved in ensuring that all agencies and stakeholders were notified of the action and the reason for separating the modal elements. The purpose and need statement and other early NEPA technical reports—originally written to be multimodal—had to be dis- sected to create separate purpose and need statements and reports. The resulting NEPA work for the highway element— the I-70 East EIS—focused on identifying highway improve- ments along I-70 between I-25 and Tower Road that would improve safety, access, and mobility and address congestion. The transit study—the East Corridor EIS—focused on transit improvements between downtown Denver and DIA. The con- sultant that originally supported the joint EIS continued work under two separate contracts—one with CDOT for the high- way element and the other with RTD for the transit element. East Corridor EIS (Transit Element) For the East Corridor EIS, FTA served as the lead agency, with FHWA, FAA, and FRA serving as cooperating agencies. RTD and the City and County of Denver were the primary local agencies, with ongoing coordination with CDOT. FTA and RTD released the East Corridor DEIS for public com- ment on January 30, 2009. FTA and RTD released the East Corridor Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) on September 4, 2009, for a 30-day review period ending on October 7, 2009. The ROD for the project was signed on November 6, 2009. The preferred alternative consisted of a 23-mile, electric multiple-unit commuter rail train and track system between DUS and DIA, using a combination of Union Pacific Railroad right-of-way, private property, and shared City and County of Denver and City of Aurora right-of-way. East Corridor trains would use a shared alignment with other planned commuter rail in the region north of DUS (Gold Line, North Metro, and the Northwest Commuter Rail Cor- ridor) to the planned Commuter Rail Maintenance Facil- ity (CRMF). Because it is a required supporting component of the Preferred Alternative, the CRMF was included in the project. A Supplemental Environmental Assessment to sup- port the Gold Line and East Corridor DEIS documents was prepared for the CRMF and was incorporated into the East Corridor ROD by reference. Key to the success of the project was efficient coordination among the U.S. DOT agencies. FTA served as the lead agency and none of the cooperating agencies had major federal actions. The involvement of the cooperating agencies in the project was due to their interest in one or more components. FRA had jurisdiction over the rail corridor and FAA was interested in ensuring that the project alignment remained clear of the RPZ. FRA requirements for shared use of freight rail corridors for commuter rail were generally anticipated due to FRA’s participation in the study’s working groups. However, some requirements were discovered incrementally, triggering minimal redesign of the alignment. Examples of safety requirements that caused design changes included maintaining 25 feet of separation between the centerline of freight rail track and commuter tracks and construction of “corridor protection walls” in certain areas where the separa- tion threshold was not achieved. A particularly helpful FRA provision for the project was the “horn rule” that allowed the use of Quiet Zones for noise mitigation. DIA handled all coordination with FAA. The project also adapted the U.S. 36 Environmental Procedures Manual and continued the work- ing groups established under the joint project. I-70 East EIS (Highway Element) FHWA served as the lead agency for the I-70 East EIS, with FTA serving as a cooperating agency. In November 2008, a DEIS was released. No preferred alternative was identified in the DEIS, because extensive comments from the public, stakeholders, elected officials, and public agencies indicated a lack of strong support for any of the four alternatives identi- fied in the document. Following a subsequent process of intensive public outreach, the preferred alternative emerged in May 2012. The preferred alternative was developed based on a previously eliminated alternative that was modified and re-envisioned. The new alternative—the Partial Cover Low- ered Alternative—would still widen existing I-70 but also would lower the highway through two neighborhoods and cover the below grade section for a short stretch adjacent to an elementary school. It succeeded in addressing many of the issues previously identified in the DEIS while providing an alternative that responded more closely to the concerns of the community. As of November 2014, CDOT had released the I-70 East Supplemental DEIS for public comment, and

