I-70 Mountain Corridor - FAQs

What was your basis for using $4 billion as a threshold? During the development of the PEIS, a Finance Committee was created to investigate potential funding sources for the Corridor. The Committee was also formed in part to respond to comments from the public and agencies that the preferred alternative must be affordable.

The $4 billion cost ceiling is substantially higher than the currently available funding for the I-70 Mountain Corridor. The Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT) has allocated $1.6 billion in the 7th Pot Program. The 7th Pot is a program of 28 statewide priority transportation projects identified by CDOT. This is the only funding that is specifically identified as available for the Corridor. The Finance Committee identified a potential funding scenario for securing an additional $0.6 billion over the next 20 years. The optimistic scenario resulted in a total of $2.2 billion for improvements to the Corridor; however, $2.2 billion is not sufficient to complete any of the major capacity improvements under evaluation. The table below from Chapter 5, Financial Considerations, of the PEIS shows the sources and amount of revenue that represent the $2.2 billion estimate.

Source	Amount of Revenue (Millions)
CDOT's Strategic Funding Program(s)	$ 1,600
FAA and FHWA Discretionary Funds and FTA New Starts	$ 0 - $ 50
Tolling (highway or tunnel)	$ 0 - $ 250
Undefined Innovative Source(s)	$ 0 - $ 300

An alternative that is not financially viable is not reasonable as defined by the Council on Environmental Quality and does not meet the intent of the National Environmental Policy Act. During the study, a wide range of funding options have been identified, some of which are mode specific or depend on legislative action. The team acknowledges that funding sources are subject to shifts in the financial climate at the state and federal level.

In an effort to not limit alternatives based on allocated funding sources or the optimistic scenario developed by the Finance Committee, CDOT and FHWA set a $4 billion threshold for financial reasonableness. This amount of money is beyond any known funding sources. Additional funding sources would need to be secured to generate this amount of monies for the Corridor.

One scenario to increase the amount of monies available to reach $4 billion would be through the issuance of bonds. For example, a 0.4 percent sales tax for the greater Denver metropolitan area could be implemented through voter approval. This tax could generate $158.2 million per year over 15 years resulting in approximately $2.373 billion. This amount, in addition to the $1.6 billion currently allocated in CDOT's 7th Pot, is approximately $4 billion.

Will there be tolls at the tunnel? Tolling is one funding option being evaluated. Information from the Colorado Tolling Enterprise will be important input for determining the feasibility of tolling on this Corridor.

Is there any influence on decision making from voters’ approval of the FasTracks project in the Denver metropolitan area? Will the FasTracks project make the AGS alternative attractive? FasTracks is a separate transportation project being undertaken by the Regional Transportation District (RTD). It will be funded by increased taxes within the area that RTD serves. The system that is currently in use and will be expanded under FasTracks uses a different technology than the AGS alternative. Even existing AGSs in use, such as those in Japan, would need to be heavily modified to meet the constraints of the I-70 Mountain Corridor. AGS is not considered a preferred alternative due to its high capital cost of $6.15 billion. District residents will be obligated for the long term to pay off future bonds for FasTracks and for the maintenance and operation of the new system. We cannot assume that the residents of the District would incur additional costs to build a rail system along the I-70 Mountain Corridor.