From: Darrell Clarke [mailto:darrclarke@gmail.com]Sent: Thursday, April 14, 2011 4:06 PMTo: SR710ConversationsSubject: SR-710 Scoping Comments

SR-710 Scoping Comments

The following list of considerations for an SR-710 “gap closure” tunnel should be included inthe Draft EIS process:

A tunnel would become a queue to already-very-congested connecting freeways,e.g. p.m. northbound SR-710 to eastbound I-210.

How would concentrated exhaust from ventilation towers impact neighbors?

How many new vehicle miles travelled would be the induced demand from thisfacility? What would be their traffic, air pollution, and greenhouse gas emissionsimpacts?

A tunnel would encourage truck traffic up I-210 instead of I-5. Such incrementaltraffic impacts to existing freeway network beyond the project area must be includedin the study.

Tunnel construction has been proposed to be largely financed from toll revenues. Afinancial model is necessary to consider how many vehicles times what level of tollwould be necessary, and whether it could ever be a self-supporting toll facility.

Construction impacts of huge dirt haul from portals.

Risks as a security target for terrorists.

Alternatives considered should include a wide array of alternative transportation modes andimprovements such as: increased HOV, bus and rail transit, improved “complete streets”and intersection facilities, and transportation demand management.

Darrell ClarkeConservation chair and Transportation co-chairSierra Club Angeles Chapter3435 Wilshire Blvd. #320Los Angeles, CA 90010

From: James Price [mailto:pingomingo@hotmail.com]Sent: Thursday, April 14, 2011 10:26 AMTo: SR710Conversations

Subject: 710 Extension

Sir/Madam,

Nothing has been offered that can be seen as a legitimate reason for postponing the completion of the

710 Freeway.

For the sake of the people of Alhambra, South Pasadena, Pasadena, and other affected communities, I

would urge the powers that be to resume construction of the 710/210 connection. This project has been

held up, for no good reason, for quite a long time. Detractors have found no legitimate potential for

detrimental impact. Noise? We all must put up with noise in the 21st Century. We need this freeway

connection.

Jim Price

695 Busch Garden Drive

Pasadena, CA 91105

From: Valentino, Danielle [mailto:ValentinoD@metro.net] On Behalf Of SR710ConversationsSent: Thursday, April 14, 2011 8:16 AMTo: 'adina catalanotti'; SR710ConversationsCc: kevin chastain; thechefknows@yahoo.comSubject: RE: NO TUNNEL

Adina and Greg:

Thank you for sending your comment.

Please note that if you would like your comment to be considered in the official administrativerecord, please write back and provide your physical address (along with your comment).

I do not see your physical address included in your submission below.

From: adina catalanotti [mailto:adinacatalanotti@yahoo.com]Sent: Tuesday, April 12, 2011 8:21 PMTo: SR710ConversationsCc: kevin chastain; thechefknows@yahoo.comSubject: NO TUNNEL

RYFKM?

PLEASE DON'T LET THIS HAPPEN!!!!! DO NOT APPROVE THETUNNEL PROJECT IT WILL RUIN THE LIFE THAT WE DESERVEAND THE HEALTH OF OUR FAMILIES AND FRIENDS IN THE

COMMUNITY

IF YOU WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK WITH ME IN PERSON, MYNAME IS ADINA CATALANOTTI AND I AM BLESSED TO LIVE INBEAUTIFUL SOUTH PASADENA. I WORK AT THE LANGHAMHUNTINGTON PASADENA HOTEL AS A CLUB CONCIERGE, MYHUSBAND GREG NAPIER IS A RESATAURANTEUR AND HERUNS THE ROXOLANA RESTAURANT AND WINE BAR IN OLDPASADENA

ADINA 818 3879 0380 LANGHAM # IS 626 585 6203GREG AT ROXOLANA 626 792 0440

WE ARE VERY ACTIVE IN THE CULTURE AND BUSINESS OFSOUTH PASADENA AND PASADENA

DONT DESTROY OUR LOVELY CITY AND LIFESTYLE FOR GREEDAND SELFISHNESS

GOD BLESS

ADINA

From: Wufoo [mailto:no-reply@wufoo.com]Sent: Thursday, April 14, 2011 4:37 PMTo: SR710ConversationsSubject: Feedback - SR-710 Conversations [#70]

