Discussion on highway-expansion

[l...@wildblue.net]

As far as expansion is concerned, truck only lanes should be in
place. 18 wheelers should have there own "highway" These could be
extra lanes added to existing I70 or a separate highway. If extra
lanes are added they should gave concrete dividers and extensive fines
for truckers who use the regular highway and also big fines for
motorists using truck lanes.

[3pe...@gmail.com]

I like this idea. It is rare traffic is slow in both directions, so a
few variable lanes would make a lot of sense.

[James.Wh...@gmail.com]

CDOT should investigate building a third 2 lane section of road that
would be reversible. 3 lanes in each direction would not be nearly as
effective as 4 lanes in the direction of traffic and 2 lanes in the
opposite way. There is never heavy traffic in both directions,
revsible lanes make the most sense

[bstahl...@gmail.com]

Perhaps adding in a reversible lane in sections of the highway where
it would fit would moderate construction and highway footprint
expansion. Brian S.

[et...@hotmail.com]

More lanes means more cars, more accidents, more traffic, and more
polution. Also...where do all of the drivers go while construction of
these new lanes create a 20 year cone zone of traffic on the corridor
unless they have a transit option as an alternative? Transit first.

[kau...@stifel.com]

The idea of reversible lanes is certainly workable. Two lanes,
reversed, will work much better than a "penalty" (charging for use
during high-use periods). In addition, we must try to limit truck
traffic during the high-use periods, either by a 4-hour ban Saturday
morning and Sunday afternoon, or at least requiring right-lane only
use during these times.

Part of the discussion must also include how we will pay for these
solutions. Besides defining remedies, we must include how we will pay
for it all - and certainly it cannot all fall on the taxpayers of
Colorado. Developers and ski operators must realize that I70 was
built and paid for by taxpayers, and these monster corporations must
be made to pay their fair share of any improvements. After all, the
traffic is going to THEIR resorts and to THEIR ski areas, supporting
THEIR expansions and profits. Developing our beautiful state will
have major costs, to be sure, but lets make sure that the reasons for
the traffic problems are clearly understood, and share the cost fairly
by all involved.

Thanks for providing this forum.

[ma...@skiandsail.com]

I had an idea regarding reversible lanes a while back. First of all, I
don't believe it's feasible (or possible) to build additional lanes in
the median from Hidden Valley to the tunnel. So here's my thought: In
the morning, convert the inside, eastbound lane into a westbound lane.
Control the traffic by utilizing red and green overhead signals
similar to the ones used in the tunnel when closing lanes. In the
afternoon, flip the system around, similar to the express lanes on
I-25.This would require some cross-over lanes at each interchange.
Additionally, where space permits, we could build some slow moving
vehicle lanes to the outside of the existing lanes so that traffic
moving in the single lane does not get backed up too much by a slow
moving vehicle.

[stac...@yahoo.com]

Agree with the reversible lane, that makes sense. For a temporary
fix, open the frontage road , both lanes to one way traffic for two
hours, in the morning and evening, expand the frontage road further up
I-70. I'm sure the locals will hate if for a little while, but I've
been to areas in the world where this is done during heavy traffic and
it works. Add RTD buses from the park n' ride at a reasonable fare.
While all these temporary fixes are underway, get to adding the mag
lev train and/or widening the rest of the highway. Tourism is a vital
part of the economy.

[dfrie...@gmail.com]

No matter the cost, changing I70 to an 8 lane super-hiway would be
ideal. Keep the center 4 lanes reversible so you can have 6 lanes in
each direction for rush hour and 2 going the oposite way. WHile we're
at it, why don't we cover the hiway like they do in eurpe so there is
no avalanche danger and no snowy road for trucks and californians to
slow every one down. YOu could pay for it with combination of tolls on
the 4 lane section and fees on the ski and camping and hotel receipts
since it is clear that these users, myself included are the ones who
need the extra lanes.

[t]

How about upgrading and repairing the old Rollinsville pass. It would
be out of the way from existing traffic while under construction. A
fair amount of the traffic is to Winter Park anyway.

[joshua...@cable.comcast.com]

We need another route to the Summit County area. I think if you
turned 285 into a highway and made a tunnel from just before Kenosha
Pass to Alma, you'd allow another route for South-Denver drivers.
That would alleviate much of the traffic on I70.

