Bill Overview
Title: I–70 Detour Act
Description: This bill requires the Department of Transportation to submit to Congress a report with recommendations for significant improvements and potential alternatives to offset extended closures associated with Interstate Route 70, including at least one alternative to improve the resilience of Interstate Route 70 and reduce risks from nearby hazards. The report must include information regarding the cost and feasibility of each alternative or improvement described in the report.
Sponsors: Rep. Boebert, Lauren [R-CO-3]
Target Audience
Population: People relying on I-70 for transportation
Estimated Size: 100000000
- The I-70 is a major highway that runs through several states across the United States, including Maryland, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, Missouri, Kansas, Colorado, Utah, and Nevada.
- Improvements or detours of I-70 would directly impact travelers and commuters who use this route regularly.
- It is likely to affect residents of states directly connected by I-70, impacting their daily travel and possibly local economies.
- The primary demographic impacted includes drivers, local businesses relying on interstate access, and states involved in the route.
Reasoning
- I-70 serves as a crucial transportation artery for several states, connecting travelers and facilitating commerce.
- Given that it passes through diverse regions, its upgrade or detour could influence various societal segments differently.
- The policy's impacts will be most notable among frequent commuters, commercial drivers, and local economies relying on interstate access.
- However, the budget limitations suggest that improvements may be incremental or focus on specific problem areas rather than a complete overhaul.
Simulated Interviews
Truck driver (Indianapolis, IN)
Age: 45 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The current state of I-70 causes delays that are frustrating and costly.
- Any improvements would be welcome, as long as they reduce travel disruptions.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 5 |
Sales executive (Denver, CO)
Age: 34 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Improving I-70 would significantly cut down travel time and stress.
- Resilience improvements could mean safer trips, especially during winter.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 5 |
Retired (Columbus, OH)
Age: 60 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 3.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- A safer and more reliable I-70 would ease travel anxiety.
- Potential disruptions during construction are a concern.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 5 |
College student (St. Louis, MO)
Age: 28 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 4.0 years
Commonness: 7/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Reducing congestion would improve daily life significantly.
- A detour plan should prioritize minimizing disruption.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 4 |
Restaurant owner (Kansas City, MO)
Age: 39 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Better traffic flow could increase customer visits.
- Concerned about extended closures during renovations.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 5 |
Freight logistics manager (Baltimore, MD)
Age: 50 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 6.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Current road problems are a logistical nightmare.
- Better infrastructure could streamline operations significantly.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 4 |
High school teacher (Richmond, IN)
Age: 42 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 9/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I wish there were fewer delays on my way to school.
- Improved resilience might mean fewer winter closures too.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 4 |
IT consultant (Salt Lake City, UT)
Age: 36 | Gender: other
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 4.0 years
Commonness: 7/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Hope improvements will make the road worth traveling on.
- Concerned the costs may lead to higher taxes.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 4 |
Retail worker (Aurora, CO)
Age: 25 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 3.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Improvements could make bus rides faster.
- Any increase in efficiency benefits us all in some way.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 3 |
Freelance photographer (Topeka, KS)
Age: 30 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 7/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Improvements would allow me to schedule shoots more reliably.
- Worried about how work would be impacted during renovations.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 4 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $12000000 (Low: $8000000, High: $20000000)
Year 2: $12000000 (Low: $8000000, High: $20000000)
Year 3: $0 (Low: $0, High: $0)
Year 5: $0 (Low: $0, High: $0)
Year 10: $0 (Low: $0, High: $0)
Year 100: $0 (Low: $0, High: $0)
Key Considerations
- The report will only cover the analysis and planning phase, not the implementation of any identified improvements.
- Despite its cost, the report's findings could guide cost-saving and risk-mitigating improvements that could be substantially more expensive if implemented without thorough research.
- Long-term benefits are highly contingent on the actual implementation of recommendations, which are beyond the scope of the bill.
- Coordination across multi-state jurisdictions may face challenges, impacting timelines and effectiveness.