CO. mags - your favorite traffic problem discussed....

A couple of weeks back while driving down the hill on a Sunday night
traffic was so bad...

I got passed by an abandoned car.
A guy hit a deer, the deer couldn't fall down untill monday morning.
I had to get out of the car twice to make payments.

Note that tracks are already in place to Minturn via Pueblo/Ark valley & haven't been used for almost 10 yrs. and... it's a friggin trian! Put your car ON IT, get off in Vail/BC or get it off at Leadville & a quick hop over the top & you're downtown Summit city.
Party train anyone???
Leave the Fri nite/ Sun nite drivin' to someone else & do what we all want to do instead.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Yossarian

There's actually only one obvious, correct answer to this, which will make everyone happy except the consumers themselves, and will therefore only happen when the consumers' displeasure with the solution is less than their annoyance by being stuck in traffic for 4 hours, which should be within a few more years.

This solution appeals to both the libs and conservs, the enviros and the businesspeeps.

It is a toll.

A time-modulated toll which gives financial disincentive to drive a car during the peak hours, leaves it free or cheap to drive during off-peak hours, is graduated on a zone travel basis - free for local traffic within zone and with exemptions for resident commuters from mountain towns, and highest for users going into or out of the Mountain Recreation Area, which would begin just past Idaho Springs before the exit to highway 40 and end around Eagle to make it "fair" for all the resorts - and can be avoided by making use of a rush-hour-single-direction (as Lloyd says) new energy-efficient-multiple-car-ala-catapillar-bus dedicated lane, which would be paid for by the toll moneys collected.

At least, that's what Cornholio and I came up with.
Interestingly, I actually know someone high up in a non-partisan non-profit policy analysis group. So, the idea may get out there eventually.

---

Works well on that E Bypass around Denver - no cars on that road.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mcwop

Works well on that E Bypass around Denver - no cars on that road.

---

Also not much population on that road (yet).

Zappa, Union Pacific pretty much is saying "you'll get access to that RR from our cold, dead hands." The tracks have been dormant for 10 yrs but that ROW is so valuable they'll never sell it. Light rail in the Vail Valley is discussed quite a bit, and if the DIA > EGE rail materializes, it will utilize that track.

UPRR is definitetly not 'playing ball.'

I like the idea of turning 285 into a 4 lane highway all the way to BV with connection to I70 over Hoosier Pass and through Leadville. It would be nice to have a road from Boulder to Winterpark next to Moffat Tunnel as well.

I think mass transit is the way to fix transportation in our cities but the reality is it won't work for summer recreation in Colorado.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by homerjay

Also not much population on that road (yet).

Zappa, Union Pacific pretty much is saying "you'll get access to that RR from our cold, dead hands." The tracks have been dormant for 10 yrs but that ROW is so valuable they'll never sell it. Light rail in the Vail Valley is discussed quite a bit, and if the DIA > EGE rail materializes, it will utilize that track.

UPRR is definitetly not 'playing ball.'

---

EGE?




567890

If they would fix up Rollins "pass" that would probably help with the summer traffic. But I don't think that'll ever happen.

I guess adding a car car on the moffat train that attaches and detaches at either end of the tunnel would work just as well.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lurch

EGE?




567890

---

Eagle aeropuerto

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lurch

I like the idea of turning 285 into a 4 lane highway all the way to BV with connection to I70 over Hoosier Pass and through Leadville.

---

I do not think I could disagree with this anymore vehemently ! Good lord the i-70 corridor is basically ruined let's not make the same mistake in another location. This idea literally makes my skin crawl to think of it.

The toll idea has been pontificated before
in another thread.
I'm skeptical if a toll system would work, because there is so much volume on the highway. Traffic backs up on Sunday from 2:30pm to 7:00pm on a good day. The carrying capacity of the highway is so completely overtaxed that I'm skeptical the volume can be effectively stretched by a toll to alleviate traffic jams. There already is a high cost (sitting in traffic) to discourage people from traveling during peak hours. So, the question becomes if a toll can sufficiently alter the total cost suffered by drivers to change behavior. The only behavior that will reduce traffic is if fewer people go skiing. There's not much room to further spread traffic around the peak.

As for banning semis, it would probably help delay the onset of traffic jams. Semis passing traffic in the left lane, during moderate traffic volume, can easily create a slow down a 1/4 mile long. However, at some point the volume on the highway reaches a threshold that guarantees a traffic jam (actually a theory, not just by bs).

Really, the only solution is to bring back $1000+ season passes.

