AARoads Forum

Regional Boards => Mountain West => Topic started by: mightyace on March 04, 2009, 01:20:28 PM

Title: Colorado
Post by: mightyace on March 04, 2009, 01:20:28 PM
New name, same mission (mostly).

Colorado has new law enabling tolls SB108, new state toll enterprise (http://www.tollroadsnews.com/node/4036)
Title: Re: Colorado
Post by: V'Ger on March 06, 2009, 09:59:07 PM
By same mission do you mean the 470 tollway?
Title: Re: Colorado
Post by: brad2971 on March 06, 2009, 10:48:56 PM
No, the HPTE is charged with authorizing, and potentially operating, toll roads OTHER than E-470 and the NW Parkway. Right now, other than possible managed lanes in the middle of C-470 from US85 to I-25 (sorry Douglas Co, it's the only way you're going to get a widened C-470), there are no other plans for toll facilities in CO. In fact, it wouldn't surprise me in the least if the HPTE ends up taking over the NW Parkway if Brisa/CCR ends up bailing in two years.
Title: Re: Colorado
Post by: mightyace on July 01, 2009, 08:31:56 PM
E470 tolling will be all electronic as of July 4th.

Bush Turnpike in Dallas, E470 Denver go all-electronic this week (http://www.tollroadsnews.com/node/4238)
Title: Re: Colorado
Post by: andy3175 on January 17, 2017, 12:05:59 AM
Resurrecting this thread for general Colorado highway items ...

Found an interesting-looking book on the bridges of Eagle County. I've photographed many of these over the years and have noticed bridge removals as well. I'm glad someone took on this project to document these old bridges. I may try to locate a copy myself.

http://www.vaildaily.com/news/announcements/local-history-book-wins-state-historical-society-award/

Quote
“The Bridges of Eagle County,” by local historian Kathy Heicher in conjunction with the Colorado Department of Transportation, is the 2016 Caroline Bancroft History Project award winner. The award is made annually to individuals and organizations that have made a significant contribution to the advancement of Colorado History.

The unique project came about because of a federal law, the National Historic Preservation Act, requiring mitigation of adverse impacts on historically significant structures.

CDOT has been gradually replacing historic bridges in Eagle County with structures that meet current standards. Mitigation for the some of those structures involved the placement of interpretive signs. When preparing to replace the Dotsero Bridge in 2011, CDOT historian Lisa Schoch proposed that mitigation take the form of a book that would tell the stories not only of the Dotsero Bridge, but also a string of historic bridges throughout the Eagle Valley.

CDOT officials approached Heicher, a historical society activist and the author of several local history books, about the project.

The structures featured in “The Bridges of Eagle County” range from the first primitive timber structure spanning the Grand (Colorado) River in 1883 to the magnificent steel arch bridge at Red Cliff, constructed near the end of the Great Depression.

The book includes dozens of historic photos, maps, postcard images and anecdotes about the pioneers who built the bridges. Sales of the book benefit the Eagle County Historical Society.
Title: Re: Colorado
Post by: thenetwork on April 04, 2017, 10:11:52 PM
Just a few musings on my weekend trip to/around Denver this past weekend...

1) I have noticed that CDOT is phasing out travel times on their VMS's in both directions of I-70 between Vail & Denver.  On both days, the roads were fine, but the VMS's were displaying safety messages, if anything.    IIRC, a couple of years ago the Travel Times were one of two screens that would alternately appear on some single VMSs.  When I saw them on my first trip along I-70 about 12 years ago, there were a lot more displaying just travel times only.

2) Looks like CDOT is also slowly removing the overhead lighting for BGS's.  I saw some areas on I-70 and I-25 where the lighting (which were mounted above the signs was removed.

3) Finally, it was odd to see that THIS gantry...

https://www.google.com/maps/@39.7103599,-104.997491,3a,75y,133.99h,83.66t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sxvusxtRGFku5s4B3o9ZoBQ!2e0!5s20141001T000000!7i13312!8i6656!6m1!1e1

was still standing as of this past weekend, since SB Santa Fe Drive has been relocated where the concrete sewer pipes are in the above photo.

What's odd is that the relocated SB Santa Fe Avenue has been around since April of 2015 (per GSV): 

https://www.google.com/maps/@39.7111121,-104.9984633,3a,75y,161.08h,89.24t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sPvFcqLPceV-odeBot0nddg!2e0!5s20150401T000000!7i13312!8i6656


and the old gantry now spans a dead end "frontage road" stub to access Denny's and Diamond Shamrock as seen in this last photo.
Title: Re: Colorado
Post by: andy3175 on May 06, 2017, 12:55:17 AM
http://www.denverpost.com/2017/04/21/i-25-gap-coalition-highway-expansion-monument-castle-rock/

Quote
Months after the Colorado Department of Transportation said it would accelerate its process to widen Interstate 25 between Colorado Springs and Denver, a group of Douglas and El Paso county officials are advocating for expediency when it comes to improving a particularly narrow stretch of the highway.

The I-25 Gap Coalition is focused mainly on a roughly 17-mile stretch of the interstate between Castle Rock and Monument, known as “the gap,” where the highway is four-lanes wide. It’s a dangerous segment of highway where two Colorado State Patrol troopers were stuck and killed by passing drivers while responding to calls in the area within 13 months of each other.

“What the goal is to create a parallel, proactive advocacy group that goes alongside CDOT to accelerate the improvements to this stretch of the state highway,” Douglas County commissioner Roger Partridge said during coalition’s launch event Wednesday. “(We’re) really identifying three things to begin with: we are going to speak with one voice to have a desired, similar outcome; we are going to identify and leverage the (funding) sources; and then we’re going to lobby these efforts.”

The coalition includes representatives from the both highway-crossed counties, Castle Rock, Colorado Springs and other cities, towns and economic development groups from up and down the transportation corridor.
Title: Re: Colorado
Post by: Alex on May 06, 2017, 10:35:12 AM
http://www.denverpost.com/2017/04/21/i-25-gap-coalition-highway-expansion-monument-castle-rock/

Quote
Months after the Colorado Department of Transportation said it would accelerate its process to widen Interstate 25 between Colorado Springs and Denver, a group of Douglas and El Paso county officials are advocating for expediency when it comes to improving a particularly narrow stretch of the highway.

The I-25 Gap Coalition is focused mainly on a roughly 17-mile stretch of the interstate between Castle Rock and Monument, known as “the gap,” where the highway is four-lanes wide. It’s a dangerous segment of highway where two Colorado State Patrol troopers were stuck and killed by passing drivers while responding to calls in the area within 13 months of each other.

There was a ridiculous amount of traffic on that four-lane stretch. Was surprised to still see it that narrow. Plus the off-ramp for Greenland Road (Exit 167) is quite substandard and there are shuttered rest areas in both directions (though the southbound area can be used as a chain station).
Title: Re: Colorado
Post by: sandwalk on May 07, 2017, 11:41:29 AM
People drive way too fast on that highway. Personally, I feel the 75mph speed limit is too high for such a stretch of substandard road with the volume of traffic it sees.
Title: Re: Colorado
Post by: Gulol on May 21, 2017, 04:45:14 PM
People drive way too fast on that highway. Personally, I feel the 75mph speed limit is too high for such a stretch of substandard road with the volume of traffic it sees.

Couldn't agree more!  Added traffic plus trucks climbing up and over Monument Hill had led to an awful lot of road rage.  Thankfully there's still some sanity taking Hwy 83 down to the Springs and with traffic often lousy on I-25 south, it tends to be quicker.

I have wondered if a reduced speed limit would actually improve things on I-25 ... wonder if we'll see any change on that front.
Title: Re: Colorado
Post by: dvferyance on July 14, 2017, 02:52:57 PM
The E 470 is a ripoff. You pay like $25 to drive a road that is like 45 miles long. It cost like $9 to drive the Tri State in Illinois which is 77 miles long and $18 to drive the entire Ohio Turnpike that is 240 miles long. If your going to the airport from the south or vise versa it's better just to take I-225 it may be a little longer but certainly worth avoiding the tolls.
Title: Re: Colorado
Post by: rte66man on July 17, 2017, 12:11:48 PM
The E 470 is a ripoff. You pay like $25 to drive a road that is like 45 miles long. It cost like $9 to drive the Tri State in Illinois which is 77 miles long and $18 to drive the entire Ohio Turnpike that is 240 miles long. If your going to the airport from the south or vise versa it's better just to take I-225 it may be a little longer but certainly worth avoiding the tolls.

According to their website:
https://www.expresstoll.com/Documents/2017%20Toll%20Rate%20Tables.pdf

It costs $14.50 for the entire length if you have an ExpressPass and $18.20 for non-Pass holders. 
Title: Re: Colorado
Post by: dvferyance on July 17, 2017, 06:52:19 PM
The E 470 is a ripoff. You pay like $25 to drive a road that is like 45 miles long. It cost like $9 to drive the Tri State in Illinois which is 77 miles long and $18 to drive the entire Ohio Turnpike that is 240 miles long. If your going to the airport from the south or vise versa it's better just to take I-225 it may be a little longer but certainly worth avoiding the tolls.

According to their website:
https://www.expresstoll.com/Documents/2017%20Toll%20Rate%20Tables.pdf

It costs $14.50 for the entire length if you have an ExpressPass and $18.20 for non-Pass holders.
Does that count the NW parkway segment or not? None then less it cost $8.80 drive Illinois tri state which is longer and about the same $18.25 to drive the entire Ohio Turnpike which is like 5 times longer. I will never drive it unless the tolls are one day removed.
Title: Re: Colorado
Post by: rte66man on July 18, 2017, 01:49:06 PM
The E 470 is a ripoff. You pay like $25 to drive a road that is like 45 miles long. It cost like $9 to drive the Tri State in Illinois which is 77 miles long and $18 to drive the entire Ohio Turnpike that is 240 miles long. If your going to the airport from the south or vise versa it's better just to take I-225 it may be a little longer but certainly worth avoiding the tolls.

According to their website:
https://www.expresstoll.com/Documents/2017%20Toll%20Rate%20Tables.pdf

It costs $14.50 for the entire length if you have an ExpressPass and $18.20 for non-Pass holders.
Does that count the NW parkway segment or not? None then less it cost $8.80 drive Illinois tri state which is longer and about the same $18.25 to drive the entire Ohio Turnpike which is like 5 times longer. I will never drive it unless the tolls are one day removed.

Apples and oranges.  Like when was the Ohio Turnpike built?  Like is it mostly urban or rural?  Like State run or like private entity? 

That's why America is such a great country.  You are free to shunpike to your heart's content.
Title: Re: Colorado
Post by: dvferyance on July 20, 2017, 01:58:58 PM
The E 470 is a ripoff. You pay like $25 to drive a road that is like 45 miles long. It cost like $9 to drive the Tri State in Illinois which is 77 miles long and $18 to drive the entire Ohio Turnpike that is 240 miles long. If your going to the airport from the south or vise versa it's better just to take I-225 it may be a little longer but certainly worth avoiding the tolls.

According to their website:
https://www.expresstoll.com/Documents/2017%20Toll%20Rate%20Tables.pdf

It costs $14.50 for the entire length if you have an ExpressPass and $18.20 for non-Pass holders.
Does that count the NW parkway segment or not? None then less it cost $8.80 drive Illinois tri state which is longer and about the same $18.25 to drive the entire Ohio Turnpike which is like 5 times longer. I will never drive it unless the tolls are one day removed.

Apples and oranges.  Like when was the Ohio Turnpike built?  Like is it mostly urban or rural?  Like State run or like private entity? 

That's why America is such a great country.  You are free to shunpike to your heart's content.
Not sure about Ohio but I do know that the Indiana toll road is now private.
Title: Re: Colorado
Post by: Gulol on July 23, 2017, 12:24:58 PM
It's an easy choice:  you don't have to drive it because it's not the only option to get from Point A to Point B as it is in other states with toll roads and/or bridges.  No doubt it's one of the priciest toll roads out there and there will continue to be annual increases from (I think) .10 to .25 each year for many years to come (30ish maybe?).  For me, this is what I like about it ... for the cost of a latte, I can get to the airport in 30 minutes from where I live consistently which I do frequently for work.  Without the toll road, it could take me anywhere from 45 minutes with no traffic to well over 90 minutes with traffic.  Supply and demand:  if E470 was free, it would be 45-90 minutes and that pricing to keep my drive time at 30 minutes is well worth it to me.
Title: Colorado
Post by: andy3175 on March 16, 2018, 11:54:54 PM
http://www.coloradoindependent.com/168732/sales-tax-transportation-ballot

Proposed sales tax increase could boost funding for transportation projects: The proposal comes as lawmakers remain deadlocked on funding for transportation projects considered long overdue
by John Herrick - February 22, 2018

Quote
Proposed sales tax increase could boost funding for transportation projects

The proposal comes as lawmakers remain deadlocked on funding for transportation projects considered long overdue
John Herrick
February 22, 2018 Just In No Comments FacebookTwitterEmail
Proposed sales tax increase could boost funding for transportation projects

A coalition of local leaders backed by the Denver Metro Chamber of Commerce wants voters to approve a sales tax increase on the November ballot to pay for projects like the widening of Interstate 25 and the buildout of bike lanes.

The group filed four ballot measures with the Secretary of State on Thursday that would raise between $500 million and $1 billion for transportation projects, according to the chamber, and allow that money to be used to pay for bonds, which would generate even more upfront cash. 

A booming population across the Front Range has created traffic snarls on critical corridors like Interstate 25 as commuters drive to work and Interstate 70 as skiers head to the resorts. According to a 2016 report by Denver Regional Council of Governments, or DRCOG, commuters spend 40 hours per year sitting in traffic. And the U.S. Department of Transportation estimates that drivers spend $287 per year on vehicle repairs and operating costs due to driving on roads that should be fixed.

“Our failure to invest in infrastructure is costing us real money,” said Kelly Brough, president and CEO of the Denver Metro Chamber of Commerce. “Drivers in the Denver metro area are paying more than $2,000 a year because of traffic congestion delays, damage to vehicles, accidents and lost gas efficiency.”

The state doesn’t have enough money to address the issue. The Department of Transportation estimates a 10-year funding backlog of about $9 billion, and about a $25 billion funding gap over the next 25 years, according to its 2016 annual report. And the state’s gas tax, which helps fund transportation projects, has not increased since 1991.

The group is seeking a sales tax increase of 0.5 percent, 0.62 percent or 1 percent. The highest increase equals 10 cents on a $10 purchase. Another proposal would increase the sales tax by 0.5 percent and require that $150 million is transferred from the General Fund each year to pay for state and local transportation projects.

The ballot initiatives would direct 45 percent of revenue for interstate and state roads, 40 percent for cities and counties and 15 percent for multimodal projects, like bike lanes and bus routes, according to the chamber. ...

A report by Colorado Public Interest Research Group, a consumer advocacy group, found that the state needs to spend an additional $1.05 billion dollars per year on transit, biking and walking over the next 25 years. This would ensure, the report states, that Colorado’s transportation system is safe, accessible, affordable, and enhances the quality of life.

The report points out road-widening projects often ease congestion in the short term, but have uncertain long-term effects. Following the $1.67 billion Transportation Expansion (T-REX) project in 2006, pre-construction congestion levels returned within five years.

Title: Re: Colorado
Post by: andy3175 on March 16, 2018, 11:58:09 PM
http://www.westword.com/news/variable-speed-limits-in-glenwood-canyon-other-colorado-highways-9524481

Why That Speed Limit Sign You Just Saw May Be Changing
Michael Roberts | February 20, 2018 | 6:11am

Quote
Although the Colorado Department of Transportation has its eyes on the future, as seen in its advocacy of the Rocky Mountain Hyperloop project that recently won a global challenge, the agency is also trying to innovate when it comes to current highways. Hence the planned installation of variable speed limit signs in Glenwood Canyon that can either speed up or slow down traffic in response to weather and traffic conditions. VSL has already gotten a tryout near Boulder, and if the system works in Glenwood, among the trickiest sections along the Interstate 70 corridor, after installation set to begin during the coming months, it could be expanded to more roadways across the state. ...

Winter often causes significant problems in Glenwood Canyon. In December 2015, for example, we reported about a seven-car crash that involved actor James Woods; afterward, he praised responders via Twitter before adding, "Sorry, I'm rambling. Little concussion." And the following February, we told you about rock slides that caused commuting headaches involving the canyon for well over a week.

In the meantime, CDOT placed some variable speed limit signage along U.S. 36 between Boulder and Interstate 25. "If you watch, you can see new speed limits pop up," Ford points out. "The idea is that we slow traffic down or speed it up depending on the roadway conditions in front of drivers. It's designed to make the roadway safer."

The concept is being expanded considerably in Glenwood Canyon over a fourteen-mile stretch of eastbound I-70 and fifteen miles of westbound I-70, including the Hanging Lake Tunnel area. In addition to seventeen new variable speed limit signs, CDOT crews plant to replace 38 static (meaning unchanging) signs with 73 new ones. And that's not to mention three weather stations for live weather-condition monitoring and reporting, nine closed-circuit cameras and what a department release calls "other surface and subsurface conduit, and related improvements to guide the display of the variable speed limits." ...

The project is expected to be put out for bid next month, with construction scheduled to get underway in June and continue (after a winter break) through the fall of 2019. Once all the signage is in place, "we need people to work with us," Ford stresses. "If the speed limit says forty miles per hour, we highly encourage you to drive forty miles per hour."
Title: Re: Colorado
Post by: triplemultiplex on July 10, 2018, 09:28:35 AM
I shunpiked E470 coming into Denver on I-76 with my destination in the southeast suburbs.  Never again.  That was an arduous crawl through traffic lights and urban sprawl.  I'll gladly shell out 15 bucks or whatever it is next time to avoid that aggravation.
Title: Re: Colorado
Post by: wriddle082 on July 10, 2018, 02:27:39 PM
I shunpiked E470 coming into Denver on I-76 with my destination in the southeast suburbs.  Never again.  That was an arduous crawl through traffic lights and urban sprawl.  I'll gladly shell out 15 bucks or whatever it is next time to avoid that aggravation.

Can I-270 east be accessed from I-76 west?  Might be worth backtracking a little bit to use 270, 70, and 225 (an “inner bypass” of sorts).  Depending on timing it may not flow too smoothly along 270 since I experienced backups on it several times (needs an extra lane each direction in a big way), but during non- peak times I’m sure it’s worth it, especially since they fixed the southern terminus of 225 recently via a simple restriping.
Title: Re: Colorado
Post by: US 89 on July 10, 2018, 03:06:38 PM
I shunpiked E470 coming into Denver on I-76 with my destination in the southeast suburbs.  Never again.  That was an arduous crawl through traffic lights and urban sprawl.  I'll gladly shell out 15 bucks or whatever it is next time to avoid that aggravation.

Can I-270 east be accessed from I-76 west?  Might be worth backtracking a little bit to use 270, 70, and 225 (an “inner bypass” of sorts).  Depending on timing it may not flow too smoothly along 270 since I experienced backups on it several times (needs an extra lane each direction in a big way), but during non- peak times I’m sure it’s worth it, especially since they fixed the southern terminus of 225 recently via a simple restriping.

There isn't a ramp from westbound 76 to eastbound 270. The easiest way to make that connection would be Vasquez Blvd (US 6/85) which is an expressway with a few lights on it. Still not a bad idea, unless Vasquez gets congested easily.

Also, are there any plans to upgrade CO 83 to a freeway up to 225? That would probably help with some of the I-25 traffic in the southern Denver suburbs.
Title: Re: Colorado
Post by: Mark68 on July 10, 2018, 07:03:31 PM
I shunpiked E470 coming into Denver on I-76 with my destination in the southeast suburbs.  Never again.  That was an arduous crawl through traffic lights and urban sprawl.  I'll gladly shell out 15 bucks or whatever it is next time to avoid that aggravation.

Can I-270 east be accessed from I-76 west?  Might be worth backtracking a little bit to use 270, 70, and 225 (an “inner bypass” of sorts).  Depending on timing it may not flow too smoothly along 270 since I experienced backups on it several times (needs an extra lane each direction in a big way), but during non- peak times I’m sure it’s worth it, especially since they fixed the southern terminus of 225 recently via a simple restriping.

There isn't a ramp from westbound 76 to eastbound 270. The easiest way to make that connection would be Vasquez Blvd (US 6/85) which is an expressway with a few lights on it. Still not a bad idea, unless Vasquez gets congested easily.

Also, are there any plans to upgrade CO 83 to a freeway up to 225? That would probably help with some of the I-25 traffic in the southern Denver suburbs.

As far as I can tell, there are no plans to upgrade Parker Rd (CO 83) to a freeway. It would be very cost prohibitive, as there is development on both sides of Parker Rd as far south as Arapahoe Rd (CO 88). I think the Arapahoe County 2035 Transportation Plan is very ambitious as far as the improvements on the highway are concerned, as they propose two interchanges at Quincy Ave & Orchard Rd (which would be very expensive in terms of ROW purchases for interchanges--but much-needed--especially at Quincy).

Here is a copy of their plan (I believe it was conceived in 2010): http://www.arapahoegov.com/DocumentCenter/View/1347/2035-Transportation-Plan_Sept-11_with-Appendices?bidId=
Title: Re: Colorado
Post by: skluth on July 14, 2018, 11:26:30 PM

As far as I can tell, there are no plans to upgrade Parker Rd (CO 83) to a freeway. It would be very cost prohibitive, as there is development on both sides of Parker Rd as far south as Arapahoe Rd (CO 88). I think the Arapahoe County 2035 Transportation Plan is very ambitious as far as the improvements on the highway are concerned, as they propose two interchanges at Quincy Ave & Orchard Rd (which would be very expensive in terms of ROW purchases for interchanges--but much-needed--especially at Quincy).

Here is a copy of their plan (I believe it was conceived in 2010): http://www.arapahoegov.com/DocumentCenter/View/1347/2035-Transportation-Plan_Sept-11_with-Appendices?bidId=

Upgrading Parker Road at Quincy Road to a tight diamond interchange wouldn't be that difficult. The businesses west of Parker Road don't look to be all that valuable as they include a storage facility and what appears to be an auto junkyard. Parker could be shifted slightly west with the northbound on/off ramps using the current northbound lanes. It would involve a normally difficult land swap with the state park to the west, but I'm sure they'd be happy to do so as it removes an unsightly junkyard away currently adjacent to the park and the park may even gain a bit of acreage.
Title: Re: Colorado
Post by: usends on July 15, 2018, 10:50:48 AM
Upgrading Parker Road at Quincy Road to a tight diamond interchange wouldn't be that difficult...
In my opinion, it would be pointless to build a grade separation at Quincy without first addressing the at-grade signalized intersection at Lehigh (which also serves as one of the entrances to the state park).
Title: Re: Colorado
Post by: Mark68 on July 20, 2018, 02:42:28 PM

As far as I can tell, there are no plans to upgrade Parker Rd (CO 83) to a freeway. It would be very cost prohibitive, as there is development on both sides of Parker Rd as far south as Arapahoe Rd (CO 88). I think the Arapahoe County 2035 Transportation Plan is very ambitious as far as the improvements on the highway are concerned, as they propose two interchanges at Quincy Ave & Orchard Rd (which would be very expensive in terms of ROW purchases for interchanges--but much-needed--especially at Quincy).

Here is a copy of their plan (I believe it was conceived in 2010): http://www.arapahoegov.com/DocumentCenter/View/1347/2035-Transportation-Plan_Sept-11_with-Appendices?bidId=

Upgrading Parker Road at Quincy Road to a tight diamond interchange wouldn't be that difficult. The businesses west of Parker Road don't look to be all that valuable as they include a storage facility and what appears to be an auto junkyard. Parker could be shifted slightly west with the northbound on/off ramps using the current northbound lanes. It would involve a normally difficult land swap with the state park to the west, but I'm sure they'd be happy to do so as it removes an unsightly junkyard away currently adjacent to the park and the park may even gain a bit of acreage.
Upgrading Parker Road at Quincy Road to a tight diamond interchange wouldn't be that difficult...
In my opinion, it would be pointless to build a grade separation at Quincy without first addressing the at-grade signalized intersection at Lehigh (which also serves as one of the entrances to the state park).

Maybe this whole problem can be solved with realigning Parker a little to the west (into Cherry Creek SP) and adding frontage roads from Hampden to Quincy. Just have the exit for Dam Rd & Hampden also serve Lehigh, with separate slip ramps for Quincy. At least this way, you can have nearly freeway-grade travel on Parker between I-225 & Quincy.
Title: Re: Colorado
Post by: andy3175 on October 17, 2018, 09:44:58 PM
Colorado has two statewide transportation-related initiatives on the ballot next month.

Proposition 109
https://www.ballotpedia.org/Colorado_Proposition_109,_%22Fix_Our_Damn_Roads%22_Transportation_Bond_Initiative_(2018)

Proposition 110
https://ballotpedia.org/Colorado_Proposition_110,_%22Let%27s_Go_Colorado%22_Transportation_Bond_and_Sales_Tax_Increase_Initiative_(2018)

Has anyone analyzed these to see what projects might come around? I've seen some items in the media about a US 287 bypass at Lamar, widening US 85 to an expressway between C-470 and I-25 in Castle Rock, and making improvements to a variety of freeways.
Title: Re: Colorado
Post by: Mark68 on October 19, 2018, 12:13:58 PM
Colorado has two statewide transportation-related initiatives on the ballot next month.

Proposition 109
https://www.ballotpedia.org/Colorado_Proposition_109,_%22Fix_Our_Damn_Roads%22_Transportation_Bond_Initiative_(2018)

Proposition 110
https://ballotpedia.org/Colorado_Proposition_110,_%22Let%27s_Go_Colorado%22_Transportation_Bond_and_Sales_Tax_Increase_Initiative_(2018)

Has anyone analyzed these to see what projects might come around? I've seen some items in the media about a US 287 bypass at Lamar, widening US 85 to an expressway between C-470 and I-25 in Castle Rock, and making improvements to a variety of freeways.


109 is a bond measure (floating $3.5 billion in bonds) on certain road projects throughout the state, with an estimated repayment amount of $5.2 billion or so. The sate legislature will be obligated to repay the bonds over a 20 year period out of the state's budget without there being a dedicated revenue stream. It's the brainchild of the Independence Institute, a local right-wing think tank.

110 is also a bond measure ($6 billion in bonds) that will also establish a citizen oversight committee, that will be repaid by a .62% increase in the state sales tax over a 20-year period. It's a measure that has broad bipartisan support.

I may be obvious that I have a bias here, as I think the next time the Independence Institute comes up with a good idea will be the first time.

Title: Re: Colorado
Post by: Elm on October 19, 2018, 09:16:06 PM
CDOT set up some pages on their site with the projects that might get a boost from 110; the main wishlist is here (https://www.codot.gov/programs/colorado-transportation-matters/together-we-go/project-and-program-spotlight), and there’s a map view linked off to the side; there's some interesting candidates there. 109 comes with a hardcoded list of projects (based on some earlier CDOT list, I think) to apply the ≤$3.5 billion on, but CDOT’s estimating that they’d cost over $5.6 billion total; there’s a copy not the list in here (https://www.codot.gov/programs/planning/documents/stac-archives/2018-stac/august_2018/stac_packet_august_additional_materials/).

In freeway projects, a few items on both lists are continuing the I-25 North express lanes (Hwy 56 to Hwy 402 is up next, I think, carrying on the eternal I-25 North construction season), modifications to I-25 from US 36/I-270 to 88th Ave (that one’s interesting for being one of the few new proposals for GPLs, albeit short ones), and extending the third lanes on I-25 south of the Springs to Mesa Ridge Pkwy. I-70 in the mountains has a few entries, too.

Off the long list, a project that’d be nice for me personally is the C-470/US 285 interchange (the other instance—I think—of suggesting GPLs, an extension south from Morrison Rd) that would get rid of a few loop ramps and move the Bear Creek Lake Park access a bit. There’s also widening I-25 through the Springs which I’m curious to see the result of. The study from way back had the fourth lane each way as a rush hour HOV lane, which I think would be unique among Colorado freeways, so I wonder if they’d restudy that into a standard HOT lane. (Don't know if that's something they could realistically try.)

Going off the two Andy mentioned, the first pass at the Lamar Reliever Route is there as a two-lane road with interchanges to the north and east. The southern interchange is out, but I’m not sure if that’s forever or just until the hypothetical expansion to four lanes There's a low-res graphic of the project here (https://www.arcgis.com/sharing/rest/content/items/415251c5f6284487a6029d004d944605/resources/Screen%20Shot%202018-05-24%20at%202.37.43%20PM__1527194279965__w560__1528752416551__w560.png) (resembling the stuff from this in 2016 (https://www.codot.gov/programs/planning/documents/plans-projects-reports/projects/fastlane-applications/us287)); it's a bit different from the interim setup that would've come with the original study (final configuration here (https://www.codot.gov/projects/us287lamar/project-map)).

Widening US 85 is on both lists, mercifully; the county budgeted for design of the Sedalia to Daniels Park Rd section next year, so it’d probably pick up with whatever comes out of that. It would be nice for there to be a continuous four lanes down to Castle Rock, although I wish they’d designed it to give it a higher speed limit. (Is it the curbs? The lanes are wide and the turns are easy; you’d get run over if you drove 55mph there most of the time.)
Title: Re: Colorado
Post by: mrose on October 21, 2018, 11:19:14 PM
Looks like widening 270 is on both lists; thank goodness.
Title: Re: Colorado
Post by: Mark68 on October 22, 2018, 06:26:14 PM
CDOT set up some pages on their site with the projects that might get a boost from 110; the main wishlist is here (https://www.codot.gov/programs/colorado-transportation-matters/together-we-go/project-and-program-spotlight), and there’s a map view linked off to the side; there's some interesting candidates there. 109 comes with a hardcoded list of projects (based on some earlier CDOT list, I think) to apply the ≤$3.5 billion on, but CDOT’s estimating that they’d cost over $5.6 billion total; there’s a copy not the list in here (https://www.codot.gov/programs/planning/documents/stac-archives/2018-stac/august_2018/stac_packet_august_additional_materials/).

In freeway projects, a few items on both lists are continuing the I-25 North express lanes (Hwy 56 to Hwy 402 is up next, I think, carrying on the eternal I-25 North construction season), modifications to I-25 from US 36/I-270 to 88th Ave (that one’s interesting for being one of the few new proposals for GPLs, albeit short ones), and extending the third lanes on I-25 south of the Springs to Mesa Ridge Pkwy. I-70 in the mountains has a few entries, too.

Off the long list, a project that’d be nice for me personally is the C-470/US 285 interchange (the other instance—I think—of suggesting GPLs, an extension south from Morrison Rd) that would get rid of a few loop ramps and move the Bear Creek Lake Park access a bit. There’s also widening I-25 through the Springs which I’m curious to see the result of. The study from way back had the fourth lane each way as a rush hour HOV lane, which I think would be unique among Colorado freeways, so I wonder if they’d restudy that into a standard HOT lane. (Don't know if that's something they could realistically try.)

Going off the two Andy mentioned, the first pass at the Lamar Reliever Route is there as a two-lane road with interchanges to the north and east. The southern interchange is out, but I’m not sure if that’s forever or just until the hypothetical expansion to four lanes There's a low-res graphic of the project here (https://www.arcgis.com/sharing/rest/content/items/415251c5f6284487a6029d004d944605/resources/Screen%20Shot%202018-05-24%20at%202.37.43%20PM__1527194279965__w560__1528752416551__w560.png) (resembling the stuff from this in 2016 (https://www.codot.gov/programs/planning/documents/plans-projects-reports/projects/fastlane-applications/us287)); it's a bit different from the interim setup that would've come with the original study (final configuration here (https://www.codot.gov/projects/us287lamar/project-map)).

Widening US 85 is on both lists, mercifully; the county budgeted for design of the Sedalia to Daniels Park Rd section next year, so it’d probably pick up with whatever comes out of that. It would be nice for there to be a continuous four lanes down to Castle Rock, although I wish they’d designed it to give it a higher speed limit. (Is it the curbs? The lanes are wide and the turns are easy; you’d get run over if you drove 55mph there most of the time.)

I would think that if they were considering 4-laning US 85 down to Castle Rock, they would have configured US 85 with 4 lanes when they constructed the interchange with N Meadows Dr/Castle Rock Pkwy. Right now, US 85 is two lanes thru there and 4 lanes about a half mile south of there, at Promenade Pkwy.

But good to see that widening 270 is on both lists. I think reconfiguring the C-470/US 285/Morrison Rd interchanges is much-needed. It was needed a decade ago when I lived out there, and I'm reminded every time I try to go to a concert at Red Rocks (since I come from NB C-470).

What I found interesting was the interchange by the Taj Mahal (JeffCo complex), at US 6 & Heritage. It looks like CDOT is (slowly) upgrading the western bypass of Denver in fits & spurts. It was only a year or two ago that they completed the interchange at 19th St in Golden.
Title: Re: Colorado
Post by: Elm on October 25, 2018, 12:35:23 AM
I would think that if they were considering 4-laning US 85 down to Castle Rock, they would have configured US 85 with 4 lanes when they constructed the interchange with N Meadows Dr/Castle Rock Pkwy. Right now, US 85 is two lanes thru there and 4 lanes about a half mile south of there, at Promenade Pkwy.
[...]
What I found interesting was the interchange by the Taj Mahal (JeffCo complex), at US 6 & Heritage. It looks like CDOT is (slowly) upgrading the western bypass of Denver in fits & spurts. It was only a year or two ago that they completed the interchange at 19th St in Golden.

Yeah, you're probably right about 85. I think I had this (http://us85douglascounty.com/wp-content/uploads/US-85-Project-Segment-Map.pdf) in mind, but was thinking that the PEL section went further. Something kind of interesting, but probably just an oversight, is that while most of the ballot project materials reference Daniels Park Rd as the end point, there are a few places that use Meadows Pkwy instead.

I’m looking forward to any new developments on the 6th/Heritage interchange—for the eventual traffic help, but also just to see what sort of designs they come up with. The 19th St interchange has been great in a car and for walking (both over the highway and at Elm St); there’s probably not as much to get creative with around Heritage as far as transportation dynamics go, but maybe something interesting’ll come up.

Going on a tangent from there, Golden and CDOT have a fairly nice future planned for US 6 and Hwy 93 in the city limits (MOU (http://www.getthefactsgolden.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/GoldenCDOTDraftAgreement.pdf)/graphic (https://drive.google.com/file/d/14XnVxI4yvmyB4iKxQIRIkpCQi7qjDVNY/view))—limited access four lanes (allowing for more, probably tolled, past a traffic threshold), but with highway-concealing treatments near cross streets with ‘stuff.’ It’s sort of disappointing that the speed limits will remain at 45 and 55 since they’re usually ignored anyway, but the deal technically allows them to change under certain conditions. The plans north of the city aren’t as interesting, but they actually exist as of earlier this year after the WestConnect study, so I guess that’s something.