[smwe...@gmail.com]

Instead of trying to expand I70 has anyone looked into expanding or
creating other options for roads into the mountains. There are many
places on I70 where adding lanes just is not an option and anytime you
add and then have to take away lanes a back up is created when cars
are required to merge again. A large part of the population in Denver
live considerably south of I70, what are the options for heading out
of town west of Greenwood Village, Littleton, Castle Rock, etc. that
can be developed, created, expanded to create a desirable alternative
to taking I70?

[tbr...@myawai.com]

Being a 4th generation Colorado'n, and a Grandfather as Mayor I've
seen major changes in the last 55 years, as my family has.
The real problem was in the 1970s when the current Govoner had a
rubber stamp policy stating- "If We Do Not Build The Roads, No One
Will Move Here". This is why we were awarded the Winter Olymipcs but
turned them down at the "request" of "Special Interest Groups". If we
would have built out to accomidate the Olympics (like Salt Late City)
we would have a large percent paid for by federal dollars. Lets not
continue making the same mistake, now it's up to Development impact
fees that must be imposed on massive Corporations like Vail Assoiates
and all the others that use I70 as a CASH FLOW pipeline.

[K]

CDOT should consider making I-70 four lanes in each direction from
Denver, west to Frisco. There are suggestions for building an
additional section of two-lanes that switches direction based on the
traffic needs. When you examine the width of existing systems like
this (I-25's HOV lanes) you can see that the two lanes, with the
required shoulders and barriers take up a lot of space. I suggest
that four lanes, in each directions would take up similar space than
three sets of two lanes. The four lanes in each direction could be
partially overlapped similar to Glenwood Canyon. Eisenhower tunnel
would also have to be enlarged.

To fund this project, I suggest increasing the state gas tax. It
would probably have to be a sizable increase ($0.05 to $0.08/gallon)
because a project of this size in an environmentally sensitive area
will cost billions.

[heidi...@hotmail.com]

Agree with the reversible lanes but know there isn't a lot of space to
expand. What about a double decker interstate, using the upper level
for reversible traffic during peak times?

[tbr...@myawai.com]

With any other state, county, federal roadway developers who profit
from "development" projects are required to pay development impact
fees to enlarge roadways capable of supporting those developments. We
have record ski lift capcity at newly developed ski resorts, record
condo construction at Vail, Copper, and most other developed
resorts. Enforce strict impact fees to these resort owners, like
Vail Assoiates and all the others, use this along with the funds from
REFERENDUM "C" (the tax increase for future roads) then build the
highway like it should have been done years ago. After all, the
resort owners loose millions of dollars every time I70 is closed.
After all if Vail assoiates can afford to purchase Eagle County, they
should be able to afford a road to it. That's the restorts cash flow,
not mine. However thanks for bringing this up...

[joshua...@cable.comcast.com]

We need a second route. If 285 ws turned into a highway, and you
built a tunnel or pass from just before Kenosha to the town of Alma,
there would be a reasonable second route to Summit County that would
take about the same amount of time. Most people in the South Metro
area would use that route and it would alleviate a ton of traffic.

[WebBiographies]

Expanding the highway seems to me a good idea in theory and a terrible
idea in practice. Remember the years/decades of problems just with
TRex? Imagine doing that to a 100 mile stretch in the Rockies. There
needs to be a different solution.

One quick idea though, one that's done in many places around the world
- ban commercial rigs on weekends. This would eliminate traffic jams
at the tunnel (from the top-of-the-hour closures), and traffic
slowness caused by rigs passing one another. They could still use I-80
to get to SLC, and the lower routes to reach other places.

[jas]

I think we're all looking at this the wrong way. We don't need to
expand I70. That would eventually fill up as more people move in to
colorado. What we need is more routes to the ski areas. Making 285 a
full-blown highway and adding a section from before kenosha pass to
Alma would be a route that most people in the South-Metro would take,
and a route over Rollins Pass would also off-load I70. More routes
would also give people options when the roads are closed for weather,
etc.

[rickb...@yahoo.com]

Add additional lanes. East bound continue the 3rd lane from US 6 merge
to I-70 and from US-40 to I-70. West bound from top of Floyd Hill to
US 40.

No 18 Wheelers during rush hours.

