News:

Thanks to everyone for the feedback on what errors you encountered from the forum database changes made in Fall 2023. Let us know if you discover anymore.

Main Menu

Denver to Salt Lake City

Started by Fcexpress80, April 24, 2009, 02:55:57 AM

Previous topic - Next topic

Fcexpress80

To me, it is a great omission to not link these two cities with a more direct Interstate corridor.  Are there any plans to upgrade US-6 between 1-70 at Green River and I-15 at Spanish Fork to an Interstate standards freeway?  I kind of like the idea of an Interstate 72 along this route.


corco

#1
I-80 to I-25 is already quite direct. A quick Google Maps check indicates that Salt Lake to Denver via I-80/I-25 is 532 miles and via US-6/I-70 is 526 miles

Not nearly enough to justify a new interstate construction, and something along the  US 40 corridor would be far too expensive to be worth it. Even the US 40 corridor is still 500 miles, so it's not like there's a huge problem there.

It would admittedly be nice to have something that's guaranteed to be open year round between Denver and Salt Lake, but there's just nowhere you can build for that to happen.

usends

#2
I agree with corco: I-25 to I-80 is fairly direct, at least as far as travel within the Mountain West goes.  Plus, building an interstate-quality road through Price Canyon and Spanish Fork Canyon would be a remarkably expensive project.  See my webpage on the topic, and let me know your thoughts:
http://usends.com/Explore/Alt-2-SLC/index.html
usends.com - US highway endpoints, photos, maps, and history

rebel049

Originally, I-70 was supposed to be routed over US-6 to I-15. This was the alignment adopted by Utah but the fed's in a last minute decision decided to give I-70 it's current routing. Utah was quite surprised with this decision.

corco

The Federal Government determined that the Denver to Salt Lake corridor was already adequately served and decided that the only way to justify I-70 being extended was to make it part of the Denver to Las Vegas/Los Angeles corridor, hence the southerly turn

Sykotyk

And I-70 going southwest makes the most sense for Denver<->Los Angeles and Denver<->Las Vegas traffic.

I-25 to I-80 is by far the best route for Denver<->SLC. Besides, you can't guarantee a road will be open. I-80 goes at 6,000 feet across Wyoming (or higher) while I-70 has two mountain passes (Vail and Eisenhower Tunnel) at over 10,000 feet. In the winter, unless you propose a 450-mi tunnel from Denver to SLC, there is no guarantee of an open route between the two.

Besides, for the traffic it gets, US 6 does a more than adequate job from Green River to I-70.

Sykotyk

Fcexpress80

Building a freeway through the Price and Spanish Fork Canyons would be no more a challenge than that of building an I-70 through the mountains of Colorado.  I hear you guys and if I'm ever driving from Denver to Salt Lake City, I will probably drive north to I-80. 

To put an Interstate through mountain regions means having the resources to keep it open through all but the worst of winter storms.  I would imagine that I-80 through Wyoming is only marginally better during severe winter weather as I-70 is at the Eisenhower Tunnels or Vail summits.  Again, an I-72 from Green River through Price to Spanish Fork is only my idea for a fictional freeway, but one that still holds merit and is realistic looking into the future.

corco

#7
How does it add anything to the system though? We've already established it would save exactly SIX miles if routed along existing US 6 (and no more than 32 if somehow  you managed to build a freeway that pretty much runs diagonally direct from Salt Lake to Denver, which is geographically impossible), which is just not worth the hundreds millions of dollars and environmental damage it would cost under any circumstance.

We can't just go building freeways that require the investment of I-70 through Glenwood Canyon all willy-nilly. That corridor was built at incredibly huge expense because it served a clear and necessary purpose. A freeway through Price Canyon will save SIX MILES. The Glenwood Canyon route saved TWO HUNDRED MILES on the Denver-Las Vegas/Los Angeles drive. There's a fairly large difference there.

On that note, there's no river basin for your proposal to follow if you decided to "hook" I-72 further east after Price Canyon to cut extra mileage off. You'd be looking at unprecedented interstate construction. I-70 worked because it was able follow a relatively wide river basin across Colorado. That doesn't exist along any Price Canyon to I-70 scenario.

