I-70 is F@&KED

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cold_Smokin'

Yep, too rugged. Not too many railways in the world climb and descend roughly 9000 feet in 60 miles.

The only way that a train would work is if it were faster and/or cheaper. With that type of terrain, you simply can’t build a train that would go fast enough over those grades/curvatures that would make it worth the price tag. Do you really think they can build something that could get over 90 MPH through that corridor? I doubt it.

A bus transit route from Golden to Dillon wouldn’t cost $15 billion, would take 60 minutes, and wouldn’t cost an $40 for a one way ticket either. Sounds better than a train to me.

---

I'm not here to champion the train. If buses can fix it, then great, although having the line terminate in Dillon seems to create many of the same problems as a train (ie how to get to your destination from the end of the line). Are you suggesting building a separate road for bus travel, or extra lanes? I also don't see how it's necessary for a train to go 90mph to be a viable option...
Speaking of which, why not put in an improved train up to WP? I know it wasn't profitable in its previous guise, but the infrastructure is already in place and it could be ready in a year or two (one would think).

Train? WTF about the summer which is a larger issue.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by concretejungle

So you don't want the easiest option? It's their problem whether they like it or not since they're the reason you city folk have to leave at 4 am or quit skiing at 11 to get home. Increased season pass prices are the best and cheapest option. Skiing shouldn't and isn't a cheap hobby.

Did I say CDOT should do that? It's not their problem either. The road is fine about 95% of the time maybe more.

---

The solution isn’t to kill the industry by pricing out excess people. Maybe that’s viable if you’re a powder starved local who’s tired having his stash worked by 10:30, but from an economical standpoint, it’s a terrible idea.

Skiing/riding remains expensive. Between their skis/boards, clothing and accessories, many folks are wearing $2500+ worth of gear, dropping $500 on a pass, and driving 200 miles every weekend for 5 months to get the goods. You want cheap? Go hiking or play frisbee.

We can’t cherry pick who pays for infrastructure improvements. We didn’t single out Boulder and Broomfield companies to cover the bill for US36 improvements. DTC companies didn’t have to front the bill for TREX. I70 is no different.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TagoMago

I'm not here to champion the train. If buses can fix it, then great, although having the line terminate in Dillon seems to create many of the same problems as a train (ie how to get to your destination from the end of the line). Are you suggesting building a separate road for bus travel, or extra lanes? I also don't see how it's necessary for a train to go 90mph to be a viable option...
Speaking of which, why not put in an improved train up to WP? I know it wasn't profitable in its previous guise, but the infrastructure is already in place and it could be ready in a year or two (one would think).

---

Yep, as I mentioned earlier, two reversible lanes from Golden to Vail. Those two lanes are for buses, vehicles for 4+ occupants, or tollpayers. The lanes flip W to E depending on traffic patterns.

The Summit Stage already exists. Just expand it. Get a big transit hub built off the interstate that shuttles people to the resorts. Do the same thing in Eagle County.

The train to WP wasn’t profitable because it was very slow and pricy. It was fast and cheap, different story.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sicbith

it's the semis trying to sneak up to the tunnel and over vail pass without chains that F the road up.

---

No, it isn't. It's caused by volume, period. Traffic also backs up downhill in the summer.

Nobody wants to admit they're part of the problem; it's always somebody else's fault, isn't it? Semis, bad drivers, Texans.

The solutions are pretty simple (except for funding): drive people away, or increase capacity. Raising costs is one way to drive people away (tolls are the obvious method). I think tax-funded cheap buses would help, but there would be massive resistance to freebies for us "rich" skiers.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jrbd

The solutions are pretty simple (except for funding): drive people away, or increase capacity.

---

Dude, it’s economics. Let me paint the picture for you.

A study in ’05 estimated that I70 congestion results in $840 million in lost revenue. In 2013, dollars (assuming 3% inflation), that’s over $1 Billion a year.

That means since ‘05, we’ve lost out on roughly $8 billion in revenue. Putting a toll in place to discourage travel to SummCo and beyond only adds to that loss. Hell, the toll revenue wouldn’t even put a dent in the $1 billion plus we’re losing due to current traffic.