Oh, and I'm building a privately financed traffic tunnel from the Peak to Peak to Winter Park, ala Moffat tunnel. I just need several billion dollars, but I suggest buying property in the Fraser Valley NOW.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lemon boy

My preferred solution (similar to 70 & 25 in town in part) is a second deck for additional traffic not wider.

---

I've thought about a second deck too, but that would be sketchy after a decent snowfall. Think about how icy bridges get because of the cold air underneath them. You would have semis flying off that thing into Clear Creek all the time.

I don't think it'd necessarily be all that much worse than any of the other elevated roadways in the state. Plus you could require semis to use the lower deck.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by board

I do not think I could disagree with this anymore vehemently ! Good lord the i-70 corridor is basically ruined let's not make the same mistake in another location. This idea literally makes my skin crawl to think of it.

---

It's going to happen one way or another it might as well be planned and controlled. 285 in the summer between Denver and BV is just slightly better than I70.

Couple mistaken assumptions here:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mountain Junkie

The toll idea has been pontificated before
in another thread.
I'm skeptical if a toll system would work, because there is so much volume on the highway. Traffic backs up on Sunday from 2:30pm to 7:00pm on a good day. The carrying capacity of the highway is so completely overtaxed that I'm skeptical the volume can be effectively stretched by a toll to alleviate traffic jams.

---

First of all, let's start to use the technology that already exists out there. You're assuming that just because I said "toll" means I want to build toll plazas per the norm. Time to think differently.

There's nothing to stop us from having a car pick up an electronic (virtual) ticket as they pass into the zone, and then drop it off at the virtual toll booth after they are off the highway and as they enter the local region. Intermediate toll plazas ARE stupid, no argument there - the bandwidth is tightest on the trunk lane, so we want to push the potential bottleneck OFF the trunk, and into the dispersed areas to some degree. So, you pick up your virtual ticket around the Morrison junction before the milkrun begins (which spreads any potential bottleneck out over 93, 70, 6, and 470, which is still better than having it on 70 alone), and you drop it off at the destination. And oh but wait, that shiny brand new bus system on the directed flow lane that gets built later if needed picks up right there at the massive free parking RTD park and ride at the base of 70, just to make you think a third time about driving yourself up.

Now, someone will next object about the IT infrastructure required to support the virtual tollbooths? I don't think its all that bad. Data processing, storage, etc, etc is a diminishing cost per unit as it continues to get more and more efficient. The same CANNOT be said about physical resources, space, and so forth. I, like Board, retch at the idea of building more and more highway. And which will cost more to implement and maintain, the technology, or highway? I'd bet on the highway, but I don't know it for sure. I do know the expansion or addition of highway is the most illiquid and least scalable solution though, so it looks bad in the abstract.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mountain Junkie

There already is a high cost (sitting in traffic) to discourage people from traveling during peak hours. So, the question becomes if a toll can sufficiently alter the total cost suffered by drivers to change behavior. The only behavior that will reduce traffic is if fewer people go skiing. There's not much room to further spread traffic around the peak.

---

I don't think so. More accurately, the behavior that needs to be changed is the number and frequency of cars, not the number and frequency of people. All we need to do is keep the packet volume below its critical thruput threshold, and the system will maintain itself. All of this can be calculated pretty easiely, really (welcome to Dynamic Queuing Theory!). And further, there's plenty of time for flattening the peaks, it how you and I already get around the system - we wake up at 5:30 and hit the road by 6:00. All I'm proposing is that we give everyone else the extra nudge they need to alter their behavior. So, with a peak time and peak destination zone toll, you don't think people start carpooling more (reducing the number of packets on the line), and start driving earlier or later (in order to avoid the high cost toll)? I'll bet they would.

Let's play the game here on TGR.

With no traffic, it's a 1.5 hour drive into Summit County, + or - depending on final destination. With traffic, it can, realitically, be a 4 hour drive.

You have the option to drive your car up between the hours of 7am and 10am at a cost of $15 and back between 3:00pm and 6:00pm at a cost of $15, or you can pay $5 round trip at other times of the day. Your car can comfortably fit 3 people and gear, including you.

What do you do?

Honestly, I'd drive up myself before the toll hit, and leave before the toll hit, and happily pay an extra $5 to help support my access into the mountains.

The thing is, the highway works FABULOUSLY, right up to saturation.
So why build anything else?

Say no to big brother monitoring our travels

:D :D :D :D :D :D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Yossarian

Couple mistaken assumptions here:
Let's play the game here on TGR.