Name * Richard Gerrish

Email

(you@email.com)

*

richard.gerrish@dilbeck.com

Address

1499 Huntington Drive 100

south Pasadena,

United States

Select a Subject

*

Comment for scoping record

Comment *

The scoping study needs to include a study of alternatives other than tunnel or freeway. Such options

could include various other routes and types of transportation including

well as vehicular traffic dispersement patterns. Such ideas could include improving efficiencies for

existing roadways by using computer controlled directional/traffic signals that adjust to high traffic

loads and give prioriy to that traffic. Improved signage, which might also be led

messages directing traffic to alternative routes during peak traffic times. Investment in this type of

technology would probably be way less expensive than building a freeway or

much more effective solution. In addition to traffic efficiencies, dispersion could also bring traffic into

contact with local economies that could benefit from the that traffic. I am sure many of us can tell

stories of the destruction of local busi ness districts caused by "by

left small communities "off the map." The multimodal solution should receive at least as high, if not

higher priority in this study. The cost for that kind of developement is likely

less expensive, more effective, and with beneficial sides effects! If it is not studied with equal due

diligence we won't know the real truth!

On closing, I am concerned that one governmental agency doing a study to decided if an

governmental agency should receive funding to do something that is already on the books as a

project strikes me as a case of the fox in the hen house. I am very concerned that this is a "push" to

richard.gerrish@dilbeck.com

1499 Huntington Drive 100

, CA 91030

Comment for scoping record

The scoping study needs to include a study of alternatives other than tunnel or freeway. Such options

could include various other routes and types of transportation including light rail and heavy rail as

well as vehicular traffic dispersement patterns. Such ideas could include improving efficiencies for

existing roadways by using computer controlled directional/traffic signals that adjust to high traffic

to that traffic. Improved signage, which might also be led-computer controlled

messages directing traffic to alternative routes during peak traffic times. Investment in this type of

technology would probably be way less expensive than building a freeway or tunnel and may be a

much more effective solution. In addition to traffic efficiencies, dispersion could also bring traffic into

contact with local economies that could benefit from the that traffic. I am sure many of us can tell

of local busi ness districts caused by "by-passes" and freeways that have

left small communities "off the map." The multimodal solution should receive at least as high, if not

higher priority in this study. The cost for that kind of developement is likely to pencil out to be much

less expensive, more effective, and with beneficial sides effects! If it is not studied with equal due

diligence we won't know the real truth!

On closing, I am concerned that one governmental agency doing a study to decided if an

governmental agency should receive funding to do something that is already on the books as a

project strikes me as a case of the fox in the hen house. I am very concerned that this is a "push" to

The scoping study needs to include a study of alternatives other than tunnel or freeway. Such options

light rail and heavy rail as

well as vehicular traffic dispersement patterns. Such ideas could include improving efficiencies for

existing roadways by using computer controlled directional/traffic signals that adjust to high traffic

computer controlled

messages directing traffic to alternative routes during peak traffic times. Investment in this type of

tunnel and may be a

much more effective solution. In addition to traffic efficiencies, dispersion could also bring traffic into

contact with local economies that could benefit from the that traffic. I am sure many of us can tell

passes" and freeways that have

left small communities "off the map." The multimodal solution should receive at least as high, if not

to pencil out to be much

less expensive, more effective, and with beneficial sides effects! If it is not studied with equal due

On closing, I am concerned that one governmental agency doing a study to decided if another

governmental agency should receive funding to do something that is already on the books as a

project strikes me as a case of the fox in the hen house. I am very concerned that this is a "push" to

get something done that should not be done!

From: Nat Read [mailto:nat@natread.com]Sent: Thursday, April 14, 2011 9:14 PMTo: SR710ConversationsSubject: SR710 EIR Scoping comment letter

Please include this letter in the full EIR report. Thank you.

--Nat B. ReadRead Communications100 E. Corson St., Suite 200Pasadena, CA 91103Phone: 626-578-0705Fax: 626-578-0706www.natread.comnat@natread.com

March 21, 2011

Mr. Ronald Kosinski, Deputy District DirectorDivision of Environmental PlanningCalifornia Department of Transportation, District 7100 South Main Street, Mail Stop 16ALos Angeles, CA 90012

Re: 710 Gap Closure Project EIR

Dear Mr. Kosinski:

It seems that journalists are incapable of writing the phrases “710 Freeway” or “710 Tunnel” withoutaffixing the adjective “controversial” to the project. Hearing so many comments of opposition andreceiving so many letters against completion of the 710 Freeway in the EIR Scoping process, Caltrans

710 Freeway Coalition100 E. Corson St., Suite 200, Pasadena, CA 91103

Re:

and the MTA might be led to believe that this is an unpopular project with the citizens and the voters.