Let’s say we put $10 billion into I70. New lanes, mass transit, improved interchanges, the works. That shit is going to pay for itself pretty damn quickly. The highway has been a mess since the 1980s. Think of how much lost revenue is out there since then. $20+ billion? We could miss out on another $12+ billion over the next decade at the going rate. If that’s not enough reason to bite the bullet and pay for the thing, I don’t know what is.

Im pretty sure you could make that study say anything you wanted. Its next to impossible to prove that just because someone was stuck in traffic, they neglected to buy something otherwise. Why? Because they were pissed and wanted to say FUCK YOU COLORADO AND YOUR TRAFFIC!? Doubtful.

The only solution is more lanes. Everything else is window dressing. Now to get there youre in for a much worse shitshow for a couple years, but the end result will be improvement.

Movable lanes (experienced this on the SE expressway in Boston, didnt do shit), limiting trailer traffic, or any other scheme does nothing and delays the enevitable.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cold_Smokin'

A study in ’05 estimated that I70 congestion results in $840 million in lost revenue. In 2013, dollars (assuming 3% inflation), that’s over $1 Billion a year.

---

The entire economic impact of the Colorado ski industry is only $2.6 billion/year source. Also, lodging and lift ticket prices are still very high, indicating robust demand. So, I have to call BS on the claim that fixing I-70 is going to make $1 billion/year difference in the economy. Sorry, doesn't pass the reasonableness test.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jrbd

The entire economic impact of the Colorado ski industry is only $2.6 billion/year source. Also, lodging and lift ticket prices are still very high, indicating robust demand. So, I have to call BS on the claim that fixing I-70 is going to make $1 billion/year difference in the economy. Sorry, doesn't pass the reasonableness test.

---

Not the ski industry... it is the lost productivity and wasted resources involved. Let's say you have 1 hour added to the commute 20,000 vehicles (that is 1/2 of the average number of vehicles that pass through Eisenhower on an average day). That is one hour of wear/tear (above average in stop and go), gas usage, and well over 10,000 man hours (more than one person per vehicle and there are plenty of commercial vehicles). Let's just say that adds up to $50 per vehicle per hour. That is an EXTREMELY CONSERVATIVE estimate. $1,00,000 for a one hour delay affecting a fraction of vehicles going through on a busy day. I'd bet there is far more than 200 hours of delay per year (2 hours per weekend), which would be $200 million per year!

You want a solution?
1. Start boring a new Eisenhower bore now.
2. Blow up the entire fucking mountain at the twin tunnels. It isn't that big. Remove the whole mountain. It wouldn't be much harder or more expensive than what they are doing.
3a. Conventional solution: 2 more lanes, subsidized buses, and short restrictions on semis/RVs during peak transit.
3b. Better solution: Heavy rail - roll on/roll off like the Europeans have, maybe averages 45mph over the trip. Can take semis, RVs, cars, and has passenger cabins. Stops: Edwards/Avon, Dillon, Empire, West Denver. Links with lightrail from DIA and the city. It doesn't have to be cheap. Semi drivers make money because 50mph on a train is faster than low gear and/or chaining up/down and chilling in their cab on a train doesn't count against their working hour/day limits. Yes, rental businesses will pop up in the mountains and the local public transit systems can expand too.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jrbd

The entire economic impact of the Colorado ski industry is only $2.6 billion/year source. Also, lodging and lift ticket prices are still very high, indicating robust demand. So, I have to call BS on the claim that fixing I-70 is going to make $1 billion/year difference in the economy. Sorry, doesn't pass the reasonableness test.

---

It’s not just the ski industry. There’s so much more to consider, just off the top of my head…

Ski industry, summer traffic, tourism dollars going to Utah or Tahoe, truck shipment delays, rerouting trucks through AZ/NM or Wyoming on weekends, folks staying on the Front Range instead of heading up to the mountains, increased maintenance on local highways from folks getting off I-70 and sneaking on the Frontage Rd, higher police and ambulance service costs from the higher % of accidents caused by constant stop and go…

We can argue over the specific number, but that’s not the point I’m trying to drive home. My point is that for as long as I70 has been a problem, we’ve lost more potential revenue (and will continue to do so at a greater and greater rate) than fixing it will actually cost.