Also on the would-be beltway path, the Jefferson Parkway group has been inching toward getting a "private partner" and is taking qualifications now; something may actually end up coming out of that after all.
Title: Re: Colorado
Post by: Mark68 on October 25, 2018, 03:00:00 PM
I would think that if they were considering 4-laning US 85 down to Castle Rock, they would have configured US 85 with 4 lanes when they constructed the interchange with N Meadows Dr/Castle Rock Pkwy. Right now, US 85 is two lanes thru there and 4 lanes about a half mile south of there, at Promenade Pkwy.
[...]
What I found interesting was the interchange by the Taj Mahal (JeffCo complex), at US 6 & Heritage. It looks like CDOT is (slowly) upgrading the western bypass of Denver in fits & spurts. It was only a year or two ago that they completed the interchange at 19th St in Golden.

Yeah, you're probably right about 85. I think I had this (http://us85douglascounty.com/wp-content/uploads/US-85-Project-Segment-Map.pdf) in mind, but was thinking that the PEL section went further. Something kind of interesting, but probably just an oversight, is that while most of the ballot project materials reference Daniels Park Rd as the end point, there are a few places that use Meadows Pkwy instead.

I’m looking forward to any new developments on the 6th/Heritage interchange—for the eventual traffic help, but also just to see what sort of designs they come up with. The 19th St interchange has been great in a car and for walking (both over the highway and at Elm St); there’s probably not as much to get creative with around Heritage as far as transportation dynamics go, but maybe something interesting’ll come up.

Going on a tangent from there, Golden and CDOT have a fairly nice future planned for US 6 and Hwy 93 in the city limits (MOU (http://www.getthefactsgolden.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/GoldenCDOTDraftAgreement.pdf)/graphic (https://drive.google.com/file/d/14XnVxI4yvmyB4iKxQIRIkpCQi7qjDVNY/view))—limited access four lanes (allowing for more, probably tolled, past a traffic threshold), but with highway-concealing treatments near cross streets with ‘stuff.’ It’s sort of disappointing that the speed limits will remain at 45 and 55 since they’re usually ignored anyway, but the deal technically allows them to change under certain conditions. The plans north of the city aren’t as interesting, but they actually exist as of earlier this year after the WestConnect study, so I guess that’s something.

It seems that Golden/CDOT are pretty roundabout crazy, with all the interchanges but the US 6/SO 58/CO 93 interchange getting the roundabout treatment.

As for the 6/58/93 interchange, it surprises me (a little) that they're thinking a diamond there, with 6/93 the through route (without a direct ramp to continue WB on US 6). I have a feeling that the offramp from WB 6 to continue heading west might see a backup on some weekends.

With the CO 58 freeway ending just about a quarter mile east of the current intersection, I would think that they could plan for most of the movements to be done as a stack (or stack with cloverleafs) interchange, with the 58 freeway ending at the interchange. I know the terrain is somewhat limiting but not, IMO, prohibitively so.
Title: Re: Colorado
Post by: Elm on October 29, 2018, 12:51:14 AM
[...]Going on a tangent from there, Golden and CDOT have a fairly nice future planned for US 6 and Hwy 93 in the city limits (MOU (http://www.getthefactsgolden.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/GoldenCDOTDraftAgreement.pdf)/graphic (https://drive.google.com/file/d/14XnVxI4yvmyB4iKxQIRIkpCQi7qjDVNY/view))—limited access four lanes (allowing for more, probably tolled, past a traffic threshold), but with highway-concealing treatments near cross streets with ‘stuff.’ It’s sort of disappointing that the speed limits will remain at 45 and 55 since they’re usually ignored anyway, but the deal technically allows them to change under certain conditions. The plans north of the city aren’t as interesting, but they actually exist as of earlier this year after the WestConnect study, so I guess that’s something.

It seems that Golden/CDOT are pretty roundabout crazy, with all the interchanges but the US 6/SO 58/CO 93 interchange getting the roundabout treatment.

As for the 6/58/93 interchange, it surprises me (a little) that they're thinking a diamond there, with 6/93 the through route (without a direct ramp to continue WB on US 6). I have a feeling that the offramp from WB 6 to continue heading west might see a backup on some weekends.

With the CO 58 freeway ending just about a quarter mile east of the current intersection, I would think that they could plan for most of the movements to be done as a stack (or stack with cloverleafs) interchange, with the 58 freeway ending at the interchange. I know the terrain is somewhat limiting but not, IMO, prohibitively so.

Golden sure is into roundabouts; admittedly, I like that about them. I’m hoping the 6th/Heritage interchange work will reach down to Golden Ridge Rd and stick a roundabout there, sort of like the ones on S Golden Rd. Something to better work with (or maybe remove a few of) the outside lanes—those to the south especially aren't really helpful. I suppose that's not really a big deal overall, though.

I agree that they could get a more free-flowing interchange configuration at Hwy 58; with traffic on 58 so light for a freeway, they might not care to try it for the cost, and perhaps the potential to upset the city (with taller structures in the case of a stack). With the “Golden Plan” graphic being a pretty high-level plan as far as interchange designs go, though—before the 19th St project, its looked about the same as Heritage’s in the document—something to make the more common turns easier might come up. I could see them doing a DDI or something CFI-y there; CDOT’s been really into those lately. C-470 and US 85’s getting a crossover instead of a northbound to westbound flyover (and 85 a bunch of CFIs instead of interchanges south of there, at least for the foreseeable future), and DDIs are the frontrunners, replacing hypothetical single-loop interchanges, for Powers Blvd/Research Pkwy and I-70/Picadilly Rd.

On that last one, since I'm not sure if it's been posted (lately?) and it's an interesting one to look at, the Picadilly interchange would be part of the  "I-70/E-470 Interchange Complex," (https://www.auroragov.org/UserFiles/Servers/Server_1881137/File/Business%20Services/Planning/170%20Picadilly/Picadilly%20Folder%20for%20Julie_supporting%20docs_Picadilly%20Preferred%20Alternative.pdf) eventually featuring a free-flow interchange between the freeways and probably some manner of disconnecting Colfax from I-70 (but maybe less with the DDI (http://i70picadillypublicmeeting.com/assets/images/option3.jpg)?).
Title: Re: Colorado
Post by: Mark68 on November 07, 2018, 01:32:05 PM
Neither 109 nor 110 passed. Status quo.
Title: Re: Colorado
Post by: mrose on November 07, 2018, 04:58:54 PM
Yeah, both failed pretty hard.

The status of the badly needed 270 widening now comes into question.
Title: Re: Colorado
Post by: brad2971 on November 07, 2018, 09:46:08 PM
Neither 109 nor 110 passed. Status quo.

The proponents of both measures simply couldn't demonstrate the need for the bonds/taxes. And let's be frank: When both the cut-and-cover trenching of I-70 thru Globeville AND the widening of I-25 from Castle Rock thru Monument were able to locate financing and start construction this fall, it made passing 109 and/or 110 that much harder.
Title: Re: Colorado
Post by: Mark68 on November 08, 2018, 03:56:23 PM
Neither 109 nor 110 passed. Status quo.

The proponents of both measures simply couldn't demonstrate the need for the bonds/taxes. And let's be frank: When both the cut-and-cover trenching of I-70 thru Globeville AND the widening of I-25 from Castle Rock thru Monument were able to locate financing and start construction this fall, it made passing 109 and/or 110 that much harder.

The first ads I saw for 110 made it seem like tourists were paying for it, then when it came to light that everyone would pay for it (through higher fuel taxes), it's possible that some soured on it, feeling they were misled. I know that I had some qualms about that.

However, I also drive in Colorado. I know that there are a lot more roads in bad shape than just I-70 and I-25 in DougCo. I-270 keeps getting brought up here for a reason. So I voted for 110, and against 109.

Hell, I'm now going to be a vocal proponent of widening US 6 thru Clear Creek Canyon so that drivers don't have turn a corner and have a split-second to choose between running over a rock in the center of the lane, swerving into oncoming traffic, or slamming their brakes (and risking being rear-ended).

That is the choice I was faced with last Friday.

Yes, I know, Central City Parkway, blah blah blah. I wasn't going to Central City. I was going to Black Hawk. And it was really windy, and probably snowing at the higher elevations.

And yes, I'm bitter now.
Title: Re: Colorado
Post by: halork on November 10, 2018, 11:30:02 PM
Neither 109 nor 110 passed. Status quo.

The proponents of both measures simply couldn't demonstrate the need for the bonds/taxes. And let's be frank: When both the cut-and-cover trenching of I-70 thru Globeville AND the widening of I-25 from Castle Rock thru Monument were able to locate financing and start construction this fall, it made passing 109 and/or 110 that much harder.

The first ads I saw for 110 made it seem like tourists were paying for it, then when it came to light that everyone would pay for it (through higher fuel taxes), it's possible that some soured on it, feeling they were misled. I know that I had some qualms about that.

However, I also drive in Colorado. I know that there are a lot more roads in bad shape than just I-70 and I-25 in DougCo. I-270 keeps getting brought up here for a reason. So I voted for 110, and against 109.

Hell, I'm now going to be a vocal proponent of widening US 6 thru Clear Creek Canyon so that drivers don't have turn a corner and have a split-second to choose between running over a rock in the center of the lane, swerving into oncoming traffic, or slamming their brakes (and risking being rear-ended).

That is the choice I was faced with last Friday.

Yes, I know, Central City Parkway, blah blah blah. I wasn't going to Central City. I was going to Black Hawk. And it was really windy, and probably snowing at the higher elevations.

And yes, I'm bitter now.

Oh boy! More Lexus lanes!  :ded:
Title: Re: Colorado
Post by: Elm on December 11, 2018, 12:30:35 AM
A couple meetings around Denver—

There was an open house for the C-470 Express Lanes project last week. They uploaded the presentation here (https://drive.google.com/file/d/1rx00YYynJIBr-osyJzqkFbp-p_bpqvdB/view); it has some graphics of the new westbound ramps around the I-25 interchange and the particulars of the express lane entrances and exits. I’m not much of a fan of the westbound toll lane becomes the left GPL once it ends (the right lane exits to Wadsworth). The separate ingress/egress style and is new for Colorado, I think, although if I remember correctly, the I-70 project will do that sort of thing, too.

There’s also a meeting coming up for [unfunded] planning for US 85 (https://www.codot.gov/library/studies/us-85-from-i-76-to-124th-avenue-highway-design-improvements) between I-76 and E-470, but they posted the high-level idea: interchanges at 104th and 120th, removing access to 124th and Long’s Peak Dr, and a signal at 112th. The signal’s kind of weird since this stretch of 85 is one of the few highways in the state that CDOT plans designate as freeways. (It’d be a freeway up to Ft. Lupton, then an “enhanced expressway” up to Platteville.) Since this is forming plans without money to build anything, I’ll be curious to see if they explain not going all-out with 112th, too.

In Powers Blvd stuff I missed before, work on the portion from I-25 to Voyager could allegedly start in three to six months (here (https://koaa.com/news/2018/10/16/bridge-to-nowhere-in-north-gate-to-open-soon/)); anything that says they’re going to start work feels overly optimistic, but if they keep saying it’s some months out, eventually it could be true. The developer has a vested interest, at any rate. There was also a little discussion of the Powers/Research interchange not happening here (https://gazette.com/woodmenedition/after-propositions-fail-powers-research-improvements-in-a-holding-pattern/article_a58f3caa-ecfd-11e8-98ff-1386ba4c020e.html); diverging diamond expected there. The original plan was to have a loop in the northwest corner, which is perhaps why the at-grade intersection wasn’t built off-ramp style like the others in the extension north of Woodmen.

(Also, I-25 Monument-Castle Rock construction: 'still happening, will become more unpleasant.' (https://coloradosprings.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=3771433&GUID=275873E6-68C3-4AF0-B0D2-99486556E3B1))
Title: Re: Colorado
Post by: Revive 755 on December 11, 2018, 10:47:35 AM
There’s also a meeting coming up for [unfunded] planning for US 85 (https://www.codot.gov/library/studies/us-85-from-i-76-to-124th-avenue-highway-design-improvements) between I-76 and E-470, but they posted the high-level idea: interchanges at 104th and 120th, removing access to 124th and Long’s Peak Dr, and a signal at 112th. The signal’s kind of weird since this stretch of 85 is one of the few highways in the state that CDOT plans designate as freeways. (It’d be a freeway up to Ft. Lupton, then an “enhanced expressway” up to Platteville.) Since this is forming plans without money to build anything, I’ll be curious to see if they explain not going all-out with 112th, too.

I'm not seeing a good reason so far for keeping 112th as a signalized intersection - this intersection may/will probably have the same safety issues cited for the 104th and 120th intersections.  The rear end crashes might even increase once the 104th and 120th interchanges are completed.

With growth around Denver, it also seems to me the enhanced expressway ought to go all the way to Greeley.
Title: Re: Colorado
Post by: mrose on December 12, 2018, 05:10:36 AM
Leaving the signal at 112th makes the two interchanges pretty pointless IMO.

I use that short stretch of 85 between 104th and 124th all the time when working; the lights just kill the flow so I can't imagine why you'd go to the great expense of building two full interchanges and then leave a signal between them....  I shake my head.

Title: Re: Colorado
Post by: The High Plains Traveler on December 31, 2018, 10:30:10 PM

In Powers Blvd stuff I missed before, work on the portion from I-25 to Voyager could allegedly start in three to six months (here (https://koaa.com/news/2018/10/16/bridge-to-nowhere-in-north-gate-to-open-soon/)); anything that says they’re going to start work feels overly optimistic, but if they keep saying it’s some months out, eventually it could be true. The developer has a vested interest, at any rate. There was also a little discussion of the Powers/Research interchange not happening here (https://gazette.com/woodmenedition/after-propositions-fail-powers-research-improvements-in-a-holding-pattern/article_a58f3caa-ecfd-11e8-98ff-1386ba4c020e.html); diverging diamond expected there. The original plan was to have a loop in the northwest corner, which is perhaps why the at-grade intersection wasn’t built off-ramp style like the others in the extension north of Woodmen.

Late on catching up on Colorado topics, and I wondered why I missed the story that work on the extension of Powers (CO-21) to I-25 could begin soon, especially because it was carried on the station I usually watch for local news (KOAA-5). I was on vacation when that story ran. I'm sorry that 110 failed, but you can't expect Colorado drivers to ultimately conclude they need to actually pay for road improvements. I just can't get over the whining about the I-25 Monument to Castle Rock project building an express toll lane - where do people think the money for the improvement is going to come from? I may well end up with an Express Toll transponder on my windshield by 2022.
Title: Re: Colorado
Post by: Mark68 on January 04, 2019, 02:09:40 PM
I believe there is a segment of Colorado "natives" that will vote against every tax/fee proposal that would expand road/transportation capacity in the hope that it will stop the "Californication" of Colorado.

Never mind that most of the added population is from states to our east/southeast (I'm looking at YOU, Texas).
Title: Re: Colorado
Post by: wriddle082 on January 05, 2019, 11:26:18 AM
I believe there is a segment of Colorado "natives" that will vote against every tax/fee proposal that would expand road/transportation capacity in the hope that it will stop the "Californication" of Colorado.

Never mind that most of the added population is from states to our east/southeast (I'm looking at YOU, Texas).

Indeed, my stepsister moved to the Denver area from TN, but she’s been there for nearly 20 years now so she pretty much considers herself a local at this point.  Meanwhile all of the Californians are actually moving to the southeast, especially Nashville, Atlanta, and Charlotte.
Title: Re: Colorado
Post by: Elm on January 25, 2019, 01:21:30 AM
Some recent news on a few road projects that mostly live in the background.

In Colorado Springs, the Copper Ridge Metropolitan District (accumulating money for the Powers Blvd extension through an urban renewal area) gave a presentation with a status update and to request a larger portion of the URA’s sales tax. The slides are here (https://www.dropbox.com/s/mk17lec1kib9m57/Item%205%20%20PP%20Present%20COS%20URA%20011619.pdf); audio is available, but it’s very hard to hear the speakers, so I’m not totally sure what they went over verbally. A couple interesting points scope-wise: all the images show the northbound Powers to southbound I-25 ramp, which—at least for a while—had been excluded from the initial interchange project, and the phase 2 slide says the Interquest/Hwy 83 interchange, which some past updates indicated would be left to CDOT, would be included in the project.

The Jefferson Parkway also came up in the news; the JPPHA needs one more piece of land after they redesigned the Hwy 72 interchange again, and the owner isn't happy about another change of plans (article here (https://www.thedenverchannel.com/news/our-colorado/a-single-landowner-stands-in-the-way-of-the-jefferson-parkways-construction), follow-up here (https://www.thedenverchannel.com/news/local-news/can-eminent-domain-be-used-to-seize-land-for-a-toll-road)). They were originally planning a diamond interchange with a realigned Hwy 72 (sort of visible in their right-of-way map (https://arvada.org/source/2016%20JeffersonParkwayHighwayAuthority_11x17_1.pdf) and in some older general designs), but were thinking of a folded diamond in mid-2017 (see state highway intersections here (https://static1.squarespace.com/static/5982321ecd0f68fa59f9fd97/t/59948cdfebbd1a0533776bfa/1502907623884/Jefferson+Parkway+Public+Meeting+Rollplot_reduced.pdf)). By early 2018, they’d unfolded the northbound ramps (see plans here (https://static1.squarespace.com/static/5982321ecd0f68fa59f9fd97/t/5b6a0c69758d466ae584580f/1533676730100/JPP+Roadway+Plans_2-22-18+%281%29.pdf)).

Incidentally, none of those Jefferson Parkway maps show what’ll actually happen around the north end (probably). They’re moving the road west, further from the airport:
Quote from: 9/2018 JPAC Notes
Working with the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) has been challenging, so the JPPHA Board has suggested that a different alternative that serves the purpose should be explored. Bill ray has approached the Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT) and discussed shifting the north end of the Parkway from where it was going to be (across from Interlocken) half a mile to the west. CDOT has agreed to this realignment. JPPHA will modify their access permits to a slow for this change. It would be possible to add lanes onto State Highway 128 to accommodate traffic, and CDOT has agreed to that approach.
(source (https://static1.squarespace.com/static/5982321ecd0f68fa59f9fd97/t/5c24f5c6758d4652b384e4d1/1545926087365/JPAC+09-20-18+Meeting+Summary+Final.pdf))
Title: Re: Colorado
Post by: Mark68 on January 25, 2019, 11:44:50 AM
Some recent news on a few road projects that mostly live in the background.

In Colorado Springs, the Copper Ridge Metropolitan District (accumulating money for the Powers Blvd extension through an urban renewal area) gave a presentation with a status update and to request a larger portion of the URA’s sales tax. The slides are here (https://www.dropbox.com/s/mk17lec1kib9m57/Item%205%20%20PP%20Present%20COS%20URA%20011619.pdf); audio is available, but it’s very hard to hear the speakers, so I’m not totally sure what they went over verbally. A couple interesting points scope-wise: all the images show the northbound Powers to southbound I-25 ramp, which—at least for a while—had been excluded from the initial interchange project, and the phase 2 slide says the Interquest/Hwy 83 interchange, which some past updates indicated would be left to CDOT, would be included in the project.

The Jefferson Parkway also came up in the news; the JPPHA needs one more piece of land after they redesigned the Hwy 72 interchange again, and the owner isn't happy about another change of plans (article here (https://www.thedenverchannel.com/news/our-colorado/a-single-landowner-stands-in-the-way-of-the-jefferson-parkways-construction), follow-up here (https://www.thedenverchannel.com/news/local-news/can-eminent-domain-be-used-to-seize-land-for-a-toll-road)). They were originally planning a diamond interchange with a realigned Hwy 72 (sort of visible in their right-of-way map (https://arvada.org/source/2016%20JeffersonParkwayHighwayAuthority_11x17_1.pdf) and in some older general designs), but were thinking of a folded diamond in mid-2017 (see state highway intersections here (https://static1.squarespace.com/static/5982321ecd0f68fa59f9fd97/t/59948cdfebbd1a0533776bfa/1502907623884/Jefferson+Parkway+Public+Meeting+Rollplot_reduced.pdf)). By early 2018, they’d unfolded the northbound ramps (see plans here (https://static1.squarespace.com/static/5982321ecd0f68fa59f9fd97/t/5b6a0c69758d466ae584580f/1533676730100/JPP+Roadway+Plans_2-22-18+%281%29.pdf)).

Incidentally, none of those Jefferson Parkway maps show what’ll actually happen around the north end (probably). They’re moving the road west, further from the airport:
Quote from: 9/2018 JPAC Notes
Working with the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) has been challenging, so the JPPHA Board has suggested that a different alternative that serves the purpose should be explored. Bill ray has approached the Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT) and discussed shifting the north end of the Parkway from where it was going to be (across from Interlocken) half a mile to the west. CDOT has agreed to this realignment. JPPHA will modify their access permits to a slow for this change. It would be possible to add lanes onto State Highway 128 to accommodate traffic, and CDOT has agreed to that approach.
(source (https://static1.squarespace.com/static/5982321ecd0f68fa59f9fd97/t/5c24f5c6758d4652b384e4d1/1545926087365/JPAC+09-20-18+Meeting+Summary+Final.pdf))

So it looks like at-grade intersections at either end (CO 93 & CO 128/Interlocken Loop) with no plans to extend the controlled-access section to the current end of Northwest Pkwy.

So--Breezewood between the north end of Jeff Pkwy & southwest end of NW Pkwy...
Title: Re: Colorado
Post by: Elm on January 30, 2019, 01:09:04 AM
So it looks like at-grade intersections at either end (CO 93 & CO 128/Interlocken Loop) with no plans to extend the controlled-access section to the current end of Northwest Pkwy.

So--Breezewood between the north end of Jeff Pkwy & southwest end of NW Pkwy...
Yeah. It seems like there’s some interest on the side of the Northwest Parkway people, though, to build some kind of connection to the Jefferson Parkway, but it’s hard to tell around their general reticence. They were apparently interested in building an extension as well as the Jefferson Parkway itself, but their unsolicited proposal for the JP portion was rejected (https://www.inframationgroup.com/north-america-jefferson-parkway-authority-rejects-unsolicited-p3-proposal).  Two of three members of the “Jefferson Beltway Connection Partners” JP proposal team are NWP stakeholders (public info doc (https://static1.squarespace.com/static/5982321ecd0f68fa59f9fd97/t/5c3e0f9a03ce640330cdc782/1547571099896/Jefferson+Beltway+Connection+Partners+SOQ_Submission_Public_Statement.pdf)), so a similar version of that idea might come up again if that team gets the project.

I’d written about plans for roads around the Denver beltway path for a reply in the “Breezewood-type situations” topic but didn’t get around to posting it. Since it relates to this, here’s my understanding of the states of the southern segments, in case anyone finds it informative:
Regarding Hwy 93 from Golden to the Jefferson Parkway, the last portion of the beltway route to not be limited access if all the other hypothetical projects finished, interchanges were deemed unecessary (https://static1.squarespace.com/static/56d531c57c65e4667c164dbc/t/5a4e73b7f9619a322dbc73ac/1515090872197/08_30_17_SC+Meeting+Summary+Final.pdf):
Quote
Is there any thought of grade separation at the 58th and 64th Avenue intersections?
Grade separations have not been deemed warranted given traffic forecasts within the 20-year planning horizon of the PEL analysis. In Alternative 2, Southbound traffic would not have to stop under the Channelize T intersection improvement option.

Title: Re: Colorado
Post by: Elm on February 07, 2019, 09:41:16 PM
Some updates on the I-25 “Colorado Springs Denver South Connection” PEL, which was previously put on hold to run the EA for the Monument/Castle Rock HOT lanes; CDOT posted the boards from their Jan 15 meeting here (https://www.codot.gov/projects/I25COSDEN/projects/I25COSDEN/i25monumenttoc470-assets/January_2019_Public_Meeting_Boards%20/).

Now that the initial HOT lane project is under way, this EA is focused on “what next?” and the short version is “extend the HOT lanes north to C-470 and add another undetermined type of lane to the whole corridor.” That’d have the somewhat interesting effect of putting I-25 from Castle Rock to Lone Tree at twelve total lanes, which would be the most continuous lanes of any Colorado freeway depending on how you count. (Of course, the chances of that being built are slim.)

Something else I find intriguing is that they included converting GPLs to managed lanes in their evaluation, which also came up in the I-25 Central PEL (https://www.codot.gov/projects/i-25-santa-fe-20th-street-pel). I don’t think Colorado is part of any programs allowing that—I haven’t thoroughly looked—but it’s interesting to see the idea’s in mind. I imagine present-day CDOT regrets not using any managed lanes north of Castle Rock, but the idea was rejected on the grounds of “implementation issues and community values,” which now sounds ludicrous.

---

CDOT also got around to posting a fact sheet for the Powers/Research interchange (sheet (https://www.codot.gov/projects/co-21-research-parkway-interchange-study/assets/november-2018-fact-sheet), site (https://www.codot.gov/projects/co-21-research-parkway-interchange-study)); no great new insights, but as reported to the city, the preference is a DDI, and they say it’ll be larger than the one at I-25 & Fillmore, which is promising. I don’t know if they’ve done any meetings about this, which is slightly unusual (maybe it's because they’re technically re-evaluating an older study), but it’s sort of a nice change of pace for them just to say “this is the type of interchange” instead of dancing around it for months. No timeframe for anything beyond design at this point.
Title: Re: Colorado
Post by: Dougtone on March 03, 2019, 03:37:33 PM
I drove CO 82 through the Independence Pass following the Denver/Front Range road meet back in 2015. See the pictures of a majestic scenic drive and read the post at...

https://surewhynotnow.blogspot.com/2019/03/independence-pass-and-colorado-state.html (https://surewhynotnow.blogspot.com/2019/03/independence-pass-and-colorado-state.html)
Title: Re: Colorado
Post by: Elm on May 04, 2019, 02:20:13 PM
A summary (https://drive.google.com/file/d/128BUW2eLt-nSZq4z2HDYzhjy8NvhJx-Y/view) pf the December meeting for US 85 made it online, and one of the comment responses addresses the idea of an interchange at 112th Ave:

Quote
An interchange at US 85/112th Avenue is planned for and was included in the alternatives analysis; however, funding for construction of this interchange is not included within the 20-year planning horizon (2040). Since the planned US 85/112th Avenue interchange does not meet FHWA fiscal-constraint requirements, the interchange was not included in the Proposed Action.

I think what surprises me the most is that CDOT expects to have enough money to build two interchanges in the same area in the next twenty years.

---

Again going with a higher-risk option, Colorado’s planning to ask to keep future TABOR refunds to spend on “public schools, higher education, and roads, bridges, and transit” (HB19-1257 (http://leg.colorado.gov/bills/hb19-1257)). The request to issue bonds required by past legislation would be delayed a year (https://leg.colorado.gov/bills/sb19-263).

Some commentaries: Colorado Politics (https://www.coloradopolitics.com/colorado-senate-approves-ballot-question-on-tabor/article_2b7be6a8-6add-11e9-bba1-6fcdb9c049da.html) (owned by the Colorado Springs Gazette), Colorado Sun (https://coloradosun.com/2019/03/20/colorado-lawmakers-want-to-eliminate-spending-caps-heres-how-the-tabor-overhaul-would-work/), Denver Post (https://www.denverpost.com/2019/05/02/transportation-ballot-measure/)
Title: Re: Colorado
Post by: andy3175 on July 16, 2019, 09:01:39 AM
A section of US 36 freeway (turnpike) at Church Ranch Boulevard between Denver and Boulder that was reconstructed/expanded about five years ago suffered a large crack, which later became a sinkhole. This forced closure of the turnpike last Friday. Work to address this has been underway through the last weekend and continues today. Two lanes reopened this morning.

Details:

https://www.timescall.com/2019/07/15/u-s-36-to-see-major-changes-while-efforts-continue-to-repair-sinkhole-that-closed-eastbound-lanes/amp/

https://www.denverpost.com/2019/07/16/us-36-denver-boulder-collapse-blame/amp/&ved=0ahUKEwi7iK7LvrnjAhVOVs0KHYr-BSIQyM8BCEYwBg&usg=AOvVaw2Q5jJxnWFnD_5QlqPLEHIX&ampcf=1

https://www.google.com/amp/s/denver.cbslocal.com/2019/07/15/highway-36-westminster-wadsworth-closure/amp/

Regards,
Andy

www.aaroads.com

Title: Re: Colorado
Post by: zzcarp on July 16, 2019, 06:10:05 PM
It will be interesting to see the engineering and/or construction failure that caused this. US 36 was built adjacent to and over Lower Church Lake which is an old reservoir formerly used for agriculture.

I'm seeing many of my friends blame it on the public/private partnership, Plenary Roads, that built, maintains, and operates the road including the HOT lanes. There is a lot of anger with the added so-called "Lexus Lanes" without any general purpose capacity, and they are collapsing that complaint with this issue.

Interestingly enough, this same overpass location had a failure before when it collapsed in 1985 due to a head-on train collision. An article with some great pictures of the previous collapse is here: https://www.9news.com/article/news/local/when-colorado-lost-a-major-overpass/427366033 (https://www.9news.com/article/news/local/when-colorado-lost-a-major-overpass/427366033).
Title: Re: Colorado
Post by: keithvh on July 16, 2019, 06:17:13 PM
A section of US 36 freeway (turnpike) at Church Ranch Boulevard between Denver and Boulder that was reconstructed/expanded about five years ago suffered a large crack, which later became a sinkhole. This forced closure of the turnpike last Friday. Work to address this has been underway through the last weekend and continues today. Two lanes reopened this morning.

Details:

https://www.timescall.com/2019/07/15/u-s-36-to-see-major-changes-while-efforts-continue-to-repair-sinkhole-that-closed-eastbound-lanes/amp/

https://www.denverpost.com/2019/07/16/us-36-denver-boulder-collapse-blame/amp/&ved=0ahUKEwi7iK7LvrnjAhVOVs0KHYr-BSIQyM8BCEYwBg&usg=AOvVaw2Q5jJxnWFnD_5QlqPLEHIX&ampcf=1

https://www.google.com/amp/s/denver.cbslocal.com/2019/07/15/highway-36-westminster-wadsworth-closure/amp/

Regards,
Andy

www.aaroads.com

I live in Broomfield, Colorado.  My new home after moving from Cincinnati.  This has definitely made a mess of the traffic patterns the last few days.  Luckily, they're getting traffic flowing both ways again (at the reduction of some lanes on the westbound side).

The 120th Street overpass (east of Wadsworth) of US-36 opened within the past 12 months.  Traffic patterns would have REALLY been a mess without that. 
Title: Re: Colorado
Post by: zzcarp on July 18, 2019, 02:47:41 PM
An update to the US 36 closure: the road is still sinking at 2"/hour and they are saying it is because of a landslide, not a structural failure.

https://kdvr.com/2019/07/18/u-s-36-still-sinking-2-inches-per-hour-over-10-feet-since-last-week/ (https://kdvr.com/2019/07/18/u-s-36-still-sinking-2-inches-per-hour-over-10-feet-since-last-week/)
Title: Re: Colorado
Post by: Mark68 on July 18, 2019, 04:53:39 PM
An update to the US 36 closure: the road is still sinking at 2"/hour and they are saying it is because of a landslide, not a structural failure.

https://kdvr.com/2019/07/18/u-s-36-still-sinking-2-inches-per-hour-over-10-feet-since-last-week/ (https://kdvr.com/2019/07/18/u-s-36-still-sinking-2-inches-per-hour-over-10-feet-since-last-week/)

I wonder if the previous contractor didn't build enough drainage underneath the road bed. It was a wet winter/spring, so I'm curious as to whether that played a significant role.

I'm glad I live on the opposite end of the metro.
Title: Re: Colorado
Post by: The Ghostbuster on July 19, 2019, 06:42:29 PM
Are they going to build any more of the 470 beltway around Denver? Or is the beltway as finished as it is ever going to be?
Title: Re: Colorado
Post by: thspfc on July 19, 2019, 07:30:28 PM
Are they going to build any more of the 470 beltway around Denver? Or is the beltway as finished as it is ever going to be?
Apparently NIMBYs are an issue. Not too surprising since there’s so much protected land - it is in the foothills, after all.
Title: Re: Colorado
Post by: Elm on July 19, 2019, 08:52:41 PM
Construction on the Jefferson Parkway will allegedly begin next year (fact sheet here (https://static1.squarespace.com/static/5982321ecd0f68fa59f9fd97/t/5d139ae509cd3e0001b3677a/1561565926462/JPPHA+Fact+Sheet+FINAL+06.24.19.pdf)), which would make a beltway-shaped path around the Denver metro. There’d be signals at each end, and while it’s planned as a freeway, there are no active plans for freeway connections south to C-470 or north to the Northwest Parkway.

Here's (https://static1.squarespace.com/static/5982321ecd0f68fa59f9fd97/t/5d13c983ce6df90001b746d3/1561577863709/Overview_Map_04.pdf) a bigger version of that map—note the north end no longer connecting directly to Interlocken Loop and the NWP, to avoid the airport. There’s also an outdated, but more detailed, map here (https://static1.squarespace.com/static/5982321ecd0f68fa59f9fd97/t/5b6a0c69758d466ae584580f/1533676730100/JPP+Roadway+Plans_2-22-18+%281%29.pdf). Who knows? It might even happen. On the NIMBY subject, residents of the Leyden Rock development (which was designed with a Jefferson parkway-shaped hole through it and requires signatures to acknowledge the potential tollway) have been in the news (https://denver.cbslocal.com/2019/03/03/neighbors-unhappy-jefferson-parkway/) a few times over the last year talking about how the project has taken them by surprise.

There are plans to make US 6 and Hwy 93 a lower-speed limited access road through Golden (endorsed by the city, even), but Hwy 93 north to Boulder would not get that treatment. There’s also the idea of a “Northwest Parkway extension” but I don't know of any up-to-date information; past concepts include one elevated lane each way or an actual freeway connection.
Title: Re: Colorado
Post by: Elm on July 26, 2019, 08:45:22 PM
Another non-update of sorts on the Jefferson Parkway, published a few days ago: "Jefferson Parkway: Long-planned toll road on verge of being built" (https://arvadapress.com/stories/long-planned-parkway-on-verge-jefferson-county,284021); the main 'update' part would be this, I think

Quote
The JPPHA is waiting for Broomfield to make its decision on the $2.5 million before the formal request for a parkway proposal is sent out, Ray said.
Broomfield’s city council has tabled the issue of the $2.5 million, and as of press time has not scheduled a meeting to discuss it further.

