For those planning to travel I-70 west of Denver in the near future, a wildfire in Glenwood Canyon has shut down the interstate and pretty much all travel routes between Vail and Glenwood Springs.
The fire started earlier in the week and is still 0% contained. The interstate will likely remain shut down well into next week.
More details in the Mountain West section.
Bumping this thread on the National Board for the benefit of those who were planning to use I-70 in Western Colorado this summer, and possibly beyond...
https://www.thedenverchannel.com/news/local-news/i-70-through-glenwood-canyon-to-remain-closed-due-to-extreme-damage
As of Sunday Evening, CDOT now says officially I-70 thru Glenwood Canyon will be closed INDEFINITELY.
From what I have heard, CDOT has suspended the major construction project on US‐50 (The southern I-70 detour) which had the road closed most weekdays on a stretch between Montrose and Gunnison. This is expected to stay open until the Glenwood Canyon problems are resolved, which COULD be months away.
Not sure how "rough" US-50 is within the halted project, as they tend to take the road down to a hard dirt/gravel surface when they rebuild the road. My work will take me.along part of the US-40 part of the primary detour and Tuesday will hopefully allow me to use the "limited vehicle" CO-82 detour via Aspen.
Great. My brother and I are scheduled to come home from our western trip via I-70. We missed Glenwood Canyon on our Amtrak trip a couple of years ago due to a long delay, so it ended up being after dark when the train went through there instead of during the daylight.
What is CODOT's recommended detour? I'm guessing they're allowing traffic all the way until CO-82 at Glenwood Springs? In that case it would be CO-82 down to US-24 at Leadville, then back up to Copper Mountain on CO-91.
Because there is so much long-distance traffic on I-70 through the Colorado Rockies, this will increase traffic volumes on I-40 from California to Oklahoma, and I-80 across Wyoming as well. Shouldn't be a problem though as I-80 in Wyoming is empty, and I presume I-40 in CA, AZ, NM, TX, and OK is also.
Quote from: hbelkins on August 01, 2021, 09:09:21 PM
Great. My brother and I are scheduled to come home from our western trip via I-70. We missed Glenwood Canyon on our Amtrak trip a couple of years ago due to a long delay, so it ended up being after dark when the train went through there instead of during the daylight.
Might be an opportunity to drive some of the "backroads" of Colorado, for example the Million Dollar Highway. Then you could take US-50 and US-285 from Montrose to the Denver area.
Don't know which is worse. US 101 on Last Chance Grade or this.
Quote from: thspfc on August 01, 2021, 09:58:45 PM
What is CODOT's recommended detour? I'm guessing they're allowing traffic all the way until CO-82 at Glenwood Springs? In that case it would be CO-82 down to US-24 at Leadville, then back up to Copper Mountain on CO-91.
Because there is so much long-distance traffic on I-70 through the Colorado Rockies, this will increase traffic volumes on I-40 from California to Oklahoma, and I-80 across Wyoming as well. Shouldn't be a problem though as I-80 in Wyoming is empty, and I presume I-40 in CA, AZ, NM, TX, and OK is also.
CO-82 over Independence Pass can only be traversed by autos and other vehicles under 30-some feet -- Semis, RVs and many trailered vehicles are prohibited and could be ticketed for over $1000 bucks if they try to go eastbound beyond Aspen for example.
They've been forcing all I-70 EB traffic off of Exit 87/US-6 and traffic bound for beyond Glenwood are turned onto CO-13 at the Rifle Bypass (Main Street was still closed thru downtown Rifle for reconstruction). Then its CO-13 north to Craig, US-40 east to Kremling, then CO-9 to I-70 at Silverthorne.
Glenwood/Aspen traffic can re-enter I-70 at Exit 90 or further east, but then are forced off again at Exit 116/CO-82 in Glenwood.
If you wish for limited construction zones, US-550 (Million Dollar Highway) from.Montrose to Durango, then US-160 east to US-285 or I-25 is a real nice drive, if you have the extra time.
Back to Glenwood...CDOT just replaced all the signs in the Canyon a few weeks ago!!
As for our trip, we're going to be in the Monument Valley area, and I'm not sure how my brother was planning to get to I-70, except I don't think he was looking at the Million Dollar Highway since we were on it 30 years ago. My guess is that if I-70 is still closed, we'll use some diagonal route southeast to I-40 and then take I-44 to St. Louis. With the exception of seeing Glenwood Canyon, I think everything beyond Monument Valley/Moki Dugway was going to be "get home as fast as we can" mode.