[vmum...@msn.com]

That's what we really need (more lanes). Then we can make the
mountains look like I 25 in south Denver. Encourage driving and more
people will drive... The roads will fill up faster than you can make
them. Check out our latest "upgrade" near the tech center. Get your
check books out because you will be paying for it forever.

[jayhos...@gmail.com]

I'm not a traffic or civil engineer, so I can't say I have a perfect
answer. But, some of the best ideas could be adding reversable lanes,
using geothermal deicing technology and/or snow sheds to increase
speeds at problem spots (drier roads), or maybe an entirely seperate
toll road with toll tunnels, etc. (the least environmentally friendly
option), which would also be used by busses. As much as I like trains,
it doesn't seem very practical considering how spread out the ski
resorts are. I do think the existing ski-train should run more often,
though.

I would think a road expansion is the least environmentally impactful
solution. Cars sitting in traffic is terrible for the environment, and
the 10-15 feet on either side of I-70 is not exactly pristine natural
habitat. Reversable lanes seem like they would give you the most bang
for the buck of pavement.

[jrl...@gmail.com]

I agree that 285 would be another alternate route for skiers to take
if expansion was done on existing roads, especially through the town
of Alma. This would be much more cost effective then widening I70, and
makes much more sense then building a light rail or monorail from
Denver to the ski resorts.

[tbr...@myawai.com]

Were you around for the Glenwood Canyon project. This was a massive
build-out through the intire canyon, now with a 2 layer highway system
that works very well.

[marty...@comcast.net]

This is the right kind of approach, and to address all those "Green"
advocates, add a light rail within the same reconstruction. If anyone
has noticed, I25 from downtown to south of town has improved
drastically since they added lanes and light rail.

The only frustration will be the disruption to current traffic
patterns to allow the reconstruction / improvements. There would be
severe traffic jams as we all saw with the constant realignment of
lanes during TRex

Maybe a combination of 2 additional lanes to the existing 4,
reversible for heavy volume, and a tunnel with rail lines that include
drive on / drive off service. Based upon the number of cars going to
and from Summit County, this would be the likely destination of the
tunnel. But, you almost need to start a tunnel somewhere close to the
front range to offload the volume before the canyons narrow.

[Timot...@gmail.com]

We're not going to be able to build additional lanes until we provide
an alternative route to use during and after the construction period.

We all know that the price is going to be astronomical for new lanes,
but that's true of rail or any other I-70 fix. In addition to the
astronomical cost, however, is the astronomical amount of time it
would take to actually build an additional lane, and the pain
involved. Anyone remember the T-REX delays? Things certainly got a
lot worse before they got better. Same thing here -- estimates are
that construction would take the better part of a decade. In the
meantime, traffic gets much worse than ever for the foreseeable
future. And worst of all, there's really not an alternate route; at
least T-REX commuters had surface streets and other highways to use
instead of I-25; here, there's not any viable alternatives.

The only answer is to leave the highway alone for now and build a new
right-of-way altogether. That likely means rail, though some kind of
elevated busway might work. Once we have that second mode to allow
for an alternate way of getting up to the mountains, then maybe we can
talk about lane expansion. For now, it's simply not workable to make
things worse on I-70 for for the next decade -- the window of
opportunity for that is long past.

[Mark J]

Any form of reversible lane expansion makes the most sense since it
will utilize the built highway space most effectively. Mass transit
via fixed rails makes little sense since the traffic ends up
dispersing to so many different points that are relatively far apart
from each other. Forcing people onto a train's schedule is also less
desirable than traveling on your own schedule. Mass transit via buses
is a little better since they are more flexible where they go and can
utilize the same reversible lane expansion without requiring a very
costly rail system that will likely benefit relatively few.

[bren...@juno.com]

A second route is the best long term solution. Let's get a few things
straight about "adding extra lanes to I-70", "reversible lanes", etc.
1) twice the number of lanes WILL NOT handle twice the number of cars
2) the construction impact of adding more lanes/monorail/whatever to
I-70 will actually MAKE TRAFFIC WORSE for several years
3) no matter how many lanes, the road is still vulnerable to weather,
rockslides, accidents, etc. I-70 is currently a single point of
failure.