G-6 it included detailed analysis of the new alternative while also updating the previously analyzed alternatives. The EIS pro- cess is anticipated to be completed and a ROD signed on the project in March 2016. Agency Requirements Applied to NEPA The NEPA process for the joint highway and transit proj- ect was conducted in accordance with the FHWA/FTA joint NEPA regulations described in 23 CFR Part 771, “Environ- mental Impacts and Related Procedures.” In general the NEPA requirements of the two agencies did not conflict. Following the split, the FTA’s procedural requirements and rating criteria for New Starts funding came into play dur- ing the NEPA process. Further, the Eagle P3 Project (which included the East Corridor commuter rail element) was accepted into FTA’s Public-Private Partnership Pilot Program authorized in SAFETEA-LU, leading to concerted efforts to expedite NEPA and other preconstruction processes. Impact of These Requirements Although the NEPA requirements of FHWA and FTA did not conflict, there were instances where FHWA and FTA had different analytical approaches for evaluating impacts. CDOT and RTD convened working groups to work through these differences and establish the methodology for the I-70 East Corridor environmental work. For example, for environ- mental justice impacts, FHWA defines low-income popula- tions using data from the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, while FTA typically relies on data from the U.S. Census Bureau. However, for this project, both agen- cies considered alternative approaches. The project sponsors ultimately adopted the FHWA approach for the joint EIS as well as the subsequent separate EISs. The measurement and analysis of noise and vibration impacts is another area where requirements differed. In this case, however, both methodolo- gies were followed. An additional area of concern stemmed from the alignments of the highway and transit elements being located adjacent to environmental justice neighborhoods that had been bisected by the original construction of I-70. The EPA also had sig- nificant concerns related to health issues and mobile source air toxics (MSATs) for the I-70 East Corridor Project. Due to its experience with MSATs, FHWA led the methodology and analysis of MSATs for the I-70 East Corridor. Challenges to Multimodal NEPA Studies Relevant to the Project Unique Agency-Specific Program Requirements under the NEPA Umbrella: Agency-specific requirements did not directly affect the environmental process during the three years when the NEPA processes were merged. RTD addressed FTA’s New Starts requirements after the highway and transit projects were split into separate, coordinated processes. Notably, the FTA’s unique requirements under the Public-Private Partnership Pilot Program helped expedite the NEPA process for the transit element after it was separated from the highway element. Differing Agency Interpretations of NEPA Requirements: FHWA and FTA have different methodologies for measuring impacts under specific categories such as environmental jus- tice, air quality, and noise. CDOT and RTD convened working groups to reconcile differences between these requirements. Anticipating Which Agencies Will Have a Major Federal Action: From the start of the NEPA process in 2003, it was clear that the planned highway and transit elements of the East Corridor Project would require the involvement of four U.S. DOT agencies—FHWA, FTA, FAA, and FRA. This did not change as the NEPA process progressed, although split- ting the process into two separate NEPA processes, each with its own set of major federal actions, was not anticipated and it took time to separate the projects. Efficient Coordination among Agencies: Coordination among the agencies was accomplished through the Executive Office Committee and technical working groups for coor- dination and interpretation. FTA and FHWA coordinated directly—the two regional offices are located in the same building, which facilitated communication. Securing Funding for Multimodal NEPA Studies: CDOT and RTD funded the project, with RTD contributing funding on behalf of the City of Denver. Interviewees did not identify particular challenges related to securing the funds. Strategies/Tactics Used to Overcome Challenges The project sponsors adapted the Environmental Policies and Procedures Manual developed for the U.S. 36 project to help address issues related to differing NEPA requirements for the I-70 East Corridor EIS. In addition, an Intergovernmental Coordination and Com- pliance Committee was established, tasked with providing technical guidance and support related to members’ agen- cies, regulations, and areas of expertise. Participants included FTA, FHWA, CDOT, RTD, the City and County of Denver, FAA, DRCOG, EPA, DIA, and the consultants for the NEPA process. ICCC coordination also helped balance potentially conflicting needs from a corridor-wide perspective, provide

