UDOT's claim that we refuse to seek common ground are astonishing given our efforts to engage in discussions regarding this matter since the litigation ended, and particularly given recent progress in moving toward more productive discussions. We first proposed an alternative to UDOT's "shared solution" in May of 2003, during the scoping process for the supplemental environmental review process ordered by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit. We proposed and worked diligently to establish a more open public process to discuss the proposed project and alternatives, with the assistance of an alternative dispute resolution professional. The federal and state agencies agreed to hold an extra set of facilitated meetings to air public ideas at the very beginning of the project re-evaluation process, which we appreciated. They expressly refused, however, to seek a negotiated solution on the substantive issues as part of this process. Instead, the agencies shut the doors to the re-evaluation process immediately after the public meetings concluded, and adamantly refused to discuss the substance of the project for over a year. Instead, we were told that we would have an opportunity to evaluate the new project information only when the Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement was released.

Frustrated by this closed process and not willing to assume that litigation was the only recourse, however, we sought assistance from some of the nation's most talented and respected transportation planners to help us define our proposed alternative more carefully. (These include Professor Robert Cervero from the University of California at Berkeley and Norm Marshall and Lucy Gibson of SmartMobility, Inc.) We met with UDOT along with all of the pertinent federal officials more than a year ago, in January of 2004, in an effort to urge them to consider our proposed alternative on a level playing field with the current proposal. Shortly thereafter, in February of 2004, we met with Governor Walker's Chief of Staff (Gary Doxy) to present a more refined version of our proposal. In both cases, we specifically offered a continuing dialogue to explore the viability of our proposal. At bottom, we asked (and continue to ask) that our proposal be reviewed on a level playing field with the existing Legacy-based alternative. Despite further inquiries, we never heard back either from your predecessor's office, from UDOT, or from the federal review agencies. The doors remained closed to any further discussion, and when the agencies released the Draft SEIS (DSEIS) late last year, our alternative was dismissed virtually out of hand. (We believe the reasons given by the agencies for rejecting our proposal are entirely indefensible, as we will explain in our comments on the DSEIS.)