Ray said that assuming Broomfield does provide the funding, and the authority board approves it, details of the parkway plan will be posted on the JPPHA’s website.
 
Ground could break on the parkway in early 2020. It would take an estimated two years to build

which is interesting since Broomfield has historically been a fan of the Jefferson Parkway and NWP extension.

(It looks like that 'tabling' was removing the Jefferson Parkway item from the city council's June 25 agenda.)
Title: Re: Colorado
Post by: Kniwt on July 30, 2019, 02:19:48 AM
As part of the work in Glenwood Canyon on I-70, the old variable speed limit signs are being replaced with new signs that can display separate speed limits for autos and trucks.

Sorry, no pic, but here's a PDF of a CDOT info sheet: https://www.codot.gov/library/traffic/traffic-manuals-and-guidelines/traffic_analysis_forecasting_guidelines/vsl_summary

Quote
I-70 Glenwood Canyon
(Completion Date: October 2019)
Project Work & Benefits

Strategically placed technology to monitor weather and traffic conditions, and control speed limits where needed. This includes:
1) Weather stations for live monitoring and reporting, standard static signs dual variable speed limit signs, closed-circuit cameras for live monitoring

2) Dual variable speed limits will allow the Department to post different standard speeds for passenger vehicles and heavy vehicles during good conditions and will also allow the Department to lower the speed limit to assist with incident management, conditions created by inclement weather, and maintenance and construction.
Title: Re: Colorado
Post by: Kniwt on August 15, 2019, 07:28:48 PM
The Denver Post updates the status of collapsed US 36 near Denver:
https://www.denverpost.com/2019/08/14/us-36-denver-boulder-highway-collapse/

Quote
Crews working to reopen the collapsed eastbound lanes of U.S. 36 in Westminster shifted into rebuilding mode Wednesday as the Colorado Department of Transportation announced new details about the project.

CDOT for the first time identified a target of reopening the full highway by October. That depends on weather cooperating during the expedited effort by contractor Kraemer North America to rebuild the embankment, retaining wall and highway pavement, CDOT said in a project update Wednesday evening.

Until then, that section of U.S. 36 will continue to have two lanes in each direction sharing space on the westbound side, which CDOT says remains stable. An investigation continues into the collapse.

... The design chosen for the rebuilt eastbound section will use different materials than were used when the highway was rebuilt earlier this decade.

(https://www.denverpost.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/07/TDP-L-US-36-072919-FJA-_FJA1614aa.jpg)
Title: Re: Colorado
Post by: Plutonic Panda on August 16, 2019, 04:29:10 PM
Man Colorado is a beautiful state but it needs to work on its roads. Lots of widenings needed and I'm not sure I've ever seen chronic traffic as bad as I-70 west in a city the size Denver. That stretch between Denver and Breckenridge needs to be at minimum 4 lanes each way PLUS HO/T lanes. I-70 throughout the entire state west of Denver.

The lane markings were awful in many parts of the state especially of the interstate. What is the purpose of the traffic light at the tunnel heading to Denver? Sheesh.

Though 4 lanes works fine enough, CO-9 between Breckenridge and I-70 would be nicer if six lanes.
Title: Re: Colorado
Post by: thenetwork on August 17, 2019, 11:14:07 AM
Man Colorado is a beautiful state but it needs to work on its roads. Lots of widenings needed and I'm not sure I've ever seen chronic traffic as bad as I-70 west in a city the size Denver. That stretch between Denver and Breckenridge needs to be at minimum 4 lanes each way PLUS HO/T lanes. I-70 throughout the entire state west of Denver.

The lane markings were awful in many parts of the state especially of the interstate. What is the purpose of the traffic light at the tunnel heading to Denver? Sheesh.

Though 4 lanes works fine enough, CO-9 between Breckenridge and I-70 would be nicer if six lanes.

The I-70 traffic light at the bottom of the hill near Silverthorne is used during extreme congestion times on the weekends (ususally Sundays) during ski season to meter traffic climbing the steep grade to the tunnel.  C-DOT tries to keep the traffic flowing at a decent flow through the tunnel without making the traffic stop in the Tunnel.   Also used to halt traffic when road conditions up the hill are impassable and need to be sanded.

I-70 West of Vail is fine as a 2x2 all the way to I-15 in Utah.  The only times when there is congestion is when there is a rockslide in a canyon, and an additional lane will likely not make a difference.
Title: Re: Colorado
Post by: Plutonic Panda on August 17, 2019, 01:39:11 PM
Man Colorado is a beautiful state but it needs to work on its roads. Lots of widenings needed and I'm not sure I've ever seen chronic traffic as bad as I-70 west in a city the size Denver. That stretch between Denver and Breckenridge needs to be at minimum 4 lanes each way PLUS HO/T lanes. I-70 throughout the entire state west of Denver.

The lane markings were awful in many parts of the state especially of the interstate. What is the purpose of the traffic light at the tunnel heading to Denver? Sheesh.

Though 4 lanes works fine enough, CO-9 between Breckenridge and I-70 would be nicer if six lanes.

The I-70 traffic light at the bottom of the hill near Silverthorne is used during extreme congestion times on the weekends (ususally Sundays) during ski season to meter traffic climbing the steep grade to the tunnel.  C-DOT tries to keep the traffic flowing at a decent flow through the tunnel without making the traffic stop in the Tunnel.   Also used to halt traffic when road conditions up the hill are impassable and need to be sanded.

I-70 West of Vail is fine as a 2x2 all the way to I-15 in Utah.  The only times when there is congestion is when there is a rockslide in a canyon, and an additional lane will likely not make a difference.
That light caused an hour and a half backup to travel mere miles. How much worse would it be in the tunnel? I think they make traffic worse with the light. Having a traffic light in the middle of an interstate is insanity to me.

As for I-70 west onward, though traffic flowed it moved fairly slow and it would have been nice to have a 3rd lane. Traffic certainly would move faster and the ADT's can't go anywhere but up. It seems a matter of time before congestion starts becoming a daily occurrence through there. Those towns seemed to have several construction projects for developments and that was just me glancing over at a moments notice, so I am not sure how much construction is occurring through there.
Title: Re: Colorado
Post by: Elm on August 17, 2019, 03:30:31 PM
The Denver Post updates the status of collapsed US 36 near Denver:
https://www.denverpost.com/2019/08/14/us-36-denver-boulder-highway-collapse/

Nice to have an end date in mind. I wonder if/how this will play into future public-private partnerships in the state; between this, RTD’s commuter rail trouble, and the terminated airport terminal contract, it feels like their reputation has been slipping, but I don't know if that's in a way that would affect future P3s.

That light caused an hour and a half backup to travel mere miles. How much worse would it be in the tunnel? I think they make traffic worse with the light. Having a traffic light in the middle of an interstate is insanity to me.

As for I-70 west onward, though traffic flowed it moved fairly slow and it would have been nice to have a 3rd lane. Traffic certainly would move faster and the ADT's can't go anywhere but up. It seems a matter of time before congestion starts becoming a daily occurrence through there. Those towns seemed to have several construction projects for developments and that was just me glancing over at a moments notice, so I am not sure how much construction is occurring through there.

If funding hypothetically materialized, the I-70 mountain corridor plan’s (https://www.codot.gov/projects/i-70-old-mountaincorridor/final-peis/final-peis-file-download.html) “maximum program of improvements” would have six lanes from Denver through the Eisenhower-Johnson Tunnels (in effect to Silverthorne, including the climbing/descending lanes west of the tunnels). Proactive highway expansion doesn’t happen in Colorado, and the I-70 mountain corridor is a particularly sensitive area anyway; convenient vehicular travel isn’t in the cards.

Thinking about what I-70 itself might look like in the expanded highway scenario, though—
After the lane evening-out from the maybe-someday Flyod Hill project (https://www.codot.gov/projects/i-70-floyd-hill-to-veterans-memorial-tunnels-improvements), there’d be three general-purpose lanes from Denver out to the Twin Tunnels (‘Veteran Memorial Tunnels,’ near Idaho Springs)/Central City Pkwy area, but the third lane would probably be tolled the rest of the way west, very especially the mythical third bore of the Eisenhower-Johnson Tunnels.

For now, we can expect no Floyd Hill project (but maybe they’ll start publicizing it again to encourage voters to fund stuff), but they're working on a westbound tolled peak period shoulder lane (https://www.codot.gov/projects/i70mtn/i-70-westbound-peak-period-shoulder-lane) from Idaho Springs to Empire Junction to go with the eastbound PPSL.

Since it’s likely that they’d add a climbing lane approaching the EJMT before a complete expansion happened, I wonder if they’d try to make that a toll lane or add a fourth lane to toll. I doubt either approach would appeal to CDOT, but they’d probably try to do something to connect the third bore to the other tolled lanes. So far, they hasn’t actively pursued converting GPLs to managed lanes in a project, but the concept has come up on a few recent studies of I-25.

(If you’re talking about the lights near the entrance to the EJMT, part of the idea is that there ought never to be congestion in the tunnels themselves, with the collateral damage accepted. There are safety and emergency response motivations to metering traffic inside (Q&A (https://www.codot.gov/travel/eisenhower-tunnel/eisenhower-metering.html)).)
Title: Re: Colorado
Post by: Plutonic Panda on August 17, 2019, 03:42:05 PM
Thank you for the insight to this mess. It should be noted that idling vehicles have an impact on environmentally sensitive areas just as widening freeways does.
Title: Re: Colorado
Post by: Elm on September 06, 2019, 12:21:04 AM
Some larger-scale future highway projects have come up in the news lately, with varying likelihoods of happening.



On the Jefferson Parkway: there’s an anomalous soil sample, so things (namely, Broomfield deciding whether to contribute their share of funding for concessionaire procurement) is on hold until the final analysis is ready later this year.

In more detail, the Broomfield city council was going to talk about whether to provide their share of JP procurement funding this month. Midway through last month, the first test (but not the second) of one of the Jefferson Parkway Public Highway Authority’s soil samples showed abnormally high plutonium levels; the JPPHA put out a statement (https://www.jppha.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/08/Jefferson-Parkway-Statement-about-Soil-Sampling-Analysis-UPDATED.pdf) about it, and the analysis process continued.

Gradually, that popped up in the news. This past Sunday, Broomfield announced (https://www.broomfield.org/CivicAlerts.aspx?AID=1605) they wouldn’t talk about the JP, except about funding the soil testing, and that the JPPHA would wait on word from the health department before taking further action. That became somewhat more colorful in the news, but there were some revisions and clarifications (https://www.thedenverchannel.com/news/local-news/broomfield-city-leaders-set-the-record-straight-on-future-of-the-jefferson-parkway) as well.
 
At any rate, unexpectedly contaminated soil would preclude building the JP, at least next to Rocky Flats. (I guess Arvada could try to build their southern part, where the soil was seemingly clean enough for residential development.) Seems reasonable. More annoying if the complaints from the Leyden Rock neighborhood, where everyone had to sign an acknowledgement of the JP, lead to Broomfield—a separate city—cutting off procurement.



Down in Colorado Springs, there’s news on Powers Boulevard projects:

Title: Re: Colorado
Post by: Mark68 on September 06, 2019, 11:33:52 AM
It seems to me kind of silly that there would be "unexpectedly contaminated soil" near Rocky Flats. I would EXPECT the soil near Rocky Flats to be contaminated.
Title: Re: Colorado
Post by: Elm on September 06, 2019, 01:54:54 PM
It seems to me kind of silly that there would be "unexpectedly contaminated soil" near Rocky Flats. I would EXPECT the soil near Rocky Flats to be contaminated.

The unexpected part isn’t so much that the soil is contaminated, but how high the concentration of plutonium in the sample was. The ‘cleanup standard’ for Rocky Flats is 50 picocuries/gram, and the first test of the sample came back at 264 pCi/g. (The second test reported 1.5 pCi/g.)

Looking at some older test summaries (here (http://www.jppha.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/08/Summary-of-Previous-Indiana-Corridor-Soil-and-Dust-Tests.pdf)), it seems like their expectations for the buffer zone, where the Jefferson Parkway would be, are around 1.1 pCi/g, and results usually fall in the range of 0.9-10 pCi/g (with a high of 49 pCi/g).
Title: Re: Colorado
Post by: zzcarp on September 06, 2019, 03:25:31 PM

At any rate, unexpectedly contaminated soil would preclude building the JP, at least next to Rocky Flats. (I guess Arvada could try to build their southern part, where the soil was seemingly clean enough for residential development.) Seems reasonable. More annoying if the complaints from the Leyden Rock neighborhood, where everyone had to sign an acknowledgement of the JP, lead to Broomfield—a separate city—cutting off procurement.

The current Broomfield council is not known for their sound planning decisions. They denied a permit for a Kum-and-Go gas station partially on the grounds that the name sounds pornographic.

Re the Jefferson Parkway, I am glad the construction is delayed for the moment. There are other transportation priorities taking short shrift for a toll road that has no freeway connections at either end and few ways to access it.
Title: Re: Colorado
Post by: The High Plains Traveler on October 03, 2019, 11:50:43 PM
It looks like CDOT has "completed" U.S. 50 Business in Pueblo. Previously, the route was marked as far west as the I-25 Santa Fe Avenue exit south of downtown, where it turned north along Santa Fe Avenue. No route signage existed north of that point, but Santa Fe is part of route 50C (state route log nomenclature for the route) as far north as 4th Street (CO 96)*. So, there was a gap in signage of Biz 50 between the U.S. 50 East/La Junta interchange and the Santa Fe exit along I-25. But, there has also been a project to replace much of the signage along I-25 between New Mexico and Monument, and in the past couple of weeks, new reassurance markers have popped up along I-25 in Pueblo. Now, between the City Center (old 1st Street) exit and the U.S. 50 interchange, Business U.S. 50 is marked alongside I-25. Because of continuing construction, I can't tell for sure what the south end of Biz 50 signage on the freeway will be. But it's weird to see it there on the freeway.

*Using CO 96 to connect marked Biz 50 to I-25 is problematic, because there is no interchange at 4th St. Traffic has to follow city streets to reach the on/offramps at 5th and 6th St.
Title: Re: Colorado
Post by: rte66man on October 17, 2019, 01:49:50 PM
Some larger-scale future highway projects have come up in the news lately, with varying likelihoods of happening.

Down in Colorado Springs, there’s news on Powers Boulevard projects:

  • the first phase of the extension to I-25 (a little freeway from I-25 to Voyager, actually separate from the existing Powers) could start this fall. The theoretical next steps are approving more funding (again) for it on the 10th, approve IGAs late this month, and giving the notice to proceed on October 1.
  • Powers/Research interchange project could start next year if CDOT finds $40 million (https://www.coloradopolitics.com/news/officials-detail-plans-for-colorado-springs-area-transportation-projects/article_2a7c3c36-4fe5-5d6c-97d4-ebd339a8675e.html). They’ve advanced to the pretty graphics fact sheet (https://www.codot.gov/projects/co-21-research-parkway-interchange-study/assets/19bprf067-powers-rockrimmon-fact-sheet-r1.pdf) portion of planning.


Got a 404 error when I clicked on the "pretty graphics" link.
Title: Re: Colorado
Post by: The Ghostbuster on October 17, 2019, 04:23:27 PM
Since they recently added exit numbers to the CO-470 freeway, maybe the US 36 Buffalo Highway (formerly the Denver-Boulder Turnpike) should get exit numbers next. The Baseline Road interchange could be Exit 0 or 1, or if going by the mileage of US 36, Exit 37.
Title: Re: Colorado
Post by: Elm on October 18, 2019, 12:03:22 AM
Got a 404 error when I clicked on the "pretty graphics" link.

Hm, that’s annoying; fixed the link (also here (https://www.codot.gov/projects/co-21-research-parkway-interchange-study/assets/october-2019-co-21-powers-research-fact-sheet.pdf)). Originally, the file name used “Rockrimmon” instead of “Research,” but apparently someone noticed and fixed it.
Title: Re: Colorado
Post by: Plutonic Panda on November 21, 2019, 01:13:50 PM
I had another observation exploring Denver... the Northwest Parkway has no controlled direct connection to Boulder Tollroad. Why is that and is an interchange planned?
Title: Re: Colorado
Post by: Elm on November 24, 2019, 07:18:45 PM
I had another observation exploring Denver... the Northwest Parkway has no controlled direct connection to Boulder Tollroad. Why is that and is an interchange planned?

The most official response is probably this entry from a former Northwest Parkway FAQ:

Quote
Why does the corridor turn into an arterial near 96th Avenue? Doesn't that create a bottleneck?
The ultimate design for the corridor includes upgrading the arterial portion of the Parkway south of the 96th Street intersection when traffic volumes warrant. Early traffic forecasts are well within the operating capacity of a four-to-six lane arterial. Upgrading could include bridges at 96th Street and/or Tape Drive and ramps at U.S. 36.

So, overall, the “why” comes down to money. The authority was trying to save money on the initial build (also, e.g., by not putting an interchange at Lowell Blvd—that plan probably became the Sheridan Pkwy interchange), and later on the road wasn’t successful financially. Lack of funds will probably preclude any changes to the Boulder Turnpike interchange, too.

I haven’t seen any design for a free-flowing interchange between the NW Pkwy and US 36, but it’s difficult to get information/background on the NW Pkwy generally. If they’re anywhere, they might be in the ‘ultimate design’ that FAQ mentioned. I’ve seen two concepts for changes to that interchange, though:

The heavier-duty concept was a three-level diamond in Broomfield’s ”I-FAST” plan (http://broomfield.granicus.com/MetaViewer.php?view_id=6&clip_id=878&meta_id=22481) for the Northwest Parkway extension. It mentions not building free-flow portion of the Northwest Parkway to reduce costs, though, so a hypothetical upgraded NW Pkwy could easily still have a plain diamond interchange with US 36.

A less substantial concept is a parclo in this Interlocken map (http://web.archive.org/web/20160805170207/http://interlocken.com/graphics/interlocken-site-plan.jpg) (Wayback link — that ancient website may finally have died), which doesn’t have any technical merit. Also mildly interesting in that map is Hwy 128 turning north toward the “Northwest Parkway” instead of continuing straight east.
Title: Re: Colorado
Post by: Plutonic Panda on November 24, 2019, 10:58:11 PM
Thank you for the response. It struck me as very odd when I went through there and I had to double check on maps. Hopefully they don’t allow development to encroach to the point they can’t built the interchange.
Title: Re: Colorado
Post by: Elm on March 17, 2020, 11:16:57 PM
The High Performance Transportation Enterprise finished the Colorado Express Lane Master Plan recently; at the moment, it’s posted at the bottom of their site’s index page (https://www.codot.gov/programs/high-performance-transportation-enterprise-hpte) (or: main document (https://drive.google.com/file/d/1UwxiHwlssBPNkHIh1dzkw5hXh9jCwmWm/view), appendices (https://drive.google.com/file/d/1z-FMDHU56flF6DBJLC3w1xc8GD-TKByO/view)).

The  “specialty corridors” (I-25 from C-470 to US 36/I-270, Santa Fe Dr from C-470 to I-25), mostly on I-25, get some more details and area-specific ideas. The T-REX-ish portion of I-25, for example, has a low-cost option with peak period shoulder lanes, which would involve narrowing the inner two lanes in each direction and one outside shoulder, as well as a high-cost option with an elevated express lane each way from C-470 to Santa Fe. The US 85/Santa Fe idea, which doesn’t make it all the way through the study, would have one express lane each way—replacing the HOV lanes where present—which would be grade-separated at “most of the existing at grade intersections.”

It also has one of the more overt reference to tolling the new westbound lane on I-70 in the Floyd Hill area that I’ve seen. (You can see it in the concepts from the last meeting (https://www.codot.gov/projects/i-70-floyd-hill-to-veterans-memorial-tunnels-improvements/public-outreach), though.) That’d go from MP 247 and end into the peak period shoulder lane around the Veterans Memorial Tunnels (MP 242 or so).
Title: Re: Colorado
Post by: sprjus4 on March 27, 2020, 04:35:39 PM
Colorado lawmakers OK changes for highway speed limits, truck permits (https://landline.media/colorado-lawmakers-ok-changes-for-highway-speed-limits-truck-permits/)
Quote
In the hours before the Colorado General Assembly temporarily adjourned due to coronavirus concerns, one bill sent to the governor’s desk would open the door to an increase of the speed limits on portions of rural state highways.

Colorado law permits vehicles to travel 65 mph on rural highways. Drivers on rural interstates are authorized to travel 75 mph.

House lawmakers voted 52-5 to sign-off on Senate changes to a bill to require the Colorado Department of Transportation to conduct a study to identify portions of rural highways where the speed limit can be safely raised by 5 mph to 70 mph. The Senate approved the bill earlier in the day on a 29-1 vote.

Sponsored by Rep. Richard Holtorf, R-Akron, HB1178 would consider factors that include whether the portion of highway is predominantly straight, the quality of the highway surface, and the amount of shoulder space on the highway.

Holtorf previously told one committee he is pursuing consideration of a 5 mph speed bump because “there are state highways in rural Colorado that really are wide open, and you literally drive for a long time before you see anything or anybody.”

The highway department would take into consideration engineering studies to examine the actual speed of traffic on a roadway, existing roadway conditions, crash history, and other environmental factors.

CDOT would then submit a report on their findings to the legislature’s transportation committees.

HB1178 awaits Gov. Jared Polis’ signature.
Title: Re: Colorado
Post by: zzcarp on May 29, 2020, 10:31:02 PM
The new entrance to I-70 westbound will open tomorrow at 32nd Avenue in the Denver metro area. From the Wheat Ridge Facebook page:

Quote
On-Ramp to Westbound I-70 at Clear Creek Drive Opens tomorrow!

On Saturday, May 30, 2020, westbound I-70 traffic will enter the highway using the new on-ramp from Clear Creek Dr. The existing on-ramp for I-70 westbound at W. 32nd Ave. will close.

With the opening of the new I-70 westbound on-ramp at Clear Creek Drive and the off-ramp from westbound I-70 that opened last month, construction of the ramp phase at Clear Creek Dr. is complete. The next and final phase of project construction is the fly-over bridge connecting the westbound I-70 on-ramps at Clear Creek Dr. over 32nd Ave.

This project's been under construction for about a year now. Planning began years ago when there was going to be a Cabelas development that never happened.

Previously, westbound I-70 used a tight diamond configuration signalized at 32nd Avenue. This signal was very close to the signal on the east side of I-70 at Youngfield St (which handles the EB I-70 movements) and caused congestion and safety issues.

You can see a diagram at the original FB post (https://www.facebook.com/CityofWheatRidgeGovernment/photos/a.663547720443803/1981656451966250/?type=3&theater) and the GSV (which only shows the new WB I-70 offramp under construction) here (https://www.google.com/maps/@39.7668527,-105.1433339,3a,79.2y,204.38h,88.04t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s831qoXf8cfTEEJ8zcsRk8g!2e0!7i16384!8i8192).
Title: Re: Colorado
Post by: zzcarp on June 04, 2020, 02:36:27 PM
CO Highway 5 aka the Mount Evans Road, the highest paved road in America, will not open this year (https://www.facebook.com/554378798032436/posts/1891166431020326/?d=n) due to vast governmental overreaction COVID19.

Mount Evans is one of Colorado’s 14ers. The road begins near Echo Lake at about elevation 10,000 and goes up to a parking lot at the top at around elevation 14,265.
Title: Re: Colorado
Post by: Rothman on June 05, 2020, 04:34:52 PM
Well, there's unnecessary and inaccurate political commentary for you.
Title: Re: Colorado
Post by: Plutonic Panda on June 05, 2020, 06:33:54 PM
Well, there's unnecessary and inaccurate political commentary for you.
not really. He’s completely correct.
Title: Re: Colorado
Post by: Elm on June 07, 2020, 01:50:40 PM
The new entrance to I-70 westbound will open tomorrow at 32nd Avenue in the Denver metro area.  [...]
Cool, I was wondering how that was going, and I haven’t been by in a while. Looks like Wheat Ridge followed up their FB post with a post-opening video (https://www.facebook.com/CityofWheatRidgeGovernment/videos/275846240466008/), too. I was a little curious if they’d put a “Freeway Entrance” sign here like on the Youngfield-side ramp, but it looks like they didn’t.

Hopefully the extra space will do the 32nd & Youngfield intersection some good. Should be harder to back up to Zinnia/Clear Creek Dr than the old off ramp, and helpful to have some more space to get into the correct lane before the intersection.



In totally unrelated news, the C-470 toll lanes are reportedly almost ready for testing. (Ah, how amusing to read old articles about the project that thought they’d be done in 2018, though they bumped that to spring 2019 before too long.) I thought I read it on CDOT’s website first, but I can’t find the announcement now, so here’s the quote form their email:

Quote
The new Express Lanes are expected to open this month. Motorists will be able to use the new lanes for free through most of the summer while the tolling system is being tested.  Watch for signage indicating the lanes are open to traffic. We urge drivers to use caution while getting used to the new lanes and be mindful of merging into and out of the lanes. Also, please use caution through the interchange at I-25/C-470/E-470, with the lanes open to traffic the configuration may be different than what the driver is accustomed to. We have added direct connect toll lanes onto C-470 from I-25 and E-470.  The new Express Lanes will be free until mid- to late August when tolling is expected to begin. Watch for further information on toll rates.  We encourage drivers to sign up for an ExpressToll pass at www.Expresstoll.com or by calling (303) 537-3470. The ExpressToll pass is valid on all the Express Lanes throughout the region and saves money as compared to license plate tolling. And remember the general purpose lanes remain free at all times.

The C-470 Express Lanes will provide motorists with a choice of taking the general purpose lanes for free, or when they need a faster trip, they can take the Express Lanes in exchange for a toll. Again, the Express Lanes will be free until mid- to late August. 

Less than thrilled by no HOV and the right GPL exiting to Wadsworth, but the auxiliary lanes are nice. I’m wondering how well folks will handle the ingress/egress lanes here, as opposed to dashed lines popping up on other express lanes for combined ingress/egress.

Here's a memo (https://www.codot.gov/programs/high-performance-transportation-enterprise-hpte/agenda-item-documents/2020-agenda-documents/may-2020-agenda-items/5a-board-memo-c-470-request-for-approval-of-toll-rates-and-schedule-final.pdf) for the High-Performance Transportation Enterprise from last month with the proposed toll rates.
Title: Re: Colorado
Post by: zzcarp on June 12, 2020, 04:32:55 PM
Per this report (https://denver.cbslocal.com/2020/06/12/c470-express-lanes-open-testing/?utm_campaign=true_anthem&utm_medium=facebook&utm_source=social), the C-470 toll lanes will open this weekend and be free until mid-August.
Title: Re: Colorado
Post by: Elm on July 22, 2020, 05:15:02 PM
Anyway, what I was looking for was a picture of the new style of exit signs they added in a few places, which I haven’t seen before. Trying to describe them instead, they resembled this sort of APL sign (https://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/htm/2009/part2/fig2e_03_longdesc.htm), but without portion left of the middle diving line (while keeping the middle arrow); they might have a separate pull-through sign like E6-2 (https://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/htm/2009/part2/fig2e_02_longdesc.htm) next to them. Those replaced signs exit signs like this (https://www.google.com/maps/@?api=1&map_action=pano&viewpoint=38.865934,-104.833641&heading=180&pitch=0&fov=15).

Does anyone know if that’s a normal thing that I’m just not used to, or is CDOT experimenting?

(I’m sorry not to have a real picture or mockup to get the point across better. I'm also not well-versed in the terminology here, to go looking for answers better.)

---

[originally at the top of the post, but the tweet expanded a lot]

I started writing a little about a sign replacement project in Colorado Springs adding back an I-25 business loop sign, going by this photo CDOT posted, but it turns out the photo’s from 2004 and on AARoads (https://www.aaroads.com/west/colorado025/i-025_nb_exit_140_01.jpg). Not so interesting.

Title: Re: Colorado
Post by: US 89 on July 22, 2020, 05:48:15 PM
Anyway, what I was looking for was a picture of the new style of exit signs they added in a few places, which I haven’t seen before. Trying to describe them instead, they resembled this sort of APL sign (https://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/htm/2009/part2/fig2e_03_longdesc.htm), but without portion left of the middle diving line (while keeping the middle arrow); they might have a separate pull-through sign like E6-2 (https://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/htm/2009/part2/fig2e_02_longdesc.htm) next to them. Those replaced signs exit signs like this (https://www.google.com/maps/@?api=1&map_action=pano&viewpoint=38.865934,-104.833641&heading=180&pitch=0&fov=15).

Does anyone know if that’s a normal thing that I’m just not used to, or is CDOT experimenting?

(I’m sorry not to have a real picture or mockup to get the point across better. I'm also not well-versed in the terminology here, to go looking for answers better.)

Are you talking about a partial APL, like this?

(https://live.staticflickr.com/851/41702505340_dfbf8d42b6_z.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/26x7eWL)

These have been fairly common in Utah for the past 5-10 years or so, but I can't recall ever seeing one anywhere else. Nice to see another state using them if that's the case.
Title: Re: Colorado
Post by: Elm on July 22, 2020, 06:17:26 PM
Are you talking about a partial APL, like this?

https://flic.kr/p/26x7eWL

These have been fairly common in Utah for the past 5-10 years or so, but I can't recall ever seeing one anywhere else. Nice to see another state using them if that's the case.

Yes, that's it, thanks!

And that helped me get to an illustration of just what I was trying to describe; under "Evaluation of Truncated Arrow-per-Lane Guide Signs" here (https://www.pooledfund.org/details/study/281) (direct PDF link (https://www.pooledfund.org/Document/Download/4455)), it's "Alternative 3."

There weren't too many of the new signs, just in the limits from here (https://www.codot.gov/news/2020/january-2020/cdot-begins-sign-replacement-project-on-interstate-25), and I don't think they replaced any relatively newer signs (just the old ones like that Fontanero one). Maybe it's a sort of test? Or maybe they'll be showing up more.
Title: Re: Colorado
Post by: mrsman on July 23, 2020, 10:07:19 PM
Are you talking about a partial APL, like this?

https://flic.kr/p/26x7eWL

These have been fairly common in Utah for the past 5-10 years or so, but I can't recall ever seeing one anywhere else. Nice to see another state using them if that's the case.

Yes, that's it, thanks!

And that helped me get to an illustration of just what I was trying to describe; under "Evaluation of Truncated Arrow-per-Lane Guide Signs" here (https://www.pooledfund.org/details/study/281) (direct PDF link (https://www.pooledfund.org/Document/Download/4455)), it's "Alternative 3."

There weren't too many of the new signs, just in the limits from here (https://www.codot.gov/news/2020/january-2020/cdot-begins-sign-replacement-project-on-interstate-25), and I don't think they replaced any relatively newer signs (just the old ones like that Fontanero one). Maybe it's a sort of test? Or maybe they'll be showing up more.

I think those signs are a good design for a double exit lane (with one lane being an option lane).

These are very common in the Toronto area, although with a slightly different design.

https://www.google.com/maps/@43.767828,-79.3279142,3a,75y,83.08h,96.58t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sAg2LfXm-hIBmHDvqoEXvHg!2e0!7i16384!8i8192
Title: Re: Colorado
Post by: jdbx on July 24, 2020, 02:52:21 PM
That sign in Toronto looks a lot like California's style of exit numbering on BGS, although arguably better.
Title: Re: Colorado
Post by: zzcarp on July 24, 2020, 11:54:35 PM
I took a picture of one of the Colorado Springs ones on I-25 NB for CO 115. This is typical of all the exits in El Paso county, but it hasn't made it to the Denver metro area yet. It looks to me like it's a way to save a little money on a second panel for a BGS.

(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/50150008876_93a3600b17_k.jpg)
Title: Re: Colorado
Post by: US 89 on July 25, 2020, 01:06:12 AM
I see it as a better way to sign an option-lane exit situation than what's given in the 2009 MUTCD, which is to not sign the option lane until you get to the exit itself, at which point it suddenly appears as a second "EXIT ONLY" lane. The partial APL method is much more clear in my opinion.
Title: Re: Colorado
Post by: roadfro on July 25, 2020, 12:18:33 PM
I see it as a better way to sign an option-lane exit situation than what's given in the 2009 MUTCD, which is to not sign the option lane until you get to the exit itself, at which point it suddenly appears as a second "EXIT ONLY" lane. The partial APL method is much more clear in my opinion.

Nevada only has one example of the current MUTCD signing method (https://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/htm/2009r1r2/part2/fig2e_11_longdesc.htm) for lane drop and option lane that I'm aware of. When I first saw it, I did not like it—although, to be fair, that example doesn't have the supplemental lane assignment pavement markings and signs—and was a bit tricked because I was in the option lane and continuing straight..

Nevada has traditionally used the signing method where a white-on-green down arrow is used over the option lane on the advance sign advance with a white on green up arrow at the exit destination sign—what J N Winkler on this forum has previously dubbed the classic "non-Lunenfeld & Alexander" approach. And I've noticed that NDOT has continued to use this method on new and replacement BGSs at service interchanges well after implementation of the 2009 MUTCD and its new meaning of down arrows...

But I agree with you, US 89. If we can't have the non-Lunenfeld & Alexander approach anymore, this partial APL method is probably the clearest way to sign an option lane exit without greatly increasing sign panel area. I'd like it, though, if they could make the arrows a bit smaller to save on vertical height of the signs.
Title: Re: Colorado
Post by: mrsman on July 28, 2020, 07:49:04 AM
I see it as a better way to sign an option-lane exit situation than what's given in the 2009 MUTCD, which is to not sign the option lane until you get to the exit itself, at which point it suddenly appears as a second "EXIT ONLY" lane. The partial APL method is much more clear in my opinion.

Nevada only has one example of the current MUTCD signing method (https://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/htm/2009r1r2/part2/fig2e_11_longdesc.htm) for lane drop and option lane that I'm aware of. When I first saw it, I did not like it—although, to be fair, that example doesn't have the supplemental lane assignment pavement markings and signs—and was a bit tricked because I was in the option lane and continuing straight..

Nevada has traditionally used the signing method where a white-on-green down arrow is used over the option lane on the advance sign advance with a white on green up arrow at the exit destination sign—what J N Winkler on this forum has previously dubbed the classic "non-Lunenfeld & Alexander" approach. And I've noticed that NDOT has continued to use this method on new and replacement BGSs at service interchanges well after implementation of the 2009 MUTCD and its new meaning of down arrows...