Thus, part of the official record should reflect the fact that there is no city and no political district wherethe majority of voters or citizens oppose completion of the 710 Freeway. None. Not one. Including thecities of South Pasadena and La Cañada which show a statistical tie.

61 cities and political districts have been polled on the 710 Freeway The is no city or political district in which voters are opposed to the 710 In the cities of South Pasadena and La Cañada voters are evenly split In all other cities and districts support ranges

o From a low of 1.6 to 1 (Pasadena Council District 6)o To a high of 8.2 to 1 (Pasadena Council District 3)

All other polled cities or districts are greater than 2 to 1 in support Pasadena voters favor 710 completion by a margin of 3.3 to one. El Sereno voters favor 710 completion by a margin of 2.1 to one. Alhambra voters favor completion by a margin of 7.4 to one. City of Los Angeles voters favor completion by a 5.6 to one margin Citizens in the 31-city San Gabriel Valley favor completion by 5.7 to one.

(Continued)

A regional coalition of business, labor and government committed to completion of the 710

Page Two

Cities and Districts polled

City of AlhambraCity of GlendaleCity of La Cañada FlintridgeCity of Los AngelesCity of South PasadenaSan Gabriel Valley – 31 citiesCity of Los Angeles Council District 14City of Los Angeles El Sereno DistrictCity of PasadenaCity of Pasadena District 1City of Pasadena District 2City of Pasadena District 3City of Pasadena District 4City of Pasadena District 5City of Pasadena District 6City of Pasadena District 7

State Assembly District 43State Assembly District 44State Assembly District 45State Assembly District 46State Assembly District 49State Senate District 21State Senate District 22State Senate District 24U.S. Congressional District 27U.S. Congressional District 26U.S. Congressional District 27U.S. Congressional District 28U.S. Congressional District 29U.S. Congressional District 30U.S. Congressional District 34

Ours is not a government by squeaky wheel, but government by the people. The people’s will isdocumented in dozens of public polls. The people’s will is to complete the 710 Freeway.

Sincerely,

Nat B. Read, Chair

Attachments: Details of public polls

Alhambra El Sereno Glendale LaCañada

LosAngeles

Pasadena S GabrielValley

SouthPasadena

SouthPasadena

Population 85,804 47,291 200,000 20,318 3.7 million 133,936 1.9 million 24,292 24,292

Poll Date Sept,1999 Nov, 2000 May, 2009 May, 2004 May, 2004 Mar, 2000 July, 2000 Mar, 1998 Apr, 2006

Pollster Guerra &Assoc./GodbeResearch andAnalysis

Guerra &Assoc./GodbeResearch andAnalysis

GodbeResearch and

Analysis

GodbeResearch andAnalysis

GodbeResearch andAnalysis

GodbeResearch andAnalysis

The RoseInstitute

GodbeResearch andAnalysis

GodbeResearch andAnalys

Question “Do yousupport oropposecompletingthe 710Freeway tothe 210Freeway?”

“First, do yousupport oropposecompletingthe 710Freeway?”

“Do yousupport oropposecompletion ofthe 710Freeway?”

“Do yousupport oroppose thecompletion ofthe 710FreewayProject?”

“The 710 GapClosureProject wouldcomplete thelast 4 ½ ofthe 710 Fwyin the corridorthat runs thruEl Serenoand So. Pas.into the Cityof Pasadena.Do yousupport oroppose thecompletion ofthe 710Fwy?”

“First, do yousupport oropposecompletingthe 710Freeway,also knownas the LongBeachFreeway?”

“Do yousupportcompletion ofthe 710Freeway?”

“In order toconnect 2sections ofthe 710 Fwy.between the10 and 210Fwys, shall anew 6-mi.section of the710 Fwy. bebuilt throughthe center ofSouthPasadena?”

“Instead ofthe surfacefreeway longopposed,would younow supportor oppose analternativeplan toconstruct atunnel at least100 feetunderneathSo.Pasadena tocomplete the710Freeway?