Quote from: hbelkins on August 01, 2021, 10:51:46 PM
As for our trip, we're going to be in the Monument Valley area, and I'm not sure how my brother was planning to get to I-70, except I don't think he was looking at the Million Dollar Highway since we were on it 30 years ago. My guess is that if I-70 is still closed, we'll use some diagonal route southeast to I-40 and then take I-44 to St. Louis. With the exception of seeing Glenwood Canyon, I think everything beyond Monument Valley/Moki Dugway was going to be "get home as fast as we can" mode.
In that case, I'd recommend US-160 East out of 4-Corners. The drive out of Cortez is decent. 160 is mostly 2-lanes, but they are pretty generous with regular climbing/passing lanes.
Quote from: thenetwork on August 01, 2021, 10:59:50 PM
Quote from: hbelkins on August 01, 2021, 10:51:46 PM
As for our trip, we're going to be in the Monument Valley area, and I'm not sure how my brother was planning to get to I-70, except I don't think he was looking at the Million Dollar Highway since we were on it 30 years ago. My guess is that if I-70 is still closed, we'll use some diagonal route southeast to I-40 and then take I-44 to St. Louis. With the exception of seeing Glenwood Canyon, I think everything beyond Monument Valley/Moki Dugway was going to be "get home as fast as we can" mode.
In that case, I'd recommend US-160 East out of 4-Corners. The drive out of Cortez is decent. 160 is mostly 2-lanes, but they are pretty generous with regular climbing/passing lanes.
I still have fantasies about driving US 160 end-to-end, so I wouldn't really encourage that route. I'm figuring Google/Waze will probably tell us to take US 550. Will elaborate more in my "Montana" thread on the Road Trips board.
The latest word is here: https://kdvr.com/news/local/gov-polis-update-on-i-70-damage-through-glenwood-canyon/
While the much-needed monsoons continue, CDOT is limited on clean up efforts due to additional potential mudslides and debris flows.
That being said, it's looking more and more probable the I-70 will remain closed for weeks...or months until they can really examine roadway and bridge damages and do enough repairs to reopen at least one lane in each direction.
What makes this such a historic situation is that the detours are in the HUNDREDS of miles, unlike the Cincinnati Brent Spence and Memphis I-40 problems from earlier in the year -- at least their detours only added a few miles and maybe up to an hour in delays.
So it looks like the mudslide was caused by heavy rainfall in a burn scar zone...definitely should have seen that coming with last year's wildfire season. Climate change is going to make this much worse.
Perhaps so, but aren't wildfires and monsoon rains also just a normal part of nature? This is the sort of thing that was bound to happen at some point–climate change or no climate change. It comes with building infrastructure in forested, mountainous areas.
What could they really have done to prevent such damage?
Quote from: kphoger on August 03, 2021, 10:16:35 AM
Perhaps so, but aren't wildfires and monsoon rains also just a normal part of nature? This is the sort of thing that was bound to happen at some point–climate change or no climate change. It comes with building infrastructure in forested, mountainous areas.
Yes and no–while yes, this always
could have happened, the more wildfires and the more monsoon rains you get, the greater the probability of them both striking the same area. Law of Large Numbers and all that. Same reason you see 100-year floods so often anymore. Used to be that the probability of one of them happening in a given year was 1/100–flooding events that big have always happened periodically–but now, because of climate change, you are seeing them happen more frequently than is natural.
Quote from: Scott5114 on August 03, 2021, 11:40:33 AM
Quote from: kphoger on August 03, 2021, 10:16:35 AM
Perhaps so, but aren't wildfires and monsoon rains also just a normal part of nature? This is the sort of thing that was bound to happen at some point–climate change or no climate change. It comes with building infrastructure in forested, mountainous areas.
Yes and no–while yes, this always could have happened, the more wildfires and the more monsoon rains you get, the greater the probability of them both striking the same area. Law of Large Numbers and all that. Same reason you see 100-year floods so often anymore. Used to be that the probability of one of them happening in a given year was 1/100–flooding events that big have always happened periodically–but now, because of climate change, you are seeing them happen more frequently than is natural.
I hesitate to relate an event like this to climate change. I believe it's fairly well shown that climate change should lead to an increase in western wildfires, but the southwest monsoon is not very well understood and is so highly variable from year to year that you can't really establish a connection. This is the strongest monsoon in at least 6 years - last year it largely failed to show up and we had people saying climate change was killing the monsoon. Just goes to show you single events or even single years have no bearing on whether or not climate change is occurring. Of course it is, but we know that by looking at changes in temperatures and precip over long time scales at multiple sites across the globe so that individual events and localized effects can be averaged out.
