OFFICIAL I70 BITCH THREAD....

[summit]

The problem is not that Colorado is too crowded, the problem is that Coloradans refuse to upgrade our infrastructure to 21st century standards.

Sanctimony. Nobody should whine because we aren't throwing BILLIONS at infrastructure that likely won't do a ton for peak tourist traffic? There are no major infrastructure plans on the table that will solve the problem of EB I70 backing up into mountain towns during peak traffic. If 109 and 110 had raised taxes and taken out billions more in bonds, NOTHING would have been done to address this problem and the vast majority of the money stays in the front range. CDOT's project on the table for Eisenhower-Golden is one to make it theoretically easier for more people to get TO the mountains by taking I70 to 2.5 with a half toll lane WB.

Yes, there is a crowd management problem.

There are low cost solutions that MAXIMIZE our current infrastructure, but we are doing them half ass or not at all. Some traffic management would go a LONG way, and it is CHEAP, but oh my gosh... there might be some politics involved... well how about the politics of spending billions on projects with 4-20 year leads? Why is the latter so facile in your mind but not the simple, immediate, cheap solutions?

Yes we could talk about doing BOTH, and I believe in infrastructure investment, but when we talk about solutions like scheduled traffic segregation at peak (heavy vehicle hold), peak tolls, and vigorously enforced snow tire laws, we are talking projects with huge effect that cost mere millions and can be put into place as soon as the political will pushes bureaucracy to action.

[doebedoe]

This.

Am I reading that article right? Sunday was 3,000 cars shy of the single day record for summer and winter? That’s fucking crazy!

Thats how I read it. Which means 95% of highest capacity day ever. In the middle of winter. That's frankly impressive.

[Danno]

A buddy of mine left Leadville Sunday night at 11, still took him 2:45 to get to Denver.

[skaredshtles]

It’s pretty simple. People who have moved to CO in the last 20 years will have to leave.
Including those “locals” that are just transplants in mountain towns.

Problems solved

<whew>

Made the cutoff.

[hatchgreenchile]

If 109 and 110 had raised taxes and taken out billions more in bonds, NOTHING would have been done to address this problem and the vast majority of the money stays in the front range.

The Floyd Hill to Idaho Springs reconstruction was the single biggest project on Prop 109. $800M in total improvements for the corridor.

That covers Floyd Hill , toll lane to 40, additional lanes on Vail Pass, additional lane between Frisco & Silverthorne and redoing the interchanges at 203 and 205.

[skiracer88_00]

Sanctimony. Nobody should whine because we aren't throwing BILLIONS at infrastructure that likely won't do a ton for peak tourist traffic? There are no major infrastructure plans on the table that will solve the problem of EB I70 backing up into mountain towns during peak traffic. If 109 and 110 had raised taxes and taken out billions more in bonds, NOTHING would have been done to address this problem and the vast majority of the money stays in the front range. CDOT's project on the table for Eisenhower-Golden is one to make it theoretically easier for more people to get TO the mountains by taking I70 to 2.5 with a half toll lane WB.

Yes, there is a crowd management problem.

There are low cost solutions that MAXIMIZE our current infrastructure, but we are doing them half ass or not at all. Some traffic management would go a LONG way, and it is CHEAP, but oh my gosh... there might be some politics involved... well how about the politics of spending billions on projects with 4-20 year leads? Why is the latter so facile in your mind but not the simple, immediate, cheap solutions?

Yes we could talk about doing BOTH, and I believe in infrastructure investment, but when we talk about solutions like scheduled traffic segregation at peak (heavy vehicle hold), peak tolls, and vigorously enforced snow tire laws, we are talking projects with huge effect that cost mere millions and can be put into place as soon as the political will pushes bureaucracy to action.

Aaron, I am for all of the things you suggest (except maybe the heavy vehicle hold...commerce is one of the most important functions of the interstate highway system).