Wouldn't there be revenue gains in other areas because people don't go skiing? I know I went mountain biking a lot more.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Summit

2. Blow up the entire fucking mountain at the twin tunnels. It isn't that big. Remove the whole mountain. It wouldn't be much harder or more expensive than what they are doing.

---

how bout we just bulldoze summit, keep loveland/abasin and call it good? This seems more acceptable

Man, you just never know what you're gonna get.

I just did Edwards to Golden in 1:45, with back up at Idaho as usual, on what I expected to be the worst eastbound traffic day this Winter.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by concretejungle

Train? WTF about the summer which is a larger issue.

---

This piece of the argument seems to get overlooked quite a bit. A train is great for ski season when it goes to Silverthorne, Copper, Vail, etc.... but the summer traffic is just as big of a concern and I bet a large majority of that traffic has nothing to do with the resorts.

A train will NEVER happen, and the way things are going with CDOT in general I can't see a real solution to the problem happening anytime soon. Someone brought this up a ways back, but they need to explore the possibility of making 285 a real option for the south Denver and CO Springs folks. Make that a 4-lane highway with improved driving conditions (real snow fences, etc) and you open up a whole new route for a lot of folks.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BDKeg

how bout we just bulldoze summit, keep loveland/abasin and call it good? This seems more acceptable

---

Uh... why would removing that chunk of rock over the twin tunnels at Idaho Springs spur such an angry response? It'd be better to have that be open instead of tunnels. Perhaps you thought I want to blow up Eisenhower/Johnson? Reread... I was saying put a third bore at the divide and use it for whatever... trains/new lanes...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by smmokan

This piece of the argument seems to get overlooked quite a bit. A train is great for ski season when it goes to Silverthorne, Copper, Vail, etc.... but the summer traffic is just as big of a concern and I bet a large majority of that traffic has nothing to do with the resorts.

---

My drive on/drive off heavy-rail idea addresses that traffic quite well.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The SnowShow

Maybe add a few state funded ski areas to the north or south - other destinations that are as close as Summit but spread the people out? Something near Estes Park?

---

Easy now. We don't need more people up here in the winter. It's just fine being a ghost town all winter long.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sicbith

You don't drive I-70 much eh.... it's the semis trying to sneak up to the tunnel and over vail pass without chains that F the road up. You put one semi who is trying to keep up his speed over the hill passing another semi in the right lane and an entire new shitshow goes down. They should close semi traffic from 6am - 10am and 3pm - 7pm on weekends.

---

I live in the I-70 mountain corridor, used to have a job delivering cars from Denver on I-70, as far as Grand Junction, did that a couple years.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Summit

Uh... why would removing that chunk of rock over the twin tunnels at Idaho Springs spur such an angry response? It'd be better to have that be open instead of tunnels. Perhaps you thought I want to blow up Eisenhower/Johnson? Reread... I was saying put a third bore at the divide and use it for whatever... trains/new lanes...



My drive on/drive off heavy-rail idea addresses that traffic quite well.

---

The heavy rail argument works with one start and end point. But falls apart with multiple route stops. Ive driven on and off that Chunnel train and its not a fast process. Doing that every 10-20 miles would take an eternity.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Summit

3b. Better solution: Heavy rail - roll on/roll off like the Europeans have, maybe averages 45mph over the trip. Can take semis, RVs, cars, and has passenger cabins. Stops: Edwards/Avon, Dillon, Empire, West Denver. Links with lightrail from DIA and the city. It doesn't have to be cheap. Semi drivers make money because 50mph on a train is faster than low gear and/or chaining up/down and chilling in their cab on a train doesn't count against their working hour/day limits. Yes, rental businesses will pop up in the mountains and the local public transit systems can expand too.

---

Uh, where in Europe does this actually exist? 5 stops to roll on/roll off hundreds of cars, RVs, semis??? How long would each stop be? I can't see it being shorter than a 1/2 hour. That's 2.5 hours on the trip just for the stops + average of 45 mph for the actual moving = essentially the same time as the worst days right now. How is that a solution? No one would ever use this on the off-peak times since it would be crazy expensive and take way longer (see Winter Park ski train).