For 710 81% 60% 51% 41% 45% 59% 63% 17% 42%

Definitelyyes

Definitelysupport

71%

Definitelysupport

45%

Stronglysupport

29%

Stronglyyes

28%

Stronglyyes

26%

Definitelysupport

51%

Yes,strongly29%

Definitelyyes 12%

Stronglysupport17%

Probablyyes

Probablysupport

10%

Probablysupport

15%

SomewhatSupport

22%

Somewhatyes13%

Somewhatyes19%

Probablysupport

8%

Yes 34% Probablyyes 5%

Somewhatsupport25%

Summaries of public polls

regarding support of

opposition to completing the

710 Freeway

Against710

11% 28% 21% 42% 8% 18% 11% 80% 41%

Probablyno

Probablyoppose 3%

Probablyoppose 6%

Somewhatoppose

7%

Somewhatno 9%

Somewhatno 3%

Probablyoppose

3%

No 7% Probablyno 7%

Somewhatoppose9%

Definitelyno

Definitelyoppose 8%

Definitelyoppose

22%

Stronglyoppose

14%

Stronglyno

33%

Stronglyno5%

Definitelyoppose

15%

No strongly4%

Definitelyno 73%

Stronglyoppose31.5%

RatioYes/no

YES 7.4:1 YES 2.1:1 YES 2.4:1 EVEN YES 5.6:1 YES 3.3:1 YES 5.7:1 NO 4.7:1 EVEN

Undecided;don’t know;etc

8% 13% 28% 17% 46% 24% 26% 4% 17.5%

Thu 4/14/2011 8:54 PMIn a recent study done by USC and one of the largest and longest study of its kind USC researchersconcluded that children living near busy highways have significant impairments in the development oftheir lungs that can lead to respiratory problems for the rest of their lives.This is a pretty significant finding, considering that any proposed freeway project being proposed in ElSereno would have a devastating effect on all surrounding Communities.

I live in the El Sereno neighborhood that will be directly impacted by the 710 Tunnel/Fwy project. Myneighbors and I are gravely concerned about the increased pollution that will result from the 710Freeway Project. More than 100 major studies have been published over the last decade documentingthe direct relationship between freeway pollution and health. The proposed 710 tunnel project willconcentrate pollution, and noise at various ventilation areas. Freeway pollution and noise increase therisk of developing asthma, cancer, hearing loss, and stress-related diseases. Freeways dividecommunities and cause pollution. They are a major environmental and health hazard, as recentlyconfirmed by USC studies. Putting the tunnel underground will not make that fact go away. The pollutionwill still exist but in a more concentrated manner. Currently there is no technology that can eliminate thepollution to levels that are not harmful to humans. No one has offered any evidence to challenge thatfact.This project poses too many unanswered questions and does not adequately address pollution,technology, earthquake faults, political contributions/donations and other issues that demand seriousanswers and research by outside entities not tied to this project.

Fifty years ago, we were ignorant about the dangers of freeways. Today, these problems are welldocumented. Fifty years is enough. There is a need for more stringent regulation of the development offreeways, and of land around freeways.

All parties should consider the following:

* Disclosure of all political contributions from any source for all politicians involved in the 710 freeway orPoliticians serving in areas affected by the 710 Freeway .

* Elimination of all 710 tunnel/freeway and related projects in the 710 connector route.

* Use one of the other alternative routes. The El Sereno route is impacted by earthquake faults.

*Consider other alternative modes such as rail, buses, more ports .

* Monetary reparations to all people living next to freeways.

* No more new housing built next to freeways.

* Relocate schools and homes built next to freeways.

* No Valley Connector Road or Low Mode Alternative in El Sereno that will increase traffic in El Sereno

* Build a 6 block wide park on each side along the route of the Freeway if the 710 Freeway connection isbuilt. (No homes for 6-7 blocks on each side of the 710 Tunnel Freeway route from Valley Blvd. ToPasadena.

* Mandatory air quality testing for businesses, homes next to freeways, with data available to the public,on the internat, with no fees.

* Reform freeway funding to encourage safety, health, and ecological protection.

* Health Insurance fund set up for living near the 710 Fwy and impacted by the 710 Fwy.

There is a need to be more sensitive to the danger of freeways, and that people who have suffered fromfreeways be compensated for their suffering.