I'm also not a fan of using climate change as a scapegoat for stuff like this because it gets used as a way to deflect responsibility and isn't really a productive way to prevent more similar disasters from occurring in the future. While climate change may have made vegetation/surrounding conditions more susceptible to wildfires in this case, the fire itself was human caused - directly ignited by somebody on the interstate. Instead of spending all our time only worrying about global CO2 emissions, why not go after the direct source of the problem and get intense public messaging campaigns out about fire-safe practices? Even actively working to combat climate change isn't going to stop fires if the freeways are still full of people dragging chains and throwing cigarette butts out their windows.
I will add to what others have hinted at.
The mainstream media, likes to attribute everything to climate change then ridicule anyone who disagrees with that as "not following the science."
Even climate scientists however will stop well short of that, saying that it only affects the probability distribution of such events. To say that climate change caused X is a lie, and no organization that uses that terminology should be taken seriously.
Moreover, even changes in the probability distribution are far from precise as to their impact or meaning. I love when they talk of a "1000 year flood" in an area that has not had records kept for more than perhaps 150 years. Truthfully, all we can really say is if something is widely out of expectation for the last 100 years or so, and even that ignores the fact that broader swings, like the little ice age, etc. have happened which would throw off your estimates.
Another issue, particularly with constant alarmism over every time a new record is set, is that even in the absence of change you would expect new records to be set every year by the nature of drawing a random outcome from an unknown distribution.
As for Colorado, I suspect a major factor in the Glenwood Canyon incident is the fact that it was engineered to be minimally impactful on the environment. That comes at a trade off however, and I suspect that was part of the issue.
CDOT released this drone footage of the major slide area and its uphill watershed (slideshed?).
https://youtu.be/AassP3OXgb0
It appears it could be small enough where they could build a viaduct over the slide area in time. CDOT's also going to cut a pilot channel in the debris field in the river to get it flowing properly.
Quote from: Scott5114 on August 03, 2021, 11:40:33 AM
Quote from: kphoger on August 03, 2021, 10:16:35 AM
Perhaps so, but aren't wildfires and monsoon rains also just a normal part of nature? This is the sort of thing that was bound to happen at some point–climate change or no climate change. It comes with building infrastructure in forested, mountainous areas.
Yes and no–while yes, this always could have happened, the more wildfires and the more monsoon rains you get, the greater the probability of them both striking the same area. Law of Large Numbers and all that. Same reason you see 100-year floods so often anymore. Used to be that the probability of one of them happening in a given year was 1/100–flooding events that big have always happened periodically–but now, because of climate change, you are seeing them happen more frequently than is natural.
Climate change could influence some hydrologic changes on the margins, and it's not the only factor. Changes in probability about what the 100-year storm flows are have a variety of inputs. These are updated periodically with new studies and rainfall totals as well as changing modeling. The mountains also produce variable microclimates where a specific spot could get drenched and another remains relatively dry. Even the fires, which happened in drought conditions last summer, will be more frequent due to the forests of dead pines killed by the beetles.
And my suspicion proved correct, the failure occurred over a portion built in that ridiculous double deck configuration.
Isn't
global warming climate change responsible for both
El Nino and
La Nina?
In that drone video, I saw a decent amount of green vegetation, as well as still-standing trees that probably still have intact root systems. Not sure that the fires are to blame for the resulting slide that occurred after heavy rain. It just may have been a freak gullywasher. We've had a few of those in Kentucky in the past few years. A storm sat still and rained very hard for a decent amount of time in one valley ("holler") and only one area really got impacted. About 11 years ago it happened on one creek in Pike County, and then a few years later one valley in Johnson County. No other areas of those counties were affected. Just a couple of isolated little locations.
Quote from: HighwayStar on August 03, 2021, 04:20:21 PM
And my suspicion proved correct, the failure occurred over a portion built in that ridiculous double deck configuration.
What's ridiculous about it?
Quote from: hbelkins on August 03, 2021, 07:51:46 PM
Isn't global warming climate change responsible for both El Nino and La Nina?
Both El Niño and La Niña are regular Pacific meteorological events, which happened long before (but may be affected by) recent climate trends. They were often talked about as early as the late 1960s/early 1970s, when I lived in the San Diego area.
Quote from: HighwayStar on August 03, 2021, 04:20:21 PM
And my suspicion proved correct, the failure occurred over a portion built in that ridiculous double deck configuration.
HighwayStar, how else would
you have squeezed into the narrow Glenwood Canyon (a) four lanes of I-70, (b) two-lane US 6 (the old road through the canyon), (c) a busy rail line, and (d) the Colorado River, a scenic and well-used waterway through the canyon?
Shh. Don't tell anyone about the secret unsafe shortcut around the closure. (https://www.thedenverchannel.com/news/contact-denver7/cottonwood-pass-the-secret-unsafe-shortcut-around-i-70-shutdown)
Quote"When the canyon is closed, we'll see more traffic in a day than we do in a summertime," said John Harris, the Eagle County Roads and Bridges director. "Then we take it off of Google Maps and Apple Maps, and as you can tell, there's a lot of people that [still] find it."