But I agree with you, US 89. If we can't have the non-Lunenfeld & Alexander approach anymore, this partial APL method is probably the clearest way to sign an option lane exit without greatly increasing sign panel area. I'd like it, though, if they could make the arrows a bit smaller to save on vertical height of the signs.

Yes, and for a typical option lane exit there is no need to sign all of the rest of the lanes as being with straight arrows.  Signage for the two right lanes is more than sufficient.  It should be obvious that the majority of the lanes, except the rightmost lane with a forced exit and the second to the right lane with an option to exit, remain on the freeway mainline.

The full APL approach is only needed at more complicated major splits.

Imagine the wasteful signage if the full APL approach were done at I-405 NB at Santa Monica Blvd in West Los Angeles.  1 HOV lane, 4 general purpose lanes, 1 option lane, and 1 exit only lane.  We don't need seven lane arrows at the exit for a street (even an important street like SM Blvd).  If this were converted to partial APL, just signing for the right two lanes would be sufficient.

https://www.google.com/maps/@34.0430315,-118.4429131,3a,75y,334.16h,73.71t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s7-KK244NLhgon84X-Os6fQ!2e0!7i16384!8i8192

IMO, a partial APL would be good here, but I don't see CA implementing this anytime soon.
Title: really dumb question about 'privately owned' toll roads
Post by: zachary_amaryllis on August 05, 2020, 10:06:05 AM
there's some subtlety about these that escapes me. if a road is privately owned, how does CSP have jurisdiction on them? i remember when i was a kid learning to drive, i did so on private land (we had a huge chunk of it in the mountains) because police couldn't do anything if i was driving on private land.
i could see the c-470 / nw parkway people having some sort of patrol, but they wouldn't be 'police' in the usual sense.. or am i way off?
Title: Re: Colorado
Post by: 1995hoo on August 05, 2020, 10:15:03 AM
there's some subtlety about these that escapes me. if a road is privately owned, how does CSP have jurisdiction on them? i remember when i was a kid learning to drive, i did so on private land (we had a huge chunk of it in the mountains) because police couldn't do anything if i was driving on private land.
i could see the c-470 / nw parkway people having some sort of patrol, but they wouldn't be 'police' in the usual sense.. or am i way off?

Presumably the statute authorizing the private company to build the road, or a more general statute authorizing that sort of construction, contains a provision for it. In Virginia, for example, where our first modern privately-owned toll road opened in the mid-1990s, there's a general statute (Va. Code 56-550) authorizing the state police to patrol such roads and providing that the traffic and motor vehicle laws generally applicable throughout the Commonwealth (including penalties) also apply on those roads. I'm sure Colorado has something similar.
Title: Re: Colorado
Post by: kphoger on August 06, 2020, 02:53:45 PM
Even privately owned schools and shopping centers can enter into contract with the police department.
Title: Re: really dumb question about 'privately owned' toll roads
Post by: zzcarp on August 07, 2020, 12:59:42 AM
there's some subtlety about these that escapes me. if a road is privately owned, how does CSP have jurisdiction on them? i remember when i was a kid learning to drive, i did so on private land (we had a huge chunk of it in the mountains) because police couldn't do anything if i was driving on private land.
i could see the c-470 / nw parkway people having some sort of patrol, but they wouldn't be 'police' in the usual sense.. or am i way off?

Neither E-470 nor the Northwest Parkway are truly private roads. E-470 is a public authority controlled by Adams, Arapahoe, and Douglas Counties along with the Town of Parker and the cities of Commerce City, Brighton, Aurora, and Thornton. The Northwest Parkway, while leased to a private operator, is also a public authority consisting of the City and County of Broomfield and the City of Lafayette.

In addition to the Colorado State Patrol, Aurora commonly sets up stationary speed traps on the portion of E-470 within its limits. I've not seen Thornton, Commerce City, or Brighton running traffic enforcement on their sections. Broomfield annexed the entire Northwest Parkway right-of-way and its police consistently run traffic patrols there.
Title: Re: Colorado
Post by: zachary_amaryllis on August 07, 2020, 11:42:14 PM

Neither E-470 nor the Northwest Parkway are truly private roads. E-470 is a public authority controlled by Adams, Arapahoe, and Douglas Counties along with the Town of Parker and the cities of Commerce City, Brighton, Aurora, and Thornton. The Northwest Parkway, while leased to a private operator, is also a public authority consisting of the City and County of Broomfield and the City of Lafayette.

In addition to the Colorado State Patrol, Aurora commonly sets up stationary speed traps on the portion of E-470 within its limits. I've not seen Thornton, Commerce City, or Brighton running traffic enforcement on their sections. Broomfield annexed the entire Northwest Parkway right-of-way and its police consistently run traffic patrols there.

now that makes more sense. i have driven e-470 exactly once in my life (i live way up in the nw mountains) and denver metro area is a little chaotic. for some weird reason, i actually prefer i-270 to get to the airport, tho its a little out of the way.
Title: Re: really dumb question about 'privately owned' toll roads
Post by: mgk920 on August 08, 2020, 12:32:37 AM

Neither E-470 nor the Northwest Parkway are truly private roads. E-470 is a public authority controlled by Adams, Arapahoe, and Douglas Counties along with the Town of Parker and the cities of Commerce City, Brighton, Aurora, and Thornton. The Northwest Parkway, while leased to a private operator, is also a public authority consisting of the City and County of Broomfield and the City of Lafayette.

In addition to the Colorado State Patrol, Aurora commonly sets up stationary speed traps on the portion of E-470 within its limits. I've not seen Thornton, Commerce City, or Brighton running traffic enforcement on their sections. Broomfield annexed the entire Northwest Parkway right-of-way and its police consistently run traffic patrols there.

I thought that as its own county, Broomfield was unable to annex any more territory (just like WRT Denver).

Mike
Title: Re: really dumb question about 'privately owned' toll roads
Post by: zzcarp on August 09, 2020, 10:34:23 AM

Neither E-470 nor the Northwest Parkway are truly private roads. E-470 is a public authority controlled by Adams, Arapahoe, and Douglas Counties along with the Town of Parker and the cities of Commerce City, Brighton, Aurora, and Thornton. The Northwest Parkway, while leased to a private operator, is also a public authority consisting of the City and County of Broomfield and the City of Lafayette.

In addition to the Colorado State Patrol, Aurora commonly sets up stationary speed traps on the portion of E-470 within its limits. I've not seen Thornton, Commerce City, or Brighton running traffic enforcement on their sections. Broomfield annexed the entire Northwest Parkway right-of-way and its police consistently run traffic patrols there.

I thought that as its own county, Broomfield was unable to annex any more territory (just like WRT Denver).

Mike

Yes, the Colorado Constitution states:

Quote
Article XIV, Section 3.  Striking off territory vote. Except as otherwise provided by statute, no part of the territory of any county shall be stricken off and added to an adjoining county, without first submitting the question to the registered electors of the county from which the territory is proposed to be stricken off; nor unless a majority of all the registered electors of said county voting on the question shall vote therefor.

Therefore any future annexations for Denver or Broomfield will require a vote of the county from which the land is annexed. Broomfield also has a boundary commission consisting of reps from Weld, Boulder, Jefferson, and Adams County and 3 Broomfield reps for which majority approval is required before annexation proceedings can commence.

Regarding the Northwest Parkway shoestring annexation, the state constitutional amendment (https://www.broomfield.org/1635/Constitutional-Amendment) creating Broomfield as a city/county was approved by voters in November 1998, and it contained a three year transition period. They could annex land as shown on their May 1998 master plan without any public votes until November 15, 2001.

I believe that the Northwest Parkway right-of-way was reserved on that master plan and annexed before construction began in June 2001.

Also, when I researched this issue, I discovered that there is a tiny portion of the Northwest Parkway in Lafayette (https://www.google.com/maps/place/Lafayette,+CO/@39.9580452,-105.0978883,14z/data=!4m5!3m4!1s0x876bf36c78a8c2c3:0x775e73acfeadd604!8m2!3d39.9935959!4d-105.0897058). This is around the US 287 interchange and basically follows the eastbound lanes of Dillon Road from the underpass west of US 287 to the railroad spur east of US 287. I have never seen the Lafayette police patrolling the Parkway proper.
Title: Re: really dumb question about 'privately owned' toll roads
Post by: mgk920 on August 15, 2020, 02:48:08 PM

Neither E-470 nor the Northwest Parkway are truly private roads. E-470 is a public authority controlled by Adams, Arapahoe, and Douglas Counties along with the Town of Parker and the cities of Commerce City, Brighton, Aurora, and Thornton. The Northwest Parkway, while leased to a private operator, is also a public authority consisting of the City and County of Broomfield and the City of Lafayette.

In addition to the Colorado State Patrol, Aurora commonly sets up stationary speed traps on the portion of E-470 within its limits. I've not seen Thornton, Commerce City, or Brighton running traffic enforcement on their sections. Broomfield annexed the entire Northwest Parkway right-of-way and its police consistently run traffic patrols there.

I thought that as its own county, Broomfield was unable to annex any more territory (just like WRT Denver).

Mike

Yes, the Colorado Constitution states:

Quote
Article XIV, Section 3.  Striking off territory vote. Except as otherwise provided by statute, no part of the territory of any county shall be stricken off and added to an adjoining county, without first submitting the question to the registered electors of the county from which the territory is proposed to be stricken off; nor unless a majority of all the registered electors of said county voting on the question shall vote therefor.

Therefore any future annexations for Denver or Broomfield will require a vote of the county from which the land is annexed. Broomfield also has a boundary commission consisting of reps from Weld, Boulder, Jefferson, and Adams County and 3 Broomfield reps for which majority approval is required before annexation proceedings can commence.

Regarding the Northwest Parkway shoestring annexation, the state constitutional amendment (https://www.broomfield.org/1635/Constitutional-Amendment) creating Broomfield as a city/county was approved by voters in November 1998, and it contained a three year transition period. They could annex land as shown on their May 1998 master plan without any public votes until November 15, 2001.

I believe that the Northwest Parkway right-of-way was reserved on that master plan and annexed before construction began in June 2001.

Also, when I researched this issue, I discovered that there is a tiny portion of the Northwest Parkway in Lafayette (https://www.google.com/maps/place/Lafayette,+CO/@39.9580452,-105.0978883,14z/data=!4m5!3m4!1s0x876bf36c78a8c2c3:0x775e73acfeadd604!8m2!3d39.9935959!4d-105.0897058). This is around the US 287 interchange and basically follows the eastbound lanes of Dillon Road from the underpass west of US 287 to the railroad spur east of US 287. I have never seen the Lafayette police patrolling the Parkway proper.

From what I'm getting from the highlighted part, am I correct in that the state legislature can pass/governor sign a law allowing those 'city-counties' to start annexing territory again by using whatever rules the state sets up, should they so desire?

 :hmmm:

Mike
Title: Re: really dumb question about 'privately owned' toll roads
Post by: zzcarp on August 15, 2020, 06:26:52 PM
From what I'm getting from the highlighted part, am I correct in that the state legislature can pass/governor sign a law allowing those 'city-counties' to start annexing territory again by using whatever rules the state sets up, should they so desire?

 :hmmm:

Mike

The "unless otherwise authorized by statute" has been thus far limited to technical items such as boundary agreements and the settlement of irregular boundaries between Denver and Jefferson, Adams, and Arapahoe of less than 50 acres. The list of Colorado Revised Statutes (https://law.justia.com/codes/colorado/2016/title-30/location-and-boundaries/article-6/) are here.


I believe there is a limiting principle here-the legislature can't override the constitution willy-nilly, even an activist one as you suppose. Even most of the statutes still contain the right of the people to vote, or, at minimum the county commissioners and a boundary commission. Disclaimer, I'm no lawyer, nor did I stay in a Holiday Inn Express last night.
Title: Re: Colorado
Post by: Plutonic Panda on August 17, 2020, 05:46:11 PM
First I-270 reconstruction project meeting August 30th.

https://www.codot.gov/projects/i270

It would be nice if they added at least one or two lanes each way and connect northfield with a new bridge to 49th. Lots of room for improvements on this stretch of interstate.
Title: Re: Colorado
Post by: zzcarp on August 17, 2020, 06:11:33 PM
First I-270 reconstruction project meeting August 30th.

https://www.codot.gov/projects/i270

It would be nice if they added at least one or two lanes each way and connect northfield with a new bridge to 49th. Lots of room for improvements on this stretch of interstate.

That would be nice. We're much more likely to get a toll lane and hopefully a much needed improvement to the Vasquez cloverleaf which is the biggest bottleneck in the corridor.
Title: Re: Colorado
Post by: Plutonic Panda on August 17, 2020, 06:41:28 PM
It sucks Colorado has been going crazy with toll lanes. I don’t mind them but not on 4 lane freeways especially the way Colorado does it with 2-1-1-2 setup which is the worst.
Title: Re: Colorado
Post by: zzcarp on August 17, 2020, 08:08:44 PM
CDOT's monofocus on HOT lanes and lack of focus on auxiliary lanes and lane parity is a problem. On the current I-70 project, they could have had 5 through lanes in the 2 miles between I-270 and I-225 along I-70. Instead, they force an eastbound lane drop at Peoria street (back to) 4 just to expand back to 5 at the exit. Very little additional pavement would have been necessary to bring actual improvements to the public, and it doesn't seem like that's CDOT's purpose.
Title: Re: Colorado
Post by: US 89 on August 17, 2020, 08:27:06 PM
CDOT's monofocus on HOT lanes and lack of focus on auxiliary lanes and lane parity is a problem.

Agree. I have family in the southwest suburbs of Denver, so every 2 years or so I'll visit that area. There's been construction on C-470 the past several times I've been out there, so I was hoping the end goal of that would be at least 3 general purpose lanes in each direction. I was incredibly disappointed with the 2+1 configuration I saw there this summer.
Title: Re: Colorado
Post by: mrsman on August 20, 2020, 08:16:49 AM
It sucks Colorado has been going crazy with toll lanes. I don’t mind them but not on 4 lane freeways especially the way Colorado does it with 2-1-1-2 setup which is the worst.

That is terrible.  I don't know how it makes even remote sense to have 2 toll lanes for 1 general purpose lane. And from what I hear on the forum the rate per mile on these toll roads is quite expensive.
Title: Re: Colorado
Post by: BigManFromAFRICA88 on August 20, 2020, 01:01:28 PM
It sucks Colorado has been going crazy with toll lanes. I don’t mind them but not on 4 lane freeways especially the way Colorado does it with 2-1-1-2 setup which is the worst.

That is terrible.  I don't know how it makes even remote sense to have 2 toll lanes for 1 general purpose lane. And from what I hear on the forum the rate per mile on these toll roads is quite expensive.

Only slightly less disappointing but I'm pretty sure US 89 means the other way around haha. At minimum, C-470 could use 3 general purpose lanes. I don't see how that's so hard to implement, I had the same criticism when they redid I-35W as 2-2-2-2 in Texas.
Title: Re: Colorado
Post by: US 89 on August 20, 2020, 01:51:29 PM
It sucks Colorado has been going crazy with toll lanes. I don’t mind them but not on 4 lane freeways especially the way Colorado does it with 2-1-1-2 setup which is the worst.

That is terrible.  I don't know how it makes even remote sense to have 2 toll lanes for 1 general purpose lane. And from what I hear on the forum the rate per mile on these toll roads is quite expensive.

Only slightly less disappointing but I'm pretty sure US 89 means the other way around haha. At minimum, C-470 could use 3 general purpose lanes. I don't see how that's so hard to implement, I had the same criticism when they redid I-35W as 2-2-2-2 in Texas.

Yeah, I meant 2 GP lanes and one toll lane in each direction. When I was out there the tolls hadn't yet been implemented and there was actually a decent flow of traffic, but I'm betting the usual congestion returns once tolling begins (if it hasn't already).
Title: Re: Colorado
Post by: zzcarp on August 20, 2020, 07:49:31 PM
It sucks Colorado has been going crazy with toll lanes. I don’t mind them but not on 4 lane freeways especially the way Colorado does it with 2-1-1-2 setup which is the worst.

That is terrible.  I don't know how it makes even remote sense to have 2 toll lanes for 1 general purpose lane. And from what I hear on the forum the rate per mile on these toll roads is quite expensive.

Only slightly less disappointing but I'm pretty sure US 89 means the other way around haha. At minimum, C-470 could use 3 general purpose lanes. I don't see how that's so hard to implement, I had the same criticism when they redid I-35W as 2-2-2-2 in Texas.

Yeah, I meant 2 GP lanes and one toll lane in each direction. When I was out there the tolls hadn't yet been implemented and there was actually a decent flow of traffic, but I'm betting the usual congestion returns once tolling begins (if it hasn't already).

They began tolling (https://kdvr.com/news/local/c-470-express-lanes-will-require-a-toll-beginning-tuesday/) the C-470 lanes Tuesday. Interestingly, these are not HOT lanes (no HOV-3 discount), but motorcycles still travel free.

I don't think they're seeing the traffic jams right now due to people working from home. I just checked the CDOT cameras at C-470 and Santa Fe, and general purpose lane traffic is free-flowing. Typically at 5:30 on a weekday westbound traffic is slammed there and eastbound traffic begins jamming just east of there.



Title: Re: Colorado
Post by: Elm on September 29, 2020, 01:41:41 PM
I was surprised today to see a few articles (like this (https://www.cpr.org/2020/09/29/gardner-bill-would-push-long-sought-eastern-plains-interstate-closer-to-reality/)) about bill to designate a future I-27 in Colorado, related to the Ports-to-Plains Corridor; I’ll be curious to see how the bill and subject develop now that they might get some more time in the public eye.

The surprise was that the bill would be created possibly without CDOT's support, since it seems like CDOT’s been trying not to get involved with the interstate designation, which the articles do get into. Last month, there was a presentation to the Transportation Commission about Ports-to-Plains and I-27—informational only, although the informal request to support designating a future interstate was there—which got a lukewarm reception overall. Those slides are here (https://www.codot.gov/about/transportation-commission/documents/2020-supporting-documents/august-2020/15-freight-committee.pdf), and there’s a recording on YouTube on Youtube (https://youtu.be/6bJM5_DnDjo?t=4625) (link should start 1:17:05).
Title: Re: Colorado
Post by: The Ghostbuster on September 29, 2020, 03:25:49 PM
I don't see Interstate 27 being extended north of Amarillo, or south of Lubbock; let alone connecting Laredo with Colorado. I'd be shocked if Interstate 27 is ever extended. However, Texas is a state where anything can happen, so I'll believe it when I see it.
Title: Re: Colorado
Post by: zzcarp on September 29, 2020, 04:57:42 PM
Senator Gardner's bill (https://wp-cpr.s3.amazonaws.com/uploads/2020/09/gardner-ports-to-plains.pdf) referred to in the article is calling for solely upgrading CO 71 from Limon to Brush. CDOT did study this facility (released in May (https://www.codot.gov/library/studies/co71-truckdiversion-study/assets/final-report)) and did state that an Interstate-grade facility would attract 1100 trucks per day. The current traffic count there is 1100 vehicles per day and has remained constant over the last 20 years, so I really dispute any savings there. Colorado just has too many highway needs to waste money on an unneeded upgrade.
Title: Re: Colorado
Post by: Elm on September 29, 2020, 07:46:47 PM
Senator Gardner's bill (https://wp-cpr.s3.amazonaws.com/uploads/2020/09/gardner-ports-to-plains.pdf) referred to in the article is calling for solely upgrading CO 71 from Limon to Brush. CDOT did study this facility (released in May (https://www.codot.gov/library/studies/co71-truckdiversion-study/assets/final-report)) and did state that an Interstate-grade facility would attract 1100 trucks per day. The current traffic count there is 1100 vehicles per day and has remained constant over the last 20 years, so I really dispute any savings there. Colorado just has too many highway needs to waste money on an unneeded upgrade.

I think the request applies to the full corridor, but the Limon-Brush segment is isolated because it’s part of the Heartland Expressway (14) rather than the official Ports-to-Plains (38). If I’m reading correctly, page 2 lines 8-9 in the bill pdf would apply the interstate designation to Ports-to-Plains, including the Colorado portion.

Incidentally, I just realized that the separate future interstate request from Texas and New Mexico (HB 7151 (https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/house-bill/7151)) includes the corridor(s) in Colorado. Although I wasn't watching too closely, I thought they had cut the request back to just TX/NM when CDOT didn’t give a letter of support, so hypothetical I-27 would end at I-25 around Raton.
Title: Re: Colorado
Post by: JayhawkCO on September 30, 2020, 02:58:53 AM
I've said this in other threads.  No one lives out there.  The most important city in eastern Colorado is Limon, and it has less than 2,000 people and is only important because there's an interstate and multiple US highways that go through it.  The largest town is Sterling and it has less than 15,000 people.  Having driven about 70% of the roads east of I-25 here recently on my (somewhat questionably wise) attempt to clinch the state, there is no good reason to have an interstate out there.  The route mostly used by semis, US287, is plenty enough for the volume that goes from Texas up to Denver.  It barely passes through towns, so a limited access highway is not that much of an upgrade.

Chris
Title: Re: Colorado
Post by: zachary_amaryllis on October 01, 2020, 08:43:06 PM
as long as we're talking colorado...

climb lanes. nw of fort collins on 287 (what locals call the 'bypass'), as you start up a hill there's a climb lane, which ends oh 1/2 mile later or so at the top of the hill. maybe a mile further highway north, it begins again, starting a 4-lane stretch of a few miles.

how much money did codot save by making this road a super-2 with the climb lanes, vs. just 4-laning it? there's certainly enough traffic, says guy who drives this road almost daily.
Title: us 400 in colorado
Post by: zachary_amaryllis on October 10, 2020, 10:43:27 AM
i searched and didn't find anything on this, so if it exists, point me to it..

why would us 400 go into colorado at all? its concurrent with 50 until somewhere in kansas, seems like its needlessly there.
Title: Re: Colorado
Post by: zzcarp on October 10, 2020, 01:08:39 PM
i searched and didn't find anything on this, so if it exists, point me to it..

why would us 400 go into colorado at all? its concurrent with 50 until somewhere in kansas, seems like its needlessly there.

From the USEnds website article  (https://www.usends.com/blog/us-400-its-number-is-not-the-only-error)on the subject:

Quote
It is also true that US 400 enters Colorado.  But originally that was not the case.  And, like Missouri, the entire Colorado segment is concurrent with another US route (US 50).  The most likely scenario in 1996 was that KDoT decided they wanted to extend their corridor all the way to their western border, but they assumed AASHTO would not have allowed a US route to terminate at a state line*, so they asked CDoT to jointly apply for a western extension of US 400.  Colorado agreed simply for the sake of being a good neighbor, but clearly CDoT has no use for the US 400 designation, as they terminate the route at the first US highway junction it encounters.
*this may have been an erroneous assumption, considering all of the other violations that AASHTO was willing to overlook with regard to US 400 designation.
Title: Re: Colorado
Post by: kphoger on October 12, 2020, 10:08:02 AM
Ports-to-Plains ... New Mexico

I just drove part of the PtP in New Mexico, and I saw this (https://goo.gl/maps/kzj2Ehr8z7scJJPH7).

SCHOOL / SPEED LIMIT 15 / WHEN CHILDREN ARE PRESENT

I must say, it really made me question how important the corridor is to the state of New Mexico...
Title: Re: Colorado
Post by: halork on October 14, 2020, 07:00:57 AM
Ports-to-Plains ... New Mexico

I just drove part of the PtP in New Mexico, and I saw this (https://goo.gl/maps/kzj2Ehr8z7scJJPH7).

SCHOOL / SPEED LIMIT 15 / WHEN CHILDREN ARE PRESENT

I must say, it really made me question how important the corridor is to the state of New Mexico...

It just means their children are MORE important.
Title: Re: Colorado
Post by: zzcarp on October 20, 2020, 05:23:18 PM
A quite impressive GPS fail on Engineer Pass, a 4WD road in southwestern Colorado, where a 30' box truck got stuck on the pass.

Quote
A box truck got stuck near the top of a treacherous mountain road in Colorado over the weekend, all because he was following his GPS.

The 30-foot box truck got stuck on a mountain road north of Silverton, Colorado on Friday, October 16th and is still there, according to The Durango Herald.

The rugged mountain road is known as Engineer Pass, and is notorious for being one of the most tricky, treacherous, and steep backcountry roads in the area. The road has a peak elevation of 12,800 feet and requires four-wheel-drive and a high-clearance vehicle. It is a part of the Alpine Loop, which connects Silverton, Co to Ouray, Co and goes all the way to Lake City through a series of rocky roads through the San Juan Mountains.

Officials say the truck was near the top of Engineer Pass following a GPS route heading towards Lake City when he tried to turn around, getting himself stuck near the top.

There's a great picture and the rest of the story at the link (https://cdllife.com/2020/truck-stuck-on-mountain-road-isnt-going-anywhere-any-time-soon/).
Title: Re: Colorado
Post by: Plutonic Panda on November 20, 2020, 03:39:49 PM
If no one else does, I’ll probably make a thread about this when a preferred alternative is selected as it’s a pretty significant project. I really, REALLY, hope CDOT does NOT go with tolled lanes. I don’t like tolled lanes in general but I’m open to them. But have only one tolled lane in each direction, however, makes my blood boil. At that point you might as well just toll the entire freeway or build a third free lane. It makes zero sense to me and I always end up behind some slowpoke I can’t get around on facilities like that less I want to risk crossing a double line and receive a ticket.

Anyways enough of my rant here is the article: https://www.cpr.org/2020/11/19/cdot-winds-up-for-i-70-floyd-hill-rebuild-but-costs-remain-a-steep-climb/
Title: Re: Colorado
Post by: Plutonic Panda on December 02, 2020, 01:05:44 AM
I-70B in GJ is finally getting some much needed upgrades. They still need to modify the roads in the shopping complex anchored by Walmart in this area as it is always a cluster.

https://www.gjsentinel.com/news/western_colorado/cdot-finalizes-design-of-i-70b-near-downtown/article_716b9ce0-336c-11eb-b4e7-ef6e45f3e9bc.html
Title: Re: Colorado
Post by: thenetwork on December 02, 2020, 09:42:54 AM
I-70B in GJ is finally getting some much needed upgrades. They still need to modify the roads in the shopping complex anchored by Walmart in this area as it is always a cluster.

https://www.gjsentinel.com/news/western_colorado/cdot-finalizes-design-of-i-70b-near-downtown/article_716b9ce0-336c-11eb-b4e7-ef6e45f3e9bc.html

The area around the Rimrock Walmart likely will not see any changes as that was redone a few years back.  Pretty much it's just a few blocks either side of CO-340/Grand Avenue that is getting a rebuild for now.  I'm surprised that they did not consider the larger roundabout idea at Grand Avenue/1st St. as there was the room for it

The part of I-70B where it curves in front of the Amtrak station and the roads are one way through the south downtown area is part of a separate project still on the drawing boards, from what I gather.
Title: Re: Colorado
Post by: Plutonic Panda on December 02, 2020, 02:40:42 PM
I-70B in GJ is finally getting some much needed upgrades. They still need to modify the roads in the shopping complex anchored by Walmart in this area as it is always a cluster.

https://www.gjsentinel.com/news/western_colorado/cdot-finalizes-design-of-i-70b-near-downtown/article_716b9ce0-336c-11eb-b4e7-ef6e45f3e9bc.html

The area around the Rimrock Walmart likely will not see any changes as that was redone a few years back.  Pretty much it's just a few blocks either side of CO-340/Grand Avenue that is getting a rebuild for now.  I'm surprised that they did not consider the larger roundabout idea at Grand Avenue/1st St. as there was the room for it

The part of I-70B where it curves in front of the Amtrak station and the roads are one way through the south downtown area is part of a separate project still on the drawing boards, from what I gather.
I think they need to modify the intersection at Primrock and Bogart. Every time I am there it takes forever to get out from that way. A roundabout would be ideal but even a 4 way traffic signal that is synchronized with the one at Primrock and US-50 would swell too.
Title: Re: Colorado
Post by: zzcarp on December 02, 2020, 04:42:19 PM
In other Colorado news, CDOT's study of the I-270 corridor (http://www.codot.gov/projects/i270) continues. The second virtual meeting is here (http://www.i270corridorimprovements.com/), and they are accepting comments through December 27.

They also have some preliminary designs for the highway. The build options are for either an addition general purpose lane (unlikely) or an express toll lane (almost certainly) in each direction. In addition, they are looking to redesign the Vasquez cloverleaf by removing the West to South and East to North loops and installing traffic lights for those movements. They also want to combine the eastbound merge points from I-76 to one point and add auxiliary lanes between York Street and Vasquez which would likely take care of a lot of the corridor's congestion.

They will also replace the bridges along the corridor and stabilize the stretch by the South Platte where the pavement is constantly sinking and causing a roller coaster-type ride.

Here are two maps of the entire corridor and proposed improvements at Vasquez:
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/50673397601_4a88cf4dbc_c.jpg)
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/50673481477_63b24fb6b9_c.jpg)
Title: Re: Colorado
Post by: Plutonic Panda on December 02, 2020, 05:44:37 PM
I’m so sick of these stupid ass toll lanes. They wouldn’t be as bad if they had two in each direction but I almost always get stuck behind some slow poke who is barely going faster than the traffic to the right. Either add two HOT lanes each way or simply add a GP lane in each direction.
Title: Re: Colorado
Post by: thenetwork on December 02, 2020, 06:23:15 PM
I’m so sick of these stupid ass toll lanes. They wouldn’t be as bad if they had two in each direction but I almost always get stuck behind some slow poke who is barely going faster than the traffic to the right. Either add two HOT lanes each way or simply add a GP lane in each direction.

For all the traffic and congestion most hours on I-270, why not have 4 lanes in each direction with one lane as a dedicated HOT lane?  I think there is enough ROW to do it, especially if they plan on re-doing the bridges that were already built for at least a third lane down the road.

I-270 as it is is already doing the work of carrying and squeezing traffic from no less than 3 freeways on either of its ends down a single under-built 2-lane per direction freeway and is currently an "alternate route" for i-70 thru traffic for people avoiding the big I-70 rebuild and the congestion associated with that.

Build for the future, not for the present & recent past.
Title: Re: Colorado
Post by: Plutonic Panda on December 02, 2020, 06:56:43 PM
I’m so sick of these stupid ass toll lanes. They wouldn’t be as bad if they had two in each direction but I almost always get stuck behind some slow poke who is barely going faster than the traffic to the right. Either add two HOT lanes each way or simply add a GP lane in each direction.

For all the traffic and congestion most hours on I-270, why not have 4 lanes in each direction with one lane as a dedicated HOT lane?  I think there is enough ROW to do it, especially if they plan on re-doing the bridges that were already built for at least a third lane down the road.

I-270 as it is is already doing the work of carrying and squeezing traffic from no less than 3 freeways on either of its ends down a single under-built 2-lane per direction freeway and is currently an "alternate route" for i-70 thru traffic for people avoiding the big I-70 rebuild and the congestion associated with that.

Build for the future, not for the present & recent past.
I agree but regarding the toll lanes they can be a real burden as a single lane allows for one slow poke to hold everyone up. I see it all time. In order to pass the person you have to wait for an exit point unless there is only paint between you and the mainline and you are willing to risk a citation(I can’t say I haven’t it a few times myself). But if there is heavy traffic it’s not worth driving like that it is just frustrating and generally a second toll lane would help that problem a lot.

I don’t know it just seems to me if they only add a single toll lane each way they might as well just go with a GP lane. Now adding a new GP lane and toll lane would be ideal but I’d still rather see a 4-2-2-4 setup on I-270.

Somehow states like North Carolina, Texas, and Arizona are able to build rural 3x3 interstates without the need for tolls. Not sure why Colorado can’t either.
Title: Re: Colorado
Post by: zzcarp on December 03, 2020, 08:40:18 AM
I agree but regarding the toll lanes they can be a real burden as a single lane allows for one slow poke to hold everyone up. I see it all time. In order to pass the person you have to wait for an exit point unless there is only paint between you and the mainline and you are willing to risk a citation(I can’t say I haven’t it a few times myself). But if there is heavy traffic it’s not worth driving like that it is just frustrating and generally a second toll lane would help that problem a lot.

I don’t know it just seems to me if they only add a single toll lane each way they might as well just go with a GP lane. Now adding a new GP lane and toll lane would be ideal but I’d still rather see a 4-2-2-4 setup on I-270.

Somehow states like North Carolina, Texas, and Arizona are able to build rural 3x3 interstates without the need for tolls. Not sure why Colorado can’t either.


Most people would rather see at least three GP lanes between I-70 and I-76. However, CDOT does not do that anymore.

Colorado's budget is constrained (for now) by the Taxpayer's Bill of Rights (TABOR) in the Colorado constitution. This is in general a good thing as it limits the rate of growth of government and requires citizens to vote on tax increases.

With the current makeup of the state legislature, there is little to no support for highway funding-the Boulder anti-car bias has spread to the rest of the Denver area. When dedicated funding streams (tax increases) appear on the ballot, they have inserted poison pills to change the tax structure or to divert the money to transit or other non-highway needs. Statewide, people are reluctant to vote for new taxes.

For these reasons, CDOT can only do a couple megaprojects at a time and only when they're financed by the promise of future toll revenue.
Title: Re: Colorado
Post by: Plutonic Panda on December 03, 2020, 02:22:44 PM
Which is so strange to me given an overwhelmingly majority of Denver commuters drive.
Title: Re: Colorado
Post by: halork on December 03, 2020, 02:41:30 PM
I’m so sick of these stupid ass toll lanes. They wouldn’t be as bad if they had two in each direction but I almost always get stuck behind some slow poke who is barely going faster than the traffic to the right. Either add two HOT lanes each way or simply add a GP lane in each direction.

Toll the 2 left lanes of I-25 between Castle Rock and Lone Tree and use that money to pay for the 270 widening.
Title: Re: Colorado
Post by: zzcarp on December 03, 2020, 02:45:36 PM
Which is so strange to me given an overwhelmingly majority of Denver commuters drive.

That's true. The planners present their transit plans/bike lanes/etc. as transportation choice (one that few as a percentage use). People support in theory these plans because "those people" will switch to transit or biking, thus lessening the congestion for me who still drives. It never works out that way.
Title: Re: Colorado
Post by: zzcarp on December 03, 2020, 02:48:28 PM
I’m so sick of these stupid ass toll lanes. They wouldn’t be as bad if they had two in each direction but I almost always get stuck behind some slow poke who is barely going faster than the traffic to the right. Either add two HOT lanes each way or simply add a GP lane in each direction.

Toll the 2 left lanes of I-25 between Castle Rock and Lone Tree and use that money to pay for the 270 widening.

Tolls should be used to pay for the facility that the users are using, not for a slush fund for unrelated improvements.