Sincerely,Lily Ibanez

From: Delaine Shane [mailto:dshane1@earthlink.net]Sent: Thursday, April 14, 2011 10:20 PMTo: SR710ConversationsSubject: Comment Letter on Caltrans' Proposed State Route 710 North Gap Closure Notice of Preparation/Notice ofIntentDear Mr. Ronald Kosinski:

Please accept this e-mail message with the pdf attachment as my comments on your agency's NOP for the subjectproject. If for some reason you can not read the pdf attachment, please let me know and I will resend. I have alsotransmitted the original to your attention by regular mail.

Thank you for your consideration.

Sincerely,

Mrs. Delaine W. Shane

From: Nabil Sejaan [mailto:nabilsejaan@hotmail.com]Sent: Thursday, April 14, 2011 4:38 PMTo: SR710ConversationsSubject: 710 Gap Closure project Scoping

Mr. Ron Kosinski, Deputy District DirectorDivision of Environmental PlanningCaltrans, District 7100 S. Main Street, MS16ALos Angeles, California 90012

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on scope of the Environmental Impact Report for the 710 GapClosure project.In order to not be repetative, I would like to express my full support of the Scoping letterdated April 9, 2011 sent by Stephanie Johnson, Los Robles Avenue, San Marino, CA 91108.Please address the issues in your EIR / EIS and mitigate the negative impact on los robles.

Sincerely.Nabil Sejaanlos roblesSan Marino 91108626 441 8511

From: Tom Williams [mailto:ctwiliams@yahoo.com]Sent: Thursday, April 14, 2011 4:37 PMTo: ron_kosinski@dot.ca.govCc: SR710Conversations; cynthia.ruiz@lacity.orgSubject: Re: Comments for SR-710 Scoping Report, Second and final batchThis batch completes comments from Dr. Williams.

--- On Thu, 4/14/11, Tom Williams <ctwiliams@yahoo.com> wrote:

From: Tom Williams <ctwiliams@yahoo.com>Subject: Comments for SR-710 Scoping ReportTo: ron_kosinski@dot.ca.govDate: Thursday, April 14, 2011, 1:36 PM

Attached are the first batch of comments for the NOP/NOI Scoping for SR-710 North Extension/GapClosure. At least one more to be transmitted before 5pm

Dr. Clyde T. Williams4117 Barrett RoadLos Angeles, CA 90032-1712323-528-9682 323-528-9682

ctwiliams@yahoo.com 6. SUBJECT: SR-710 NORTH EXTENSION / GAP CLOSURE COMMENTSRE: Bus Rapid Transit Alternatives/Multi-Occupancy Only Alternative

The Scoping Report Alternatives Analyses, and EIR/EIS must include Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) systems forboth N-S and E-W corridors.

In all above surface and elevated road alternatives, add a second alternative for the initial roadalternative with a dedicated “Bus Rapid Transit” facility, and the BRTan additional alternative set for thefollowing E-W corridors:

Marengo-City Terrace-GarveyMain-ValleyMission Road-Huntington DriveBroadway-Figueroa-Monterey RoadSpring-San Fernando Road-Eagle Rock-Colorado

The BRT facility must include:Upgrade curb lane – smooth surface, adjusted lane and curb curvature, driveway controls,

overhead clearances for trees, wires, and signageSignal Synchronization and Transit Signal Over-RidesOut-of-Lane Stops and Stations

Integrated Multi-Road Transit StationsIntegrated Park-N-Ride Transit Stations

As a separate road alternative or as enlargement part of any MultiMode Alternative, add an alternativeincluding fully dedicated bus-lane/BRT Corridor facilities along:

San Fernando Road-Eagle Rock Blvd.-Colorado as two-way SW-NE facilityFremmont/Palm-Marengo as one-way couplets N/S facility

Garfield/Atlantic as one-way couplets N/S facilityRosemead as two-way N/S facilityValley – Main/Mission to Peck RoadMission-Huntington Drive – Chavez to BuenaVista/Duarte

6. SUBJECT: SR-710 NORTH EXTENSION / GAP CLOSURE COMMENTSRE: Multimode Alternatives (including Transportation System Management)

The Scoping Report Alternatives Analyses, and EIR/EIS must include the following Multi-Mode systemsfor the illustrate ten-plus E-W and N-S corridors, see figure below