They've done a good job on Waze, Google Maps, and AAA maps of not allowing you to choose a shorter detour. You can't even force a route over Cottonwood or Independence Passes without Waze forcing you back south to US 50 away from Glenwood Springs. They've blocked those routes by saying you can't access I-70 west from Glenwood which seems to be erroneous (another Noble Lie, perhaps).
QuoteSafety is the main concern for Eagle County, which is why they have crews stopping traffic for one-way metering in the steepest, one-lane section of the road, called Blue Hill, during peak traffic times. Meanwhile, crews have set up 24/7 checkpoints on the road to keep off commercial traffic and trucks.
Eagle County has been making improvements to mark the edges of the road and strengthen the surface, but it would cost at least $50 million to widen and pave the road for year-round traffic.
But they have seen roll-offs, accidents and even drivers stopping in the middle of the road because they're too scared to continue.
That seems insane that people would stop because of being afraid to proceed. It's a narrow mountain road but in relatively good shape and doesn't require special skills or even four-wheel drive. That said, best to keep the fearful flatlanders away from the local detour route.
And if it's "only" $50 million to widen and pave the road, the state should take over the route and improve it soon. The Colorado legislature passed a gas
tax increase fee this session, and the bonding from that measure should be used for that purpose.
Food for thought and debate...I don't think this is too far fetched...What if it was determined that it was no longer practical or possible to keep I-70 open through Glenwood Canyon...What would happen then? I was reading a local newspaper article from the area https://www.gjsentinel.com/news/western_colorado/making-cottonwood-pass-more-passable-unofficial-i-70-detour-eyed-for-improvements/article_941b3254-efc9-11eb-bcba-7351862610a9.html (https://www.gjsentinel.com/news/western_colorado/making-cottonwood-pass-more-passable-unofficial-i-70-detour-eyed-for-improvements/article_941b3254-efc9-11eb-bcba-7351862610a9.html), and it stated that some drivers were using Cottonwood Pass, which is on low-quality county roads that are only one lane wide at some points. This article states that CDOT considered routing I-70 over Cottonwood Pass rather than thro Glenwood Canyon.
Quote from: zzcarp on August 03, 2021, 09:51:34 PM
Shh. Don't tell anyone about the secret unsafe shortcut around the closure. (https://www.thedenverchannel.com/news/contact-denver7/cottonwood-pass-the-secret-unsafe-shortcut-around-i-70-shutdown)
Quote"When the canyon is closed, we'll see more traffic in a day than we do in a summertime," said John Harris, the Eagle County Roads and Bridges director. "Then we take it off of Google Maps and Apple Maps, and as you can tell, there's a lot of people that [still] find it."
They've done a good job on Waze, Google Maps, and AAA maps of not allowing you to choose a shorter detour. You can't even force a route over Cottonwood or Independence Passes without Waze forcing you back south to US 50 away from Glenwood Springs. They've blocked those routes by saying you can't access I-70 west from Glenwood which seems to be erroneous (another Noble Lie, perhaps).
I started my workday today in Avon, CO with a stop in Vail. From there, I took I-70 East to CO-91 over Fremont Pass, then US-24 east thru Leadville to CO-82 (from Vail, both the Waze and Google Maps wanted me to take Cottonwood Pass).
A lot of traffic on CO-82 (and a lot of out of state morons who think doing 30 MPH around switchbacks and one lane sections is waay too slow) going over Independence Pass and thru Aspen.
Both apps wanted me to use the CO-133/CO-92/US-50 combo to Grand Junction but I couldn't find any reason why I couldn't just go the entire CO-82 stretch to I-70. Once on I-70 West, the apps did not acknowledge the freeway being open until I got past the West Glenwood exit.
I did stop off in Rifle and the city there temporarily opened up Main Street (old CO-13 alignment) thru downtown, which was being rebuilt, to relieve some traffic snarls.
After driving both the northern detour and the southern CO-82 alternate route this week I would highly recommend the northern detour via CO-13 (or CO-139), US-40, CO-9 hands down.
Quote from: Brian556 on August 03, 2021, 09:58:47 PM
Food for thought and debate...I don't think this is too far fetched...What if it was determined that it was no longer practical or possible to keep I-70 open through Glenwood Canyon...What would happen then? I was reading a local newspaper article from the area https://www.gjsentinel.com/news/western_colorado/making-cottonwood-pass-more-passable-unofficial-i-70-detour-eyed-for-improvements/article_941b3254-efc9-11eb-bcba-7351862610a9.html (https://www.gjsentinel.com/news/western_colorado/making-cottonwood-pass-more-passable-unofficial-i-70-detour-eyed-for-improvements/article_941b3254-efc9-11eb-bcba-7351862610a9.html), and it stated that some drivers were using Cottonwood Pass, which is on low-quality county roads that are only one lane wide at some points. This article states that CDOT considered routing I-70 over Cottonwood Pass rather than thro Glenwood Canyon.