See what Act 44 did to the Pennsylvania Turnpike for why.
Title: Re: Colorado
Post by: Elm on January 14, 2021, 04:04:49 PM
Light searching didn’t show this being posted here yet, so hopefully it’s of some interest. In the "Colorado State Publications Library Digital Repository," there’s a "Colorado Department of Highways" (http://hermes.cde.state.co.us/drupal/islandora/object/co%3A18) category which includes some documents on Colorado roads like research reports and studies related to a few interstate highways. It’s not a huge or comprehensive digitization, but  I think there’re some good things in there.

Here are some (click on the cover images to open the PDFs):
Among those, "Paths of Progress" and "The High Road" in particular have some good pictures.

There are also several more reports about I-70 through Glenwood Canyon there, and other documents include I-25 through Pueblo, I-70 Vail Pass, and a 1962 review of of property values near I-25 southeast of Denver.
Title: Re: Colorado
Post by: zzcarp on January 21, 2021, 10:20:03 AM
CDOT is beginning a planning and environmental linkages study of Santa Fe Drive (US 85) from C-470 to I-25. This expressway is heavily traveled and a major alternate route to I-25 heading to the southern suburbs of Denver.

They are taking comments here  (https://www.santafepelmeeting.com/)until February 8.

They are looking at three potential cross-sections for Santa Fe: freeway, expressway, or nonrural principal arterial.

With its location next to the light rail and freight rail tracks, my recommendation would be to go for additional grade separations to eliminate traffic lights and convert more of the expressway to an urban freeway. There are few enough crossings of the rail corridor that it seems possible to do this. However, there is no financing for any proposed improvements at this time.
Title: Re: Colorado
Post by: US 89 on January 21, 2021, 05:24:20 PM
I would love to see Santa Fe as a freeway or as close as it can get to one. I have family in Highlands Ranch that I see from time to time, and US 85 is usually the easiest way to get from their place to downtown Denver. It is indeed filled with heavy traffic, and based on my experiences I bet it would save a lot of time if some of those traffic lights could be replaced with interchanges. A freeway would obviously be better, but there are a lot of minor streets and access points coming off of Santa Fe that may not necessarily be easy to close off.
Title: Re: Colorado
Post by: JayhawkCO on January 21, 2021, 06:16:48 PM
I would love to see Santa Fe as a freeway or as close as it can get to one. I have family in Highlands Ranch that I see from time to time, and US 85 is usually the easiest way to get from their place to downtown Denver. It is indeed filled with heavy traffic, and based on my experiences I bet it would save a lot of time if some of those traffic lights could be replaced with interchanges. A freeway would obviously be better, but there are a lot of minor streets and access points coming off of Santa Fe that may not necessarily be easy to close off.

Agreed.  I don't know that there's too much room for interchanges in Downtown Littleton for Prince St., etc.  It would be really handy if Santa Fe was a lot like the portion of US69 in Johnson County, KS. 

Chris
Title: Re: Colorado
Post by: Elm on January 21, 2021, 11:47:11 PM
Put me down for Santa Fe as a freeway or near-freeway, too; it like a reasonable fit for Santa Fe acting something like "I-25 west" for its portion of the metro area, and as a regional I-25 alternative up from Castle Rock and northwest Douglas County. It mostly wouldn’t be too big a departure from plans for individual intersections that have gone by, either—like how Littleton's hoping to someday put interchanges at at Mineral and Bowles.

I'm not sure how a freeway would play out at the north end, though; for example, redevelopment ("site vision" here (http://www.broadwaystation.com/site-vision.html)) between Mississippi and I-25 picture new accesses at the grid positions of Kentucky (full movement with a bridge over the Platte) and Tennessee (RIRO). North of Florida Ave is the busiest section, though.

At least, "Safety / Access" is one of the issues the PEL aims to address, so although all the accesses do work against a freeway/expressway classification, a goal is to reduce them somehow.

There are so many concepts in the meeting, it's sort of hard to tell what CDOT may be thinking at this stage. An earlier newsletter (https://www.codot.gov/projects/santafepel/assets/newsletter_082020.pdf) for the project listed these as stakeholder trends, for what it’s worth:
Quote from: August 2020 Newsletter
The following items were key highlights that several stakeholders voiced:
  • West-east connectivity issues
  • ADA compliance preferred methods
  • Traffic and car crashes
  • Pedestrian safety
  • Need more consistent intersections
  • Access turn lanes are unsafe
  • People drive too fast - should be a slower corridor
  • Corridor generally works pretty well and people rarely opt for other corridors to avoid Santa Fe congestion
  • Mary Carter Greenway is a valued parallel resource and many employees and customers use that to access businesses.
Title: Re: Colorado
Post by: Mark68 on January 22, 2021, 11:37:40 AM
Put me down for Santa Fe as a freeway or near-freeway, too; it like a reasonable fit for Santa Fe acting something like "I-25 west" for its portion of the metro area, and as a regional I-25 alternative up from Castle Rock and northwest Douglas County. It mostly wouldn’t be too big a departure from plans for individual intersections that have gone by, either—like how Littleton's hoping to someday put interchanges at at Mineral and Bowles.

I'm not sure how a freeway would play out at the north end, though; for example, redevelopment ("site vision" here (http://www.broadwaystation.com/site-vision.html)) between Mississippi and I-25 picture new accesses at the grid positions of Kentucky (full movement with a bridge over the Platte) and Tennessee (RIRO). North of Florida Ave is the busiest section, though.

At least, "Safety / Access" is one of the issues the PEL aims to address, so although all the accesses do work against a freeway/expressway classification, a goal is to reduce them somehow.

There are so many concepts in the meeting, it's sort of hard to tell what CDOT may be thinking at this stage. An earlier newsletter (https://www.codot.gov/projects/santafepel/assets/newsletter_082020.pdf) for the project listed these as stakeholder trends, for what it’s worth:
Quote from: August 2020 Newsletter
The following items were key highlights that several stakeholders voiced:
  • West-east connectivity issues
  • ADA compliance preferred methods
  • Traffic and car crashes
  • Pedestrian safety
  • Need more consistent intersections
  • Access turn lanes are unsafe
  • People drive too fast - should be a slower corridor
  • Corridor generally works pretty well and people rarely opt for other corridors to avoid Santa Fe congestion
  • Mary Carter Greenway is a valued parallel resource and many employees and customers use that to access businesses.


Can't the issues toward the north end (for instance the intersections at Mississippi & Florida) be solved by adding frontage roads (maybe Platte River Dr can be extended north--it would still provide access to Florida) with slip ramps for Mississippi?

I do agree that (as funding is available) CDOT should try to make Santa Fe into a freeway--and should extend the Hampden/US 285 freeway portion to Santa Fe. Of course, that interchange would need a major overhaul with the RR/LRT tracks directly to the east.
Title: Re: Colorado
Post by: thenetwork on January 22, 2021, 04:54:38 PM
I wonder that if/when this Santa Fe conversion happens would they change the Rush Hour HOV lanes into 24/7 HOT lanes?
Title: Re: Colorado
Post by: Elm on January 22, 2021, 08:21:08 PM
I'm not sure how a freeway would play out at the north end, though; for example, redevelopment ("site vision" here (http://www.broadwaystation.com/site-vision.html)) between Mississippi and I-25 picture new accesses at the grid positions of Kentucky (full movement with a bridge over the Platte) and Tennessee (RIRO). North of Florida Ave is the busiest section, though.
Can't the issues toward the north end (for instance the intersections at Mississippi & Florida) be solved by adding frontage roads (maybe Platte River Dr can be extended north--it would still provide access to Florida) with slip ramps for Mississippi?
Could you describe what you’re picturing a bit more? I don’t know if I’m thinking of the right part of Platte River Drive. In any case, I bet you’re right that they could work out a frontage road setup in that area, but I don’t know if CDOT would want to attempt it, particularly if Denver or the adjacent landowners weren’t on board. With traffic levels so high, though, there could be a higher chance that they'd give it a try, maybe?

Somewhat on that subject, I was trying to see if I could get the transportation plan or review comments for the development north of Mississippi. I found a page for it (https://www.denvergov.org/AccelaCitizenAccess/Cap/CapDetail.aspx?Module=Development&capID1=20CAP&capID2=00000&capID3=01NCY&agencyCode=DENVER) (or close to it) on Denver's website, but no actual documents. I'm not sure if I'm looking in the wrong place, bad at finding links, or if they just don't post those things publicly.

I wonder that if/when this Santa Fe conversion happens would they change the Rush Hour HOV lanes into 24/7 HOT lanes?
It seems like they’re still contemplating what future lanes will look like; on the PEL meeting site (https://www.santafepelmeeting.com/) zzcarp linked, the "Level 1 Selected Concepts" slide has potential recommendations grouped by type, with lane modifications mostly in "Cross sections."

Concepts with managed lanes—which I’d certainly expect to stick around—picture "enhanced managed lanes" with "enhanced manage lane technology and dynamic signage" that sounds like other CDOT express lanes. If they went with the freeway option, I’d tend to think the HOV lanes would become full HOT lanes; they might do that anyway, though. (Diagonal Highway's getting HOT lanes at some point, so they wouldn't be alone here.)
Title: Re: Colorado
Post by: Mark68 on January 23, 2021, 02:57:28 AM
I'm not sure how a freeway would play out at the north end, though; for example, redevelopment ("site vision" here (http://www.broadwaystation.com/site-vision.html)) between Mississippi and I-25 picture new accesses at the grid positions of Kentucky (full movement with a bridge over the Platte) and Tennessee (RIRO). North of Florida Ave is the busiest section, though.
Can't the issues toward the north end (for instance the intersections at Mississippi & Florida) be solved by adding frontage roads (maybe Platte River Dr can be extended north--it would still provide access to Florida) with slip ramps for Mississippi?
Could you describe what you’re picturing a bit more? I don’t know if I’m thinking of the right part of Platte River Drive. In any case, I bet you’re right that they could work out a frontage road setup in that area, but I don’t know if CDOT would want to attempt it, particularly if Denver or the adjacent landowners weren’t on board. With traffic levels so high, though, there could be a higher chance that they'd give it a try, maybe?

Somewhat on that subject, I was trying to see if I could get the transportation plan or review comments for the development north of Mississippi. I found a page for it (https://www.denvergov.org/AccelaCitizenAccess/Cap/CapDetail.aspx?Module=Development&capID1=20CAP&capID2=00000&capID3=01NCY&agencyCode=DENVER) (or close to it) on Denver's website, but no actual documents. I'm not sure if I'm looking in the wrong place, bad at finding links, or if they just don't post those things publicly.

I wonder that if/when this Santa Fe conversion happens would they change the Rush Hour HOV lanes into 24/7 HOT lanes?
It seems like they’re still contemplating what future lanes will look like; on the PEL meeting site (https://www.santafepelmeeting.com/) zzcarp linked, the "Level 1 Selected Concepts" slide has potential recommendations grouped by type, with lane modifications mostly in "Cross sections."

Concepts with managed lanes—which I’d certainly expect to stick around—picture "enhanced managed lanes" with "enhanced manage lane technology and dynamic signage" that sounds like other CDOT express lanes. If they went with the freeway option, I’d tend to think the HOV lanes would become full HOT lanes; they might do that anyway, though. (Diagonal Highway's getting HOT lanes at some point, so they wouldn't be alone here.)

As far as the frontage road situation south of I-25 is concerned, that could be a little dicey. The SB lanes are west of the South Platte and the NB lanes are east of the river. SB Santa Fe splits from SB Platte River south of Mississippi--and Platte River can be used to access Florida.

The problem is all the development that encroaches on Santa Fe through that stretch. When I look at it on Google Maps, it's hard to imagine a way to fit a freeway in the footprint without a shit-ton of eminent domain, but I don't see any way to do improve traffic flow on Santa Fe without converting it to full freeway at some point.

But yeah, if Santa Fe is upgraded to full freeway, those HOV lanes will be most definitely be 24/7 HOT lanes. CDOT will probably need to have some kind of toll to pay for the cost of upgrades.
Title: Re: Colorado
Post by: zzcarp on January 26, 2021, 07:51:23 PM
Here is a news update (https://www.koaa.com/news/state-of-growth/cdot-wants-powers-to-become-a-freeway-but-this-funding-roadblock-makes-that-pretty-difficult) about the future upgrading of CO 21/Powers Boulevard to a freeway in Colorado Springs. Funding, as usual, is the issue.

I had the opportunity of working in the Springs this weekend and took some pictures of the under construction interchange at I-25. The article says the interchange and first segment to Voyager Parkway will be complete this summer.

The pictures were taken 1/22/21 unless otherwise indicated.

(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/50879492487_a8de7cbc27_c.jpg)
SB I-25 detour pavement into the median. Straight ahead is the construction of I-25's overpass over the SB Powers exit ramp.

(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/50879492437_ffe773a731_c.jpg)
Looking east at the I-25 NB lanes running on the completed bridge over the SB Powers exit ramp.

(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/50879392566_eca9f50606_c.jpg)
This is looking west at the under construction SB I-25 bridge over the future ramp from NB Powers to SB I-25.

(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/50879393266_d94cc00cea_c.jpg)
The nearly complete new northbound braided exit ramp to Northgate. The bridge is over the new NB Powers ramp to NB I-25. This was taken 1/24/21 in overcast conditions. I apologize for the quality.
Title: Re: Colorado
Post by: andy3175 on January 30, 2021, 06:14:44 PM
Some residents of Weld County are considering whether to initiate a process for the county to leave the state of Colorado and enter the state of Wyoming. A webpage advocating this change is at:  https://www.weldcountywy.com/

Quote
This initiative is to place a measure on the November 2021 ballot. The voters of Weld County will vote as to whether to instruct Weld County Commissioners to engage and explore the annexation of Weld County with the State of Wyoming's Legislature.

Greeley is the seat of Weld County. The county had a population of 252,825 as of the 2010 census. Portions of US 34 and US 85, along with portions of Interstates 25 and 76 as well as Colorado Highway 14 traverse the county.

It will be interesting to see if this proposal goes anywhere or becomes a geographical, political, and historical footnote.
Title: Re: Colorado
Post by: keithvh on January 30, 2021, 10:38:42 PM
Some residents of Weld County are considering whether to initiate a process for the county to leave the state of Colorado and enter the state of Wyoming. A webpage advocating this change is at:  https://www.weldcountywy.com/

Quote
This initiative is to place a measure on the November 2021 ballot. The voters of Weld County will vote as to whether to instruct Weld County Commissioners to engage and explore the annexation of Weld County with the State of Wyoming's Legislature.

Greeley is the seat of Weld County. The county had a population of 252,825 as of the 2010 census. Portions of US 34 and US 85, along with portions of Interstates 25 and 76 as well as Colorado Highway 14 traverse the county.

It will be interesting to see if this proposal goes anywhere or becomes a geographical, political, and historical footnote.

It won't go anywhere - the funny thing is that if it did, Wyoming's population increases by nearly 40%.

And that is one (among many) reason it won't fly - the people already living would get marginalized a good bit in terms of influence in state politics and such.
Title: Re: Colorado
Post by: usends on January 31, 2021, 09:14:07 AM
...Wyoming's population increases by nearly 40%.
That's based on the 2010 census, but based on 2019 estimates, Wyoming's population would increase by more than 50%.  And Greeley would become Wyoming's largest city by far.  This would vastly dilute Wyoming's massive over-representation in the Senate and the Electoral College.
Title: Re: Colorado
Post by: Bobby5280 on February 01, 2021, 09:24:49 PM
Quote from: andy3175
It will be interesting to see if this proposal goes anywhere or becomes a geographical, political, and historical footnote.

That reminds me of past (and failed) efforts for Staten Island to secede from New York City/New York State and become part of New Jersey.
Title: Re: Colorado
Post by: triplemultiplex on February 02, 2021, 10:32:39 AM
Greeley is the seat of Weld County. The county had a population of 252,825 as of the 2010 census.

And yet they still have more cows than people.
Which is probably why they don't recognize how much this proposal smells like bullshit.
Title: Re: Colorado
Post by: Elm on February 07, 2021, 02:43:09 PM
I had the opportunity of working in the Springs this weekend and took some pictures of the under construction interchange at I-25. The article says the interchange and first segment to Voyager Parkway will be complete this summer.

The pictures were taken 1/22/21 unless otherwise indicated.
[...]
The nearly complete new northbound braided exit ramp to Northgate. The bridge is over the new NB Powers ramp to NB I-25. This was taken 1/24/21 in overcast conditions. I apologize for the quality.
It’s nice to see that come together. I’m glad for the progress toward a major project/connection, but I think I'm most excited personally about having a less severe exit ramp from NB I-25 to North Gate.

Here is a news update (https://www.koaa.com/news/state-of-growth/cdot-wants-powers-to-become-a-freeway-but-this-funding-roadblock-makes-that-pretty-difficult) about the future upgrading of CO 21/Powers Boulevard to a freeway in Colorado Springs. Funding, as usual, is the issue.
It's interesting to see the concept of Powers as a freeway come up more lately. I suppose it’s party from the “what's next?” as the part north of Woodmen gradually comes together, but we went a while without the freeway plan getting much attention. That's a whole lot of money, though.

Coincidentally, the Colorado Springs city council had a briefing (https://coloradosprings.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=4759301&GUID=17855AF5-D14F-481B-8D2B-E8B153F76644&Options=&Search=) (slides here (https://coloradosprings.legistar.com/View.ashx?M=F&ID=9076937&GUID=61BDA954-6F10-4E43-AEFB-2C4703F377ED)) the day of that news update on infrastructure around the airport business park ("Peak Innovation Park" (http://www.peakinnovationpark.com)), which the local news picked up for where it brought up more Powers interchanges.

The news reports (KRDO (https://krdo.com/news/top-stories/2021/01/27/colorado-springs-considering-need-for-three-more-overpasses-on-powers-boulevard-by-2030/), KOAA (https://www.koaa.com/news/state-of-growth/city-leaders-discuss-long-term-powers-blvd-improvements-some-question-lack-of-priority)) focus most on the slide about the northern Powers interchanges (which I'd agree more people are interested in), but in the briefing they’re really only mentioned in passing as higher priorities for CDOT than the business park area; none of them are on CDOT's 10-year plan anyway.

Where the briefing spent a little more time were three three intersections around the airport business park; the city plans at-grade changes until 2045, by when they anticipate CDOT needing to "evaluate" interchanges on Powers in the area, with Proby Pkwy first.
Title: Re: Colorado
Post by: Bobby5280 on February 07, 2021, 06:22:37 PM
Powers is so busy that grade separations are badly needed at the intersections with Constitution, Carefree Circle N, Carefree Circle S, Barnes and Stetson Hills Blvd. Really the whole thing should have been built as a freeway 20 years ago. Thanks to the anti-freeway contingent in the Springs that never happened.

I think it will be really nice once the Powers freeway is complete between I-25 and Woodmen. But I think that will funnel more traffic down onto Powers and increase the need to convert those traffic light intersections into freeway style exits for the sake of safety and efficiency. It would be a really tight squeeze and necessitate some long slip ramps. But I think it's do-able.
Title: Re: Colorado
Post by: Elm on February 07, 2021, 10:29:05 PM
Powers is so busy that grade separations are badly needed at the intersections with Constitution, Carefree Circle N, Carefree Circle S, Barnes and Stetson Hills Blvd. Really the whole thing should have been built as a freeway 20 years ago. Thanks to the anti-freeway contingent in the Springs that never happened.

I think it will be really nice once the Powers freeway is complete between I-25 and Woodmen. But I think that will funnel more traffic down onto Powers and increase the need to convert those traffic light intersections into freeway style exits for the sake of safety and efficiency. It would be a really tight squeeze and necessitate some long slip ramps. But I think it's do-able.
I'm not sure how much anti-freeway action has held back changes to Powers compared to funding limitations and differently placed priorities, like I-25 expansion/interchanges or extending Powers versus upgrading it. Its walk to becoming a freeway has been very slow, especially relative to the city’s growth, but it's been going in that direction for a long time.

Having Powers as a major thoroughfare has been on city/county wishlists for many decades, and the city and CDOT worked out the Powers ownership swap and general upgrade plan in '99. They made the trade around '08, and CDOT finished the central Powers [freeway] EA in '09/'10; through that point, it seems like general sentiment was in favor of the upgrade—in contrast to east-west routes like Woodmen and Constitution—with Nor'wood (owning developments that would have access to Powers reduced) appearing to have been the main opposition.

Yeah, definitely a tight squeeze for a freeway as you head south. In the central Powers EA plan, north of Platte Ave, the RIROs and South Carefree would lose direct access; S Carefree would still go under Powers, there’d be a southbound frontage road on the west side from Barnes to Palmer Park, and there'd be northbound frontage roads on the east side from Gallery to Palmer Park and from North Carefree to Barnes. They'd have a few "Texas turnarounds" around some of the lost accesses, too. There's a terrible scan of some information here (https://citydocs.coloradosprings.gov/WebClerk/GetDoc.aspx?DocId=38411&Show).

(Not sure if it's amusing or depressing to see how long "we should upgrade this" has been going on, but the old Powers corridor website had some selected endorsements on their history page—on the Wayback Machine, here're some (https://web.archive.org/web/20060517103253/http://www.thepowerslink.com/overall_hist.asp).)
Title: Re: Colorado
Post by: Bobby5280 on February 08, 2021, 04:35:26 PM
If I recall correctly there were people in Colorado Springs' city government going back to the 1990's (or even late 80's) who were adamantly opposed to building urban freeways. Powers would probably already be a 6-lane freeway today if those people hadn't altered the plans to improve powers. Today the street network in Colorado Springs is something of a mess. Not counting work on I-25, all the other road improvements in Colorado Springs for the past 20+ years have been modest spot upgrades in isolated locations. One example is the conversion of the intersection with Academy Blvd and Woodmen Road into a SPUI. The extension of the Powers Freeway from Interquest Parkway up to I-25 is the biggest highway project that area has seen in a long time. The problem is the 'Springs has a lot of other major thoroughfares badly in need of upgrades too.
Title: Re: Colorado
Post by: Elm on February 10, 2021, 10:45:26 PM
Ah, interesting, I hadn't seen positions from the city/government side not trying to upgrade Powers, but I don't have firsthand knowledge around that time. My impression was that, in the early 90s, the city hadn't got what it wanted from trying "development will pay for itself" re: major eastern roads, and it was getting more into state-level action for funding as development closed in on Powers.

Forgive me for jumping into review mode again—that got me thinking more about where events fell around each other.

Entering the 80s, the city and county have planned Powers to be at least an expressway, city growth is approaching it, but the city says it won't annex/develop land next to Powers unless the road is upgraded, so the METEX metro district gets together to build the Platte-to-Woodmen expressway. Apparently, METEX also does a traffic study that says eventually all Powers intersections will need to be grade-separated, but METEX isn't on the hook for those additional upgrades.

On the side, also late 80s, the city annexes Banning Lewis Ranch with the requirement that developers build the freeway Banning Lewis Parkway, which initially resembles a portion of a regional beltway. (Other interesting expectations for roads Woodmen and north, too, in the early BLR map (https://coloradosprings.gov/sites/default/files/planning/blrzones.pdf).) Transitioning to the 90s with economic issues, though, BLR goes nowhere, and METEX can't repay its bonds; with Powers overwhelmingly carrying regional, non-METEX-area traffic, the city starts its own mill levy to help repay the bonds, but still has no eastern freeway. TABOR arrives the next year.

Near then, Powers is proposed/accepted for the National Highway System, and in '96ish, the full corridor is added to the "High Priority Projects" list with eligibility for "7th Pot" funds, prompting more serious discussions about CDOT taking it over to build the freeway. Less abstractly, some of Powers is redone for the US 24 bypass, and it gets extended a few more times down to Mesa Ridge Pkwy. Enter the 2000s and on, north Powers prospects improve, but the central part is primarily at-grade changes.



Incidentally, Colorado Springs is working on their new transportation plan (site here (https://coloradosprings.gov/project/connectcos), though at this point there's more information in the slides here (https://coloradosprings.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=4750983&GUID=6DCC9437-69EF-43CC-A2F7-1A9BA99B8DDB)). There's a meeting next week to go over results from a transportation survey last year. I'll be curious to see what comes out of that; the overall city plan it comes from was the general sort where you can interpret as needed for a development application, but this one's ultimately supposed have deliverables like PPRTA project candidates and an updated thoroughfare plan.

Title: Re: Colorado
Post by: Elm on February 10, 2021, 10:47:54 PM
On a totally different topic of I-70 in the mountains, I thought this was kind of interesting, and it turned out to be more in-depth than I expected:
"The 'crazy' 9-mile tunnel through Vail Mountain that never happened" (https://www.thedenverchannel.com/news/mountains/the-crazy-9-mile-tunnel-through-vail-mountain-that-never-happened)

Quote
VAIL, Colo. — As long-dead plans for infrastructure go, the 53-page, single-spaced document archived on the Vail town website makes for an interesting read.

But first, a warning — this might require a little imagination.

The document (http://ewscripps.brightspotcdn.com/16/8f/e4bb0fa94b83b4dcc23e34f45395/vailtunneloptionsdraft-1.pdf), authored in 2005 by the Colorado engineering firm Kracum Resources, outlines a fascinating, if not financially feasible, vision: A 9.3-mile tunnel through the heart of Vail Mountain, redirecting Interstate 70 from its existing path through the bustling Colorado ski community.

[…]
Title: Re: Colorado
Post by: Bobby5280 on February 11, 2021, 10:02:40 PM
Quote from: Elm
There's a meeting next week to go over results from a transportation survey last year. I'll be curious to see what comes out of that; the overall city plan it comes from was the general sort where you can interpret as needed for a development application, but this one's ultimately supposed have deliverables like PPRTA project candidates and an updated thoroughfare plan.

I'll be surprised if the plan involves any substantial upgrades of major arterials, such as extending the freeway version of Powers to the South of Woodmen Road to and thru the Carefree Circle shopping district and at least down to Platte. What I expect is them to do further dressing up of existing streets with more bicycle paths and green-scapes. Maybe they'll make the retail business sign code even more restrictive. It seems like the only big street projects they do is for real estate developers in new residential subdivisions or retail projects. You'll have wide, landscaped streets that dump traffic onto something like a poorly maintained, dinky 2-lane highway.

Some of the road improvement needs in Colorado Springs fall outside of the city limits and more into CDOT jurisdiction. US-24 going NE of the 'Springs and into Falcon needs some big improvements. The 2-lane highway is dangerous going out towards Peyton. There have been plenty of serious collisions through the years. It needs to be a barrier separated 4-lane facility.
Title: Re: Colorado
Post by: Revive 755 on February 11, 2021, 10:43:20 PM
On a totally different topic of I-70 in the mountains, I thought this was kind of interesting, and it turned out to be more in-depth than I expected:
"The 'crazy' 9-mile tunnel through Vail Mountain that never happened" (https://www.thedenverchannel.com/news/mountains/the-crazy-9-mile-tunnel-through-vail-mountain-that-never-happened)

And yet no mention of the once-proposed Red Buffalo Tunnel east of Vail (which was what I thought this article might have been about, though the length seemed off).  See https://www.codot.gov/programs/environmental/archaeology-and-history/assets/documents/vail-pass-historic-context.pdf (https://www.codot.gov/programs/environmental/archaeology-and-history/assets/documents/vail-pass-historic-context.pdf) (Page 20 or 24/76 has a map with the tunnel).
Title: Re: Colorado
Post by: andy3175 on March 02, 2021, 10:38:31 AM
I hadn't seen this mentioned in the board yet, and while it's old news from 2020, it is interesting. It relates to a pair of snowboarders who caused an avalanche in March 2020 above the Eisenhower- Johnson Tunnel portal on Interstate 70 in Colorado. The pair was charged with a misdemeanor in October 2020.

https://www.outtherecolorado.com/news/colorado-seeking-168-000-from-snowboarders-that-started-avalanche-above-i-70-says-report/article_bb877636-0a50-11eb-8837-174f1676a3a4.amp.html

Quote
On March 25 (2020), two snowboarders started an avalanche above the Eisenhower Tunnels along Interstate 70 that buried a road above the west portal. No one was injured in the incident, but an O'bellx avalanche control system was destroyed and an estimated 20 feet of debris was dropped on Loop Road, which allows access between eastbound and westbound lanes of the interstate.

The two snowboarders were charged with a misdemeanor of reckless endangerment, which carries with it up to six months in county jail and a $750 fine. However, according to a report from FOX 31, the state is likely to seek reimbursement for the costs of clearing the road and other damages totaling $168,000. According to Vail Daily, the avalanche control device that was destroyed by the slide costs $120,000, plus installation.

According to the official police report of the incident, GoPro footage captured by one of the snowboarders makes it apparent that the two were aware of the avalanche risk. The video also captures the pair stating concern about police showing up after the slide occurred. Shortly after the slide, the pair called the Summit County Sheriff's Office and the Colorado Avalanche Information Center to report the incident and cooperated with law enforcement that arrived at the scene.

Avalanches are fairly common among Interstate 70, according to the Avalanche Control Center. Additional information is available here:  https://www.codot.gov/travel/winter-driving/AvControl.html
Title: Re: Colorado
Post by: JayhawkCO on March 02, 2021, 10:44:47 AM
Avalanches are fairly common among Interstate 70, according to the Avalanche Control Center. Additional information is available here:  https://www.codot.gov/travel/winter-driving/AvControl.html

Probably the most well-known was this one (https://www.summitdaily.com/news/new-videos-avalanche-that-closed-i-70-near-copper-mountain-caught-on-multiple-smartphones/) from 2019 between Frisco and Copper Mountain.  The scar is still very much visible when driving in the summer.

Chris
Title: Re: Colorado
Post by: andy3175 on March 08, 2021, 10:22:05 PM
Article about the aging of the Eisenhower Johnson Tunnels on Interstate 70...

https://www.denverpost.com/2021/03/08/eisenhower-tunnel-repairs-history/amp/

Quote
In 1968, the town of Vail was in its infancy at the base of a small new ski resort. Breckenridge, an old mining town next to another new ski mountain, was still a tiny enclave with dusty streets. Reaching either outpost in Colorado’s sparsely populated central mountains often meant a white-knuckled drive on twisty ribbons of road over treacherous passes.

Then the tunnels came — two of them, built in succession at 11,000 feet above sea level and burrowed through a mile and a half of often-resistant granite and other rock.

The construction of the Eisenhower-Johnson Memorial Tunnel was a feat of transportation engineering and human toil the likes of which the state had never seen. It took 11 years to build the tunnel’s two bores, and their impact has been felt ever since on Colorado’s world-renowned ski slopes, in its robust tourism industry and in fast-growing mountain towns near Interstate 70, including Vail and Breckenridge.

But as the westbound bore nears 50 years old, the dual tunnels are in need of serious repairs and upgrades. Groundwater leaks through a tunnel liner are causing damage down below, and other needs range from major plumbing and electrical overhauls to new lighting and ventilation system improvements.

The growing and costly repair list is now at $150 million and has caught the attention of state lawmakers and Gov. Jared Polis. The Democrat is pushing for an uptick in investment in arguably the single component of the state’s highway system that’s too big to fail — and would wreak havoc if it did.

The article goes on to mention that there are 22 tunnels on the Colorado Highway System. Many of those are on Interstate 70... and it caused me to wonder where the other ones are located.

A brief history of the tunnels (EJMT) is provided in the article:

Quote
When state leaders lobbied the federal government during the 1950s to extend the planned route for I-70 west of Denver, where it was originally set to terminate, they wanted to build a firmer connection between the state’s east and west sides.

They also sought recognition that the state was worthy of a full east-west route on the new Interstate Highway System — despite hurdles posed by the mountains.

As it was, U.S. 6 over Loveland Pass, a 9.5-mile traverse, was one of the few highway routes available. It was two lanes and had no guard rails. Bad weather meant a dangerous drive. ...

Key to the pitch of I-70’s Colorado supporters, led by Gov. Edwin C. Johnson, was the building of a tunnel beneath the Continental Divide as an alternative to the impossible task of building an interstate-grade highway over it. A tunnel had been discussed for decades, but the idea never took off.

The federal government relented in 1957 and added a mountain route to Utah on its map of the larger interstate system championed by then-President Dwight D. Eisenhower. The feds were committed to paying for roughly 90% of interstate project costs — and the tunnel’s first bore would become the costliest federal-aid project to date.

In the end, Eisenhower would serve as the namesake for the westbound bore of what had been called the Straight Creek Tunnel. Johnson’s name would go on the eastbound bore, built second. Including the portals, the tunnels are about 1.7 miles long, and the divide crosses them nearly 1,500 feet above the roadways.

The project to build the first bore broke ground in 1968. Getting both tunnels built, however, would turn out to be an odyssey of nearly insurmountable engineering and mining challenges that busted budgets by tens of millions of dollars and stretched project timelines. Seven workers died during construction, and dozens more suffered injuries, according to project histories. ...

CDOT says more than 1,100 people worked in shifts around the clock on the first tunnel. It opened in early 1973 at a final cost of $116.9 million, twice the original budget, but with federal money still paying for most of it. For the first half-dozen years, it carried a lane of traffic in each direction.

Crews broke ground on the second bore in 1975 and finished it in late 1979 at a cost of $144.9 million.

The two tunnels’ cost amounts to $1.2 billion in today’s dollars, though experts say they likely would be much costlier to build to modern standards. ...

The tunnel ranks as the highest point in the U.S. interstate system, with the west portal sitting at 11,158 feet above sea level. (The east portal is 146 feet lower.)

The Eisenhower long was touted as the highest vehicle tunnel in the world, but it’s since fallen down the list. At least four tunnels built in the mountains of China and Peru in the last decade are higher. The highest is the Mila Mountain Tunnel in Tibet, a twin-bore, 3.5-mile tunnel that opened in 2019 at 15,590 feet above sea level.


Title: Re: Colorado
Post by: Plutonic Panda on March 09, 2021, 12:02:43 AM
It would be nice to add a third lane through the tunnels.
Title: Re: Colorado
Post by: mgk920 on March 09, 2021, 01:44:59 PM
It would be nice to add a third lane through the tunnels.

A few of them in the Idaho Springs area have already been reamed out to three lanes.  CDOT also has plans to drill a new three lane westbound tunnel as part of six lane upgrades to I-70 at the US 6 interchange, also near Idaho Springs.

NOW, the Eisenhower/Johnson tunnels will be more of a challenge.  Perhaps CDOT should look into drilling a much longer six lane 'base' tunnel at a lower elevation to do that upgrade, also resurrecting and drilling a six lane Red-Buffalo tunnel between Vail and Silverthorne as part of it.  Whatever way they decide to go on that section, it will NOT be cheap.