Revive 755

Quote from: usendsInsert Quote
I agree with corco: I-25 to I-80 is fairly direct, at least as far as travel within the Mountain West goes.  Plus, building an interstate-quality road through Price Canyon and Spanish Fork Canyon would be a remarkably expensive project.  See my webpage on the topic, and let me know your thoughts:
http://www.geocities.com/mapguygk07/Misc/Alt2SLC/index.htm

What's so difficult about Berthoud Pass on US 40?  I tried to look for information on that elsewhere on your site, but I got a "site is unsafe" warning from my security program, with a detailed report indicating the presence of a virus.

corco

#9
The problem is that even Berthoud Pass only saves 30 miles. There's just absolutely no way to justify new interstate construction through terrain that would be so remarkably expensive to build a freeway through just to save 30 miles, especially given that you're running at higher altitudes than I-80 AND I-70, through a notably avalanche prone location, which means it is even more likely to be closed than the other two roads.

Given the speed limit difference that would have to be in place (it's pretty much 75 MPH from the US-40 exit on I-80 all the way to the E-470 beltway on I-25 via I-80/I--25), and would likely NOT possibly be able to be 75 through the mountains (try 65 at the most- it gets down to 50 in parts of Glenwood Canyon), the time difference wouldn't even exist.

532 miles at an average speed of 71 MPH would take 7.5 hours, 500 miles at an average speed of 66 MPH would take 7.5 hours. You can easily average more than 71 MPH between Salt Lake and Denver via I-80, but I highly doubt you'd be able to average more than 66 MPH down the US-40 corridor.

I'm trying really hard to see it, but I can't see any situation arising where another east-west interstate from Denver to Salt Lake City makes any amount of sense.

usends

Revive 755 wrote:
QuoteWhat's so difficult about Berthoud Pass on US 40?  I tried to look for information on that elsewhere on your site, but I got a "site is unsafe" warning from my security program, with a detailed report indicating the presence of a virus.

By "difficult", what I meant is that Berthoud has a relatively high number of hairpins, and not many places to pass slower vehicles.  It's not a pass you can do quickly any time of year, and it's a white-knuckle pass when the road is icy.  Instead of US 40, you can get from Denver to Kremmling much more quickly (and save about 10 miles) by using the Tunnel and hwy. 9.

As for the "site unsafe" thing, I have no idea.  But Yahoo is shutting down Geocities later this year, so I'm going to have to move the site to another host anyway...
usends.com - US highway endpoints, photos, maps, and history

usends

Fcexpress80
QuoteBuilding a freeway through the Price and Spanish Fork Canyons would be no more a challenge than that of building an I-70 through the mountains of Colorado.

Well, that's my point: do you understand what a monumental task it was to build I-70 west of Denver?  Now that it's here, it's hard to imagine living without it, but today it's difficult to visualize enough public will (not to mention funding) to do another project like that.  Here's an interesting website about the history of I-70 through Glenwood Canyon: http://www.mesalek.com/colo/glenwood
usends.com - US highway endpoints, photos, maps, and history

Sykotyk

The bypass really baffled me. But yeah, other than a few more passing lanes, US 6 is a great road.

Until people actually drive out here and understand the monumental cost involved, there's no need for it.

The other thing people need to remember is that most major traffic, even if I-70 to US 6 were 50 miles shorter, still would take I-25 to I-80. Especially commercial traffic. Being at a rather steady 6,000+ feet, as opposed to climbing from 5,000+ feet  to over 10,000 is arduous.

I-25 out of Denver is a great road. I-80 has the 8400 foot Happy Jack Summit, and then relatively flatness from Laramie heading west to Evanston (with Elk Mountain and the Sisters shaking things up a bit).

Sykotyk

tmthyvs

Quote from: corco on April 24, 2009, 03:08:42 AM
I-80 to I-25 is already quite direct. A quick Google Maps check indicates that Salt Lake to Denver via I-80/I-25 is 532 miles and via US-6/I-70 is 526 miles

What's the distance if you take I-25 to CO-14 to US-287 to I-80, and what is US-287 like in that stretch. It seems to me that IF (and it's a big IF) a shorter/more direct route is wanted between Denver and Salt Lake, a NE bypass of Fort Collins and upgrade of US-287 would be the most effective such route.

usends

Quote from: tmthyvs on May 27, 2009, 05:50:50 AM
What's the distance if you take I-25 to CO-14 to US-287 to I-80, and what is US-287 like in that stretch. It seems to me that IF (and it's a big IF) a shorter/more direct route is wanted between Denver and Salt Lake, a NE bypass of Fort Collins and upgrade of US-287 would be the most effective such route.

You save about 15 miles by using 287 instead of I-25/I-80.  Yet despite that, 287 is not a faster alternative.  The primary reason is CO 14 takes you right through downtown Ft. Collins, so there's a lot of city slowdowns.  Also, once you get past LaPorte, 287 is a two-laner all the way up to Laramie.

