10 Reasons to Scrap this I-25 Corridor Plan
Found right in the plan itself

1. When they say this plan starts out costing one-third of a billion
dollars1 for roadways alone, that’s right in the plan on pg. 41.

2. When they say development won’t pay these costs, they’re quoting
pg. 41, "development can only be PART of the funding solution."

3. When they say this plan was written to ensure maximum
development, density, and traffic, they’re referring to pg. 13, which
says having no plan or one of several examined competing plans
would "limit[ing] future development potential."

4. When they say this plan creates a continuous interstate strip mall
threatening local business, they’re referring to the map on pg. 15.

5. When they say this plan is designed for continuous and never ending
development, they’re reading the plan’s goals on pg. 18 to
"maximize property values" and "continue steady development."

6. When they say this plan considers giving our money to developers for
their roads, those are the rebates on pg. 42.

7. When they say this plan’s initial price tag of one-third of a billion
dollars will take I-25 from a level of service F (failure) to mostly
F’s with a few E’s, that’s the map on pg. 34.

8. When they say this plan does nothing to protect threatened ag- lands,
wildlife, or natural resources, that’s on pgs. 25-29, which qualify
protections with uncommitted language such as "basic direction,"
"consider," "goal," "provide outreach, "consider the feasibility," "in
general," "work with."

9. When new studies show major cancer increases in children living
within 1/4 mi of major roadways, that’s allowed in this plan, pg.19.

10. When they say protecting air quality is not even mentioned let alone
protected, that’s correct.

When they say we need a plan but not this plan, they’re right.

 1On 8/21, the City Manager, when questioned by the Mayor, admitted the plan’s roadways alone will likely
cost over $500 million dollars.