What a second route (likely upgrading 285, with tunnel to
Breckenridge) will do:
1) Provides higher capacity - i.e. two lanes on 285 and two lanes on
I-70 will handle more traffic than four lanes on I-70 alone.
2) Alternate route that may see different weather... somedays when
it's snowing more along I-70, 285 will be clearer, and vice-versa
3) Alternate route provides redundancy in the event of jack-knifed
semis, avalanches, rock slides, construction, etc.
4) Additional benefit of an upgraded interstate for all those people
who already use 285 to commute to work, travel to the South-Central
mtns, etc.

The mileage/time to drive the 285-tunnel-Breckenridge route will be
roughly equal to what it currently takes to drive I-70 to
Breckenridge. From Breck, it's only a few miles to Keystone/A-basin
using Swan Mtn road. I would also continue this highway to the Frisco/
I-70 exit, where Hwy 9 currently takes you.

[EyeOf...@gmail.com]

Additional lanes are necessary for I-70. Reversible lanes are a great
idea, since the traffic is so 'directional'. Of course, additional
lanes will be extremely expensive, so why not put a toll on the
reversible lane(s)? The revenue could pay for the expansion, and the
toll lanes would allow some skiers to travel more quickly, while the
regular lanes would benefit from less traffic. Although additional
routes would definitely help, then it would be anyone's guess which
road was going to become a parking lot during the commute.

[SummitSkier]

so here's the deal, Colorado's population continues to grow and the
state's infrastruture is horiibly behind the times.....adding lanes to
I-70 would help a little...but even two additional lanes in each
direction would only satisfy the current traffic load....any expansion
would need to take into account population growth over the next 5, 10,
or even 20 years and the fact is, Clear Creek County is absolutely
oppsed to any highway expansion.....and the money just isn't
there....and any addtional lanes through Clear Creek county would need
to be combined with an additional tunnel at the Eisenhower/Johnson
Tunnel....Basically right now we need to get the semis off the
highway, but there's no way to do that either.......A train would be
great, but the cost and the involvement of mutiple jurisdictions would
mean talks of a train or monrail system would take several years
before work could begin....The answer is, leave your house
early....when I lived in Denver years ago I would leave my house at
midnight; by two in the morning I was in the parking lot of A-Basin,
campfire burning and marshmellows roasting....I also got first chair
every day....Earn your turns.....

[Jm...@aol.com]

I drive to Frisco on Thursday aft or Fri morn and return Monday morn.
Never a problem. Flex work time for skiers is one answer although it
involves the employer. After that I believe the near term fix is the
recommendation of Mark J. A reversible HOV and Bus lane, increased bus
operations makes sense. The capital cost of a rail system and its
disruption is out of the question. If the engineers can do TREX, the
reversible can to done with minimal disruption.

[a...@vail.net]

Many of you appear to want to know the facts about what is being
studied for solutions. Are you looking for a real source for
information? Take a look at the I-70 coalition website if you want
information about the work that is being done on the future of the
I-70 corridor.

The I-70 coalition web site. http://www.i70solutions.org/

[Erls]

Two fold here:

Part 1: Expansion.

Expand I-70 to 6 lanes (3 each direction) between the Tunnel and
Avon. Work is done ONLY between April - November, with the work being
done in short increments. Year 1: Tunnel to halfway to Frisco. Year
2: Rest of the way to Frisco. Year 3: Frisco to Vail Pass. Year 4:
Vail Pass to Avon.

This way, during the major tourist season (Winter) there is no
construction causing problems. Also, the weather is much more
favorable to 1 lane traffic in the summer than in the winter.

The final part of this is to add a 'Transit' lane between the East and
the West bound lanes. Every 5 miles have a 'Pullover' area. This
lane would be solely for Public Transportation (Buses), and would be
run by the bus services. By communicating, Buses would either be told
to pull over or keep going for each 'Pullover' area. During the busy
times, when traffic is slow, these buses would be moving much faster,
and would hence encourage mroe people to use them.

Part 2: Financing

In order to raise funds, set up a Toll between the Tunnel and Denver,
a Toll between the Tunnel and Dillon/Silverthorn, and a Toll between
Frisco and Vail. With avalid Colorado Drivers License there is no
charge, but for an Out-Of-State driver there is a $2 charge. That
way, Colorado citizens who are already paying in taxes are not paying
again, while the major source of the trouble (tourists) are chipping
in to fix I-70. Also, Semi's are charged $3 for the use of I-70,
regardless of state.