G-7 technical review of the various project processes and deliver- ables, and assist in the development and screening of project alternatives. The project sponsors also established several Technical/ Issues Working Groups to provide focused input in distinct areas. An early task of these working groups was to draft memos that would direct the technical analyses of the project, specifically as related to such areas as environmental justice and air quality where federal U.S. DOT agency requirements differed. Lessons Learned Define study methodology and clearly identify roles and responsibilities early in the process. Overall the NEPA process proceeded relatively smoothly, as ample time had been spent at the outset establishing the methodology, particularly as related to reconciling differing procedural requirements of the federal agencies and identifying environ- mental resources and analytical methodologies. RTD stated that the coordination plan required under SAFETEA-LU Sec- tion 6002 was a helpful tool for keeping parties “on the same page,” as it defined the schedule, comment period, and key decision timeframes. Recognize that the best course of action may be to split a merged multimodal NEPA process into separate coordi- nated processes, even if NEPA activities have already begun. For the I-70 Corridor East project, the original intent was to model Denver’s T-REX project, which successfully imple- mented a joint FHWA/FTA NEPA process for construction of highway improvements and a new transit line in a shared right-of-way. The T-REX model turned out to be less work- able in the East Corridor for the reasons cited above. Had the transit and highway elements continued to be advanced through NEPA as one project, progress on the transit compo- nent could have been substantially delayed due to the chal- lenges associated with selecting a preferred alternative for the highway element. Conduct a pre-scoping study to identify and vet poten- tial issues associated with conducting a single NEPA process for multimodal NEPA projects. Engaging key U.S. DOT agencies early would be helpful in determining whether it is advantageous to combine improvements to different modes into one project and one alignment. Such an effort could have avoided the aforementioned need to split the I-70 East Corridor Project into two distinct projects after the NEPA process had already been initiated. Bibliography Denver Regional Council of Governments. July 1997. East Corridor Major Investment Study Final Report. Regional Transportation District of Denver. FasTracks July 2008. Envi- ronmental Policies & Procedures, Volume I. Section 1, “Environmental Methodology Manual Update, Revision 1.” Federal Highway Administration. November 2008. I-70 East Draft Envi- ronmental Impact Statement and Section 4(f) Evaluation. Federal Transit Administration. November 2009. “Record of Decision, East Corridor Project.”

Next: Appendix H - Case Study Mountain View Corridor, Salt Lake City, Utah »
Navigating Multi-Agency NEPA Processes to Advance Multimodal Transportation Projects Get This Book
×
MyNAP members save 10% online.
Login or Register to save!
Download Free PDF

TRB’s National Cooperative Highway Research Program (NCHRP) Report 827: Navigating Multi-Agency NEPA Processes to Advance Multimodal Transportation Projects analyzes approaches taken by state departments of transportation (DOTs), their local partners, and other project sponsors to satisfy National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) requirements for transportation projects involving more than one mode. Case studies illustrate successful practices and provide examples of institutional arrangements used to comply with NEPA requirements for two or more U.S. DOT agencies.

  1. ×

    Welcome to OpenBook!

    You're looking at OpenBook, NAP.edu's online reading room since 1999. Based on feedback from you, our users, we've made some improvements that make it easier than ever to read thousands of publications on our website.

    Do you want to take a quick tour of the OpenBook's features?

    No Thanks Take a Tour »
  2. ×

    Show this book's table of contents, where you can jump to any chapter by name.

    « Back Next »
  3. ×

    ...or use these buttons to go back to the previous chapter or skip to the next one.

    « Back Next »
  4. ×

    Jump up to the previous page or down to the next one. Also, you can type in a page number and press Enter to go directly to that page in the book.

    « Back Next »
  5. ×

    To search the entire text of this book, type in your search term here and press Enter.

    « Back Next »
  6. ×

    Share a link to this book page on your preferred social network or via email.

    « Back Next »
  7. ×

    View our suggested citation for this chapter.

    « Back Next »
  8. ×

    Ready to take your reading offline? Click here to buy this book in print or download it as a free PDF, if available.

    « Back Next »
Stay Connected!