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

**gretch6364** · 09-02-2009, 12:55 PM

Originally Posted by Wandrin*

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.

I am guessing they would have passenger compartments for people to hang out during the ride, and give people that don't want to take their cars an option.

Not to mention, once the railway is built, you could have difference types of trains on it.

**smmokan** · 09-02-2009, 01:00 PM

Originally Posted by 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.

This makes sense at a high level, but honestly: you're sacrificing the efficiency of interstate commerce for a handful of ski resorts. Although we'd all like to see something like this implemented, it'll never hold a candle.

**Kevo** · 09-02-2009, 01:03 PM

I thought that everyone had agreed to have vacuum shuttles like the drive through lanes in a bank.

**summit** · 09-02-2009, 01:07 PM

Originally Posted by Wandrin*

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.

Those who have cars can hang out in the passenger cabins (more freedom and space) or if only going one stop they can idle their engines like they do in Europe (which burns less gas that stop-and-go traffic). In the warm months, when there is the most traffic, no problem anyways!

Make one passenger car the mobile truck stop with some trucker sleeping rooms to boot and turndown service... kaching... funding source.

**DeeAre** · 09-02-2009, 01:07 PM

Originally Posted by Summit

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.

You're right, I am an idiot. But I didn't want to wast a chance to make fun of Keystone or prospective Keystone enthusiasts

**summit** · 09-02-2009, 01:08 PM

Originally Posted by dRider

You're right, I am an idiot. But I didn't want to wast a chance to make fun of Keystone or prospective Keystone enthusiasts

Hey! Wait... oh yea... Keystone SUCKS.

**cmsummit** · 09-02-2009, 01:17 PM

I think many of you are erroneously concluding that too many trucks on I-70 is the problem. On a daily basis, truck use of I-70 is more than likely, at it's lowest when overall peak traffic events occur. Truckers aren't driving any more often on the weekends/holidays than during the week.

The problem is the sheer volume of traffic that occurs during weekends/holidays(Duh!). The only two solutions are to increase capacity of the highway or provide alternate methods of travel. If you only eliminate truck traffic during peak traffic events, you'll still sit in traffic.

**summit** · 09-02-2009, 01:21 PM

Originally Posted by cmsummit

I think many of you are erroneously concluding that too many trucks on I-70 is the problem. On a daily basis, truck use of I-70 is more than likely, at it's lowest when overall peak traffic events occur. Truckers aren't driving any more often on the weekends/holidays than during the week.

The problem is the sheer volume of traffic that occurs during weekends/holidays(Duh!). The only two solutions are to increase capacity of the highway or provide alternate methods of travel. If you only eliminate truck traffic during peak traffic events, you'll still sit in traffic.

That's why my heavy rail RORO solution aims to take only 200 trucks off the road each hour, but 1200 passenger vehicles directly with RORO and theoretically up to another 2000 indirectly by passenger rail service.

Removing the trucks does reduce flow problems because they move slowly. It also removes large amounts of wear and tear due to their weight and the common chain use. My solution works to the benefit of the truckers as well as everyone else.

RORO increases I-70 corridor traffic capacity across the board, removes flow restrictors, and reduces wear and tear.

Now, use your cive mind to tell me if RORO is practical engineering wise in that area.

**DeeAre** · 09-02-2009, 01:33 PM

The clear solution is to convince people to stay home in the winter. Skiing is not fun, it is dangerous, you can get frostbite, the boots are uncomfortable, it requires (marginal) fitness. An ad campaign centered on these themes should be enough to drop traffic a bit.

**cmsummit** · 09-02-2009, 01:37 PM

Originally Posted by Summit

That's why my heavy rail RORO solution aims to take only 200 trucks off the road each hour, but 1200 passenger vehicles directly with RORO and theoretically up to another 2000 indirectly by passenger rail service.

Removing the trucks does reduce flow problems because they move slowly. It also removes large amounts of wear and tear due to their weight and the common chain use.

RORO increases I-70 corridor traffic capacity across the board, removes flow restrictors, and reduces wear and tear.

Now, use your cive mind to tell me if RORO is otherwise practical.

I do like your idea as it will greatly reduce overall traffic volume of all types, but I'm still unsure of the convenience and practicality aspects of it. I question how fast and safely a train of that capacity can navigate mountain grades.

How about we just bore one 60 mile long tunnel and run the track with no curves at a 1.5% grade? That should get the train from Golden to Frisco and the sightseeing folk will love it!

gunit130 · 09-02-2009, 01:41 PM

But what about the toll idea?

I think that any form of rail is a dream that will never be reality. When people visit mountains from Denver they need to take a TON of stuff with them. Even if your car was on a train, that just doesn't make sense.

Also, consider the towns along this railway. There will need to be a vote from the people to even allow a huge train to stop and drop off fucking cars. How much space would it take to create not only a rail system that delivers cars, but to be able to load and offload them? Answer: probably a lot.

**jmf** · 09-02-2009, 01:43 PM

Summit's idea is as solid as any I've heard... The resort sponsored shuttle isn't a bad one either if you could get the price right. Something along the lines of RT transportation from Genesee + lift ticket for $99. The other thing they could do would be to reopen and pave the road from Georgetown to Loveland and from Idaho Springs to CCP.... If you could hop on the frontage road before you hit the tunnel east of IS and stay on it until you hit Eisenhower tunnel, it would in effect, add a slow lane to i-70 through it's narrowest corridor. Maybe send the trucks that route or something...

