Decision Making Process

The path to selecting a Preferred Alternative (the recommended alternative that will be fully analyzed in the Draft EIS) is marked by four key phases during the Gold Line Environmental Impact Statement (EIS).  Using technical analysis and community input, the range of Gold Line alternatives is narrowed at each phase.  Evaluations become increasingly detailed as alternatives are eliminated, until a Preferred Alternative is selected in spring of 2007.  The four phases of the Gold Line EIS are as follows:

Scoping (Summer 2006) - Defines the Purpose and Need for the project and determines the alternatives for initial consideration.

Conceptual Screening of Alternatives (Fall 2006) - At this initial phase of screening, all alternatives undergo Level 1 (a.k.a. Fatal Flaw) analysis.  This mostly qualitative analysis is designed to remove from consideration alternatives that have no reasonable chance of being built because of obvious environmental, financial or institutional flaws.

Detailed Evaluation of Alternatives (Late 2006 / Early 2007) - Alternatives that pass Level 1 analysis undergo more detailed, quantitative screening in Level 2 analysis.  Those that pass Level 2 analysis move on to a third, even more detailed, quantitative analysis using multiple criteria, including projected cost, travel time, parking demands, ridership, community impacts and environmental impacts.  

Selection of the PA (Summer 2007) - Based on the results of Detailed Evaluation, the Gold Line Team identifies a Preferred Alternative for the corridor.  It is worth noting that in addition to the Preferred Alternative, other alternatives may also be evaluated in the EIS.

Release of Draft Environmental Impact Statement (Summer 2008) - Following the selection of the Preferred Alternative, the Gold Line team conducts engineering studies to identify the alternative's likely impacts and to propose mitigation.  All of this information is integrated into the Draft Environmental Impact Statement, which is scheduled to be published in summer 2008. Following its publication, the public has 45 days to make formal comments on the findings and recommendations in the document.  The comment period culminates with a public hearing. RTD will respond to all Draft EIS comments and incorporate them into the Final EIS.

Release of Final Environmental Impact Statement (Early 2009) - The Final EIS contains the Gold Line team's recommendation to the RTD board for which alternative should move forward for final design and construction.  It will be presented to the board in early 2009.  The RTD board makes the final decision on the Gold Line and submits the Final EIS to the Federal Transit Administration for ultimate approval.

Record of Decision (Mid 2009) - The FTA then issues a Record of Decision (ROD) to articulate their approval (or dismissal) of the preferred alternative, which is scheduled for spring 2009.  As soon as the FTA issues a Record of Decision on the Gold Line EIS, RTD is able to complete the final design and begin construction.  The Gold Line is scheduled to begin construction in 2012 and be operational by 2016.


Gold Line Committees

In order to effectively integrate the feedback of local municipalities and regulatory agencies, RTD forms two committees to participate in the Gold Line EIS: a Local Governments Team and an Agency Working Group.

Local Governments Team
The Local Governments Team is charged with providing recommendations to RTD and FTA at each of the key decision milestones.  Although not a decision-making body, the group's recommendations and guidance are a key component of RTD's decision-making process.  The group is comprised of representatives from City and County of Denver, City of Arvada, City of Wheat Ridge, Town of Mountain View, Jefferson County, Adams County and DRCOG.

The Gold Line Local Governments Team includes:

• Jeanne Shreve -  Adams County, Planning and Development
  
  
• W.R. "Skip" Fischer - Adams County Board of Commissioner
  
  
• Lorraine Anderson  - City of Arvada, Council
  
  
• Mark McGoff - City of Arvada, Council
  
  
• Steve Urban  -  City of Arvada, Council 
  
  
• Bob Manwaring -  City of Arvada, City Engineer
  
  
• Judy Montero - City and County of Denver, Council
  
  
• Rick Garcia  - City and County of Denver, Council
  
  
• Crissy Fanganello - City and County of Denver, Public Works
  
  
• Rob Balmes - Jefferson County, Transportation Planner
  
  
• Betty Van Hart - Town of Mountain View, Mayor
  
  
• Gene Barns - Town of Mountain View, Public Works Director
  
  
• Steve Nguyen - City of Wheat Ridge
  
  
• Sally Payne - City of Wheat Ridge
  
  
• David Heller - Denver Regional Council of Governments
  
  
• Bob Gordinar -  Mayor of Lakeside

For more information on the local municipalities and contact information for representatives on the LGT, click on the following links:
 
City of Denver Elected Officials

City of Arvada Elected Officials

City of Wheat Ridge Elected Officials

Town of Mountain View
 
Jefferson County Elected Officials

Adams County Elected Officials


Agency Working Group
The Agency Working Group (AWG) meets at every decision milestone to provide policy guidance and recommendations to RTD and FTA.  The group is comprised of representatives from:

• Burlington Northern and Santa Fe Railroad
  
  
• Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment
  
  
• Colorado Department of Transportation
  
  
• Colorado Division of Wildlife
  
  
• RTD Board
  
  
• State Historical Preservation Office
  
  
• Union Pacific Railroad
  
  
• United States Army Corps of Engineers
  
  
• United States Environmental Protection Agency
  
  
• Urban Drainage and Flood Control District