I found a link provided by Elm on the main Colorado thread for an early study on I-70 through Glenwood Canyon:
Quote from: Elm on January 14, 2021, 04:04:49 PM
A Design Concept for Interstate 70, Glenwood Canyon, Colorado (1974) (http://hermes.cde.state.co.us/drupal/islandora/object/co%3A31899)
not the design that happened, but one with separate car/truck roadways; also has a concept image of the disfavored "rim alternative" high viaduct (pg 43/PDF page 45 (http://hermes.cde.state.co.us/drupal/islandora/object/co%3A31899/datastream/OBJ/view#page=45))
Per the study, the reason the "rim alternative" wasn't used is that 1974 CDOH believed 60 percent of the traffic would continue taking the scenic canyon floor route in lieu of the faster rim route.
I found some other studies from using a link at that post regarding the location choice and design of I-70 through the canyon. I haven't and likely won't have time to read the studies for information tonight, though as an engineer they look quite interesting and may answer some of our design and alignment questions. The studies are linked below:
INTERSTATE 70 GLENWOOD CANYON DESIGN CONCEPT STUDY (June 1974) (http://hermes.cde.state.co.us/drupal/islandora/object/co%3A31898/datastream/OBJ/view)
FINAL SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT GLENWOOD CANYON I-70 PROJECT (June 1982) (http://hermes.cde.state.co.us/drupal/islandora/object/co%3A21143/datastream/OBJ/view)
THE ROLE OF RESEARCH IN THE DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION OF I-70 THROUGH GLENWOOD CANYON (January 1985) (http://hermes.cde.state.co.us/drupal/islandora/object/co%3A33450/datastream/OBJ/view)
GEOTHERMAL HEATING OF BRIDGES IN GLENWOOD CANYON (June 1985) (http://hermes.cde.state.co.us/drupal/islandora/object/co%3A28746/datastream/OBJ/view)
Quote from: oscar on August 03, 2021, 09:42:49 PM
Quote from: hbelkins on August 03, 2021, 07:51:46 PM
Isn't global warming climate change responsible for both El Nino and La Nina?
Both El Niño and La Niña are regular Pacific meteorological events, which happened long before (but may be affected by) recent climate trends. They were often talked about as early as the late 1960s/early 1970s, when I lived in the San Diego area.
Quote from: HighwayStar on August 03, 2021, 04:20:21 PM
And my suspicion proved correct, the failure occurred over a portion built in that ridiculous double deck configuration.
HighwayStar, how else would you have squeezed into the narrow Glenwood Canyon (a) four lanes of I-70, (b) two-lane US 6 (the old road through the canyon), (c) a busy rail line, and (d) the Colorado River, a scenic and well-used waterway through the canyon?
Seen many narrow canyons in the west where they fit a highway in. Re-routing the river in places might have been desirable, as was done on I-15 in Montana in places.
With enough ANFO, off highway trucks, and electric shovels you could have cut a right of way wide enough to meet the needs.
If I-70 had been constructed with less attention to preserving the natural environment along the corridor, if its path were more typical rather than a double-decker configuration–I wonder if some other event years ago would have already done this much damage, and people would instead have proposed that it should have been built like ... well, like what it actually is.
Everyone likes to pin the blame for a natural disaster causing damage to manmade infrastructure. Isn't it also possible that the thing was actually designed and constructed quite well, but that sometimes nature just overcomes our best designs?
Quote from: kphoger on August 04, 2021, 01:26:45 PM
If I-70 had been constructed with less attention to preserving the natural environment along the corridor, if its path were more typical rather than a double-decker configuration–I wonder if some other event years ago would have already done this much damage, and people would instead have proposed that it should have been built like ... well, like what it actually is.
Everyone likes to pin the blame for a natural disaster causing damage to manmade infrastructure. Isn't it also possible that the thing was actually designed and constructed quite well, but that sometimes nature just overcomes our best designs?
Nope, that is not how engineering works. The current design was not built with serving as a corridor in mind so much as minimizing the footprint of the project. Things that are designed and constructed well don't fail with these kind of consequences.
We need more of Yanosuke Hirai's philosophy in our engineering.
I want to know how many people drive through Glenwood Canyon and rather than marveling at the impressive scenery, instead go "Wow, what terrible engineering, surely this freeway could have been designed to ruin the natural landscape more."