Mike
Title: Re: Colorado
Post by: zzcarp on March 09, 2021, 03:38:33 PM
It would be nice to add a third lane through the tunnels.

Agreed. At a minimum they would need a third bore which would be billions of dollars that CDOT doesn't have. If that were constructed, it likely would be reversible lanes. Plus, they would need to extend the third lane hard shoulder toll lanes from Empire to the tunnels to make it beneficial. Right now, the downstream congestion causes CDOT to meter traffic so it's not stopped in the tunnel.


The article goes on to mention that there are 22 tunnels on the Colorado Highway System. Many of those are on Interstate 70... and it caused me to wonder where the other ones are located.


I can only count 17 on the state highway system (assuming twin tunnels count as two separate ones). Can anyone else add the others?

US 6 through Clear Creek Canyon has 5 tunnels in use (https://www.google.com/maps/dir/39.7432011,-105.4071721/39.7481305,-105.2513637/@39.7657749,-105.4058907,12z/data=!4m2!4m1!3e0) (historically there were 6 but Tunnel 4 was bypassed when the US 6 - CO 119 intersection was realigned).

CO 119 has 1 tunnel (https://www.google.com/maps/@40.0054879,-105.3350018,3a,75y,47.63h,90.19t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1spUAys3JFH1CVdAYrl6uqFg!2e0!6s%2F%2Fgeo2.ggpht.com%2Fcbk%3Fpanoid%3DpUAys3JFH1CVdAYrl6uqFg%26output%3Dthumbnail%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26thumb%3D2%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D159.35239%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i16384!8i8192) in Boulder Creek Canyon.

The SB I-225 to SB I-25 movement is considered a tunnel. There used to be a sign, but I can't find it in street view (https://www.google.com/maps/@39.6339251,-104.905911,3a,75y,214.63h,81.66t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sU7jbqeqAjKZKcbvcuXCaGA!2e0!7i16384!8i8192).

US 160 near Wolf Creek Pass (https://www.google.com/maps/@37.5488993,-106.7752768,3a,75y,150.81h,85.61t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sfQSoiU2KZ6RV3v63-k81rQ!2e0!6s%2F%2Fgeo2.ggpht.com%2Fcbk%3Fpanoid%3DfQSoiU2KZ6RV3v63-k81rQ%26output%3Dthumbnail%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26thumb%3D2%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D57.61664%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i13312!8i6656)

I-70 Tunnels:

Veterans Memorial Tunnels (https://www.google.com/maps/@39.7452617,-105.4725551,3a,75y,248.82h,76.37t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sekxIHj3faJnOQNW6x9IPlQ!2e0!7i16384!8i8192)

Eisenhower-Johnson Memorial Tunnels (https://www.google.com/maps/@39.6794151,-105.9026949,3a,75y,237.57h,82.75t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sXSELzkTHmmM5bRN694m8Dw!2e0!7i16384!8i8192)

No Name Tunnel (WB Only) (https://www.google.com/maps/@39.6031901,-107.1595978,3a,75y,263.77h,76.06t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1s9BDocdzm7jjhEAupKbw10A!2e0!6s%2F%2Fgeo1.ggpht.com%2Fcbk%3Fpanoid%3D9BDocdzm7jjhEAupKbw10A%26output%3Dthumbnail%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26thumb%3D2%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D336.22723%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i13312!8i6656)

Hanging Lake Tunnels (https://www.google.com/maps/@39.6794151,-105.9026949,3a,75y,237.57h,82.75t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sXSELzkTHmmM5bRN694m8Dw!2e0!7i16384!8i8192)

Tunnels in De Beque Canyon (https://www.google.com/maps/@39.197226,-108.2686022,3a,75y,219.83h,82.99t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sXqa82OUk-b-RSaEsqcZV2g!2e0!7i13312!8i6656)

Title: Re: Colorado
Post by: kphoger on March 09, 2021, 03:45:55 PM
I can only count 17 on the state highway system (assuming twin tunnels count as two separate ones). Can anyone else add the others?

US 6 through Clear Creek Canyon has 5 tunnels in use (https://www.google.com/maps/dir/39.7432011,-105.4071721/39.7481305,-105.2513637/@39.7657749,-105.4058907,12z/data=!4m2!4m1!3e0) (historically there were 6 but Tunnel 5 was bypassed when the US 6 - CO 119 intersection was realigned).

CO 119 has 1 tunnel (https://www.google.com/maps/@40.0054879,-105.3350018,3a,75y,47.63h,90.19t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1spUAys3JFH1CVdAYrl6uqFg!2e0!6s%2F%2Fgeo2.ggpht.com%2Fcbk%3Fpanoid%3DpUAys3JFH1CVdAYrl6uqFg%26output%3Dthumbnail%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26thumb%3D2%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D159.35239%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i16384!8i8192) in Boulder Creek Canyon.

The SB I-225 to SB I-25 movement is considered a tunnel. There used to be a sign, but I can't find it in street view (https://www.google.com/maps/@39.6339251,-104.905911,3a,75y,214.63h,81.66t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sU7jbqeqAjKZKcbvcuXCaGA!2e0!7i16384!8i8192).

US 160 near Wolf Creek Pass (https://www.google.com/maps/@37.5488993,-106.7752768,3a,75y,150.81h,85.61t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sfQSoiU2KZ6RV3v63-k81rQ!2e0!6s%2F%2Fgeo2.ggpht.com%2Fcbk%3Fpanoid%3DfQSoiU2KZ6RV3v63-k81rQ%26output%3Dthumbnail%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26thumb%3D2%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D57.61664%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i13312!8i6656)

I-70 Tunnels:

Veterans Memorial Tunnels (https://www.google.com/maps/@39.7452617,-105.4725551,3a,75y,248.82h,76.37t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sekxIHj3faJnOQNW6x9IPlQ!2e0!7i16384!8i8192)

Eisenhower-Johnson Memorial Tunnels (https://www.google.com/maps/@39.6794151,-105.9026949,3a,75y,237.57h,82.75t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sXSELzkTHmmM5bRN694m8Dw!2e0!7i16384!8i8192)

No Name Tunnel (WB Only) (https://www.google.com/maps/@39.6031901,-107.1595978,3a,75y,263.77h,76.06t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1s9BDocdzm7jjhEAupKbw10A!2e0!6s%2F%2Fgeo1.ggpht.com%2Fcbk%3Fpanoid%3D9BDocdzm7jjhEAupKbw10A%26output%3Dthumbnail%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26thumb%3D2%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D336.22723%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i13312!8i6656)

Hanging Lake Tunnels (https://www.google.com/maps/@39.6794151,-105.9026949,3a,75y,237.57h,82.75t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sXSELzkTHmmM5bRN694m8Dw!2e0!7i16384!8i8192)

Tunnels in De Beque Canyon (https://www.google.com/maps/@39.197226,-108.2686022,3a,75y,219.83h,82.99t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sXqa82OUk-b-RSaEsqcZV2g!2e0!7i13312!8i6656)

US-500 south of Ouray (https://goo.gl/maps/7PMrUNGB63o4H32p9)
Title: Re: Colorado
Post by: mgk920 on March 09, 2021, 03:52:48 PM
I-70 Tunnels:

Veterans Memorial Tunnels (https://www.google.com/maps/@39.7452617,-105.4725551,3a,75y,248.82h,76.37t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sekxIHj3faJnOQNW6x9IPlQ!2e0!7i16384!8i8192)

Eisenhower-Johnson Memorial Tunnels (https://www.google.com/maps/@39.6794151,-105.9026949,3a,75y,237.57h,82.75t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sXSELzkTHmmM5bRN694m8Dw!2e0!7i16384!8i8192)

No Name Tunnel (WB Only) (https://www.google.com/maps/@39.6031901,-107.1595978,3a,75y,263.77h,76.06t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1s9BDocdzm7jjhEAupKbw10A!2e0!6s%2F%2Fgeo1.ggpht.com%2Fcbk%3Fpanoid%3D9BDocdzm7jjhEAupKbw10A%26output%3Dthumbnail%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26thumb%3D2%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D336.22723%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i13312!8i6656)

Hanging Lake Tunnels (https://www.google.com/maps/@39.6794151,-105.9026949,3a,75y,237.57h,82.75t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sXSELzkTHmmM5bRN694m8Dw!2e0!7i16384!8i8192)

Tunnels in De Beque Canyon (https://www.google.com/maps/@39.197226,-108.2686022,3a,75y,219.83h,82.99t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sXqa82OUk-b-RSaEsqcZV2g!2e0!7i13312!8i6656)

Did you include that pair on I-70 between Glenwood Springs and the Glenwood Canyon?

Mike
Title: Re: Colorado
Post by: kphoger on March 09, 2021, 04:00:12 PM
Eisenhower-Johnson Memorial Tunnels (https://www.google.com/maps/@39.6794151,-105.9026949,3a,75y,237.57h,82.75t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sXSELzkTHmmM5bRN694m8Dw!2e0!7i16384!8i8192)

Hanging Lake Tunnels (https://www.google.com/maps/@39.6794151,-105.9026949,3a,75y,237.57h,82.75t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sXSELzkTHmmM5bRN694m8Dw!2e0!7i16384!8i8192)

Same link.

Did you include that pair on I-70 between Glenwood Springs and the Glenwood Canyon?

Looks like he left those out.

We're now up to 20.
Title: Re: Colorado
Post by: zzcarp on March 09, 2021, 04:06:55 PM
US-550 south of Ouray (https://goo.gl/maps/7PMrUNGB63o4H32p9)

I thought US 550 had one. Thanks kphoger!

I-70 Tunnels:

Veterans Memorial Tunnels (https://www.google.com/maps/@39.7452617,-105.4725551,3a,75y,248.82h,76.37t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sekxIHj3faJnOQNW6x9IPlQ!2e0!7i16384!8i8192)

Eisenhower-Johnson Memorial Tunnels (https://www.google.com/maps/@39.6794151,-105.9026949,3a,75y,237.57h,82.75t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sXSELzkTHmmM5bRN694m8Dw!2e0!7i16384!8i8192)

No Name Tunnel (WB Only) (https://www.google.com/maps/@39.6031901,-107.1595978,3a,75y,263.77h,76.06t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1s9BDocdzm7jjhEAupKbw10A!2e0!6s%2F%2Fgeo1.ggpht.com%2Fcbk%3Fpanoid%3D9BDocdzm7jjhEAupKbw10A%26output%3Dthumbnail%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26thumb%3D2%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D336.22723%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i13312!8i6656)

Hanging Lake Tunnels (https://www.google.com/maps/@39.6794151,-105.9026949,3a,75y,237.57h,82.75t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sXSELzkTHmmM5bRN694m8Dw!2e0!7i16384!8i8192)

Tunnels in De Beque Canyon (https://www.google.com/maps/@39.197226,-108.2686022,3a,75y,219.83h,82.99t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sXqa82OUk-b-RSaEsqcZV2g!2e0!7i13312!8i6656)

Did you include that pair on I-70 between Glenwood Springs and the Glenwood Canyon?

Mike

Thanks Mike. I did forget those ones right in Glenwood. (https://www.google.com/maps/@39.560808,-107.3101691,3a,75y,90.27h,75.86t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1supId9nsOalMjUeYTTUJZVQ!2e0!7i16384!8i8192?hl=en)

All right that's twenty. Any others?
Title: Re: Colorado
Post by: kphoger on March 09, 2021, 04:15:20 PM
They might also be counting the Red Mountain Pass shed tunnel (https://goo.gl/maps/1uBiy8QtvkyET95z5) on US-550.

(https://www.mesalek.com/colo/picts/us550snowshed.jpg)
Title: Re: Colorado
Post by: JayhawkCO on March 09, 2021, 04:16:57 PM
They might also be counting the Red Mountain Pass shed tunnel (https://goo.gl/maps/1uBiy8QtvkyET95z5) on US-550.

(https://www.mesalek.com/colo/picts/us550snowshed.jpg)

If that's 21, this is 22 (https://www.google.com/maps/@40.6935209,-105.3750604,3a,75y,328.61h,104.75t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1skoqWSzpd3rIX68jMkyfQfw!2e0!7i16384!8i8192?hl=en) on CO14.

Chris
Title: Re: Colorado
Post by: JayhawkCO on March 09, 2021, 04:23:24 PM
They might also be counting the Red Mountain Pass shed tunnel (https://goo.gl/maps/1uBiy8QtvkyET95z5) on US-550.

(https://www.mesalek.com/colo/picts/us550snowshed.jpg)

If that's 21, this is 22 (https://www.google.com/maps/@40.6935209,-105.3750604,3a,75y,328.61h,104.75t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1skoqWSzpd3rIX68jMkyfQfw!2e0!7i16384!8i8192?hl=en) on CO14.

Chris

Although there is also another avalanche tunnel on US160 here. (https://www.google.com/maps/@37.4783989,-106.7807371,3a,75y,60.83h,95.99t/data=!3m9!1e1!3m7!1sW0wIrKKicEEHgQDl3CN1RQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656!9m2!1b1!2i38?hl=en)  So that would make 23.

Chris
Title: Re: Colorado
Post by: zachary_amaryllis on March 09, 2021, 07:28:06 PM

If that's 21, this is 22 (https://www.google.com/maps/@40.6935209,-105.3750604,3a,75y,328.61h,104.75t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1skoqWSzpd3rIX68jMkyfQfw!2e0!7i16384!8i8192?hl=en) on CO14.

Chris

that is about 7 miles up from me.

 i have to wonder where google gets its 'house numbers'... mishawaka is 13714 sh 14, or about 3 1/2 miles above me and that tunnel is about 2 miles above it, and should be like 15xxx or something. google says its 12635, which would put it about 2 miles from me. sh 14 house numbering is mileage-based, counting from 0 at the intersection with us 287.
Title: Re: Colorado
Post by: andy3175 on March 10, 2021, 09:09:17 AM
Related to the list of Colorado state highway tunnels, our friend Matt Salek has a list on his site:

https://www.mesalek.com/colo/trivia/hwy.html

Quote
There are only 16 active tunnels on the state highway system (21 if you count each bore of a twin bore separately). There are also two snowsheds, which are artificially built tunnels to protect the highway at avalanche chutes. Three other tunnels have been abandoned but remain in place.

I recognize his site may not be completely up to date with the latest information (unless he's resumed updates to his site), but Matt's info includes the following tunnels:

- Interstate 70 - 11 tunnels - the following have 2 bores each: Beavertail Mountain Tunnel, No Name Tunnel, Hanging Lake Tunnel, EJMT, Veterans Memorial (Twin Tunnels at Idaho Springs)  and one single bore tunnel for westbound only at Reverse Curve
- Interstate 225 - 1 tunnel - southbound tunnel connection to Interstate 25 south
- US 6 - 5 tunnels - Clear Creek Tunnels 1, 2, 3, 5, 6
- US 160 - 2 tunnels - Alberta Snowshed and Wolf Creek Pass Tunnel
- US 550 - 2 tunnels - Riverside Slide Snowshed and tunnel south of Ouray
- Colo Hwy 14 - 1 tunnel - Poudre Canyon
- Colo Hwy 119 - 1 tunnel - Boulder Canyon Tunnel

Title: Re: Colorado
Post by: Plutonic Panda on March 12, 2021, 04:12:27 PM
I-25 expansion in northern Colorado update:

https://www.dailycamera.com/2021/03/11/cdot-seeks-condemnation-of-property-to-expand-i-25/
Title: Re: Colorado
Post by: zzcarp on March 21, 2021, 08:50:51 PM
I-25 expansion in northern Colorado update:

https://www.dailycamera.com/2021/03/11/cdot-seeks-condemnation-of-property-to-expand-i-25/

The service station on the west side of I-25 looks to be the most impacted by this.
Title: Re: Colorado
Post by: zzcarp on March 21, 2021, 09:01:15 PM
CDOT is adding/extending passing lanes on US 287/US 40 on the eastern plains. (https://www.codot.gov/news/2021/march-2021/us287-us40-passing-lane-news)

Quote
CHEYENNE AND LINCOLN COUNTIES — Beginning March 22, the Colorado Department of Transportation will begin work to add four new and two improved passing lanes between Hugo and the Cheyenne/Kiowa County line.

The route, which is part of a multi-state freight network to distribute goods throughout the nation, is heavily used by motorists as well as freight drivers delivering the area's agricultural products. The project is spread over approximately 70 miles with completion expected by December.

"This project will significantly improve safety on the corridor by providing much needed passing lanes on this heavily traveled freight corridor,” said Regional Transportation Director Heather Paddock.

"Large trucks make up 40-60 percent of the traffic along the 287 corridor, causing long lines of traffic with little passing opportunities," Paddock said. "The passing lanes project will increase the safety and mobility of all users by providing safe and more frequent passing opportunities. This project will be adding four new passing lanes and extending two insufficient passing lanes."

Here is a map of the locations of the improvements:

(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/51060281458_c047613237_c.jpg)

Title: Re: Colorado
Post by: JayhawkCO on April 01, 2021, 11:46:51 AM
https://theknow.denverpost.com/2021/04/01/colorado-denver-vail-micro-shuttle/255614/

Looks like CDOT is starting some 14-passenger vans hourly between Denver and Frisco, Vail, and Avon for what they say is skiers and hikers.  It sounds like a good idea for skiers for sure to help eliminate weekend I-70 traffic, but I don't understand how they're advertising this to hikers.  How do you get to the trailhead once they dump you off in town?

Chris
Title: Re: Colorado
Post by: zzcarp on April 01, 2021, 01:45:10 PM
https://theknow.denverpost.com/2021/04/01/colorado-denver-vail-micro-shuttle/255614/

Looks like CDOT is starting some 14-passenger vans hourly between Denver and Frisco, Vail, and Avon for what they say is skiers and hikers.  It sounds like a good idea for skiers for sure to help eliminate weekend I-70 traffic, but I don't understand how they're advertising this to hikers.  How do you get to the trailhead once they dump you off in town?

Chris

It doesn't sound attractive for hiking to me. Are they going to drop us off at a trailhead an hour before sunrise so we can summit and be back down below treeline by noon? What about our dogs? Maybe for the trailheads right on I-70 like Herman Gulch or Officer's Gulch. Or for those who were dropped off and had a long backpacking hike.

It just seems like it's another instance of CDOT spending money on anything except roads.
Title: Re: Colorado
Post by: JayhawkCO on April 01, 2021, 02:58:36 PM
https://theknow.denverpost.com/2021/04/01/colorado-denver-vail-micro-shuttle/255614/

Looks like CDOT is starting some 14-passenger vans hourly between Denver and Frisco, Vail, and Avon for what they say is skiers and hikers.  It sounds like a good idea for skiers for sure to help eliminate weekend I-70 traffic, but I don't understand how they're advertising this to hikers.  How do you get to the trailhead once they dump you off in town?

Chris

It doesn't sound attractive for hiking to me. Are they going to drop us off at a trailhead an hour before sunrise so we can summit and be back down below treeline by noon? What about our dogs? Maybe for the trailheads right on I-70 like Herman Gulch or Officer's Gulch. Or for those who were dropped off and had a long backpacking hike.

It just seems like it's another instance of CDOT spending money on anything except roads.

And tolled express lanes.  Don't forget those.

Chris
Title: Re: Colorado
Post by: andy3175 on May 08, 2021, 07:04:32 PM
Interstate 70 at the Eisenhower-Johnson Tunnel Complex was closed this afternoon due to a suspicious device.

https://www.kdvr.com/news/local/westbound-i-70-closed-at-eisenhower-tunnel-due-to-police-situation/amp/

Quote
Emergency calls about a possible explosive device inside a car stopped off Interstate 70 on the west side of the Eisenhower Tunnel closed traffic on I-70 in both directions through the Eisenhower/Johnson Tunnel on Saturday afternoon.

Colorado State Patrol said the incident was being investigated on the westbound side of the highway outside the far end of the tunnel by troopers and the Jefferson County Sheriff’s Office bomb squad.

CSP advised to use Highway 6 over Loveland Pass as an alternate route.



SM-G975U

Title: Re: Colorado
Post by: andy3175 on May 09, 2021, 01:38:25 PM
No explosives found, and I-70 reopened.

https://www.summitdaily.com/news/interstate-70-eastbound-closed-at-silverthorne-exit/

SM-G975U

Title: Re: Colorado
Post by: tdindy88 on May 30, 2021, 07:24:07 AM
Greetings from Colorado Springs! I'm on vacation out here in Colorado and have been spending the last few days exploring some of your roadways. I started in Denver and came down to Colo Springs and now I'm heading west through to Grand Junction before traveling I-70 back across to Denver over next week. I've done plenty of driving already including some of the I-70 corridor west to Vail before taking US 24 back to Colorado Springs and I didn't expect I-70 to be like it was. Roadway seemed a bit rough with plenty of potholes. I'm guessing the high altitude and extreme weather are the culprits here but I won't be complaining about Indiana's roads for a while after this trip. Even Indianapolis' streets aren't too bad now. I remember reading up this thread about CDOT spending money on things other than roads so I'm guessing there's funding issues. Sure enough I watched the news in Denver and I guess that there is some bill going through your statehouse that would improve the funding. The traffic around the state and in the Springs has been very busy but it is a holiday weekend so that is one reason. I'm guessing one poster from Tennessee would argue that the roads are fine and nothing needs widening in this state.

I drove I-25 from Denver to Colorado Springs and that roadway very much needs to be like eight lanes between the two cities (all the way.) If they want they can make the far left lane a toll lane and have three general purpose lanes. The last time I was in Colorado Springs was in 2007 and I remember I-25 being under construction. I was under an impression that they were rebuilding the whole road through the city from say Academy Blvd south to about US 24 east. I guess it was more of a piecemeal thing with various stretches being worked on at different times (the construction I remember seeing was up around Nevada Avenue and Woodman Road.) One stretch around Fillmore Street is three lanes but still looks to be in its original pavement. Still the majority of the roadway through the city appears well-built and is well used. I also drove south to Pueblo and it certainly seems that I-25 could be made three lanes a bit further south through Fountain as traffic was very heavy along that corridor.

I also drove along Powers Boulevard, a roadway that I take as the hypothetical beltway around eastern Colorado Springs. I read all the content about it on this thread so I know it's a long story about its state of being. I did have one question about Powers though, why are the exit numbers in the 100s for the few exits along that stretch. Since SH 21 starts there in Colorado Springs itself shouldn't the exit numbers be in the single digits and teens? Also, when driving along US 24 from Leadville south toward Buena Vista I saw the mile markers were much higher than they should be for a highway that just began as I-70. Did US 24 go further west at one time and the mile markers are just reflecting that?
Title: Re: Colorado
Post by: US 89 on May 30, 2021, 09:51:39 AM
Also, when driving along US 24 from Leadville south toward Buena Vista I saw the mile markers were much higher than they should be for a highway that just began as I-70. Did US 24 go further west at one time and the mile markers are just reflecting that?

Yep. US 24 once went all the way to Grand Junction, where it ended at US 50. US 6 didn’t exist that far west at the time, but soon after it was... but because Vail Pass didn’t exist yet, 6 went down SH 91 from Copper Mountain to Leadville and then followed 24 west. If I had to guess, that is probably why 24 wasn’t cut back when 6 got extended, because several miles of 6/24 would become regular 24 again after Vail Pass opened a few years later.

But even after that, the 6/24 overlap was kept between Minturn and Grand Junction, and I think that lasted all the way until I-70 was built. Even today if you look hard enough I think you can spot some references to “Hwy 6 & 24” on old street signs or business addresses.
Title: Re: Colorado
Post by: Elm on June 02, 2021, 01:16:34 AM
I drove I-25 from Denver to Colorado Springs and that roadway very much needs to be like eight lanes between the two cities (all the way.) If they want they can make the far left lane a toll lane and have three general purpose lanes.
Yeah, they definitely want some toll lanes up to the Denver metro there. Going through there, you'll have seen the construction between Castle Rock and Monument—that's setting up two general purpose lanes and one HOT lane each way (via the "I-25 South Gap" project (https://www.codot.gov/projects/i25-south-gap)). For the larger corridor, a 2019 PEL study (https://www.codot.gov/projects/I25COSDEN) related to that project recommended extending the HOT lanes north to C-470 and adding another lane in each direction from Hwy 105 (Monument) to C-470. It doesn't specify how that last lane would operate, unlike studies for, say C-470 (2 GPL + 2 toll) or I-25 north of Denver (3 GPL + 1 HOT), but there's also no reason to expect that to be built in the foreseeable future.

The last time I was in Colorado Springs was in 2007 and I remember I-25 being under construction. I was under an impression that they were rebuilding the whole road through the city from say Academy Blvd south to about US 24 east. I guess it was more of a piecemeal thing with various stretches being worked on at different times (the construction I remember seeing was up around Nevada Avenue and Woodman Road.) One stretch around Fillmore Street is three lanes but still looks to be in its original pavement. Still the majority of the roadway through the city appears well-built and is well used. I also drove south to Pueblo and it certainly seems that I-25 could be made three lanes a bit further south through Fountain as traffic was very heavy along that corridor.
There have been a lot of projects on I-25 in the Springs, but that was likely the "COSMIX" widening project (https://web.archive.org/web/20061127093757/http://www.cosmixproject.com/), which was one of the largest batches of reconstruction in the area and affected Bijou-ish to North Academy. Since then, Woodmen to Hwy 105 was widened (the most recent major non-tolled widening in Colorado?), the Fillmore and Cimarron interchanges were rebuilt, and some kind of preparation is [mercifully] underway to add auxiliary lanes between Fillmore and Garden of the Gods, perhaps making it look more like nearby segments.

There's an environmental assessment (https://www.codot.gov/library/studies/I25EAColoSpgsMonument) behind those projects, where the eventual goal would be six lanes from South Academy to Hwy 105, then an additional lane from US 24 East (MLK Bypass) to Briargate, which would be rush hour HOV-only. It's a relatively old study and predates much of CDOT's managed lane work, so I wouldn't be surprised to see that evolve into more typical express lanes and cover a wider area. A segment (https://drive.google.com/file/d/1-Xg5MYMv-UGH6mdzeQqNrgeIVWuzIn6H/view) of HOV lanes made it into the 10-Year Plan, though.

I also drove along Powers Boulevard, a roadway that I take as the hypothetical beltway around eastern Colorado Springs. I read all the content about it on this thread so I know it's a long story about its state of being. I did have one question about Powers though, why are the exit numbers in the 100s for the few exits along that stretch. Since SH 21 starts there in Colorado Springs itself shouldn't the exit numbers be in the single digits and teens?
I don't know of any official word, but the working theory from this thread (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=17691.0) is that they're generally based on I-25 and allow for extending down through Fountain without risking running past zero ("near Pikes Peak International Raceway" is the usual endpoint).

Incidentally, El Paso County is starting up a new study of that extension this year; there's not much information, but this document (https://www.agendasuite.org/iip/elpaso/file/getfile/15519) does at least include the map from the old corridor study on the last page, as well as other background. Unfortunately, several Powers Boulevard studies took place in the late '90s and early 2000s, and they're not readily available online.
Title: Re: Colorado
Post by: zzcarp on June 26, 2021, 10:18:26 PM
I-70 is once again closed in Glenwood Canyon, this time due to a mudslide. I suspect it's in or near the burn area from last year's fire. CDOT's posted 3-hour detour is US 40 to CO 13.

Pictures from the CDOT Facebook post (https://www.facebook.com/coloradodot/posts/4053819011339641):

One picture-looks localized so it  hopefully should be relatively simple to fix.
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/51274088080_310abb34a3_n.jpg) 

Detour route:
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/51274088105_c3a9c48884_c.jpg)
Title: Re: Colorado
Post by: thenetwork on June 27, 2021, 12:34:09 PM
I-70 is once again closed in Glenwood Canyon, this time due to a mudslide. I suspect it's in or near the burn area from last year's fire. CDOT's posted 3-hour detour is US 40 to CO 13.

Pictures from the CDOT Facebook post (https://www.facebook.com/coloradodot/posts/4053819011339641):

One picture-looks localized so it  hopefully should be relatively simple to fix.
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/51274088080_310abb34a3_n.jpg) 

Detour route:
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/51274088105_c3a9c48884_c.jpg)


According to the Colorado State Patrol, the road was reopened by late Saturday Night in both directions.  That being said, CDOT has and will close off all Rest Areas within Glenwood Canyon as a precaution whenever significant rain is in the forecast in addition to having crews on standby to close the roads and clear the interstate of debris.

Independence Pass (CO-82) is another detour route, but due to the narrowness and vehicle length restrictions, they don't wish to publicize it too much.

Title: Re: Colorado
Post by: Kniwt on June 28, 2021, 12:03:53 AM
According to the Colorado State Patrol, the road was reopened by late Saturday Night in both directions. 

Closed again: https://denver.cbslocal.com/2021/06/27/i70-closed-glenwood-springs/

Quote
A stretch of Interstate 70 near Glenwood Springs is closed in both directions for the second day in a row on Sunday due to a land/mudslide.
Title: Re: Colorado
Post by: US 89 on June 28, 2021, 12:16:10 AM
Unfortunately, debris flows and slides like this are quite common in areas with recent burn scars from wildfire activity. I fully expect this to be a regular occurrence during monsoon season for a few years.

It could be worse, though - within the last 10 years or so, Utah has had at least two highway-adjacent burn scars that have produced flash floods and slides big enough to require substantial work on the road itself. Looks like this will mostly just amount to some mud and dirt washing onto the road every time a big enough thunderstorm hits the burn scar for a while.
Title: Re: Colorado
Post by: thenetwork on June 28, 2021, 08:56:57 PM
Unfortunately, debris flows and slides like this are quite common in areas with recent burn scars from wildfire activity. I fully expect this to be a regular occurrence during monsoon season for a few years.

It could be worse, though - within the last 10 years or so, Utah has had at least two highway-adjacent burn scars that have produced flash floods and slides big enough to require substantial work on the road itself. Looks like this will mostly just amount to some mud and dirt washing onto the road every time a big enough thunderstorm hits the burn scar for a while.
According to the Colorado State Patrol, the road was reopened by late Saturday Night in both directions. 

Closed again: https://denver.cbslocal.com/2021/06/27/i70-closed-glenwood-springs/

Quote
A stretch of Interstate 70 near Glenwood Springs is closed in both directions for the second day in a row on Sunday due to a land/mudslide.
According to the Colorado State Patrol, the road was reopened by late Saturday Night in both directions. 

Closed again: https://denver.cbslocal.com/2021/06/27/i70-closed-glenwood-springs/

Quote
A stretch of Interstate 70 near Glenwood Springs is closed in both directions for the second day in a row on Sunday due to a land/mudslide.

During this 2nd closure (which has since reopened), the Primary Detour along US-40 was closed for a while due to a crash, the small-vehicles only alternate via CO-82 was closed because some stupid semi thought it was a good idea to traverse Independence Pass ‐‐ he got stuck and hopefully got fined big-time -- and US-50 to the south is closed between Montrose  and Gunnison due to long-term construction (CO-92 is the l-o-n-g, winding detour for US-50).

Not too many east-west Colorado options from the west part of the state to the Front Range and/or Divide.
Title: Re: Colorado
Post by: zzcarp on June 29, 2021, 09:58:42 AM

During this 2nd closure (which has since reopened), the Primary Detour along US-40 was closed for a while due to a crash, the small-vehicles only alternate via CO-82 was closed because some stupid semi thought it was a good idea to traverse Independence Pass ‐‐ he got stuck and hopefully got fined big-time -- and US-50 to the south is closed between Montrose  and Gunnison due to long-term construction (CO-92 is the l-o-n-g, winding detour for US-50).

Not too many east-west Colorado options from the west part of the state to the Front Range and/or Divide.

I-70 needs an alternate route as these mudslides are going to be common for years due to the fire. It's possible CDOT will have to build bridges and construct other mitigations to minimize the effects of these mudflows.

In my view, CDOT needs to bite the bullet, take over as a state highway the unpaved northerly Cottonwood Pass from Gypsum to Highway 82, and pave and upgrade it to allow semis. They could even sign it as US 6 as they do on Loveland Pass.

I would say upgrade Independence Pass, but I doubt the Aspenites would go for anything that would increase truck traffic (though, except for the 1.5 lane cliff shelf sections, it would be fairly easy to do).
Title: Re: Colorado
Post by: JayhawkCO on June 29, 2021, 10:18:06 AM

During this 2nd closure (which has since reopened), the Primary Detour along US-40 was closed for a while due to a crash, the small-vehicles only alternate via CO-82 was closed because some stupid semi thought it was a good idea to traverse Independence Pass ‐‐ he got stuck and hopefully got fined big-time -- and US-50 to the south is closed between Montrose  and Gunnison due to long-term construction (CO-92 is the l-o-n-g, winding detour for US-50).

Not too many east-west Colorado options from the west part of the state to the Front Range and/or Divide.

I-70 needs an alternate route as these mudslides are going to be common for years due to the fire. It's possible CDOT will have to build bridges and construct other mitigations to minimize the effects of these mudflows.

In my view, CDOT needs to bite the bullet, take over as a state highway the unpaved northerly Cottonwood Pass from Gypsum to Highway 82, and pave and upgrade it to allow semis. They could even sign it as US 6 as they do on Loveland Pass.

I would say upgrade Independence Pass, but I doubt the Aspenites would go for anything that would increase truck traffic (though, except for the 1.5 lane cliff shelf sections, it would be fairly easy to do).

Ain't no NIMBY like an Aspenite NIMBY cuz an Aspenite NIMBY won't stop.

Chris
Title: Re: Colorado
Post by: zzcarp on June 29, 2021, 07:50:54 PM
Closed again...

?s=21
Title: couldn't get home last night because of this...
Post by: zachary_amaryllis on July 21, 2021, 08:48:14 AM
https://www.thedenverchannel.com/news/local-news/dangerous-flooding-leads-to-evacuation-road-closures-in-larimer-county (https://www.thedenverchannel.com/news/local-news/dangerous-flooding-leads-to-evacuation-road-closures-in-larimer-county)
Title: Re: couldn't get home last night because of this...
Post by: zzcarp on July 21, 2021, 12:23:25 PM
https://www.thedenverchannel.com/news/local-news/dangerous-flooding-leads-to-evacuation-road-closures-in-larimer-county (https://www.thedenverchannel.com/news/local-news/dangerous-flooding-leads-to-evacuation-road-closures-in-larimer-county)

I hope everything's okay with you and your family and there's no damage to your house.

