Draft study: Denver-Vail rail line would cost $15B

[drn92]

One "solution" I've heard would be to have the truckers use an alternate route (I-80???) on the weekends in the winter to help avoid the stop & go of mountain driving ... interesting to see if this would work.

It would certainly be a "nice to have" in the future, but depending on cost could be prohibitive. I think the key thing for many would be the convenience factor ... if I am in my car I can go when I want, not wait for the shuttle, be in a certain spot, etc. I think that is what is the most difficult thing for mass transit to overcome, the freedom of choice.

I'd certainly take advantage of it, if only to get some work done on the trip and avoid the stress of other drivers.

drn92

[Hunter-Va]

Not a bad way to save the snow by cutting down on emissions from cars. Money is made and wasted everyday, why not on this or on schools.

[Elkhound Odin]

Money is made and wasted everyday, why not on this....

Sure, since the gubberment wastes taxpayer money everyday, let's waste more.

This is exactly the wrongheaded thinking that's driving this country now.

[Blurred]

Not a bad way to save the snow by cutting down on emissions from cars.

Yeah, that makes total sense...............err wait, no it doesn't.


Expanding lanes on I-70 is a temporary solution, and one that wouldn't cost much less. Having 3 lanes instead of 2 is no improvement with 2 lane bottlenecks through the tunnels. So you would have to add lanes in the tunnels as well=$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

Rail is the way to go.......however, I also think 15B is a low estimate, which doesn't include maintenance.

[Shredhead]

I agree with Elkhound.

I just don't see people getting out of there cars to get onto a train. Why don't they spend 1 million and try it on some buses first. Make the buses free and see how many people will ride them?

[Hacksaw]

I have always wondered how much such a railroad would cost if we let the Swiss build an "off-the-shelf" cog/mountain rail way like they have in Switzerland here in Colorado. They seem to have a lot of rail ways in Switzerland that run through a lot of rough mountain terrain. I really wonder if it wouldn't end up costing a hell of a lot less, if we where to use the Swiss model and technology. I wish someone would bring the Swiss rail guys over and let them give us an estimate.

[summit]

KEEP YOUR CARS AND FORGET EXTRA LANES! THIS IS THE SOLUTION:

The answer is a roll-on roll-off heavy rail system. You could have a 5000-7500ft train (shorter than the average freight train) that carried 50 semis/buses, 300 passenger vehicles, and 500 additional passengers. You run two per hour each direction.

1. You can do this with only one more tunnel bore. (depending on station frequency and train speed, you can do this with single track most of the way and only a few side tracks)
2. Increases capacity by more than 50%.
3. Reduces slowdowns by more than half by removing semis.
4. Reduces road closures by far more than half by removing semis and tourist drivers.
5. Cuts roadwear by far more than half by removing semis.
6. Tourists and weekenders will use this because they can keep their vehicles for local freedom.
7. Semis will use this because all the time they spend on the train is time moving cargo but not counted against their driving hour limits, plus it saves time and effort and no chains. Commercial fees can be the primary ongoing funding source!

In Europe, they have these types of trains already.

This is better than bus lanes. This is better than car lanes. Mass transit AND people keep their cars AND it gets the semis off the road. This is the ultimate I-70 solution. As to what types of trains to use, maybe Hacksaws idea? Or something that goes fast.

[gunit130]

Hey Elkhound,

You should probably get your facts straight.

Peak usage on I70 through Colorado is in the summer, not the winter.

The Eisenhower Tunnel had the most cars pass through it July 2009... over 1 million cars. Historically, summer months see the most cars on I70.

[DeeAre]

If it's stopping in Keystone, does this mean it will be going over Loveland pass? Argentine?

Your concern for Keystone = fail

[summit]

Your concern for Keystone = fail

You are an idiot. He is concerned as to where the tunnel bore will be. If it goes through Argentine then you will have a rail line in some backcountry valleys that are presently just 4WD roads.

Loveland Pass doesn't have room for rail without some serious bed improvements. The only reason to go there is to have Keystone on the direct route instead of being a spur from Dillon. This seems dumb as everything else makes WAY more sense if you put your bore right next to the other two and send the train on the I70 corridor all the way.

[hawkgt]

KEEP YOUR CARS AND FORGET EXTRA LANES! THIS IS THE SOLUTION:

The answer is a roll-on roll-off heavy rail system. You could have a 750-1000ft train (about 1/10th the length of an average freight train) that carried 50 semis/buses, 300 passenger vehicles, and 500 additional passengers. You run two per hour each direction.

1. You can do this with only one more tunnel bore. (depending on station frequency and train speed, you can do this with single track most of the way and only a few side tracks)
2. Increases capacity by more than 50%.
3. Reduces slowdowns by more than half by removing semis.
4. Reduces road closures by far more than half by removing semis and tourist drivers.
5. Cuts roadwear by far more than half by removing semis.
6. Tourists and weekenders will use this because they can keep their vehicles for local freedom.
7. Semis will use this because all the time they spend on the train is time moving cargo but not counted against their driving hour limits, plus it saves time and effort and no chains. Commercial fees can be the primary ongoing funding source!

In Europe, they have these types of trains already.

This is better than bus lanes. This is better than car lanes. Mass transit AND people keep their cars AND it gets the semis off the road. This is the ultimate I-70 solution. As to what types of trains to use, maybe Hacksaws idea? Or something that goes fast.

x2..... I think this would be the best choice as it gets to the (or through for truckers...) goods and still can haul the heavy loads of the main grid.