I've said it before and I'll say it again. Any solution has to take into account pent-up demand. Right now, the road is avoided by *many* people who would go skiing more if it was faster and easier. If you expanded the entire road to 3 lanes the whole way, all those people would start going more and congestion levels would go right back to where they are now. It's an elastic system with supply and demand. Not only that, but the resorts are pretty crowded as it is. If you were to double the capacity of the road imagine what the resorts would look like! From an economic standpoint, it makes a lot more sense to work on solutions that spread the traffic out over lighter times and days. Congestion pricing does this.

Here's one idea. You pay (say $10) to drive in high demand times. You get paid (say $5) to drive in low demand times. Some money goes towards modest improvements like fixing bottlenecks and adding buses. The cost can be adjusted as needed until you get the results you want. Industry and resorts win, because it drives more visits overall with lower peaks.

The fantasy that there is some solution that allows everyone in Denver to drive (or ride) up I-70 at 7 am on a Saturday is un-possible. And remember, congestion pricing could be implemented immediately. Any big infrastructure solution is 5 years of design and 10 years of construction away.

I feel bad for you front rangers in CO having to deal with that road. Definitely one of the main reasons I ended up Utah instead, trade off for all the quirky culture in Utah we have to deal with i guess. That slog up the 70 is very painful, it's amazing what a huge metro area that road services as the truly only means to get up in the alpine.
Unless you're fortunate to have a decent paying job in the high country or you are a trust funder you are screwed having to deal with that road unless you are ok with the ski bum lifestyle.

Sent from my SPH-D710 using TGR Forums

Yeah man, its so depressing to sit in traffic for 2 1/2 hours up at 8am every saturday then coming back 2 1/2 hours at 4 pm. I only ski for 3 hours so 5 hrs driving for 3 hrs skiing. I just wish that I could figure out a solution.


I did try the Utah thing too, but problem is on Saturday powder day you get stopped while they down at the gate as they do avy control and there if there is powder you end up stuck in a 1 1/2 hour slow ride down the jam packed single lane road.

Wish there was a solution.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dino

Here's one idea. You pay (say $10) to drive in high demand times. You get paid (say $5) to drive in low demand times. Some money goes towards modest improvements like fixing bottlenecks and adding buses. The cost can be adjusted as needed until you get the results you want. Industry and resorts win, because it drives more visits overall with lower peaks.

.

---

Sorry, but I can’t ever that policy ever being implemented.

For starters, the highway is completely payed for. There’s no debt associated, so charging folks for something they already own is fundamentally wrong. Next, tolls are usually in place to recover construction costs (see E-470) or for a travel advantage (higher speed limit, shorter mileage, etc. etc.) I-70 tolls would be used for neither. It would exist simply to discourage usage. I can’t think of a highway in the world designed with that purpose. Finally, the toll revenue generated would be minimal compared to the real cost of fixing 70.

I mentioned this earlier to Concrete Jungle, but killing the high country economy isn’t the answer. No politician/decision maker will ever do something as stupid as restrict access to one of the state’s biggest money makers.

Unless you want to bulldoze the Rockies and turn Denver into Detroit, folks are going to continue to move here, traffic will continue to grow, and the problem continue to worsen.

Lots of good ideas in this thread. I like the idea of blowing up the twin tunnels, I think they cause a ton of problems, it really would not be that difficult with the scale of money being talked about. I think more routes are better, getting 285/breck needs to be made more viable, plus it speed up the summer camping travel. One option I would at least like to see investigated (probably not feasible?) is opening up Rollins pass from Boulder to WP, a road already exists there, throw a few billion at it and there you go.

Summer travel is the most frustrating for me. No wrecks, no weather, 4 hours easy from Vail to Denver/Boulder if you are lucky on a peak weekend.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cold_Smokin'

Sorry, but I can’t ever that policy ever being implemented.

