OFFICIAL I70 BITCH THREAD....

[Dufforito]

Drove up on Saturday, 1/10/15, at 9am, sunny skies and dry roads and totally packed, slow go from Evergreen exit until the WP exit. Weather had nothing to do with it--just too much traffic for the roads to handle. Weather compounds it, but just too many people on the road.

[Danno]

TABOR is definitely fucked up, but there are too many people who like it, so we're stuck with it.

[summit]

Why the hell do they need 1.2 billion to dig the highway 1 story down and build an oversized overpass to plant a few trees?

[Vegetable Lasagna]

Drove up on Saturday, 1/10/15, at 9am, sunny skies and dry roads and totally packed, slow go from Evergreen exit until the WP exit. Weather had nothing to do with it--just too much traffic for the roads to handle. Weather compounds it, but just too many people on the road.

It was the same at 6am too. It's extra demoralizing when you feel like you did everything right to beat it, and still get screwed. Ended up taking about 2 hours to get to summit. Felt a lot longer though.

[capulin overdrive]

All you got to do is vote in a penny or two fuel tax and get more road money!

Thing is, liberal douchebags only vote for pissing away money on schools, and conservatives think the road money would all get spent in the cities.

[Danno]

I know right? Schools, what a stupid way to spend our money...

[tommyvee]

Why the hell do they need 1.2 billion to dig the highway 1 story down and build an oversized overpass to plant a few trees?

If you think you can do it cheaper, then assemble a consortium of construction companies and make your own bid. Pretty much all the big construction companies are publicly owned, so you can review their financials if you want, but there is no secret hole where they can stash extra money, and profit is a small percentage of project costs. 1.2 billion seems about right to me for infrastructure on this scale built to withstand the punishing daily use I-70 experiences.
$250 per capita in Colorado, amortized over the next century, is around $2 per person per year. Ironic that those of use who purchase $1000 skis and passes whine about a few bucks per year to keep the state functioning, but I guess that is why Tabor got passed in the first place. With public expenditures (and most everything else in life) the "penny wise pound foolish" approach of minimizing initial out-of-pocket expenses does not deliver the optimum price-performance. Tabor is the public finance equivalent of skiing ancient Salvation Army equipment, reducing first costs but the broken leg costs costs $10,000.
A more interesting question is why did the US ever decide to blast interstates right through the center of existing cities, bulldozing everything in the way? Anyone proposing to blow up central Paris to put an eight lane roadway through it would be assumed to have mental health issues, and get laughed at. Same with London, Rome, etc.
So by covering the I-70 trench with parks, Denver is just returning to the global norm of intact urban fabric for central cities. Repairing this self-inflicted wound at the city's heart is expensive, but what is the monetary value of slicing a city in half with a continuous barrier that can only be crossed at a few locations? In an intact city people can walk or bike to destinations if they choose, but urban freeways make automobile use the only option (what is the monetary cost of mandatory auto dependence?). The I-70 viaduct will eventually collapse if nothing is done, so reconstruction is not optional.

[WTF is dat]

All you got to do is vote in a penny or two fuel tax and get more road money!

Thing is, liberal douchebags only vote for pissing away money on schools, and conservatives think the road money would all get spent in the cities.

No actually, that would not work. little constraint known as TABOR. If we raised the gas tax, that money would just end up being returned to Colorado citizens.

Whatever increase we wanted would have to be in the nature of fee to avoid an election. And the amount of the fee would have to be reasonably related to its intended uses. Fee revenues can not be used to defray general costs of government - so we couldn't raise the gas tax and plop it in the general fund. But the FASTER bridge fee that got tacked on to our vehicle registrations a few years back was upheld by the Court of Appeals in August. As an example, though, I do not think you could use a gas fee for transit. (See the third factor below.)

One thing is absolutely certain - it would get litigated. So you can be sure the legislature would be extremely careful in structuring it, like they were with the FASTER bridge fee.

There is another thing to consider, in that TABOR also limits to total revenues the state can receive. I do not have the numbers to know if we are bumping up against that, but from what I understand about the likelihood of us getting tax refunds this year, plus the additional revenue marijuana is generating, I do believe we are at the total cap in taxes the state government is allowed to retain in the current year. (In Colorado, if we have extra revenue because the economy is roaring, state government does not get to keep that revenue - without an election - we have to give that money back. Most newcomers to Colorado do not remember those days. But in the 90s, we all got a check every year.) This is how TABOR cripples Colorado, and prevents any forward progress.

Here is actual language from last August's Court of Appeals case:

"To determine whether a government mandated financial imposition is a 'fee' or a 'tax,' the dispositive criteria is the primary or dominant purpose of such imposition at the time the enactment calling for its collection is passed." Barber, 196 P.3d at 248 (emphasis added). This inquiry requires examination of several factors.