Quote from: US 89 on August 04, 2021, 03:02:36 PM
I want to know how many people drive through Glenwood Canyon and rather than marveling at the impressive scenery ...
The second-to-last time I drove through Glenwood Canyon, I didn't marvel at the scenery.
It was about midnight at the time...
Man, that video was impressive. It would have probably looked cool spilling over that cliff portion way up the slide path.
Glenwood Canyon is always going to be one of those places we humans wrestle with the elements to keep a transportation link open. Just like I-40 on the NC/TN border. Only hyper-expensive tunnels would provide a permanent solution.
Quote from: HighwayStar on August 03, 2021, 04:20:21 PM
And my suspicion proved correct, the failure occurred over a portion built in that ridiculous double deck configuration.
I don't see how the configuration of the roadway is relevant. The mass movement event would have taken out any highway.
Quote from: triplemultiplex on August 04, 2021, 04:00:34 PM
Man, that video was impressive. It would have probably looked cool spilling over that cliff portion way up the slide path.
Glenwood Canyon is always going to be one of those places we humans wrestle with the elements to keep a transportation link open. Just like I-40 on the NC/TN border. Only hyper-expensive tunnels would provide a permanent solution.
Quote from: HighwayStar on August 03, 2021, 04:20:21 PM
And my suspicion proved correct, the failure occurred over a portion built in that ridiculous double deck configuration.
I don't see how the configuration of the roadway is relevant. The mass movement event would have taken out any highway.
"The mass movement event would have taken out any highway."
False. It would have taken out any highway that was not built with high standards of engineering. A properly built highway, with a wider right of way and no viaducts, would have held.
Quote from: HighwayStar on August 05, 2021, 11:14:49 AM
Quote from: triplemultiplex on August 04, 2021, 04:00:34 PM
Man, that video was impressive. It would have probably looked cool spilling over that cliff portion way up the slide path.
Glenwood Canyon is always going to be one of those places we humans wrestle with the elements to keep a transportation link open. Just like I-40 on the NC/TN border. Only hyper-expensive tunnels would provide a permanent solution.
Quote from: HighwayStar on August 03, 2021, 04:20:21 PM
And my suspicion proved correct, the failure occurred over a portion built in that ridiculous double deck configuration.
I don't see how the configuration of the roadway is relevant. The mass movement event would have taken out any highway.
"The mass movement event would have taken out any highway."
False. It would have taken out any highway that was not built with high standards of engineering. A properly built highway, with a wider right of way and no viaducts, would have held.
Looked to me like the upper deck got covered in debris and the lower deck had some pavement washed away. It certainly didn't knock the viaduct off its piers the way that truck impact did the bridge on I-16 in Georgia recently.
And I'd be willing to bet a good chunk of money that this road was designed with the highest engineering standards. This wasn't some hastily-thrown-together plan. It's not like a typical cross section that can be built using standard drawings.
Build a highway with the highest engineering standards possible.
Dump several thousand tons of shit on it, making it impassible.
Someone on the internet criticizes your engineering standards for somehow not keeping the road open even though there's several thousand tons of shit on it.
I-70 wouldn't have been constructed through the canyon with any less attention to preserving the natural environment, period. The Aspenites/environmentalists/John Denver fought tooth and nail against even constructing the reduced footprint I-70 (which was, for the most part, built over or adjacent to the previous US 6 alignment). It took at least twenty-eight years of studies, planning, and civil engineering innovations to get the freeway constructed at all. And, for the most part, it has functioned well.
Where the failure is in my view is the lack of planning for redundancy in the system. There simply aren't good parallel routes (especially for commercial traffic).
Long haul truckers can avoid the closure using I-80. But the western slope is supplied by Denver, and severing that link is causing the supply chain to break. Truckers could travel from Denver to Grand Junction and back in one day before the closures. Adding the three hours (minimum) detour and it becomes a two day trip due to federal limitations on length of driving days for truckers. Add to that the general truck driver shortage and you have a perfect storm of problems causing supply shortages from fuel to food on the western slope.
I traveled westbound on that segment in 1991. It was before the freeway was constructed, but I don't have much memory of what it was like.
My Amtrak trip a few years ago was supposed to go through that area in the daylight, but because of the holdup in Omaha, it was pitch black dark when we went through, so I didn't get to see the canyon. I'm hoping they can get it opened by later this month but I'm not really too optimistic.
Which direction provides the best views, eastbound or westbound?
Quote from: hbelkins on August 05, 2021, 02:27:55 PM
Which direction provides the best views, eastbound or westbound?