Improvements should be multi-faceted for the largest impact. I thought the EB toll lane was brilliant, was relatively inexpensive and will pay for itself in time.
At the end of the day, there is a capacity problem. The corridor needs 3 lanes each direction (at least one of which will be tolled), Denver to Frisco. The Eisenhower tunnel desperately needs a third bore and WB Floyd Hill needs to be reconfigured completely. That curve at the bottom is not even up to current highway safety standards...they can't even replace that old, rusty bridge in its current form.

If Coloradans won't approve tax increases, toll everything, use bonds to pay for it now and pay them back with toll revenue, similarly to the original construction of US 36.

[Danno]

<whew>

Made the cutoff.

IKR

(made the Colorado cutoff, not if we're just talking front range, but I'm more core because I have mountain town cred)

[summit]

The Floyd Hill to Idaho Springs reconstruction was the single biggest project on Prop 109.
I guess we'll have to keep waiting.

You mean $670M to add a 3rd WB lane down Floyd, widening the bridge, and adding a toll lane WB past Idaho Springs to make it easier to pack more people into the mountains?

Needed, but, as I said: If 109 and 110 had raised taxes and taken out billions more in bonds, NOTHING would have been done to address this problem, this problem being EB I70 backing up into mountain towns.

FTR, I voted YES on 109, no on 110. Prop 109 was an option that kept proportionally more funding in the mountains (some needed projects like the VP wildlife overpass), and I like bond funding for infrastructure.

[hatchgreenchile]

You mean $670M to add a 3rd WB lane down Floyd, widening the bridge, and adding a toll lane WB past Idaho Springs to make it easier to pack more people into the mountains?

Needed, but, as I said: If 109 and 110 had raised taxes and taken out billions more in bonds, NOTHING would have been done to address this problem, this problem being EB I70 backing up into mountain towns.

FTR, I voted YES on 109, no on 110. Prop 109 was an option that kept proportionally more funding in the mountains (some needed projects like the VP wildlife overpass), and I like bond funding for infrastructure.

I edited late; the interchange improvements in Frisco & Silverthorne and aux lane between the two would help.

I voted YES on 109 as well.

[Foggy_Goggles]

Here is a question, "Are the ski areas getting a free ride on this?" If you are the Denver Broncos or the promoter of Dicks at Phish or the organizer of a festival do you pay a tax or fee that is usually passed on the the attendee that is used to pay for the public resources for the event?

[skaredshtles]

IKR

(made the Colorado cutoff, not if we're just talking front range, but I'm more core because I have mountain town cred)

I'd actually be OK with a 25-year cutoff, now.

[summit]

I am for all of the things you suggest (except maybe the heavy vehicle hold...commerce is one of the most important functions of the interstate highway system).

This is the triage of traffic management.

OTR Commerce shits the bed when it is stuck in traffic due to a storm or tourist peak traffic. It literally wastes millions of dollars each time. Many professional drivers have proven themselves as thoughtless as all the tourists who queue up to sit in I70. These commercial drivers are hours limited and need to maximize mileage, yet they aren't planning around the vagaries of traffic or storms because nobody is pressuring them do so (just like the tourists).

Chain enforcement is so obvious... make the fine high enough, or put enough enforcement out there, that the fine*perceived chance of being caught is > the perceived savings for chain skipping. That makes sense right?

We want tourists to travel at non-peak times. You can effect this with steep peak tolls, but a $50 toll is nothing to truckers (or people driving $80K pickups towing $200K RVs) who happily risk $1000 fines to skip chains. Yet, truckers would be able to cover WAY more miles if they aren't sitting in Saturday morning traffic or Sunday evening traffic (and helping to cause it).

Scheduled peak restrictions on heavy vehicles that must climb/descend at speeds significantly slower than the speed limit make absolute sense to maximize highway throughput with known traffic volumes AND vehicle elements! This is basic traffic engineering. Heavy vehicles would plan around it, because it is scheduled, and it would be more efficient than the current chaos both for the truckers AND everyone else! How is it any different than Arizona maximizing water efficiency by restricting lawn watering to nighttime etc?

[skaredshtles]

If only there was some way to get robots to drive the big trucks. And the passenger cars.