First, we review the language of the enabling statute . If the language states that a primary purpose is to raise revenues for general governmental spending, it is a tax; but if it indicates that the primary purpose of the charge is to finance a particular service, then the charge is a fee. Id. The fact that a fee incidentally or indirectly raises revenue does not alter its essential character as a fee, transforming it into a tax.Id.

Second,we look to the primary or principal purpose for which the money is raised, not the manner in which it is ultimately spent. Id. (if the primary purpose for the charge is to raise revenues for general governmental spending, then the charge is a tax); see Bloom, 784 P.2d at 307-08.

Third, we look to see if the primary purpose of the charge is to finance or defray the cost of services provided to those who must pay it. Barber , 196 P.3d at 241,249.

Any fee amount must be reasonably related to the overall cost of the service; however, mathematical exactitude is not required. Bloom, 784 P.2d at 308. The particular mode adopted by an entity in assessing the fee is generally a matter of legislative discretion. Id.

[WTF is dat]

I know right? Schools, what a stupid way to spend our money...

Danno, I always enjoy your posts

[WTF is dat]

If you think you can do it cheaper, then assemble a consortium of construction companies and make your own bid. Pretty much all the big construction companies are publicly owned, so you can review their financials if you want, but there is no secret hole where they can stash extra money, and profit is a small percentage of project costs. 1.2 billion seems about right to me for infrastructure on this scale built to withstand the punishing daily use I-70 experiences.
$250 per capita in Colorado, amortized over the next century, is around $2 per person per year. Ironic that those of use who purchase $1000 skis and passes whine about a few bucks per year to keep the state functioning, but I guess that is why Tabor got passed in the first place. With public expenditures (and most everything else in life) the "penny wise pound foolish" approach of minimizing initial out-of-pocket expenses does not deliver the optimum price-performance. Tabor is the public finance equivalent of skiing ancient Salvation Army equipment, reducing first costs but the broken leg costs costs $10,000.
A more interesting question is why did the US ever decide to blast interstates right through the center of existing cities, bulldozing everything in the way? Anyone proposing to blow up central Paris to put an eight lane roadway through it would be assumed to have mental health issues, and get laughed at. Same with London, Rome, etc.
So by covering the I-70 trench with parks, Denver is just returning to the global norm of intact urban fabric for central cities. Repairing this self-inflicted wound at the city's heart is expensive, but what is the monetary value of slicing a city in half with a continuous barrier that can only be crossed at a few locations? In an intact city people can walk or bike to destinations if they choose, but urban freeways make automobile use the only option (what is the monetary cost of mandatory auto dependence?). The I-70 viaduct will eventually collapse if nothing is done, so reconstruction is not optional.

Thank you for posting this. Nice perspective on things

:thumbsup:

[capulin overdrive]

I know right? Schools, what a stupid way to spend our money...

Totally!


Can you tell my grand parents were both Colorado school teachers?

[Garth Bimble]

This morning the board at Georgetown read:

Accident Ahead...Road Closed...Alternate Routes Advised

After considering the "alternate routes" available to us (I think there were 2, and one of those was turning around and going back to bed) we decided to take our chances and stay on the highway. Fortunately whoever was in charge of cleaning up the mess left by a truck that caught on fire was able to get the road back open and our delay was minimal. Props to whoever that was.

[Lindahl]

It was the same at 6am too. It's extra demoralizing when you feel like you did everything right to beat it, and still get screwed. Ended up taking about 2 hours to get to summit. Felt a lot longer though.

Yeah, that caught me by surprise. One of the handful of times this season I've driven I70 on the weekend all year.

[summit]

If you think you can do it cheaper, then assemble a consortium of construction companies and make your own bid. Pretty much all the big construction companies are publicly owned, so you can review their financials if you want, but there is no secret hole where they can stash extra money, and profit is a small percentage of project costs. 1.2 billion seems about right to me for infrastructure on this scale built to withstand the punishing daily use I-70 experiences.
$250 per capita in Colorado, amortized over the next century, is around $2 per person per year. Ironic that those of use who purchase $1000 skis and passes whine about a few bucks per year to keep the state functioning, but I guess that is why Tabor got passed in the first place. With public expenditures (and most everything else in life) the "penny wise pound foolish" approach of minimizing initial out-of-pocket expenses does not deliver the optimum price-performance. Tabor is the public finance equivalent of skiing ancient Salvation Army equipment, reducing first costs but the broken leg costs costs $10,000.
A more interesting question is why did the US ever decide to blast interstates right through the center of existing cities, bulldozing everything in the way? Anyone proposing to blow up central Paris to put an eight lane roadway through it would be assumed to have mental health issues, and get laughed at. Same with London, Rome, etc.
So by covering the I-70 trench with parks, Denver is just returning to the global norm of intact urban fabric for central cities. Repairing this self-inflicted wound at the city's heart is expensive, but what is the monetary value of slicing a city in half with a continuous barrier that can only be crossed at a few locations? In an intact city people can walk or bike to destinations if they choose, but urban freeways make automobile use the only option (what is the monetary cost of mandatory auto dependence?). The I-70 viaduct will eventually collapse if nothing is done, so reconstruction is not optional.