The monsoon activity was pretty heavy all over the mountains yesterday. In addition to CO 14, I-70 was closed again in Glenwood Canyon for the eighth time this summer (https://www.9news.com/article/weather/weather-colorado/i-70-closes-at-glenwood-canyon-due-to-flash-flooding-for-the-8th-time/73-2584b07c-4487-4db7-bb7b-1aa290ed3eda?utm_campaign=snd-autopilot). Also, in a non-burn scar area, CO 133 was closed south of Carbondale (https://kdvr.com/news/local/mudslide-closes-highway-133-in-pitkin-county/) due to a mudslide.
Title: Re: couldn't get home last night because of this...
Post by: zachary_amaryllis on July 21, 2021, 02:17:51 PM
https://www.thedenverchannel.com/news/local-news/dangerous-flooding-leads-to-evacuation-road-closures-in-larimer-county (https://www.thedenverchannel.com/news/local-news/dangerous-flooding-leads-to-evacuation-road-closures-in-larimer-county)

I hope everything's okay with you and your family and there's no damage to your house.

The monsoon activity was pretty heavy all over the mountains yesterday. In addition to CO 14, I-70 was closed again in Glenwood Canyon for the eighth time this summer (https://www.9news.com/article/weather/weather-colorado/i-70-closes-at-glenwood-canyon-due-to-flash-flooding-for-the-8th-time/73-2584b07c-4487-4db7-bb7b-1aa290ed3eda?utm_campaign=snd-autopilot). Also, in a non-burn scar area, CO 133 was closed south of Carbondale (https://kdvr.com/news/local/mudslide-closes-highway-133-in-pitkin-county/) due to a mudslide.
we're good. i really didn't know anything about this until i went to drive home last night and was turned back at the bottom of the canyon. a camry is not a comfortable car to sleep in. further up-canyon from me, not so good. 1 dead, couple more missing.. and a similar weather setup for today.

eek.
Title: Re: Colorado
Post by: thenetwork on July 21, 2021, 10:37:44 PM
https://www.thedenverchannel.com/news/local-news/dangerous-flooding-leads-to-evacuation-road-closures-in-larimer-county (https://www.thedenverchannel.com/news/local-news/dangerous-flooding-leads-to-evacuation-road-closures-in-larimer-county)

I hope everything's okay with you and your family and there's no damage to your house.

The monsoon activity was pretty heavy all over the mountains yesterday. In addition to CO 14, I-70 was closed again in Glenwood Canyon for the eighth time this summer (https://www.9news.com/article/weather/weather-colorado/i-70-closes-at-glenwood-canyon-due-to-flash-flooding-for-the-8th-time/73-2584b07c-4487-4db7-bb7b-1aa290ed3eda?utm_campaign=snd-autopilot). Also, in a non-burn scar area, CO 133 was closed south of Carbondale (https://kdvr.com/news/local/mudslide-closes-highway-133-in-pitkin-county/) due to a mudslide.

Heck, yesterday I was driving US-550/Million Dollar Highway during an intense hailstorm over Coal Bank and Molas Pass.  My traction control light kept coming on as there was a solid coating of white on the road.  Closest I've come to driving during a whiteout up there, but it was fun!
Title: Re: Colorado
Post by: Elm on July 28, 2021, 11:44:47 PM
There's a new online meeting/questionnaire here (https://www.santafepelmeeting.com) for the Santa Fe Dr C-470 to I-25 PEL, now working on "corridor themes" with an emphasis on early action projects. (Main project site's here (https://www.codot.gov/projects/santafepel).)

The potential early action projects listed are closing the median at Crestline Ave, adding auxiliary lanes (Hampden to Florida, NB Vinewood to Bowles, and NB across Prince St), new sidewalks on Hampden/Dartmouth, and Little Dry Creek Trail wayfinding. The Hampden to Florida "auxiliary lanes" (which appear to cross Dartmouth and Evans) might be construed as a widening and seem sort of un-CDOT-like.

Aside from "Corridor Access Focus," the themes generally lean toward reducing direct access; they picture adding frontage roads in some areas, and they're fond of quadrant roads and channelized T intersections.
Title: Re: Colorado
Post by: thenetwork on July 30, 2021, 10:32:05 AM
Now, with all the continued mudslide debris entering and damming up the Colorado River in Glenwood Canyon, there is a new threat to I-70 -- structural damage to the freeway:

https://kdvr.com/news/local/on-going-problems-along-glenwood-canyon-mean-theres-potential-for-more-road-closures/
Title: Re: Colorado
Post by: zzcarp on July 30, 2021, 09:50:51 PM
Looks like I-70 will be closed all weekend due to severe mudslides.

I can't seem to embed the video, (https://www.facebook.com/plugins/video.php?height=314&href=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.facebook.com%2Ffox31denver%2Fvideos%2F809425043049623%2F&show_text=false&width=560&t=0) and the linked video shows the enormity of the localized damage. It's going to take some time to get the road cleared, and we've got more monsoons forecast all weekend long.
Title: Re: Colorado
Post by: thenetwork on July 30, 2021, 10:09:15 PM
Looks like I-70 will be closed all weekend due to severe mudslides.

I can't seem to embed the video, (https://www.facebook.com/plugins/video.php?height=314&href=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.facebook.com%2Ffox31denver%2Fvideos%2F809425043049623%2F&show_text=false&width=560&t=0) and the linked video shows the enormity of the localized damage. It's going to take some time to get the road cleared, and we've got more monsoons forecast all weekend long.

Looks like some of the concrete guardrails on the upper/westbound deck were based on some video I saw on the local news channels.

Here is some more video and photos:  https://www.vaildaily.com/news/travelers-stranded-during-second-glenwood-canyon-closure-thursday-night-hole-up-at-tunnels-until-they-could-be-escorted-out-safely/

Title: Re: Colorado
Post by: Plutonic Panda on July 30, 2021, 10:19:56 PM
Maybe a stupid question but what do they do with the debris? Just throw it down further or do they take it somewhere?
Title: Re: Colorado
Post by: US 89 on July 31, 2021, 01:00:18 AM
Yep, there was a flash flood emergency issued for that I-70 Glenwood Canyon burn scar last night. I don’t think I’ve ever seen one of those issued west of the plains, much less for a burn scar flood. Those tend to be reserved for events where entire sections of flat eastern cities are underwater and multiple water rescues are occurring.

I was told this was going to be a 3-4 day closure, but based on that video I would not be surprised if it’s longer. And with the monsoon moisture staying firmly in place, daily storm chances look pretty high through Wednesday next week ... so more mudslides could easily set back cleanup efforts an additional day or two.
Title: Re: Colorado
Post by: zachary_amaryllis on July 31, 2021, 07:23:46 AM
i live on co-14 and had to show proof of address before i could go home yesterday. the actual closure was about 20 miles above me.

about glenwood canyon: a lot of people say that road was badly engineered. i disagree. i think it's amazing that they shoehorned an interstate into that canyon. you can't plan for massive burn scars, or there wouldn't be any roads in the mountains at all.

last i looked, like 46 miles of i-70 is closed.
Title: Re: Colorado
Post by: tdindy88 on July 31, 2021, 10:04:45 AM
I stayed in Glenwood Springs for a couple of nights back at the beginning of June and got to drive through Glenwood Canyon three times in each direction. I stopped at all the rest areas, saw the burn scars from the fires the previous year and hiked up to Hanging Lake. I agree with it being a spectacular drive. I was very impressed, that stretch of highway lived up to its reputation. Now I feel very fortunate that I was able to do that given all the times it's been closed this summer.
Title: Re: Colorado
Post by: zzcarp on July 31, 2021, 10:19:13 AM
about glenwood canyon: a lot of people say that road was badly engineered. i disagree. i think it's amazing that they shoehorned an interstate into that canyon. you can't plan for massive burn scars, or there wouldn't be any roads in the mountains at all.

I agree it wasn't badly engineered. In fact, I-70 through Glenwood Canyon won awards, and my reading articles about its construction definitely influenced my decision to become a civil engineer.

That said, building I-70 through the canyon as opposed to a new terrain route higher up the ridgelines caused some of the present difficulties. The Grizzly Creek fire was directly caused by sparks from a vehicle traveling on I-70. Its design also makes it susceptible to the mudslides. The newer westbound lanes, somewhat cantilevered from the cliff, have more viaducts and are doing a little better than the eastbound lanes that are lower and collect nearly all the debris.

I assert to fix this that CDOT will have to construct additional bridges along the corridor over the slide-prone areas to minimize these disruptions. Also, CDOT needs to take over the northerly Cottonwood Pass at Gypsum, pave it, and have it as an alternate state highway for these closure periods. Consistent 200-mile detours are untenable for the state and federal highway system.
Title: Re: Colorado
Post by: brad2971 on August 01, 2021, 02:37:42 PM
about glenwood canyon: a lot of people say that road was badly engineered. i disagree. i think it's amazing that they shoehorned an interstate into that canyon. you can't plan for massive burn scars, or there wouldn't be any roads in the mountains at all.

I agree it wasn't badly engineered. In fact, I-70 through Glenwood Canyon won awards, and my reading articles about its construction definitely influenced my decision to become a civil engineer.

That said, building I-70 through the canyon as opposed to a new terrain route higher up the ridgelines caused some of the present difficulties. The Grizzly Creek fire was directly caused by sparks from a vehicle traveling on I-70. Its design also makes it susceptible to the mudslides. The newer westbound lanes, somewhat cantilevered from the cliff, have more viaducts and are doing a little better than the eastbound lanes that are lower and collect nearly all the debris.

I assert to fix this that CDOT will have to construct additional bridges along the corridor over the slide-prone areas to minimize these disruptions. Also, CDOT needs to take over the northerly Cottonwood Pass at Gypsum, pave it, and have it as an alternate state highway for these closure periods. Consistent 200-mile detours are untenable for the state and federal highway system.

Depends. When it comes to cross-country truck traffic, I-80 to I-15 is a perfectly acceptable detour whenever Glenwood Canyon has mudslide issues. Also, I-25 to I-40 can be a good truck traffic detour as well.
Title: Re: Colorado
Post by: zzcarp on August 01, 2021, 06:39:58 PM
Adequate detours or not, prepare for an extended closure.

?s=21
Title: Re: Colorado
Post by: Plutonic Panda on August 02, 2021, 01:23:13 AM
Wow

https://www.ttnews.com/articles/mudslides-close-46-miles-i-70-colorado?utm_source=twitter&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=News-Story-August-2021
Title: Re: Colorado
Post by: zachary_amaryllis on August 02, 2021, 07:39:34 AM
they are going to have to do a major rehab on that road. we went through there in may, and it was beat to all hell already, before all of this.
Title: Re: Colorado
Post by: zzcarp on August 02, 2021, 02:40:07 PM
To add some time and turns to the southern detour, US 285 is closing between Fairplay and Buena Vista for 3 months today (https://denver.cbslocal.com/2021/08/02/highway-285-closure-fairplay/?utm_campaign=true_anthem&utm_medium=facebook&utm_source=social).

Quote
According to CDOT there will be a full closure of Highway 285 south of Fairplay starting Aug. 2 and it will last for three months. Crews will be replacing a bridge over the South Fork of the South Platte River. A detour will take you around the closure using Highways 9 and 24, but you will encounter some additional construction crews and shoulder or lane closures that are related to the project, including one on Highway 9 at milepost 63.
Title: Re: Colorado
Post by: Kniwt on August 02, 2021, 03:29:13 PM
The Grand Junction Sentinel has a lengthy report on the efforts to improve Cottonwood Pass as much as possible to perhaps make it a viable detour for light vehicles for at least part of the year:
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

Quote
It’s not paved, it’s not open year-round, it’s no place to drive a semi, and its use is discouraged by the Colorado Department of Transportation as a detour route when Interstate 70 through Glenwood Canyon is closed.

But the Cottonwood Pass Road southeast of Glenwood Springs is proving popular and useful nonetheless for some motorists trying to get between that city and points east during increasingly common I-70 closures, and Eagle and Garfield counties are looking at ways to improve its functionality.

Officials in the two counties have renewed discussions about possible upgrades to the road to improve its viability for use by motorists when I-70 through the canyon shuts down.

(https://bloximages.newyork1.vip.townnews.com/gjsentinel.com/content/tncms/assets/v3/editorial/3/85/3855bee6-f157-11eb-abac-c3c66528a098/61042f96457b8.preview.jpg)
Title: Re: Colorado
Post by: kwellada on August 02, 2021, 05:53:25 PM
Wow

https://www.ttnews.com/articles/mudslides-close-46-miles-i-70-colorado?utm_source=twitter&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=News-Story-August-2021

I haven't lived in Colorado for over 15 years and used to take I-70 regularly. NOTHING back then comes close to what is going on right now. I'm pretty stunned at those images!
Title: Re: Colorado
Post by: Great Lakes Roads on August 02, 2021, 05:58:58 PM

Here are some drone shots from CDOT... It looks pretty bad!
Title: Re: Colorado
Post by: US 89 on August 02, 2021, 06:48:48 PM
To add some time and turns to the southern detour, US 285 is closing between Fairplay and Buena Vista for 3 months today (https://denver.cbslocal.com/2021/08/02/highway-285-closure-fairplay/?utm_campaign=true_anthem&utm_medium=facebook&utm_source=social).

Quote
According to CDOT there will be a full closure of Highway 285 south of Fairplay starting Aug. 2 and it will last for three months. Crews will be replacing a bridge over the South Fork of the South Platte River. A detour will take you around the closure using Highways 9 and 24, but you will encounter some additional construction crews and shoulder or lane closures that are related to the project, including one on Highway 9 at milepost 63.

That closure has been postponed indefinitely thanks to I-70. Article has been updated to reflect this.

And at any rate, even when it happens only the part between Fairplay and Antero Junction will be affected - you'll still be able to take 24/285 between Buena Vista and Antero Jct, and the SH 9/US 24 detour via Hartsel is only 7 miles longer than 285 would be.
Title: Re: Colorado
Post by: epzik8 on August 02, 2021, 07:04:17 PM
My dad just texted me about the Glenwood Canyon situation. Both of us, along with each of my brothers, have clinched I-70.
Title: Re: Colorado
Post by: thenetwork on August 02, 2021, 11:14:44 PM
The latest news is not good:  Glenwood Canyon could be closed for weeks...or months.  And crew's can only do so much while rain (and associated risks) is in the forecast.

This site shows drone footage:  https://kdvr.com/news/local/gov-polis-update-on-i-70-damage-through-glenwood-canyon/

Title: Re: Colorado
Post by: JayhawkCO on August 02, 2021, 11:49:58 PM
Just drove back from Grand Junction today (detouring on the northern route) and while I was on I-70 just past the tunnel, the road was closed due to another rock slide.  Had to sit and wait in the driving rain for 20 minutes before I got to continue hydroplaning down the hill.  Good times.

Chris
Title: Re: Colorado
Post by: thenetwork on August 02, 2021, 11:55:41 PM
Just drove back from Grand Junction today (detouring on the northern route) and while I was on I-70 just past the tunnel, the road was closed due to another rock slide.  Had to sit and wait in the driving rain for 20 minutes before I got to continue hydroplaning down the hill.  Good times.

Chris


My work took me up CO-139 to Rangely today.  From there I took Rio Blanco CR-1 to US-40 at Blue Mountain, then east to Steamboat. 

If you are coming in from Utah. CO-139 and US-40 west of Craig/CO-13 is a wonderful alternative to taking CO-13 north from Rifle -- very little traffic. 

Craig to Steamboat was noticeably busier (as this is part of the official I-70 detour), and driving through Steamboat was a royal pain.

I had to go to Eagle, so I took CO‐131.  Not much traffic going south, but there was a lot more traffic going north -- likely a lot of travelers (and semis) who thought "maybe* I-70 would re-open by the time they got to CO-131.

Tomorrow, I go east to Vail, then south to Leadville.  From there, I'll continue south until I can head west to an open route connecting me to either US-50 or i-70 back to Grand Junction.
Title: Re: Colorado
Post by: JayhawkCO on August 03, 2021, 12:00:27 AM
Just drove back from Grand Junction today (detouring on the northern route) and while I was on I-70 just past the tunnel, the road was closed due to another rock slide.  Had to sit and wait in the driving rain for 20 minutes before I got to continue hydroplaning down the hill.  Good times.

Chris


My work took me up CO-139 to Rangely today.  From there I took Rio Blanco CR-1 to US-40 at Blue Mountain, then east to Steamboat. 

CO-139 and US-40 west of Craig/CO-13 is a wonderful alternative to taking CO-13 noeth from RIFLE

I wanted to do that, but my family wanted to stop in Palisade and when I mapped the two routes, CO139 was 40 minutes longer.  If it weren't so rainy, I was tempted to cut across the Flat Top Wilderness east of Meeker.

Chris
Title: Re: Colorado
Post by: Rover_0 on August 05, 2021, 05:33:02 PM
Honestly, I’m kind of surprised that US-285 and US-50 aren’t used more for I-70 detours between Denver and points further west. It seems to be a little more direct and less windy than CO-9, US-40, and CO-13.
Title: Re: Colorado
Post by: JayhawkCO on August 05, 2021, 05:46:57 PM
Honestly, I’m kind of surprised that US-285 and US-50 aren’t used more for I-70 detours between Denver and points further west. It seems to be a little more direct and less windy than CO-9, US-40, and CO-13.

Originally, on weekdays between 8:30 and 5:30, they had US50 closed between Montrose and Sapinero-ish.  They postponed that construction with the canyon being shut down.

Chris
Title: Re: Colorado
Post by: US 89 on August 05, 2021, 06:52:15 PM
Honestly, I’m kind of surprised that US-285 and US-50 aren’t used more for I-70 detours between Denver and points further west. It seems to be a little more direct and less windy than CO-9, US-40, and CO-13.

Originally, on weekdays between 8:30 and 5:30, they had US50 closed between Montrose and Sapinero-ish.  They postponed that construction with the canyon being shut down.

Chris

And the detour for that closure was SH 92 - which, although very scenic, is just about the exact opposite of fast...
Title: Re: Colorado
Post by: thenetwork on August 05, 2021, 08:15:49 PM
After traveling between Gunnison and Grand Junctiion today, there is a significant rise in I-70 Detour traffic now that US-50 is fully open through that major construction zone east of Montrose.

There was noticeable work already performed in the narrow canyon, with some cliff walls beginning to be eliminated.  Fortunately, the road surface was not yet torn out, but it is rough because the pavement is old.

There is minor single lane traffic on a stretch between Grand Junction and Delta, but the traffic moves at 55+.  CDOT just switched all traffic to the eastbound lanes today.

My only pet peeve is that despite CDOT letting people know that US-50 is now fully open between Montrose and Gunnison on the overhead VMS signs, there are still visible roadside orange signs and portable VMS signs still saying the road is still closed at certain times.  They need to get on the ball and cover/turn off those conflicting signs.
Title: Re: Colorado
Post by: Rover_0 on August 05, 2021, 08:17:04 PM
Honestly, I’m kind of surprised that US-285 and US-50 aren’t used more for I-70 detours between Denver and points further west. It seems to be a little more direct and less windy than CO-9, US-40, and CO-13.

Originally, on weekdays between 8:30 and 5:30, they had US50 closed between Montrose and Sapinero-ish.  They postponed that construction with the canyon being shut down.

Chris

Honestly, I’m kind of surprised that US-285 and US-50 aren’t used more for I-70 detours between Denver and points further west. It seems to be a little more direct and less windy than CO-9, US-40, and CO-13.

Originally, on weekdays between 8:30 and 5:30, they had US50 closed between Montrose and Sapinero-ish.  They postponed that construction with the canyon being shut down.

Chris

And the detour for that closure was SH 92 - which, although very scenic, is just about the exact opposite of fast...

Oh yea, I forgot about the road work on US-50.
Title: Re: Colorado
Post by: Plutonic Panda on August 09, 2021, 03:45:07 PM
The latest news is not good:  Glenwood Canyon could be closed for weeks...or months.  And crew's can only do so much while rain (and associated risks) is in the forecast.

This site shows drone footage:  https://kdvr.com/news/local/gov-polis-update-on-i-70-damage-through-glenwood-canyon/
Workers are clearing the debris

https://www.denverpost.com/2021/08/06/glenwood-canyon-mudslides-i-70-cdot-photos/
Title: Re: Colorado
Post by: andy3175 on August 10, 2021, 11:55:21 PM
Federal funding is coming to help with the clean up.

https://www.thedenverchannel.com/news/local-news/usdot-approves-quick-disbursement-of-11-6m-for-glenwood-canyon-repairs-as-cdot-work-continues

Quote
Colorado’s request for a quick disbursement of $11.6 million in federal emergency relief funding was granted Tuesday by the Federal Highway Administration so work can continue to try to reopen I-70 through Glenwood Canyon as soon as possible. ...

The U.S. Department of Transportation said in a news release the $11.6 million would be used to reimburse the Colorado Department of Transportation for work it is doing to reopen Interstate 70 after clearing debris and assessing damage. They will also be used for the extra safety and patrols on the detours.
The USDOT and FHWA said additional funds the state requested this weekend “may be available later to continue repairs to I-70.” ...

The state officials said the federal funding would be critical to not only reopening one of Colorado’s most critical roadways and fixing the damage done by more than a dozen mudslides over the past six weeks, but also toward geohazard mitigation and a future resiliency and redundancy study for alternate routes, like Cottonwood Pass.

CDOT said while the current estimate was $116 million, it would provide a better assessment within 8-10 weeks. And those estimates could easily change if more mudslides occur. ...

CDOT said Tuesday afternoon that good weather has continued to help them in those efforts after hundreds of truckloads of material were hauled away from the canyon over the weekend.

Another 195 truckloads of debris were hauled away from the canyon on Monday as crews dug out culverts on the eastern side of the Canyon and continued to clear mud and other debris from the Blue Gulch area.

CDOT said they were able to dig down to three four-foot culverts that they are working on clearing out Tuesday, with the hopes to clear all the slides from Hanging Lake Tunnel to Bair Ranch on the eastbound side.

On the westbound side, crews are working Tuesday on uncovering a box culvert and building a pad where they will place 60 “super sacks” filled with sand on the north side of the road to help prevent future mudslides from bringing debris down again.

CDOT also said that its engineers believe one lane of westbound I-70 could reopen after material is cleared and more barriers and safety barriers are installed after reviewing the interstate’s infrastructure.

"This confirmation will help expedite the temporary westbound I-70 reopening timeline," CDOT said in the release.

Engineers said one lane of eastbound would be able to reopen once crews can reconstruct 100 feet of embankment and repave. Engineers will be doing additional inspections Tuesday at Blue Gulch, CDOT said. ...

Eagle and Garfield county commissioners discussed the future of Cottonwood Pass in meetings Tuesday, looking at six areas that could widen the road and make it safer, which would cost $10-15 million and could lead to closures at Blue Hill if that project is taken on, though officials still believe it could not be a permanent alternative to the interstate.

“We’ve heard nothing but good news so far today,” said Eagle County Commissioner Jeanne McQueeney. “CDOT’s statement that it will be days, not weeks, until I-70 could be reopened is amazing to hear. Clearly, reopening the highway would provide the most relief to this situation.”






SM-G975U

Title: Re: Colorado
Post by: andy3175 on August 13, 2021, 09:47:05 PM
Some recent developments on I-70 Glenwood Canyon:

https://kdvr.com/news/local/cdot-placing-car-sized-sandbags-to-protect-i-70-through-glenwood-canyon/amp/

https://www.cpr.org/2021/08/12/your-guide-to-the-i-70-shutdown-when-its-reopening-how-much-repairs-will-cost-and-why-it-keeps-happening/

https://www.cpr.org/2021/08/06/i-70s-extended-closure-at-glenwood-canyon-has-cdot-counties-eyeing-upgrades-to-a-nearby-alternative/

https://www.thedenverchannel.com/news/local-news/did-cdot-lie-internal-cdot-emails-show-why-employees-decided-to-misinform-drivers

Title: Re: Colorado
Post by: Rover_0 on August 13, 2021, 10:30:49 PM
On that last article: Classic Aspen NIMBYism?
Title: Re: Colorado
Post by: andy3175 on August 14, 2021, 10:57:39 AM
Interstate 70 reopened through the canyon this morning ...

https://www.9news.com/amp/article/weather/weather-colorado/cdot-i-70-re-opening-update-friday-afternoon/73-4bec34fc-b583-46b3-9140-2e5d451d22c5

Quote
One lane of Interstate 70 reopened each direction through Glenwood Canyon on Saturday morning, after nearly two weeks of cleanup due to mudslides.

The Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT) gave that update on Twitter, saying the lanes reopened about 7 a.m. between Exit 116 in Glenwood Springs and Exit 133 in Dotsero.



SM-G975U

Title: Re: Colorado
Post by: stevashe on August 15, 2021, 04:18:23 PM
On that last article: Classic Aspen NIMBYism?

Sounds like it was just not wanting large backups on Independence Pass, reading the article. It was an internal CDOT decision, not a result of outside pressure from any community.
Title: Re: Colorado
Post by: TheHighwayMan394 on August 15, 2021, 04:44:06 PM
On that last article: Classic Aspen NIMBYism?

Sounds like it was just not wanting large backups on Independence Pass, reading the article. It was an internal CDOT decision, not a result of outside pressure from any community.

It's more than that. Independence Pass is not suitable for trucks/trailers and would likely have created some potentially disastrous situations if that wasn't headed off quickly, as happened during the 2020 Glenwood Canyon closure.

https://www.summitdaily.com/news/glenwood-canyon-closure-has-truckers-trying-independence-pass-which-is-not-allowed-for-semis/
Title: Re: Colorado
Post by: stevashe on August 15, 2021, 11:45:04 PM
On that last article: Classic Aspen NIMBYism?

Sounds like it was just not wanting large backups on Independence Pass, reading the article. It was an internal CDOT decision, not a result of outside pressure from any community.

It's more than that. Independence Pass is not suitable for trucks/trailers and would likely have created some potentially disastrous situations if that wasn't headed off quickly, as happened during the 2020 Glenwood Canyon closure.

https://www.summitdaily.com/news/glenwood-canyon-closure-has-truckers-trying-independence-pass-which-is-not-allowed-for-semis/

If that was the real concern then they should have just said so, and possibly set up a checkpoint to turn back trucks and trailers, not lied about the road being closed completely :P
Title: Re: Colorado
Post by: andy3175 on August 18, 2021, 07:39:19 PM
Updates... the route though Glenwood Canyon was closed for a portion of today due to a Flash Flood Warning:

https://www.9news.com/amp/article/weather/weather-colorado/i-70-at-glenwood-canyon-closed-due-to-flash-flooding/73-33d21574-ab68-4af5-91e1-a62b8ffe1b4e

Quote
  A Flash Flood Warning on Wednesday afternoon forced the automatic closure of Interstate 70 at Glenwood Canyon.

A slow-moving storm moved right through the flood-prone canyon on Wednesday, prompting yet another closure of the burn scar-affected stretch of highway. The National Weather Service issued the Warning for the area until 7:15 p.m. on Wednesday.

More storms could impact the area over tonight into Thursday thanks to a strong storm system moving through western Colorado. More rain is likely in Glenwood Canyon, meaning this could be an extended closure.

The Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT) automatically closes the flood-prone stretch of highway anytime a Flash Flood Warning is issued by the National Weather Service. 

The Grizzly Creek burn scar is located right near the highway, and burn scars are especially vulnerable to flash flooding due to the lack of vegetation to absorb moisture. As a result, flood-driven mudslides are common near or even over the interstate.




And this article looks back at the most controversial sections of Interstate 70 - Sawnsea/Elyria and Glenwood Canyon.

https://www.westword.com/news/glenwood-canyon-interstate-70-construction-colorado-globeville-denver-12135326

Quote
Business dictated the location of many of Denver’s early transportation routes, including railroad lines. By 1880, dozens of railroad routes passed through Denver.

The railyards servicing those routes also attracted industry. Smelters were built along the lines in the communities of Globeville, Elyria and Swansea, small towns north of Denver that were later incorporated into the city. Globeville, which was established in 1889, became part of Denver in 1902, and the others soon followed.

“Globeville, of course, is named for the Globe Smelter, which was one of the largest smelters here,” explains Denver historian Tom Noel. “And so they moved down there along the Platte River, along the railroad tracks. There’s not much there but cheap worker housing. There was also the Swansea smelter, which gives its name to that neighborhood.”

Immigrants from Europe worked in the smelters. The Scandinavians were first, “then it switches to Poles, Slovaks, Eastern Europeans, Lithuanians, Latvians, Slavs, Slovenians,” Noel notes, adding that the smelter managers “liked to get a mix of groups so they couldn’t organize as easily, unionize as easily.”

In the 1940s, Denver officials and state highway planners started to mull the idea of establishing a major thoroughfare along 46th and 48th avenues. Back then, that strip of north Denver had the city’s worst traffic, and planners held a “belief that to be effective, highways must be placed where traffic was at its worst,” researcher Dianna Litvak wrote in her 2007 master’s thesis in history for the University of Colorado Denver, titled “Freeway Fighters in Denver, 1948-1975.”

By 1948, the route that would become I-25 was already cutting through the western portion of Globeville, and having a road head east from there made sense to planners, particularly since there was no strong political constituency in the area to argue otherwise.

In the late 1950s, federal highway planners added asphalt to injury when they suggested putting I-70 through this northern section of Denver, home to poor, working-class communities descended from immigrants. Local and state officials got to choose exactly where it would cut through the area.

“It was definitely built through a historically smelter community, so working-class people didn’t have the resources to complain or fight it,” says Lisa Schoch, a senior staff historian at CDOT.

“There was some protest from people, especially in Elyria-Swansea,” says William Philpott, a University of Denver history professor. “There was a citizens’ group there, and they tried to express concern that running this interstate through their neighborhood would turn it into a slum. They were especially concerned about this proposal to elevate the highway, elevate the freeway above street level. They felt that it would cut those neighborhoods north from the rest of the city.”

But despite opposition, plans went forward to have I-70 bisect the communities of Globeville, Elyria and Swansea, obliterating blocks of small houses and shops. “It seemed like there was no serious consideration of rooting that freeway anywhere else except for 46th,” Philpott says.

Possible alternatives, such as establishing I-70 farther north along 52nd and 54th avenues west of I-25 were scrapped because of higher estimated costs and the fact that a northern route would require even more displacement of residents. “This was a time when highway planners had tremendous power to dictate where highways would go,” Philpott explains.

A stretch of interstate through Denver completed in 1964 is now going underground.

In fact, what happened in Denver was occurring in urban areas across the country. “I-70 in Globeville really is a continuation of many such examples of neighborhoods with the least voice ending up being cut in half by the interstate,” says Paul Chinowsky, professor and director of the Environmental Design Program at the University of Colorado Boulder’s College of Engineering and Applied Science. “You see in cities across the country that it’s primarily the underrepresented areas, the poorer socio-economic areas, that ended up having the interstate go right through their neighborhood.”

The I-70 viaduct that spanned from Colorado Boulevard to I-25 opened in 1964.

By then, many of the descendants of the immigrants who’d worked in the smelters had left the area, which was becoming more heavily Hispanic. The newcomers to Globeville and the neighborhood that is now known as Elyria-Swansea inherited the legacy of those manufacturing days: The area is one of the most heavily polluted in the U.S.

While much of that contamination was remediated after the feds declared the area around Globeville a Superfund site, the highway didn’t move. In fact, after years of debate over how to expand I-70 in Denver — and whether to move it out of the city altogether — CDOT doubled down and decided to expand it along the original footprint but put a significant section underground.

Residents and activists pushed for government officials to “ditch the ditch” and move this section of I-70 so that the neighborhoods of Globeville and Elyria-Swansea could be reunited without having to suffer further adverse health impacts from increased traffic, dust, noise and various other construction impacts. Some local officials joined the fight, but they didn’t get very far.

“Unfortunately, those decisions that were made back in the 1950s are really difficult to undo,” says Chinowsky. “And it’s extremely costly when you try and undo that.”


In 2017, CDOT signed off on final approval to reconstruct part of I-70 in Denver, in what’s known as the Central 70 project.

In the meantime, construction was already beginning all around I-70 closer to I-25, where a massive expansion of the National Western Complex had gotten under way. Although neighbors had been brought into the planning process, they complained then — and complain today — that they will see few benefits from the $1 billion project.

As part of the Central 70 project, CDOT opted to remove much of the viaduct and lower I-70 between Brighton and Colorado boulevards while expanding the highway as it runs through Denver. The Central 70 project broke ground in 2018, and CDOT expects traffic to start flowing permanently through the new sections by late 2022. A park will be installed over the underground portion of the highway after that.

But while the park will at least partially reconnect the old neighborhoods, many residents don’t consider it much of a consolation prize. “It’s really the same old,” says Denver City Councilwoman Candi CdeBaca, a native of Swansea who represents the affected areas. “They kept the park just shy of the square footage that would have required ventilation. It wasn’t really ever about the neighborhood.

“The park is not some place I would want to send my kids to play, given what the pollution is going to be like — just given the size of the highway and the already polluted air in that area,” she adds.

Quote
Farther west along I-70, the problem is less about what I-70 does to its surroundings than what its surroundings could do to the interstate.

As railroads were being built across Denver, in the late 1880s the Denver and Rio Grande Railroad established a route through Glenwood Canyon, which had been carved out of the mountains eons before by the Colorado River.

“Here, the Colorado River has worked its way down through 1.4 billion years of limestone, dolomite, quartzite, granite, gneiss, and shale, cutting a narrow, winding gorge where multicolored cliffs and promontories rise high above the roaring waters,” Philpott wrote in his 2013 book Vacationland: Tourism and Environment in the Colorado High Country.

In 1902, fifteen years after the first train ran through the canyon into Glenwood Springs, construction wrapped up on the Taylor State Road, which also wound through Glenwood Canyon. At the time, the “threat of floods, rock slides, and snow earned Glenwood Canyon the reputation as one of the most dangerous routes for travelers in Colorado,” noted a historic analysis prepared by architectural and engineering firm Mead & Hunt for CDOT in 2019.

Thanks to a push from state officials, improvements were made to the Taylor State Road along Glenwood Canyon in the mid-1910s.

In the 1930s, Congressman Edward Taylor of Colorado argued in Congress for further improvements. In 1936, Taylor State Road became part of U.S. 24, an early highway that crossed much of the country, and two years later, Works Progress Administration employees, hired through the New Deal, blasted away more canyon walls and widened the highway. When it reopened in 1938, it was a joint segment of U.S. 24 and U.S. 6.

But although the Eisenhower administration envisioned connecting the entire country with the interstate highway system, I-70 was originally designed to stop in Denver.

"There was a long history of the main transcontinental routes not going through Colorado."
tweet this 

“There was a long history of the main transcontinental routes not going through Colorado,” says Philpott. The first transcontinental railroad skipped Colorado, instead going through Cheyenne and crossing the Continental Divide at a lower altitude; Denver boosters paid to get a spur line into the city. And the Lincoln Highway, which is now I-80, also skipped Colorado for Wyoming.