[swk...@aol.com]

By adding a North/South Tunnel System, this would leave the I-70
corridor less stressed and make construction improvements for the long
term more manageable. Also, would leave a clear path for Central
Denver residents and airport traffic to and from all ski resorts.
We all know how sucessfull our I-70 tunnels have been for many years.
Now it is time to expand this system to manage our growing traffic
problems while servicing the entire front range. This would be both a
short and long term solution and could include a I-70 train in the
sometime in the future. This solution is affordable now and can be
completed in a reasonable timeline in manageable stages. Now we would
have 3 routes to and from the mountains instead of just one path.

[swk...@aol.com]

North Passage
This passage could be used as a alternate path for residents living in
the North Metro areas also including Northern Colorado. This passage
could be put in place by adding a tunnel system from the
Granby,Kremmling area. This tunnel/road system could head east toward
the Boulder or North of Boulder area.
This solution could off load traffic from all Ski area's for Northern
Colorado residents. Again can be used as a alternate route in case of
accidents or weather problems.

[swk...@aol.com]

The problem we have with the ski and summer traffic is that everything
funnels into the I-70 corridor. We all know this. Whatever is done,
must address the entire front range. By only improving I-70, you have
years of construction with huge traffic nightmares and high costs.
Then when completed there will still be one way up and one way down.
The solution to this can be both short and long term. The solution is
adding North/South Passage Tunnel System.
South Passage
This would provide an alternate path for traffic for residents living
in the southern areas. This passage could be put in place by adding a
tunnel system from the Copper Mtn area heading east connecting to the
Hwy 285 corridor. Hwy 285 has already had major improvements and could
be connected to this tunnel system. Also improvements can be made from
Breckenridge over to Hwy 285 by either improved roads or a tunnel.
This solution could off load traffic from the Vail Valley, Copper Mtn
and Breckenridge to the South Metro Area including Castle Rock and
Colorado Springs. Also can be used as a alterative route in case of
accidents, avalanches, and other weather problems.

[Happy2Drive]

I don't mind sitting in traffic that much. Certainly not enough to
rip up the landscape any more than I70 already has. Too expensive,
too unnecessary, two lanes is enough.

[atla...@hotmail.com]

The best solution I have heard to this problem was described in a
letter in the Rocky Mountain News some time last year. The writer
proposed that a tunnel be bored from Floyd Hill to Dillon. Two
reversible lanes could be constructed at first, with two more added
later if required. A toll could be charged to help defray
construction costs. This tunnel would save both time and fuel because
it would be perfectly straight, and would have much less elevation
gain than the current highway. It would also be unaffected by
mountain weather.

[atla...@hotmail.com]

The idea that follows was suggested by someone in a letter to the
Rocky Mountain News sometime last year, and it struck me as
brilliant. Bore a highway tunnel from Floyd Hill to Dillon. One
"hole" could be drilled initially with two reversible lanes, and a
second one added later if necessary. A toll could be charged to help
defray the construction costs. This option would have minimal impact
on I-70 during construction, would be immune to weather problems, and
would save both time and fuel for those who used it.

I am told that Switzerland, Austria and Italy have extensive highway
tunnels through the Alps, we should too.

[heidi...@hotmail.com]

Frontage Road Expansion.... Expand Frontage Road and make only
available for traffic going opposite direction of Rush hour. From
6-9ish am Sat and Sun west bound from bottom of I70 to tunnel its
4(existing) lanes westbound and East bound traffic takes expanded
frontage road. Then in evening coming back, 4 lanes are all for
eastbound traffic and frontage road is for westbound.

Done and Done!

[Norpinist]

Short-term Fixes:

-Remove the Twin Tunnels east of Idaho Springs. These are the root-of-
all-evil on Sunday afternoons eastbound.

-Install a collector lane on the US 40 interchange on east and
westbound lanes - this is another pinch-point during high volume times

-Install climbing lanes on Georgetown Hill to the Eisenhower Tunnel
westbound and decending lanes eastbound - trucks must stay in these
lanes at all times, except to pass

-Install turnout exits on the approaches to the tunnel in Summit
County and wherever they make sense from Idaho Springs to the
Eisenhower Tunnel - these allow people to bail-out and right now,
there are no bail-out points anywhere

-Install lit, electric signage every few miles that says "Keep Right
Except to Pass" - this is another root-of-all-evil and causes multiple
accidents when slow traffic inhabits the left lane. Fine drivers that
will not yield the right-of-way.