While I completely disagree that this project is about bringing Denver to the "Global Urban Norm," which it absolutely isn't, that obtuse urban architecture developer drivel is besides the point:

The point isn't even the cocktackular clusterfuck of a traffic disaster that this will create for the decade long construction for almost no extra capacity.

The point is that I can think of a lot of better ways to spend 1.2 billion besides making a park on top of a highway to make it easier to walk/bike through a neighborhood. I bet much of the 99% of Coloradans who don't live in the immediate 1 mile radius of the proposed 1.2 billion dollar park would agree.

Someone mentioned schools... that sounds like a better idea.

[hatchgreenchile]

I don't understand that project. Elyria Swansea is a dump that smells like dogfood, like some tiny little park covering a small section a highway is going to jump start the entire area? Please...

[capulin overdrive]

LOL, it used to smell like dog food. Now it smells like weed smoke!

[tommyvee]

While I completely disagree that this project is about bringing Denver to the "Global Urban Norm," which it absolutely isn't, that obtuse urban architecture developer drivel is besides the point:
The point isn't even the cocktackular clusterfuck of a traffic disaster that this will create for the decade long construction for almost no extra capacity.
The point is that I can think of a lot of better ways to spend 1.2 billion besides making a park on top of a highway to make it easier to walk/bike through a neighborhood. I bet much of the 99% of Coloradans who don't live in the immediate 1 mile radius of the proposed 1.2 billion dollar park would agree.
Someone mentioned schools... that sounds like a better idea.

$1.2 Billion is an estimate for the whole I-70 reconstruction project, not just for the park. So there is no "1.2 billion dollar park", and if there was such a thing I would join you in opposing it. This article implies that the cost of the highway lowering plus the covered section is about $150 million, so the cost of the cover alone is much, much less than $150 million (http://www.denverpost.com/ci_2052648...ing-road-below)(but overall project cost is 1.8 billion). And 50+% of Colorado's population lives in Denver metro, and a whole lot more than 1% of Colorado population lives within 1 mile of I-70. While 85% of Colorado's population lives on the Front Range so pretty much all of us will end up using I-70 after reconstruction, not to mention we all depend on the necessities of life transported via I-70.
The project increases I-70 to 10 lanes wide, so the capacity increase is substantial.

[bean]

The project increases I-70 to 10 lanes wide, so the capacity increase is substantial.

That article is 3 years old, it's actually going to be 12 lanes (4 general purpose, 2 toll/HOV each way).

[fastfred]

lets see tabor is one of the best things out there, keeping scum sucking worthless politicians from pissing away hard earned money what is wrong with that

if you think tabor is bad I.m pretty sure the skiing is decent in california

the 2 billion dollar i70 project will be excellent when done, its a great idea, if you ever get the chance drive through boston where they put the highway into a tunnel you'll see how nice will be when finished, the funny thing about the project is, once its done all the white people will continue their march north taking over neighborhoods once neglegted so the project is also about gentrification so white yuppies can live in a city without minorties problems like an aging overhead highway

[tommyvee]

I don't understand that project. Elyria Swansea is a dump that smells like dogfood, like some tiny little park covering a small section a highway is going to jump start the entire area? Please...

Starting with my conflict of interest admission, besides being an annoying Boulder elitest I am also a longtime real estate investor. We currently own properties in the Sunnyside and Curtis Park/Five Points neighborhoods of Denver, both of which have skyrocketed in value over the last few years. Elyria/Swansea will do the same thing eventually, weed grow-ops are lots better neighbors than the dogfood plant. Purchasing that "dump" would be a very good investment, but we are too busy with current projects. I wish we had acquired more properties in Five Points 5 years ago when that was still a "dump" too.

Reinhabitation of decayed downtowns is huge all across the US, not just in Denver. The proposed park is 2 blocks long and wide, not tiny, plus the project includes lots of ped/bike bridges elsewhere. I don't have any personal financial interest in Elyria/Swansea but I support revitalizing urban cores, because the only alternative to desireable core cities is suburban sprawl, of which Colorado already has plenty (people have to live somewhere). Denver has lots of other examples of public infrastructure investment catalyzing private redevelopment (Coors Field and LoDo, I-25 pedestrian bridges and LoHi/Highlands, light rail and Auraria/Baker neighborhoods, etc., etc.). Hopefully CDOT can find a way around the inane Tabor provisions.