For starters, the highway is completely payed for. There’s no debt associated, so charging folks for something they already own is fundamentally wrong. Next, tolls are usually in place to recover construction costs (see E-470) or for a travel advantage (higher speed limit, shorter mileage, etc. etc.) I-70 tolls would be used for neither. It would exist simply to discourage usage. I can’t think of a highway in the world designed with that purpose. Finally, the toll revenue generated would be minimal compared to the real cost of fixing 70.

I mentioned this earlier to Concrete Jungle, but killing the high country economy isn’t the answer. No politician/decision maker will ever do something as stupid as restrict access to one of the state’s biggest money makers.

---

If they can charge for heated sidewalks, why not I-70? It just kinda seems like the same sort of expense to me, an expense to do something fun - going to the mountains. You pay to go to national parks and such, too. It's kinda like a luxury tax.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cold_Smokin'

Sorry, but I can’t ever that policy ever being implemented.

For starters, the highway is completely payed for. There’s no debt associated, so charging folks for something they already own is fundamentally wrong. Next, tolls are usually in place to recover construction costs (see E-470) or for a travel advantage (higher speed limit, shorter mileage, etc. etc.) I-70 tolls would be used for neither. It would exist simply to discourage usage. I can’t think of a highway in the world designed with that purpose. Finally, the toll revenue generated would be minimal compared to the real cost of fixing 70.

I mentioned this earlier to Concrete Jungle, but killing the high country economy isn’t the answer. No politician/decision maker will ever do something as stupid as restrict access to one of the state’s biggest money makers.

Unless you want to bulldoze the Rockies and turn Denver into Detroit, folks are going to continue to move here, traffic will continue to grow, and the problem continue to worsen.

---

Oh yeah, I totally agree-- it's impossible to implement. But that's because 'Mericans would start screaming TAX and TOLL when in fact it is the absolutely cheapest (and fairest) way to pay for more capacity. You could even make it revenue neutral (all the money collected in peak times goes to all the off peak users). I would like to hear how people would be willing to pay for the behemoth plans being tossed around in this thread. Income tax? Sales tax? Vehicle reg tax? None are too popular and you need many billions to do something that will add capacity 15-20 years from now.

Otherwise you are just chasing your tail. There is no way to make the road big enough to meet the demand.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dino

Oh yeah, I totally agree-- it's impossible to implement. But that's because 'Mericans would start screaming TAX and TOLL when in fact it is the absolutely cheapest (and fairest) way to pay for more capacity. You could even make it revenue neutral (all the money collected in peak times goes to all the off peak users). I would like to hear how people would be willing to pay for the behemoth plans being tossed around in this thread. Income tax? Sales tax? Vehicle reg tax? None are too popular and you need many billions to do something that will add capacity 15-20 years from now.

Otherwise you are just chasing your tail. There is no way to make the road big enough to meet the demand.

---

A usage tax is a good idea if we’re talking on a small scale, but for I-70, it wouldn’t work. E470 (the priciest toll road in the country) only generates $100 million a year. For example, if tolls generated $150 million a year, and a complete rebuild of 70 would cost $10 billion, you’re looking at 66 years to get the money together, and that’s not accounting for inflation!

I’ve got my ideas for how to fund the project, but I don’t want to turn this into a PolyAss replica with my rants and raves about wasteful welfare spending and Obamacare, so I’ll spare you the grief. However, in the 50s and 60s, we somehow managed to build every interstate in the country, so it’s not that unfeasible for the state and feds to put a long term solution together for a 100 mile highway.

Another crazy idea I have? Close I70 for construction. Set a target date for construction to begin April 1, 2017. In the meantime, improve 285 to four lanes up and over Kenosha Pass. Pave Guanella and Corona Pass. Get the high country and Front Range communities prepared years in advance. Heck, get the construction crews to offer full time employment to the folks in Idaho Springs, Georgetown, Empire, etc. to keep their wallets full. April 1, 2017, shut down the interstate from Floyd Hill to Dillon. With no traffic Armageddon to worry about, construction can speed by. Bring every freaking work crew in a 1000 mile radius into Clear Creek and Straight Creek Canyon and get the shit done by December 2017….