It depends on what you want. If you want to see the scenery, then travel the upper deck. If you enjoy seeing the viaduct as
part of the scenery, then travel the lower deck. Personally, I prefer the lower deck.
Quote from: HighwayStar on August 05, 2021, 11:14:49 AM
"The mass movement event would have taken out any highway."
False. It would have taken out any highway that was not built with high standards of engineering. A properly built highway, with a wider right of way and no viaducts, would have held.
Trying to envision the amount of right of way needed to divert that volume of material in that type of steep terrain.
Perhaps you should elaborate on your vision of a 'properly engineered' Glenwood Canyon Freeway.
That's one area of I-70 where US-40 isn't useful as an alternate route.
Quote from: hbelkins on August 05, 2021, 02:27:55 PM
Which direction provides the best views, eastbound or westbound?
IMO eastbound - but - ideally starting from as far west as you can, like perhaps Green River in Utah (and it will take several hours from there to the tunnel complex at the Continental Divide). That is probably 5 hours if the freeway is not blocked through Glenwood Canyon as it is now.
Quote from: Flint1979 on August 05, 2021, 05:29:40 PM
That's one area of I-70 where US-40 isn't useful as an alternate route.
I mean, part of it IS the alternate route recommended by CDOT right now. Still way the hell out of the way, but I digress.
Chris
Closure information from CDOT:
https://twitter.com/ColoradoDOT/status/1421978755170410501
Quote(8/1) I-70 through Glenwood Canyon will continue to be closed due to extreme damage from the latest round of flooding Saturday night (7/31). Motorists advised to take northern alternate route (see map), and trucks traveling through take I-80. Go to COtrip.org (http://cotrip.org).
There is a lot of traffic now using US-50 now that they suspended work in the major construction area east of Montrose. It looks like US-40 and US-50 is evenly splitting up I-70 traffic as I have been on both this week as well as traveling on CO-82 East of Aspen. Despite 82 being the shortest mileage detour along marked routes, I would NOT recommend it if you are unfamiliar with mountain driving conditions.
Eastbound, its likely more people are using US-50 as a detour as there is about the same amount of 4-lane mileage to Montrose as there is staying on I-70 to Rifle (+/‐ 60 miles), albeit at slightly slower speeds.
Quote from: triplemultiplex on August 05, 2021, 05:20:34 PM
Quote from: HighwayStar on August 05, 2021, 11:14:49 AM
"The mass movement event would have taken out any highway."
False. It would have taken out any highway that was not built with high standards of engineering. A properly built highway, with a wider right of way and no viaducts, would have held.
Trying to envision the amount of right of way needed to divert that volume of material in that type of steep terrain.
Perhaps you should elaborate on your vision of a 'properly engineered' Glenwood Canyon Freeway.
Given the amount of natural soil and rock that washed down, I hate to think how a waste area resulting from massive blasting for a different style of route would have held up.
Quote from: jayhawkco on August 05, 2021, 05:55:19 PM
Quote from: Flint1979 on August 05, 2021, 05:29:40 PM
That's one area of I-70 where US-40 isn't useful as an alternate route.
I mean, part of it IS the alternate route recommended by CDOT right now. Still way the hell out of the way, but I digress.
Chris
It's turned about an hour drive into about a four hour drive. US-40 is like 60 miles north of I-70 in that area that's the bad thing about trying to navigate around it.
Quote from: hbelkins on August 05, 2021, 08:49:36 PM
Quote from: triplemultiplex on August 05, 2021, 05:20:34 PM
Quote from: HighwayStar on August 05, 2021, 11:14:49 AM
"The mass movement event would have taken out any highway."
False. It would have taken out any highway that was not built with high standards of engineering. A properly built highway, with a wider right of way and no viaducts, would have held.
Trying to envision the amount of right of way needed to divert that volume of material in that type of steep terrain.
Perhaps you should elaborate on your vision of a 'properly engineered' Glenwood Canyon Freeway.
Given the amount of natural soil and rock that washed down, I hate to think how a waste area resulting from massive blasting for a different style of route would have held up.
Well obviously you would not put that in the damn gully.
Quote from: Flint1979 on August 05, 2021, 05:29:40 PM
That's one area of I-70 where US-40 isn't useful as an alternate route.
It's because it's basically replacing US 6 there.
Quote from: HighwayStar on August 06, 2021, 02:11:00 AM
Quote from: hbelkins on August 05, 2021, 08:49:36 PM
Quote from: triplemultiplex on August 05, 2021, 05:20:34 PM
Quote from: HighwayStar on August 05, 2021, 11:14:49 AM
"The mass movement event would have taken out any highway."
False. It would have taken out any highway that was not built with high standards of engineering. A properly built highway, with a wider right of way and no viaducts, would have held.