[summit]

If only there was some way to get robots to drive the big trucks. And the passenger cars.

Maybe that will be ready to go by the time CO finishes some major infrastructure improvements?

[summit]

The Eisenhower tunnel desperately needs a third bore

Everyone has known this for over 20 years, but they won't bore without a master plan. 15 years ago, I said they should make a 3rd bore and figure out what to do with it during the 5+ years it takes to do the boring project.

[skaredshtles]

Maybe that will be ready to go by the time CO finishes some major infrastructure improvements?

Man... I sure *hope* we're there LONG before that. Because, you know, Colorado voters.

[EWG]

I'd actually be OK with a 25-year cutoff, now.

Me too.

I kinda think we all just signed up for this. Front rangers are here so they can play in the mountains, and they are part of the traffic. Mountain folk are dependent on the incoming horde to make the economy work. No matter where you live you are part of the problem.

I've been trying to figure out driverless cars for a couple years for part of my job, and currently think they aren't fixing anything - they'll make it a little smoother and faster, and make it a little more likely folks will carpool, but they'll also make it easier to drive so more people will, so it'll probably just be a negligible change at best.

Maybe it is self limiting - at some point the delay is just too long and no more people come cause it's too hard to deal with. Limits the number of people playing. If you somehow increased the capacity of the roads by 50%, that just means 50% more people at the ski areas, in the backcountry, etc. That's one of the real interesting parts of the equation - there's not an infinite resource. At some point skiing is at capacity.

I do think the ski areas should be contributing here. When you look at the profits they are making, and then realize that they are making them, at least in part, on the backbone of public infrastructure, it seems inequitable.

This is what I think I do know - anyone who tells you they have a simple and easy answer to this problem is almost certainly wrong.

Except for the monorail, of course. That would totally fix everything.

[skaredshtles]

<snip>

Maybe it is self limiting - at some point the delay is just too long and no more people come cause it's too hard to deal with. Limits the number of people playing.

I think if you look towards California (Bay + Tahoe) as an indicator... I think you'll see that people will tolerate WAY worse than we currently have here on the Front Range.

Ultimately, it's all relative, I guess. But you're right in your original assertion: we're *ALL* part of the problem... regardless of our situation of how long we have been here.

[Foggy_Goggles]

Mountain folk are dependent on the incoming horde to make the economy work

While mountain communities are certainly reliant on tourism and construction there is a tipping point. Right now, the large construction projects use mostly front range labor and benefit very few. Those that own property and live here full time absolutely pay for the infrastructure that visitors use. It works great, until it doesn't. Businesses and residents of the mountain communities are not always killing it. Over the last 25 years, the cost of living (housing and health insurance) as out paced wage growth.

[Telemarketeer]

Mammoth is advertising direct flights from DIA in 3 hours. Why don’t some of you Frangers go there?

[doebedoe]

Mammoth is advertising direct flights from DIA in 3 hours. Why don’t some of you Frangers go there?

Yeah...that's a reasonable alternative. 3hr flight, plus an hour driving to / from / parking at airport, plus 1.5hrs each way with security.

Not to mention I've never spent 3hrs in traffic to go skiing anywhere in the Front Range.

Surely flying to CA is the answer. Probably cheaper than the $10 in car costs of getting to/from the resort.

[Foggy_Goggles]

Starts at $250 I should do that. How much does Unitied charge for one ski bag?

[ColMan]

Mammoth is advertising direct flights from DIA in 3 hours. Why don’t some of you Frangers go there?

Guessing the idea is to get AWAY from California, not go back.

DIA-JAC (1hr) FTW.

[Danno]

Mammoth is advertising direct flights from DIA in 3 hours. Why don’t some of you Frangers go there?

Because it's more fun annoying the Summit/Eagle/Grand county folks, LDO.

[skaredshtles]

Guessing the idea is to get AWAY from California, not go back.

DIA-JAC (1hr) FTW.

Haven't you looked at that thread? They don't want us up there.