**FrankZappa** · 09-02-2009, 01:44 PM

Where do you propose putting all the "users" that are on I-70 now, let alone the increased ones during the project, while constructing whatever solution you come up with?

-and for how long? (project duration) 10? 20 years?

-You think it's bad now, what kind of cluster is that going to be?

It was a lot (years) of detouring and huge delays back in the late 60's when I'd bet there was 1/100th or less traffic and most (at least a lot) of I-70 was being built off to the side of where the old highways were.

Is an I-70 expansion, or rail, or whatever, fix just going to be another temporary band aid that won't even last as long as it took to build it - like what I-70 so far basically has?

I agree with the "alternate routes" system. Need to construct somewhere out there that's not in the way.

a) It's only like 18 miles from H285 through to Breckenridge.

b) Something like 40 miles from near Golden/Boulder through to Winter Park/Grand valley & US40

**Benny Profane** · 09-02-2009, 01:45 PM

Originally Posted by sftc

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.

But, they don't want you there. They don't make money off of you with pass prices as they are. Casinos comp everything so that you spend money at the tables. Maybe if you stayed in a condo overnight or two, well, then, OK.

**smmokan** · 09-02-2009, 02:00 PM

Increase pass prices.

Encourage more car-pooling (with subsidies).

**Benny Profane** · 09-02-2009, 02:06 PM

Originally Posted by smmokan

Increase pass prices.

Encourage more car-pooling (with subsidies).

Just like raising gas taxes to encourage the market in low mileage cars, this is probably the best solution, but unfortunate for the dirtbags.

**summit** · 09-02-2009, 02:13 PM

I'm thinking electric for the train and bank the tracks for speed. Electric is green(er) and much cheaper in the long term (low maintainance cost on the locomotives) but maybe a higher install cost. Further, it'll have the juice and the power-to-weight needed pump up the steeps.

Originally Posted by gunit130

But what about the toll idea?

I think that any form of rail is a dream that will never be reality. When people visit mountains from Denver they need to take a TON of stuff with them. Even if your car was on a train, that just doesn't make sense.

Also, consider the towns along this railway. There will need to be a vote from the people to even allow a huge train to stop and drop off fucking cars. How much space would it take to create not only a rail system that delivers cars, but to be able to load and offload them? Answer: probably a lot.

1. Nobody likes the toll idea.

2. The RORO rail system lets people take stuff with them. People use Colorado Mountain Express and bring their luggage so those riding passenger rail only on the RORO can bring more crap than they could cram in a CME van.

3. How much space? Probably 8-10 acres for a rail station and twice that for the two stations you choose for main semi truck loading stations (eagle and central denver). My proposal only called for 6 stations, 2 of them at airports. I wouldn't see a need for more than 9 ever. People will want the train to stop in their town because the train = tax dollars.

It's a pretty easy sell since everywhere on the route is a tourist destination. "Georgetown... so you don't want the tax dollars? Well, I'm sure we can give the tax dollars to Empire and they'll have enough money to buy everyone in town a hot tub."

Originally Posted by smmokan

Increase pass prices. Encourage more car-pooling (with subsidies).

Pass prices are set by the market. If you get carpooling up, even if you cut ski traffic by 10 or 20% you have NOT solved the problem. This is a summer problem too. In the summer people go to more varied destinations.

gunit130 · 09-02-2009, 02:15 PM

Toll I70 from C470 to Avon

Toll it so that a round trip from Avon to Denver will cost $75 for passenger cars and $200 for trucks.

That might keep some people away.

**cmsummit** · 09-02-2009, 02:17 PM

Originally Posted by smmokan

Increase pass prices.

let's not forget that the heaviest peak traffic weekends occur during the summer.

and we're gonna have Vail Resorts & Intrawest work with CDOT and the FEDs to remedy the I-70 clusterf*ck?

**summit** · 09-02-2009, 02:18 PM

Originally Posted by gunit130

Toll I70 from C470 to Avon

Toll it so that a round trip from Avon to Denver will cost $75 for passenger cars and $200 for trucks.

That might keep some people away.

Who will support your idea? The mountain towns want the traffic for the tourist dollars. The front rangers want to come up. NOBODY WANTS A TOLL.

Maybe you could pass a toll on trucks. That doesn't solve the problem. Maybe some trucks will go I80, the rest will pay. The cost will be passed on to the consumers at the cash register.

**FrankZappa** · 09-02-2009, 02:28 PM

I've got it!!!

Lets just move Vail and Summit to some place that's not so fucking flat and doesn't suck so much. Say... Holyoke or Burlington or Springfield. That way the front rangers are going one way and Kansas Texas and nebraska are going the other. Eliminates most of the need for DIA. Most trucks come off I-80 (home of the semis) or from east. No chains required. Really easy for any future highway expansions....

Win - win all the way around.

**dipstik** · 09-02-2009, 02:29 PM

**Elkhound Odin** · 09-02-2009, 02:32 PM

Originally Posted by Summit

I'm thinking electric for the train and bank the tracks for speed. Electric is green(er) and much cheaper in the long term (low maintainance cost on the locomotives) but maybe a higher install cost. Further, it'll have the juice and the power-to-weight needed pump up the steeps.

Except we're not allowed to build power plants anymore, evil CO2 emissions from coal.

(Summit, I know you are all about nuke power, but it'll take longer to build one of them than the pipe dream of a mountain railway.)

And since we're dreaming here, how about high speed mag-lev? That'll keep transport time down.