Trying to envision the amount of right of way needed to divert that volume of material in that type of steep terrain.
Perhaps you should elaborate on your vision of a 'properly engineered' Glenwood Canyon Freeway.
Given the amount of natural soil and rock that washed down, I hate to think how a waste area resulting from massive blasting for a different style of route would have held up.
Well obviously you would not put that in the damn gully.
Two things:
1.) -- Usually that is
exactly where waste areas go. They fill in gullies, gulches, and gaps between hills/mountains, etc., with the blasting and excavation debris ("excess yardage") that isn't used for roadway fill elsewhere.
2.) -- Even if they hadn't filed in that particular gully, they might have used another for the waste area that could have washed down onto the road.
Quote from: HighwayStar on August 06, 2021, 02:11:00 AMWell obviously you would not put that in the damn gully.
You sure aren't going to build it along the ridge, either. Do you have another idea?
Quote from: renegade on August 06, 2021, 08:43:48 PM
Quote from: HighwayStar on August 06, 2021, 02:11:00 AMWell obviously you would not put that in the damn gully.
You sure aren't going to build it along the ridge, either. Do you have another idea?
Clearly, the answer is thru/under the mountain, with lots of $$$$$$$$$$ attached to achieve such a feat
Full Disclosure: I have not traveled on I-70 in Colorado, except maybe a little in Downtown Denver - never out in the mountains, certainly
CBS Denver reports that a
Greyhound bus with 21 passengers aboard tried to use one of the unpaved alternates ... and, of course, got stuck.
https://denver.cbslocal.com/2021/08/07/greyhound-bus-garfield-county-stuck-road/
QuoteA Greyhound bus driver found themselves and 21 passengers in a tough, and potentially dangerous, situation on Friday night at around 6 p.m. As a way to get around the ongoing Interstate 70 closure, the driver drove on Coffee Pot Springs Road and later got stuck.
The Garfield County Sheriff's Office says the dirt and gravel road is used to access the White River National Forest. They say four-wheel and all-terrain vehicles use the road.
... First responders and two transport vans drove to the bus which was about 22 miles up the road. Officials say one of the passengers was an older woman with heart conditions.
As a storm threatened their rescue, crews managed to get everyone and their luggage back down to Interstate 70 about six hours later.
"Catastrophe was avoided this time. Travelers are advised not to follow GPS mapping in an attempt to circumvent the I-70 closure through Glenwood Canyon. Backcountry roads are unpredictable and can be treacherous or deadly for the unprepared traveler," the sheriff's office stated in a news release on Saturday.
(https://denver.cbslocal.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/15909806/2021/08/Greyhound-Rescue-Coffee-Pot-Springs-RD-002-Garfield-County-Sheriff.jpeg?resize=480,640)
Forest Service page for Coffee Pot Springs Road: https://www.fs.usda.gov/recarea/whiteriver/recarea/?recid=41263
QuoteCoffee Pot Road #600 is an improved gravel road that winds its way from the Deep Creek confluence with the Colorado River, up the south edge of the Flattops for about 30 miles to Deep Lake. It offers beautiful scenery and views. The first 10 miles of this road is exceptionally windy and narrow. Defensive driving is a must due to the drop-off edges, sharp blind curves and parts of the road not wide enough to accommodate two vehicles.
I went this way at the beginning of the week, I took US 24 from Limon to Colorado Springs and then up CO 115 to US 50. There was multiple one land road closures with flaggers, but the most I waited was 10-15 minutes, the rest just let us through or there was a short wait. As for the section that is usually closed, it went through a very narrow canyon, I'm not sure what they're trying to do exactly but there was a lot of rocks. It certainly was a long ride but I would recommend it in order to bypass Denver and the long 40 detour. The 50 passes aren't even that bad, I was actually a little disappointed it's not as pretty as 70.
Quote from: renegade on August 06, 2021, 08:43:48 PM
Quote from: HighwayStar on August 06, 2021, 02:11:00 AMWell obviously you would not put that in the damn gully.
You sure aren't going to build it along the ridge, either. Do you have another idea?
I think he's referring to the waste area for the excess yardage, not the road itself.
Good news-they are projecting a partial reopening Saturday. There's a thread of pictures at the Twitter link.
https://twitter.com/nbminor/status/1425497135403790337
Right now it's 6 hours from Grand Junction to Denver taking US-50 and US-285.
I-70 has reopened with one lane in each direction as of 7:05 am this morning per CDOT (https://www.facebook.com/coloradodot/posts/4194182947303246).
Here is a video of the road as of yesterday:
Surprisingly minor damage, all things considered. I thought for sure the WB lanes were toast, but evidently there was just pavement damage, and the guardrails got destroyed.