The Scoping Report, Alternatives Analyses, and EIR/EIS must include and develop a multimode approachconsistent with those of MoveLA/FAST/Rand, South Pasadena, and others which usually involve severalbasic elements

Get Goods and Passengers on RailGet goods off the roadsGet passengers in multi-passenger road vehiclesMake streets, roads, freeway operate smarter – higher consistent flowsIncreased passenger miles with fewer vehiclesReduced peak-hour speeds but increased vehicle/hour and average daily tripsPrice route and destination and origin parking to reflect true costs to the PublicPrice fuel to reflect true environmental and infrastructure costs and impacts

MTA/CTs must include review of and assessment of application to LACounty in European urban plans toremove most light duty gas/diesel fueled individual-passenger vehicles from cities by 2035 and allindividual-passenger vehicle by 2050.

The Scoping Report Alternatives Analyses, and EIR/EIS must include Important Components as well as

many others:Freight “Zero Port Road Freight 2035”

Gaps – BNSF/UPRR>LOSSAN > High Desert Corridor and SanLuisObispoPassengers

Rail Transit SystemsNE-RedLine Extension through GlendaleGoldLine West Extension-Glendale/Burbank/N.HollywoodGoldLine East Grid – Whittier/Azusa N-S CrossLink

Road Transit SystemsMake Streets Work Better

Road EfficienciesDemand ManagementParking Management

Free 1-3 hr retail parking$25/car space-day – W of I-5, N of Slauson, E of Vermont, S of Los Feliz

Park-N-Ride – Parking Zone Perimeter of LA City as shown as example below:

Congestion Pricing for access to areas west of Par-N-Ride facilitiesSimilar to District Pricing (London, Singapore, HongKong, Dubai, etc.)

State/Local Registration – Full Cost Recovery for all vehicles in Study AreaLA County Fuel Taxes for a minimum of $5/gal – Gas and Diesel

6. SUBJECT: SR-710 NORTH EXTENSION / GAP CLOSURE COMMENTSRE: Funding Alternatives

As the CTs presentations of needs and purposes included references to financial and funding alternatives,including Public Private Partnerships, the Scoping Report, Alternative Analyses, and EIR/EIS must includeall relevant financial and funding systems for any alternative with:

Costs – Total CostsEstimated capital costs or values of more than $1 billion (50% >Measure R funds)Estimated funding costs (interest, fees, etc.) by sources (e.g., private, federal, state, etc.)Estimated management and design (CTs, MTA, and cities)Estimated commissioning and startupEstimated annual and life-of-project costs

Revenues – Total RevenuesMeasure R OnlyMeasure R + TollsMeasure R + Beneficiary Commuter Districts + TollsMeasure R + Beneficiary Commuter Districts + Containers/Ports Tonnage/Logistics + TollsFederal, State, Regional, and County grants and assistanceOther contributions

Financial ManagementFederal, State, and CTs DistrictRegional-SCAG, County-MTA, and CitiesSpecial Assessment DistrictsProject – Tolls, etc.

The Scoping Report, Alternative Analyses, and EIR/EIS must include various alternative contractingmethods including:

Design/BuildDesign/Build/OperateDesign/Finance/Build/OperateDesign/Finance/Build/Operate/MaintainDesign/Finance/Build/Operate/Maintain in Public Private PartnershipsBuild/Operate/Transfer (BOT; Public provides only lands and some administrative activities)Build/Own/Operate (BOO)

The Scoping Report, Alternative Analyses, and EIR/EIS must reflect and include considerations and LAO’sconcerns for Public-Private Partnerships as expressed in April 2011 by the State Legislative Analyst Office(http://www.lao.ca.gov/analysis/2010/transportation/trans_anl10.pdf) which can be summarized asfollows:

Unidentified portion of the costs and allocations to Federal, State, regional, County, Cities, andany special assessment districts

State pays for operations and maintenance of transportation facilities from local fundsProject Costs not eligible for federal funding.CTs not able to explain how it plans to spend funds requestedLegislature should not make such a large commitment of funds.Unclear how P3 procurement would achieve certain cost savingsAssumed saving the state money over the life of the project.Set-asides of a sizeable amount of the state’s transportation funds to pay for P3 projects.Reduced amounts of funding available for rest of state’s highway maintenance/repairs