-Build tow truck staging areas every 5 miles and have them manned with
tow trucks during busy periods. Install signs every few miles that
might flash "accident at MM 180 in left lane, merge right at MM179"

-Enforce a 60 MPH speed limit 24/7 - 365 with automated radar guns
with speed readouts every five miles. Speed kills, but especially on
I-70 in the mountains. If cars traveled at a more uniform speed -
50-70 mph, rather than 45-85 mph, there would be far fewer accidents.

-These are things that can be done with very little immediate
expenditure (save for blasting the Twin Tunnels) and can be put into
place almost immediately. Also limit HAZMAT trucks to every two hours
when Loveland Pass is closed, as that buggers things up big time on
powder days

[cjsp...@aol.com]

I agree with Norpinist, they should get rid of the twin tunnels at
Idaho Springs, they need to build a rail system just for the skiers in
the winter time or summer time for tourists that don't want to deal
with the traffic. I go camping in the summer and pull a 5th-wheel
trailer/boat and I DO NOT want to pay a toll. This idea of a toll is
out of the question. I think with a rail system in place that the
money collected from that system will help pay for it and I don't
think it is fair for the people that goes camping/boating in the
summer to have to pay a toll for the skiers fun.

[misse...@hotmail.com]

There should be an attack from all sides. Expanding Rollins Pass and
Highway 285 are excellent long term ideas for the Winter Park and
south metro area skiers, respectively. Obviously, the immediate
problem is I-70. The bottleneck begins from the Floyd Hill area to
the Winter Park exit. Expand this area first with additional lanes
stacked on top of the existing lanes (like they did in Glenwood
Canyon). Also, reversible lanes can and should be implemented now.
They did this several ski seasons ago, heading back into Denver and it
helped a lot. Why did they stop?
As far as how to finance it - I don't agree that taxpayers or truckers
should foot the bill, as they did not create the problem. And the
idea of toll booths on I-70 is just ludicrous - won't that just make
traffic a whole lot worse? Make the corridor ski areas pony up to
pay for it. They are the ones profiting from our misery. The Front
Range skier/boarder is a huge part of their market. Of course, we
realize that the end users(us) will pay for it in the long run in the
form of higher pass and ticket prices, but we partially created the
problem in the first place by buying up all the Front Range passes.
Ten years ago, this traffic situation did not exist, and neither did
affordable ski passes. I for one would be willing to pay more for a
ski pass if I knew I could get there and back in a reasonable amount
of time.

[JimWolf]

Planning ahead:
Most I-70 solutions will require an additional Eisenhower Tunnel bore.
This should be planned and executed ASAP. In the short run while other
highway or mass transit improvements are being argued there would be a
separate path for hazardous vehicle traffic relieving a major source
of delay on the hour. Nothing more frustrating than getting stuck 1
mile from the tunnel with no way to turn around for hours at a time.

[cyn...@comcast.net]

Increasing Use of Moffat Tunnel:
There are ways to use Moffat tunnel that will in turn, decrease
traffic on I-70.

Short term fix during winter months:
Get Intrawest (mangagers of Winter Park) to make a deal with Amtrak to
use a few train cars to deliver people from the East side of Moffat
tunnel to Winter Park. The east side of Moffat tunnel is right
outside of Nederland, which will be convenient for people from NW
Denver, Boulder & Ft. Collins. There is a very large parking lot on
the East side of the tunnel. People could park there, pay a fee to
jump on a train car that leaves every 15 min. or so, and delivers them
at WP 10 min. later. Have service on weekends from 8-11a.m. going
West, and 3-6p.m. going East. Its a MUCH shorter drive, better for
the environment, and takes some traffic off I-70.

Longer Term Fix:
Retrofit Moffat tunnel to allow for trains and cars. Many tunnels in
Europe accomodate trains and cars. I think the biggest benefit will
be offloading traffic from Rocky Mountain National Park. They won't
even need to get on I-70. People could come out of the Park, go to
Fraser and come through Moffat Tunnel to get back to the front range.
Since I-70 is busier in summer than in winter, this could help
decrease I-70 traffic.