The problem with Tabor is that it forces Colorado into a "penny wise pound foolish" financial process. Instead of making investments that will repay the public many times over, Tabor forces Colorado into a bureaucratic morass and stagnation rather than action. Would the US be better off if a Federal Tabor had prevented construction of the interstate highway system? Will Colorado be better off if Tabor prevents reconstruction of I-70 and the viaduct collapses?

[hatchgreenchile]

Starting with my conflict of interest admission, besides being an annoying Boulder elitest I am also a longtime real estate investor. We currently own properties in the Sunnyside and Curtis Park/Five Points neighborhoods of Denver, both of which have skyrocketed in value over the last few years. Elyria/Swansea will do the same thing eventually, weed grow-ops are lots better neighbors than the dogfood plant. Purchasing that "dump" would be a very good investment, but we are too busy with current projects. I wish we had acquired more properties in Five Points 5 years ago when that was still a "dump" too.

Reinhabitation of decayed downtowns is huge all across the US, not just in Denver. The proposed park is 2 blocks long and wide, not tiny, plus the project includes lots of ped/bike bridges elsewhere. I don't have any personal financial interest in Elyria/Swansea but I support revitalizing urban cores, because the only alternative to desireable core cities is suburban sprawl, of which Colorado already has plenty (people have to live somewhere). Denver has lots of other examples of public infrastructure investment catalyzing private redevelopment (Coors Field and LoDo, I-25 pedestrian bridges and LoHi/Highlands, light rail and Auraria/Baker neighborhoods, etc., etc.). Hopefully CDOT can find a way around the inane Tabor provisions.

The problem with Tabor is that it forces Colorado into a "penny wise pound foolish" financial process. Instead of making investments that will repay the public many times over, Tabor forces Colorado into a bureaucratic morass and stagnation rather than action. Would the US be better off if a Federal Tabor had prevented construction of the interstate highway system? Will Colorado be better off if Tabor prevents reconstruction of I-70 and the viaduct collapses?

Well, I don’t think that dog plant is going anywhere, and between that and the Suncor facility, it’s not exactly an area that smells….clean. That is the unavoidable reality of that neighborhood. I wouldn’t purchase there, or bet on it become a center or skyrocketing real estate, but YMMV.

I think major overhauls of interstates should be financed from the federal level, just like the 50s/60s, but that conversation is down the rabbit hole.

[WTF is dat]

lets see tabor is one of the best things out there, keeping scum sucking worthless politicians from pissing away hard earned money what is wrong with that

Yes... the fact that there is NO money available to CDOT for any road expansions / improvements is exactly what I would call "keeping scum sucking worthless politicians from pissing away hard earned money."

If we can't use tax dollars to pay for road improvements how exactly do you propose we fix the I70 situation?

Did you even read that article I posted??? That CDOT entertained the idea of scrapping the I-70 improvement in Denver because there was literally NO money? And that CDOT's spokesperson said that CDOT will only have enough money in the budget to maintain roads, and none for expansion?

yeah tabor is totally awesome

[tommyvee]

Well, I don’t think that dog plant is going anywhere, and between that and the Suncor facility, it’s not exactly an area that smells….clean. That is the unavoidable reality of that neighborhood. I wouldn’t purchase there, or bet on it become a center or skyrocketing real estate, but YMMV.
I think major overhauls of interstates should be financed from the federal level, just like the 50s/60s, but that conversation is down the rabbit hole.

My guess is that as Denver's urban revitalization continues both Suncor and Purina will be forced to clean up their acts. Polluting the lungs of hipsters and yuppies with impunity is a lot harder than spewing stink in a slum where people have more immediate concerns than nuisance lawsuits. Neighborhood complaints in north Boulder forced the weed grows to install filters and taller stacks, resulting in smells decreased by an order of magnitude. Located in the center of a city, Purina will eventually either clean up it's act or move out. 15,000 new apartment units are under construction in central Denver and I don't think the new inhabitants will suffer the stink placidly. Just a guess, but the stinking turkey plant in the center of Longmont recently closed, something few would have predicted 10 years ago.

[Foggy_Goggles]

I'm anti-TABOR, sort of. It's a constraint on government, good and bad. We'll always find a way to fund new projects. They are politically attractive and sexy. The problem is, we should first spend money on repairing and maintaining the stuff we already got, like roads and bridges.

[capulin overdrive]

Purina is a zillion times better than it was in the 70's and 80's.

How about Coors? Golden smells like horse piss!