Why call it the Colorado Department of Transportation? Why not the Department of Roads and Highways?
Struck, perhaps, with a case of purposeful amnesia, CDOT has stirred up a problem we thought was solved. Director Tom Norton sprang a nasty surprise on the Regional Transportation District’s FasTracks project during a recent briefing to the state transportation commission.
RTD needs a strip of land on the north side of U.S. 6 from Simms Street in Lakewood to the Jefferson County Government Center in Golden to complete one rail line. Norton said he would be willing to let RTD use the land only if it promises to deliver an equivalent amount of land to CDOT for future highway improvements in that corridor at any point when it might be needed – over the next 50 years. Oh, sure.
This isn’t the first time Norton has tried this tack. In early 2004, he insisted that RTD and its taxpayers would have to pay CDOT for the use of idle rights-of-way along U.S. 6 that the highway agency owned. (Never mind that metro-area residents already had helped buy that land through their state gasoline taxes.)
Norton got well-deserved flak, and in the spring of 2004, CDOT and the RTD signed a perfectly reasonable agreement governing the exchange of rights-of-way and other facilities. Essentially, the pact said if CDOT had property that would be useful for FasTracks – and if the state had no plans to use it within the 25-year planning horizon mandated by state and federal laws – then RTD could use those facilities. The document also says that if in the future CDOT identified needed highway improvements in the same corridor, it and RTD would negotiate the cost of land CDOT would need. Problem solved. We thought.
Why the revival of this artful shakedown? “We have an asset, and we can’t simply give an asset of the people away,” Norton said piously in an interview. An exchange between government agencies is hardly a giveaway. Does he think that taxpayers in the RTD district aren’t part of “the people”?
It should be noted that the political landscape has changed since the spring of 2004. The voters have spoken – twice.
In November 2004, metro voters approved FasTracks – over the opposition of Norton and his boss, Gov. Bill Owens – by a margin of 58 to 42 percent. Earlier this month, voters statewide rejected Referendum D, which would have earmarked $1.2 billion in highway bonds for CDOT use. Is it possible that being denied the highway authority has rekindled Norton’s yearning to punish transit and wring some cash out of RTD taxpayers?
(Come to think of it, lots of Coloradans also are wondering if the administration is pushing a road-rich interpretation of how much money from Referendum C can go to transportation, even though voters defeated D.)
Beyond ignoring the will of the voters, Norton’s stand on the U.S. 6 parcel makes no sense. CDOT’s plans only run through 2030, and include nothing for the disputed corridor. But on the off chance that his successor in 2055 might be struck with the yearning to build something there, Norton is expecting RTD taxpayers to sign a blank check for the cost of that future project – a tab that could soar into the billions.
Norton should abide by the spirit of the 2004 agreement and eliminate unnecessary roadblocks from a visionary rail project that voters so strongly endorsed.