Quite a few people have figured out what I call the "Owl Canyon Bypass" which avoids Ft. Collins but still benefits from the shorter distance.  You stay on I-25 past Wellington, get off at exit 281, then take CR 70 (or Owl Cyn Rd) west to 287.  That road becomes unpaved where it goes over a hogback, but it's in pretty good condition.
usends.com - US highway endpoints, photos, maps, and history

agentsteel53

what is a hogback?

(other than a place where delicious, delicious pork comes from ... mmm pork  :sombrero: )
live from sunny San Diego.

http://shields.aaroads.com

jake@aaroads.com

agentsteel53

QuoteI highly doubt you'd be able to average more than 66 MPH down the US-40 corridor.

try me. 

Out in the dino-sticks I've floored it and done 90 to make up for the crawl of Berthold Pass.
live from sunny San Diego.

http://shields.aaroads.com

jake@aaroads.com

corco

#17
I dunno man, I live in Laramie and drive down to FoCo, Loveland, or Greeley at least once a week, and I've consistently found that going through Cheyenne adds at least 15 minutes. The distance is actually 25 miles longer, not 15.

FoCo traffic isn't that bad on SH-14, and the speed limit is 65 all the way up 287, and especially northbound there are plenty of passing lanes- I've never gotten stuck behind a slow moving vehicle for more than a couple miles.

Owl Canyon works, but most of the year it's hard to pass, and it is an extra 10 miles. Unless I need to go to Cheyenne I always just take 287 to 14 to get to I-25- as someone who has tried all three routes (multiple times) and does the drive very, very frequently, (frequently enough that I sometimes get bored of 287 and take alternate routes) I can tell you completely honestly that 287 is definitely the fastest.

It seems to me that people in Laramie would know the fastest way down to the Front Range from Laramie, and I have yet to run into somebody in Laramie who uses anything other than 287- with the occasional Owl Canyon bypass user- but I've never met anybody in Laramie that thinks I-25 is the best route or would even consider using it if in a hurry.

Bickendan

Consider another advantage of the I-80 - I-25 route from Salt Lake to Denver: It doesn't have the metro Salt Lake traffic on I-15 from SLC to Provo.

sandiaman

I  don't think  Sykotyk  has ever driven US 6  through  Price Canyon.  It is very congested and carries much more than just SLC to Denver traffic.  It carries traffic from  the Northwest ( Portland,  Boise, SLC)  to Texas  and Albuquerque.  Drive it sometime.  It is inadequate for current traffic and FUTURE  growth.

Sykotyk

Quote from: sandiaman on December 23, 2009, 06:42:23 PM
I  don't think  Sykotyk  has ever driven US 6  through  Price Canyon.  It is very congested and carries much more than just SLC to Denver traffic.  It carries traffic from  the Northwest ( Portland,  Boise, SLC)  to Texas  and Albuquerque.  Drive it sometime.  It is inadequate for current traffic and FUTURE  growth.

http://sykotyk.com/supertrip/day5.html

I've driven it a total of at least 10 times now. To me, it is adequate. I'd prefer more passing lanes. It is nice UDOT is widening it to four lanes from I-15 towards Price, as well.

Sykotyk

xonhulu

Quote from: Sykotyk on December 24, 2009, 02:19:36 AM
I've driven it a total of at least 10 times now. To me, it is adequate. I'd prefer more passing lanes. It is nice UDOT is widening it to four lanes from I-15 towards Price, as well.

That brings up a good point.  Does US 6 here need more lanes?  Probably yes.  But does it need to be upgraded to an interstate, which is a considerably more expensive proposition?  It already has the bypass around Price, which could stand some improvement, but I don't see the need as much along the rest of its length.  (And yes, before anyone asks, I have also driven it several times.)

Sykotyk

You can have high speed travel without interstate standards (i.e., limited access, interchanges, etc).

There needs to be some more passing lanes from Wellington to Green River. That's probably the biggest issue and mostly due to truck traffic. A bypass around Wellington, as well would be nice.

There's a point where we have to decide that paying for an interstate isn't worth it. But building a high speed (i.e, no lights, stop signs, or towns) route is still very feasible and rather cheap compared to an interstate. My same argument for US287 from Limon, CO through Amarillo and down to Fort Worth. No need for limited access/interstate standards,... just eliminate the towns, lights, and stop signs, and all is well in my book.

Sykotyk

xonhulu

Maybe a couple of well-placed interchanges would also help, like at US 191.  But I agree, no need for a full interstate.

Hellfighter

I feel that that section of I-70 is wasted because it's not really going anywhere. If they really wanted to make it good, they would extend it to meet up with I-80 west of Reno.



Opinions expressed here on belong solely to the poster and do not represent or reflect the opinions or beliefs of AARoads, its creators and/or associates.