With no traffic, it's a 1.5 hour drive into Summit County, + or - depending on final destination. With traffic, it can, realitically, be a 4 hour drive.

You have the option to drive your car up between the hours of 7am and 10am at a cost of $15 and back between 3:00pm and 6:00pm at a cost of $15, or you can pay $5 round trip at other times of the day. Your car can comfortably fit 3 people and gear, including you.

What do you do?

---

What about the summer when peak traffic back to Denver is basically all day Sunday from noonish to well past sun set. There is all most no room left to spread out the volume that currently exists never mind the volume that will exist in 5 - 10 years.

I think you already answered your own question Lurch. The toll runs between 11am and 8pm on summer sundays.

Or whatever.

It's not that hard. Study the traffic, and disincent the peaks, however long or broad they are. Either people will change behavior, or you will raise money to build mass transit of one kind or another, which will help alleviate the long term problem. Even better if you get both.

Basically, it's the same issue that the fiber and telecom companies deal with. As homer pointed out, ROW is hugely expensive, and as Board points out, we're using up a precious natural resource by plowing concrete through the place. So, short term, give a strong financial disincentive modulated against the peaks, that should help for the next three to five years, and long term, use that money to reduce the cost of increasing capacity on the already laid fiber lines, ie, mass transit over the existing route. Train, busses, whatever.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Yossarian

I think you already answered your own question Lurch. The toll runs between 7am and 7pm on summer sundays.

Or whatever.

It's not that hard. Study the traffic, and disincent the peaks, however long or broad they are. Either people will change behavior, or you will raise money to build mass transit of one kind or another. Even better if you get both.

---

My point was that there will be to much traffic to spread out in the summer and the only option will be for people not to travel I70 at all. A $15 toll is not near the burden of the all day traffic jam that already exists in the summer.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lurch

It's going to happen one way or another it might as well be planned and controlled. 285 in the summer between Denver and BV is just slightly better than I70.

---

No, 285 between Denver and BV is astronomically better than I-70. It might still suck, but there really is no comparison. It will, of course, get worse as time goes on if we don't do something...

Everybody moves here for the lifestyle. Eventually, when the place doubles in size over the next decade, the lifestyle won't be so good unless something changes, and this is a perfect example of why.

Why do you assume everyone has to travel on Sunday (for instance)? Perhaps the culture will change enough so that many employers in this area will offer Tue-Sat weeks, or Sun-Thur weeks, or 9 day/2 week, or 4x10s, or any number of other things.

This is a sociological system, not a mechanical one; it CAN be affected by individual decision factors such as personal cost. There are no rules other than the ones we accept and impose on ourselves.

Good policy finds ways to influence individual behavior in a manner that is positive for the majority of society and does not overly adversely affect any one interest or minority group. I agree, this doesn't alleviate the 20 year bandwith problem, but it can be made to help with the 5 year problem, it can help pay for the 20 year problem, and if something isn't implemented NOW, the system may go beyond recovery.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lurch

My point was that there will be to much traffic to spread out in the summer and the only option will be for people not to travel I70 at all. A $15 toll is not near the burden of the all day traffic jam that already exists in the summer.

---

Fine, so I haven't calibrated the system yet. I mean, Cornhole and I only just came up with the details in one car ride.

How about a $50 toll? A $100 toll?

EDIT: The details are unimportant, its the idea that is. I have no doubt that the right toll structure could be created, per cj's post below.

And see my last, regarding the basic rules of this game.

Let's not make so many assumptions about how things have to work.

We have a difficult problem, we need to think more broadly about how to solve it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lurch

My point was that there will be to much traffic to spread out in the summer and the only option will be for people not to travel I70 at all. A $15 toll is not near the burden of the all day traffic jam that already exists in the summer.

---

Welcome to life in a big city.

Why not a flexible toll system - signage along the highway to announce the current toll cost. Or a progressive toll - 4 drives a month free, escalating fees afterwards.

This discussion is great and all, but I think the process is far enough along where CDOT has selected their preferred alternative and it's selective widening and a guided busway. Idaho Springs, when widened, will probably go 'stacked' like Glenwood Canyon.

Busway is preferred over rail because the buses can get off the busway and travel on roads to Breckenridge, for example, more versatile and less expensive than trains or monorails!

Yup. It's a done decision until the next round, as I've heard it.
But I still think it's most short-sighted one. :D

I would have voted for the monorail. MONORAIL!!!! ;)