[cmsummit]

But a 15 billion dollar train to nowhere (except Copper and Vail) works out better?

I like how a train from DIA all the way to Eagle Airport with multiple stops at the most heavily visited CO mountain towns/resorts is a "train to nowhere". Talk about .

[Benny Profane]

Never thought this could happen before the Dems started spending the future with the stimulus rapes. But, it could very well be possible under the "high speed train" combined with "green initiatives" that are already well established. The politicians could give a fuck if it makes sense, or even if it gets finished, because they'll be somewhere else spending their bribes and working in he private sector related to the project when it's only half done, which would be 12-20 years from now. It will all be wrapped up in JOBS JOBS JOBS, GREEN GREEN GREEN, and reduced traffic, and could pass. Remember how the elders in Utah spent those federal billions widening 15 with the three week Olympics as an excuse to rob your wallet?

[Pablo Escobar]

here's one:

expand/change the frontage road from idaho springs ->gtown. make it one way westbound in the AM for semis (6-9), one way EB for semis in the pm (4-7). fix it from the plume to the tunnel as well.

yes it would piss off clear creek, but show me a place in any one of the I70 towns where you cannot already hear traffic by walking outside....

[cmsummit]

here's one:

expand/change the frontage road from idaho springs ->gtown. make it one way westbound in the AM for semis (6-9), one way EB for semis in the pm (4-7). fix it from the plume to the tunnel as well.

As an arterial/local collector roadway, utilizing the frontage road is not a feasible solution. By the time you alter the geometry and alignment of it to avoid businesses and residences and make it suitable for even somewhat higher design speeds, you might as well have just added another lane to I-70. Adding that sort of truck/semi traffic to that type of roadway doesn't work.

[Elkhound Odin]

Hey Elkhound,

You should probably get your facts straight.

Peak usage on I70 through Colorado is in the summer, not the winter.

The Eisenhower Tunnel had the most cars pass through it July 2009... over 1 million cars. Historically, summer months see the most cars on I70.

There are two peak traffic seasons on I70. Yes summer is larger than winter. I think I said that. You need to look at the facts and improved your reading comprehension. I never said winter was the absolute peak. But this passenger train idea would likely be used only during the winter peak.

http://www.dot.state.co.us/Eisenhowe...ounts.asp#2009

2009

Month...Eastbound...Westbound...Monthly Total...Average Daily Total
January...537,066.....532,089.....1,069,155....... 34,489
February..463,831.....478,485........942,316...... 33,654
March.....542,956.....536,167.....1,079,123....... 34,810
April.......407,945......392,873.......800,818.... ...26,694
May.......425,415......425,351.......850,766...... .27,444
June......494,445.......503,865.......998,310..... .33,277
July.......608,923.......616,682.....1,225,605.... ..39,536
August...592,604.......572,291.....1,164,895...... 37,577

[Yonder_River]

What a fucking mess with no good solutions. (besides riding at loveland and leaving at 1:30).

Glad I moved up here.

[Elkhound Odin]

KEEP YOUR CARS AND FORGET EXTRA LANES! THIS IS THE SOLUTION:

The answer is a roll-on roll-off heavy rail system.
In Europe, they have these types of trains already.

This is not a bad idea. Take your car with you at both ends, like a ferry, and get trucks off the road. If only it will get the summer camper haulers off as well.

[summit]

You can fit the campers into semi spots if some are empty.

Proposed rail stops (to keep things moving):
DIA
West/Central Denver
Georgetown
Frisco
Vail
Eagle Airport

Considering you will need 10-20 minutes stopped at each stop, adding in Avon, Dillon, and another Denver stop would add another hour to the trip.

[Blurred]

I think a few of you are daydreaming.

There are these two things called convenience and practicality.

[sftc]

...A better option than a mountain train, would be expansion of I70 with dedicated bus lanes or toll lanes. Even adding 1 lane that can be swapped between east & west bound during the day would help.

More lanes just equals more cars and trucks on the road, but I've always wondered why the resorts haven't done what the casinos do and funded their own bus service. I'd pay $30 - $40 round trip to ride a bus from Denver during the ski season.

[MarsB]

Drill baby, Drill!!!!

[Blurred]

More lanes just equals more cars and trucks on the road, but I've always wondered why the resorts haven't done what the casinos do and funded their own bus service. I'd pay $30 - $40 round trip to ride a bus from Denver during the ski season.

I don't believe you.

[Wandrin*]

The answer is a roll-on roll-off heavy rail system. You could have a 750-1000ft train (about 1/10th the length of an average freight train) that carried 50 semis/buses, 300 passenger vehicles, and 500 additional passengers. You run two per hour each direction.

350 vehicles on a train with their engines idling to keep the passengers warm during the couple hour ride doesn't sound like a 100% win.

There will always be a compromise and somebody will be pissed off, no matter what.

[gretch6364]

Why don't they just start be restricting traffic based on the number of axels? This could be done in the next year...you just have to fight the trucker unions.

Friday through Sunday, no vehicles with more than three axels (pick-up with snowmobiles) is permitted on the road between 6 am and 10 am, and 3 pm to 7 pm.

Just make it happen and see how much it reduces traffic. Obviously, the roll-on train is a great idea, and limitting the semi and multi axel camper traffic is only a temporary solution..but surely it would help between now and whenever they can find a solution.