If I-70 had stopped in Denver, Colorado wouldn’t have become a major thoroughfare for travelers, and its capital might not have become a popular tourist attraction.

But Colorado officials weren’t willing to let their state be bypassed this time around.

Following intense lobbying by these officials that included a promise that Colorado engineers could create an all-weather route by building what later became known as the Eisenhower Tunnel, the feds acquiesced. In 1957, the Bureau of Public Roads gave the green light for an additional 500-plus miles of I-70 between Denver and Utah.

But there was more rough road ahead. Highway planners were looking at building I-70 through Glenwood Canyon, following parts of the existing highway system. But that decision led to intense battles between engineers and environmentalists.

In 1970, President Richard Nixon signed the National Environmental Policy Act into law, which required federal planners to conduct environmental reviews that included public and stakeholder input. By now, construction of I-70 was well under way and even finished in some stretches, but not the Glenwood Canyon area. Under NEPA, planners now needed to take human and natural elements into consideration.

In the early 1970s, highway planners weighed multiple options for the section of I-70 that had yet to be built in Eagle and Garfield counties. One was Glenwood Canyon. Another was building the highway through the Flat Tops Wilderness Area north of Glenwood Canyon, which would hit an elevation of over 10,000 feet and cross through a sensitive wilderness area, according to the Mead & Hunt analysis. Third on the list was following Cottonwood Pass southeast of Glenwood Springs, which would have required a 6 percent grade for over eight miles and also would have added 9.4 miles to the route.

Glenwood Canyon won out as the best option. “It was the most direct route, and highway planners love directness,” says Philpott.
Title: Re: Colorado
Post by: jakeroot on August 26, 2021, 01:07:23 AM
Question about E-470:

I notice that most of the on and off ramp diamond interchanges have very long ramps. Much longer than most diamond interchanges. I've long been curious as to why.

The quick and easy explanation is that these ramps have toll collection facilities, which as far as I know have always been of the ETC-type (physical toll booths were always on the mainlines, not ramps -- I could very much be wrong there). But I don't see why the ramps need to be that long in order to facilitate tolling operations. Most of the ramp is just the ramp itself, and the tolling equipment is a small fraction of the overall length. If the section of the ramp with the toll collection facility has to be arrow straight, I can understand how that may increase the ramp lengths slightly. But from what I can see, the ramps still seem much longer than usual.

I suppose the other explanation is just that they wanted to make them long, to facilitate easier acceleration and deceleration.

Anyone else have any ideas?

Examples of what I'm talking about:

https://www.google.com/maps/@39.9840097,-105.018291,1481m/data=!3m1!1e3
https://www.google.com/maps/@39.9739582,-104.9371292,1245m/data=!3m1!1e3
https://www.google.com/maps/@39.813521,-104.7225466,1050m/data=!3m1!1e3
Title: Re: Colorado
Post by: i-215 on August 26, 2021, 06:52:58 AM
Most of the ramp is just the ramp itself, and the tolling equipment is a small fraction of the overall length. If the section of the ramp with the toll collection facility has to be arrow straight, I can understand how that may increase the ramp lengths slightly. But from what I can see, the ramps still seem much longer than usual.

I hadn't considered the toll road as part of the explanation.  But perhaps it was to accommodate the possibility of full-stop toll booths plus a healthy queue line.

Perhaps ETC was still relatively new in the 90s/00s when E470 was built, so maybe there was a fear Colorado might have to "go back" to the old form of toll collection.
Title: Re: Colorado
Post by: JayhawkCO on August 26, 2021, 09:53:33 AM
Most of the ramp is just the ramp itself, and the tolling equipment is a small fraction of the overall length. If the section of the ramp with the toll collection facility has to be arrow straight, I can understand how that may increase the ramp lengths slightly. But from what I can see, the ramps still seem much longer than usual.

I hadn't considered the toll road as part of the explanation.  But perhaps it was to accommodate the possibility of full-stop toll booths plus a healthy queue line.

Perhaps ETC was still relatively new in the 90s/00s when E470 was built, so maybe there was a fear Colorado might have to "go back" to the old form of toll collection.

I think that's a fairly good guess.  When it was only open from I-25 to Parker Road in Parker, it was the first ETC in the country.  Maybe they weren't sure how well it would work.  I remember driving it back then and you'd maybe see 5-10 cars on the whole stretch.  It's still not busy now, but definitely getting busier.  Projections show that my town, Aurora, could double its population in the next 20 years because of housing developments along the highway.

Chris
Title: Re: Colorado
Post by: US 89 on August 26, 2021, 10:32:00 AM
Most of the ramp is just the ramp itself, and the tolling equipment is a small fraction of the overall length. If the section of the ramp with the toll collection facility has to be arrow straight, I can understand how that may increase the ramp lengths slightly. But from what I can see, the ramps still seem much longer than usual.

I hadn't considered the toll road as part of the explanation.  But perhaps it was to accommodate the possibility of full-stop toll booths plus a healthy queue line.

Perhaps ETC was still relatively new in the 90s/00s when E470 was built, so maybe there was a fear Colorado might have to "go back" to the old form of toll collection.

E-470 did in fact have cash toll collection once upon a time - with Oklahoma-style change baskets, even. Per this WSJ article (https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB124658505980890241) it was only converted to AET with license plate tolls in 2009.
Title: Re: Colorado
Post by: thenetwork on August 26, 2021, 10:55:12 AM
Another theory:  Way back when the idea of an Eastern bypass/beltway around Denver was first imagined, I believe they wanted the road to have speed limits posted around 80 MPH from day one (I want to say that's partly why they wanted this as a toll road -- they thought a private road could skirt the then-55 MPH limits).

Longer on/off ramps may have been built to safely support the higher speed limit potentials.
Title: Re: Colorado
Post by: jakeroot on August 26, 2021, 11:19:38 AM
Most of the ramp is just the ramp itself, and the tolling equipment is a small fraction of the overall length. If the section of the ramp with the toll collection facility has to be arrow straight, I can understand how that may increase the ramp lengths slightly. But from what I can see, the ramps still seem much longer than usual.

I hadn't considered the toll road as part of the explanation.  But perhaps it was to accommodate the possibility of full-stop toll booths plus a healthy queue line.

Perhaps ETC was still relatively new in the 90s/00s when E470 was built, so maybe there was a fear Colorado might have to "go back" to the old form of toll collection.

E-470 did in fact have cash toll collection once upon a time - with Oklahoma-style change baskets, even. Per this WSJ article (https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB124658505980890241) it was only converted to AET with license plate tolls in 2009.

In doing my initial research, it seemed that cash was only accepted at the mainline booths (such as here (https://goo.gl/maps/JVx28W7q3DK9w8c38) or here (https://goo.gl/maps/Bs4TAf1Zczs2rKbe9)). I had originally thought the ramps were really long to keep traffic stopped on the ramps and not E-470 or any side-streets, but the ramps were, and always have been, ETC (i-215 and jayhawkco confirm this). So I did mention that in my original post as part of my confusion (ETC does not require stopping so there is no back-up concern).

The idea that toll booths could eventually be implemented seems plausible. But even then, these ramps are much longer than even those on and off ramps that do collect cash tolls elsewhere (Orlando area comes to mind).

Another theory:  Way back when the idea of an Eastern bypass/beltway around Denver was first imagined, I believe they wanted the road to have speed limits posted around 80 MPH from day one (I want to say that's partly why they wanted this as a toll road -- they thought a private road could skirt the then-55 MPH limits).

Longer on/off ramps may have been built to safely support the higher speed limit potentials.

I like this theory too. Has 80 ever come up as an option? I know it's 75 now.
Title: Re: Colorado
Post by: Elm on August 26, 2021, 12:01:53 PM
Most of the ramp is just the ramp itself, and the tolling equipment is a small fraction of the overall length. If the section of the ramp with the toll collection facility has to be arrow straight, I can understand how that may increase the ramp lengths slightly. But from what I can see, the ramps still seem much longer than usual.

I hadn't considered the toll road as part of the explanation.  But perhaps it was to accommodate the possibility of full-stop toll booths plus a healthy queue line.

Perhaps ETC was still relatively new in the 90s/00s when E470 was built, so maybe there was a fear Colorado might have to "go back" to the old form of toll collection.

E-470 did in fact have cash toll collection once upon a time - with Oklahoma-style change baskets, even. Per this WSJ article (https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB124658505980890241) it was only converted to AET with license plate tolls in 2009.

In doing my initial research, it seemed that cash was only accepted at the mainline booths (such as here (https://goo.gl/maps/JVx28W7q3DK9w8c38) or here (https://goo.gl/maps/Bs4TAf1Zczs2rKbe9)). I had originally thought the ramps were really long to keep traffic stopped on the ramps and not E-470 or any side-streets, but the ramps were, and always have been, ETC (i-215 and jayhawkco confirm this). So I did mention that in my original post as part of my confusion (ETC does not require stopping so there is no back-up concern).

The idea that toll booths could eventually be implemented seems plausible. But even then, these ramps are much longer than even those on and off ramps that do collect cash tolls elsewhere (Orlando area comes to mind).
I don't have personal experience with these because of when/how I've used E-470, but it looks like there could've been unstaffed toll booths at the tolled ramps. Here's a photo from the old Colorado Highways site's E-470 photos page (https://www.mesalek.com/colo/picts/pgnon.html) suggesting a cash toll at 104th Ave:
(https://www.mesalek.com/colo/picts/e470rampbooth.jpg)

Attempting a StreetView link for 2009 at the southbound/westbound Chambers Road offramp, here (https://www.google.com/maps/@?api=1&map_action=pano&viewpoint=39.55213088173571,-104.805309528167&pitch=-8.009337408584685&pano=6FdlfUO2SABe9deR1FW8cw&yaw=314.4327861333448), you can see a similar sign, and it looks like there's a collection basket on the booth.

(Don't know if an 80mph speed limit has come up, but for whatever it might suggest about the road's historical design speed, they posted advisory limits of 70 in some places when they raised the limit to 75, going by this article (https://www.denverpost.com/2011/06/09/e-470-speed-limit-raised-to-75-mph/).)
Title: Re: Colorado
Post by: US 89 on August 26, 2021, 12:09:02 PM
Attempting a StreetView link for 2009 at the southbound/westbound Chambers Road offramp, here (https://www.google.com/maps/@?api=1&map_action=pano&viewpoint=39.55213088173571,-104.805309528167&pitch=-8.009337408584685&pano=6FdlfUO2SABe9deR1FW8cw&yaw=314.4327861333448), you can see a similar sign, and it looks like there's a collection basket on the booth.

Looking at that booth even now, you can see where the coin basket used to be:

https://goo.gl/maps/5eKHbQcHKQ5oPHJ48
Title: Re: Colorado
Post by: jakeroot on August 26, 2021, 06:43:37 PM
Great observations. It does seem that these toll booths were placed along the entire E-470, with the exception of the uncharacteristic partial cloverleaf in Parker.

The unmanned booths certainly makes things more interesting. It seems that perhaps some were just a single lane? That seems rather annoying for those who chose to use ETC. Perhaps that is indeed why the ramps are so long. Still not totally sold on it but it's a better explanation than "they felt like making the ramps long".
Title: Re: Colorado
Post by: thenetwork on August 26, 2021, 06:54:52 PM
Most of the ramp is just the ramp itself, and the tolling equipment is a small fraction of the overall length. If the section of the ramp with the toll collection facility has to be arrow straight, I can understand how that may increase the ramp lengths slightly. But from what I can see, the ramps still seem much longer than usual.

I hadn't considered the toll road as part of the explanation.  But perhaps it was to accommodate the possibility of full-stop toll booths plus a healthy queue line.

Perhaps ETC was still relatively new in the 90s/00s when E470 was built, so maybe there was a fear Colorado might have to "go back" to the old form of toll collection.

E-470 did in fact have cash toll collection once upon a time - with Oklahoma-style change baskets, even. Per this WSJ article (https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB124658505980890241) it was only converted to AET with license plate tolls in 2009.

In doing my initial research, it seemed that cash was only accepted at the mainline booths (such as here (https://goo.gl/maps/JVx28W7q3DK9w8c38) or here (https://goo.gl/maps/Bs4TAf1Zczs2rKbe9)). I had originally thought the ramps were really long to keep traffic stopped on the ramps and not E-470 or any side-streets, but the ramps were, and always have been, ETC (i-215 and jayhawkco confirm this). So I did mention that in my original post as part of my confusion (ETC does not require stopping so there is no back-up concern).

The idea that toll booths could eventually be implemented seems plausible. But even then, these ramps are much longer than even those on and off ramps that do collect cash tolls elsewhere (Orlando area comes to mind).

Another theory:  Way back when the idea of an Eastern bypass/beltway around Denver was first imagined, I believe they wanted the road to have speed limits posted around 80 MPH from day one (I want to say that's partly why they wanted this as a toll road -- they thought a private road could skirt the then-55 MPH limits).

Longer on/off ramps may have been built to safely support the higher speed limit potentials.

I like this theory too. Has 80 ever come up as an option? I know it's 75 now.

Again, long long ago in the days of maximum 55 MPH speeds, I read a news article at the time saying some private entity was planning to build a limited access highway where people could go 80+ MPH.  I did take a college course in highways/highway designs in the mid-80s, that may be why I remember the article so well -- we might have discussed it in class.
Title: Re: Colorado
Post by: jakeroot on August 26, 2021, 07:00:01 PM
Another theory:  Way back when the idea of an Eastern bypass/beltway around Denver was first imagined, I believe they wanted the road to have speed limits posted around 80 MPH from day one (I want to say that's partly why they wanted this as a toll road -- they thought a private road could skirt the then-55 MPH limits).

Longer on/off ramps may have been built to safely support the higher speed limit potentials.

I like this theory too. Has 80 ever come up as an option? I know it's 75 now.

Again, long long ago in the days of maximum 55 MPH speeds, I read a news article at the time saying some private entity was planning to build a limited access highway where people could go 80+ MPH.  I did take a college course in highways/highway designs in the mid-80s, that may be why I remember the article so well -- we might have discussed it in class.

No, I got that. Thank you again for the explanation. I was more curious if the idea of having an 80mph limit has come up again since construction. Given that it's 75 now, and Colorado is neighbored by a couple states utilizing 80, it doesn't seem like a stretch, especially as an attempt to continue encouraging more cars to use E-470.
Title: Re: Colorado
Post by: SkyPesos on August 29, 2021, 06:49:28 PM
Was looking at CODOT's AADT tracker (which lists mileposts, and I really like that feature) and noticed something, is there a reason why US 24's mileage starts at 144, and CO 21 starts at 132, instead of starting at 0?
Title: Re: Colorado
Post by: thenetwork on August 29, 2021, 07:42:24 PM
Was looking at CODOT's AADT tracker (which lists mileposts, and I really like that feature) and noticed something, is there a reason why US 24's mileage starts at 144, and CO 21 starts at 132, instead of starting at 0?

As for US-24, it used to duplex with US‐6 and I-70 all the way to Grand Junction and end at the junction with US-50. 

Once I-70 was officially completed in Colorado, US-24 was truncated to its current spot between Vail and Minturn. 

I guess it was easier to leave the mile markers be on what remains of US-24 than to renumber the highway all the way to Kansas. Likely when US-24 duplexed with US-6, it was following US-6's mile markers anyways.
Title: Re: Colorado
Post by: brad2971 on August 29, 2021, 10:57:15 PM
Was looking at CODOT's AADT tracker (which lists mileposts, and I really like that feature) and noticed something, is there a reason why US 24's mileage starts at 144, and CO 21 starts at 132, instead of starting at 0?

As for US-24, it used to duplex with US‐6 and I-70 all the way to Grand Junction and end at the junction with US-50. 

Once I-70 was officially completed in Colorado, US-24 was truncated to its current spot between Vail and Minturn. 

I guess it was easier to leave the mile markers be on what remains of US-24 than to renumber the highway all the way to Kansas. Likely when US-24 duplexed with US-6, it was following US-6's mile markers anyways.

Colorado DOT, frankly, is far from the only state DOT that does things like start highway mileage at a place other than zero. My native South Dakota, for example, has the entire length of SD Highway 262 and SD Highway 42 from 262 to Sioux Falls, in old US16's mileposts. Even though US16 hasn't been signed on those two roads since 1979.
Title: Re: Colorado
Post by: Elm on August 30, 2021, 09:36:32 PM
CDOT is proposing a new rule for transportation projects, which would establish a "greenhouse gas transportation planning standard." CDOT's general proposed rule page is here (https://www.codot.gov/business/rules/proposed-rules), which includes the current draft, a link to the standard's webpage, and public comment information.

There doesn't seem to be much news coverage of it so far, but here are some reports, plus CDOT's release:
From CDOT's release:
Quote
The draft standard would require CDOT and the state’s five Metropolitan Planning Organizations to determine the total pollution and greenhouse gas emission increase or decrease expected from future transportation projects and take steps to ensure that greenhouse gas emission levels do not exceed set reduction amounts. This approach will also streamline the planning and delivery of innovations that have proven successful in improving quality of life and air quality, like adding sidewalks, improving downtowns for active transportation with “complete streets,” improving local and intercity transit and first-and-last-mile connectivity to transit facilities, and adding bike-shares. This policy  recognizes that the transportation projects we build have an impact on how Coloradans travel and encourages choices for travelers across the state.
Title: Re: Colorado
Post by: Plutonic Panda on August 30, 2021, 09:48:31 PM
So it will become harder to expand any roads or car based infrastructure in Colorado. Yet another tool those who have nothing better to do than sit around and sue. Great.
Title: Re: Colorado
Post by: brad2971 on August 31, 2021, 07:46:39 AM
So it will become harder to expand any roads or car based infrastructure in Colorado. Yet another tool those who have nothing better to do than sit around and sue. Great.

Meh. As long as CDOT tolerates "High-performance" toll lanes on I-25, and the rest of Colorado state government tolerates Weld County producing upwards of 400K barrels of oil per day from that dreaded fracking, you'll be surprised at how malleable those pollution standards really are.
Title: Re: Colorado
Post by: The High Plains Traveler on September 05, 2021, 08:01:35 PM
Was looking at CODOT's AADT tracker (which lists mileposts, and I really like that feature) and noticed something, is there a reason why US 24's mileage starts at 144, and CO 21 starts at 132, instead of starting at 0?

As for US-24, it used to duplex with US‐6 and I-70 all the way to Grand Junction and end at the junction with US-50. 

Once I-70 was officially completed in Colorado, US-24 was truncated to its current spot between Vail and Minturn. 

I guess it was easier to leave the mile markers be on what remains of US-24 than to renumber the highway all the way to Kansas. Likely when US-24 duplexed with US-6, it was following US-6's mile markers anyways.

Colorado DOT, frankly, is far from the only state DOT that does things like start highway mileage at a place other than zero. My native South Dakota, for example, has the entire length of SD Highway 262 and SD Highway 42 from 262 to Sioux Falls, in old US16's mileposts. Even though US16 hasn't been signed on those two roads since 1979.
CO-21 will likely be extended further south than its current terminus at Mesa Ridge Road (CO-16). It could bypass Fountain and intersect I-25 south of there, or it could even be built east of I-25 to serve future development between Fountain and Pueblo. Because of the uncertainty of where its southern terminus will ultimately be, its mileposts are based on I-25. I would bet that the mile point coordinates of I-25 and CO-21 are identical at the (currently being built) interchange near North Gate.
Title: Re: Colorado
Post by: Occidental Tourist on September 07, 2021, 05:29:41 PM
On that last article: Classic Aspen NIMBYism?

Sounds like it was just not wanting large backups on Independence Pass, reading the article. It was an internal CDOT decision, not a result of outside pressure from any community.

It's more than that. Independence Pass is not suitable for trucks/trailers and would likely have created some potentially disastrous situations if that wasn't headed off quickly, as happened during the 2020 Glenwood Canyon closure.

https://www.summitdaily.com/news/glenwood-canyon-closure-has-truckers-trying-independence-pass-which-is-not-allowed-for-semis/

If that was the real concern then they should have just said so, and possibly set up a checkpoint to turn back trucks and trailers, not lied about the road being closed completely :P

Or see if there was a way to post independence pass as Local Traffic only on the apps.  It’s really not a through route.
Title: Re: Colorado
Post by: SkyPesos on September 07, 2021, 05:34:56 PM
CO-21 will likely be extended further south than its current terminus at Mesa Ridge Road (CO-16). It could bypass Fountain and intersect I-25 south of there, or it could even be built east of I-25 to serve future development between Fountain and Pueblo. Because of the uncertainty of where its southern terminus will ultimately be, its mileposts are based on I-25. I would bet that the mile point coordinates of I-25 and CO-21 are identical at the (currently being built) interchange near North Gate.
Unless it it's planned to have I-25 switch to CO 21 when the latter is complete and is 100% freeway, and renumber the current I-25 alignment to something like I-425, I don't really see a reason to use I-25's mileposts on CO 21 than starting at 0.
Title: Re: Colorado
Post by: Elm on September 07, 2021, 08:29:36 PM
CO-21 will likely be extended further south than its current terminus at Mesa Ridge Road (CO-16). It could bypass Fountain and intersect I-25 south of there, or it could even be built east of I-25 to serve future development between Fountain and Pueblo. Because of the uncertainty of where its southern terminus will ultimately be, its mileposts are based on I-25. I would bet that the mile point coordinates of I-25 and CO-21 are identical at the (currently being built) interchange near North Gate.
Unless it it's planned to have I-25 switch to CO 21 when the latter is complete and is 100% freeway, and renumber the current I-25 alignment to something like I-425, I don't really see a reason to use I-25's mileposts on CO 21 than starting at 0.
I think the theory is that, since there isn't a hard-set path for the southern extension, CDOT doesn't know where to project milepost zero, so following I-25's mileposts is a way to protect against running past zero with an extension. It could help to avoid situations like I-270 around I-76 or C-470 around I-70, where the highways started at mile 0 then were extended in the milepost-decreasing direction. Both extensions were about a mile long and could have exit numbers omitted or pushed a little, but it could be harder for Powers, which may have several exits south of Mesa Ridge Pkwy.

For a little bit of information on routes, El Paso County posted this pdf (https://www.agendasuite.org/iip/elpaso/file/getfile/15519) about a new study of the southern extension, which includes a map of corridor alternatives from the feasibility study on the last page.

Re: mileposts around North Gate, it looks like Powers will accumulate a few too many miles on the way to make the connection; on I-25, the new interchange is 155, braided with North Gate's 156, but, going by this design (last page) (https://coloradosprings.legistar.com/View.ashx?M=F&ID=6275202&GUID=6350FDEA-87E2-4175-9310-5C15D3E0C9C3), Powers should reach 157 just east of Voyager, with a little under a mile left to I-25.
Title: Re: Colorado
Post by: will_e_777 on September 27, 2021, 01:38:24 AM
It looks like all the construction at E470 & Quincy and the intersection at Gun Club & Quincy has been completed and rebuilt into a control flow intersection on Gun Club.

https://www.arapahoegov.com/QuincyGunClub

https://www.google.com/maps/@39.6372107,-104.71699,685m/data=!3m1!1e3
Title: Re: Colorado
Post by: tigerwings on September 27, 2021, 02:51:31 PM
Hopefully that helps traffic. The intersection was a must avoid (but rarely could) when I lived in nearby East Quincy Highlands (west of E-470).
Title: Re: Colorado
Post by: zzcarp on November 07, 2021, 03:04:11 AM
I drove down to the Springs on Wednesday, and I found the Voyager Parkway/Future CO 21 exit on I-25 open. Here is a brief tour:

BGSs heralding the approach to Voyager Parkway and North Gate Boulevard. CDOT isn't planning on signing the new road as CO 21 any time soon as they didn't even leave room for a cut-out shield placement.
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/51659542077_3cd0e2e6bc_c.jpg)

A new APL sign at North Gate with the old BGS and monotube behind it.
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/51660577698_1d4ef77a5a_c.jpg)

The exit to Voyager Parkway. I'm a bit surprised but not shocked that CDOT didn't build an auxiliary lane prior to the exit.
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/51660577653_2b10d0c670_c.jpg)

This is an interesting view on the ramp from SB I-25. To the left is the SB I-25 mainline, and to the right the braided ramp entrance from North Gate.
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/51660344061_c76f1ed253_c.jpg)

The ramp from North Gate merges here just before the ramp passes under I-25 SB. Of note is the sharpness of the curve. It can be done safely at 55 mph but not really above that.
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/51660577543_34440f31eb_c.jpg)

This is the bridge passing over the opposite direction's exit to I-25 SB. The Spectrum Loop overpass is in the far background.
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/51659541792_d8d8d12314_c.jpg)

The entrance ramp from I-25 NB merges just prior to the Spectrum Loop overpass. This is the only bridge not part of the I-25 system interchange that was constructed during this phase.
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/51660873083_bf0df08bc4_c.jpg)

Just beyond the overpass the lanes are striped to follow the exit to Voyager Parkway. The mainline alignment ends in dirt not far ahead.
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/51659541657_e39922cbbe_c.jpg)

This is the ramp terminus at Voyager Parkway. The houses in the background delineate somewhat the future CO 21 alignment.
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/51661221460_d151769afa_c.jpg)

Now heading north on Voyager Parkway getting ready to turn back towards I-25 on Future CO 21. Note that no bridge was constructed for Voyager Parkway over the future mainline.
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/51660344941_6ec21b6838_c.jpg)

Heading west on the entrance ramp. The mainline pavement begins in the left background. Straight ahead the poles are for a Topgolf facility.
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/51661222680_d13e1ecdfa_c.jpg)

This is where the ramp lanes "merge" with the future mainline. Note a third lane begins just ahead. In the background is the Spectrum Loop overpass and a BGS with an APL configuration.
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/51661023674_c19f81c1d4_c.jpg)

A closer look at the APL and the overpass. Note two lanes are designated for SB I-25 versus one for NB I-25 (and one for North Gate). I suppose that the more traffic will be coming to/from the Springs to use this route than from the north.
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/51661222520_d785e02a63_c.jpg)

I-25 North and South shields are posted at the gore point between the two exits. To the right in the background you can see the NB exit ramp split at the North Gate exit.
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/51661023489_bcf0b5d396_c.jpg)

A very sun-glared picture passing under the NB I-25 lanes.
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/51660344421_ced08f0816_c.jpg)

Now on the ramp heading south on the west side of I-25.
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/51660577938_a509bb583d_c.jpg)

The ramp at its merge point with I-25. Note it loses one lane just ahead. There is a Colorado Springs welcome sign at the top of the hill in the background, and the second lane merges not far from there.
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/51659542177_b2a9097d74_c.jpg)
Title: Re: Colorado
Post by: roadfro on November 07, 2021, 03:13:55 PM
I drove down to the Springs on Wednesday, and I found the Voyager Parkway/Future CO 21 exit on I-25 open. Here is a brief tour:

BGSs heralding the approach to Voyager Parkway and North Gate Boulevard. CDOT isn't planning on signing the new road as CO 21 any time soon as they didn't even leave room for a cut-out shield placement.
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/51659542077_3cd0e2e6bc_c.jpg)

That makes sense to me. The new ramp really just goes to Voyager Pkwy right now and has no other connection to CO 21. Probably when CDOT builds the missing links for CO 21, they'll remove the signs to Voyager Pkwy and put in new signs for CO 21.
Title: Re: Colorado
Post by: will_e_777 on November 07, 2021, 09:56:39 PM
is that north section going to be named Powers also?
Title: Re: Colorado
Post by: zzcarp on November 08, 2021, 01:03:47 AM
is that north section going to be named Powers also?

Yes, the entire CO 21 corridor is known as Powers Boulevard. It likely will be signed as such fairly well as the current freeway portions of Powers are signed either with green street blades at the ramps or on the BGS with CO 21.
Title: Re: Colorado
Post by: zzcarp on December 09, 2021, 12:08:33 AM
The new express toll lanes on the I-25 gap will open on Friday, Dec. 10 (https://www.thedenverchannel.com/news/local-news/cdot-to-open-express-lanes-on-i-25-south-gap-project-tolls-waived-during-testing-period?fbclid=IwAR04zYn8MTJX1yr3v1tSCRGGWCr0dZTFAhnFNItvBNJ_5IRxF7LZMzsy6QM).

The lanes will be free for the time for testing. Also of now is they are increasing revenue patrols in the stretch. Hopefully, they will have the speed limits raised back to 75 mph before the revenue enforcement begins.
Title: Fort Collins Rejoice!
Post by: zachary_amaryllis on December 14, 2021, 12:08:02 PM
It's finally open, though not quite ready for prime time (needs some fencing and such)

https://www.coloradoan.com/story/news/2021/12/10/fort-collins-first-train-overpass-finally-set-open-over-vine-drive/6461664001/ (https://www.coloradoan.com/story/news/2021/12/10/fort-collins-first-train-overpass-finally-set-open-over-vine-drive/6461664001/)
(if you hit a paywall, delete your cookies from that site)

intersection this bypasses: https://goo.gl/maps/fseqeA3Y88qbFWQj6 (https://goo.gl/maps/fseqeA3Y88qbFWQj6)


this has been a long time coming. the intersection this bypasses is a hot mess, with BNSF stirring it. the yard throat is just to the east of this intersection, and at times trains will back-and-forth through here for 45 minutes. It's the intersection of two 2-lane streets. vine has left turn lanes and protected lefts, lemay does not. if someone has to turn left off of lemay, its next to impossible because you can't see enough to make the left safely. wait for yellow light, and two cars can go.

fun fact: lemay in this area goes by 3 different names depending on unknown factors. some call it lindenmeir, some call it lemay, some call it 9th street. not sure what it's 9 blocks from. generally north of this intersection it's called lemay, though there's some natives that want the lindenmeier name restored. personally, i'm good with CR 13.
Title: Re: Colorado
Post by: SD Mapman on December 14, 2021, 04:11:13 PM
fun fact: lemay in this area goes by 3 different names depending on unknown factors. some call it lindenmeir, some call it lemay, some call it 9th street. not sure what it's 9 blocks from. generally north of this intersection it's called lemay, though there's some natives that want the lindenmeier name restored. personally, i'm good with CR 13.
It's 9 blocks from the Buckingham neighborhood, for whatever it's worth. Don't really understand FoCo's numbered streets at all.

It sounds like the realigned road will be Lemay Ave, while the old road will be 9th St. Last time I was in that neighborhood, both names were in use (like this (https://www.google.com/maps/@40.5946666,-105.0576611,3a,15y,50.89h,87.67t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sl8aUFR7qOQP2xEoCX_DN_w!2e0!7i13312!8i6656)).
Title: Re: Colorado
Post by: Elm on January 05, 2022, 10:32:33 PM
In mid-December, the transportation commission adopted the greenhouse gas rule.

From CDOT: Colorado Leading the U.S. on Transportation Planning, Greenhouse Gas Reduction Standards as Polis Administration Adopts New Standards for Colorado and regional transportation plans (https://www.codot.gov/news/2021/december/colorado-leader-greenhouse-gas-reduction-standards)
(program webpage (https://www.codot.gov/programs/environmental/greenhousegas) / fact sheet (https://www.codot.gov/programs/environmental/greenhousegas/assets/ghg-standard-fact-sheet.pdf) /  FAQ (https://www.codot.gov/programs/environmental/greenhousegas/assets/faq.pdf))

Bullet points from the fact sheet:
Quote
Key Provisions of the New Standard
  • Requires CDOT and the state’s five metropolitan planning agencies to create transportation plans that provide more travel choices, resulting in reduced GHG emissions. The agencies must use sophisticated travel models to make this determination for different years in the future, and the emission goals differ for each agency and metro region.
  • The modeling applies to “regionally significant projects,” which are those projects that result in a fundamental change to the way people travel (e.g. new highway lanes).
  • If an agency can’t meet the greenhouse gas reduction levels, it can choose one or more mitigation measures as needed to meet the standard. These can include more public transit, more walking and bicycle trails, more medium- and heavy-duty electric vehicle charging stations, cleaner construction policies, carpool programs and smarter land use policies.
  • If an agency still can’t meet its greenhouse gas reduction goals even after using mitigation measures, the Colorado Transportation Commission can designate that specific funding streams for an agency be spent on mitigation efforts.
  • The commission can also issue waivers for certain projects despite their potential impact on emissions, such as those needed for safety reasons.

And a handful of articles about it (less-paywalled non-papers first):
Title: Re: Colorado
Post by: zzcarp on January 05, 2022, 11:27:57 PM
This rule will allow CDOT to delay vital highway expansions while siphoning money off to transit and biking interests, even though statistically few use those options. The increased congestion will also increase ground-level emissions.
Title: Re: Colorado
Post by: Plutonic Panda on January 05, 2022, 11:33:15 PM
Of course. Colorado is becoming a joke with its freeway infrastructure.
Title: Re: Colorado
Post by: zachary_amaryllis on January 09, 2022, 01:19:45 AM
This rule will allow CDOT to delay vital highway expansions while siphoning money off to transit and biking interests, even though statistically few use those options. The increased congestion will also increase ground-level emissions.

There has been a lot of acrimonious discussion in Fort Collins about making some of the streets more bike friendly. As a delivery driver I am against this. They want to put bike lanes on some very narrow streets and reduce the number of car lanes. I call bullshit.
Title: Re: Colorado
Post by: Elm on March 15, 2022, 04:24:16 PM
Preliminary design is underway for the "CO 119 Safety & Mobility Project" on the Diagonal Highway.

A high-level overview map for the project is here (https://www.codot.gov/projects/co119-mobility-design/assets/co-119-safety-and-mobility-project-map.pdf); while the original concept had HOT 3+ lanes, it looks like they've been removed (at least from this project?) because modeling in last year's Traffic Alternatives Study showed they don't markedly improve transit performance and would encourage personal vehicles (see near the bottom of "Mobility in the Corridor" (https://www.codot.gov/projects/co119-mobility-design/mobility)). They're planning to reconfigure the Hwy 52 intersection so the northbound and southbound lanes are separate intersections like others on 119, allowing the bus station and bikeway to fit between them.

Information on this and related studies/projects is all over the place:
Title: Re: Colorado
Post by: SD Mapman on March 15, 2022, 08:04:42 PM
Was looking at CODOT's AADT tracker (which lists mileposts, and I really like that feature) and noticed something, is there a reason why US 24's mileage starts at 144, and CO 21 starts at 132, instead of starting at 0?

As for US-24, it used to duplex with US‐6 and I-70 all the way to Grand Junction and end at the junction with US-50. 

Once I-70 was officially completed in Colorado, US-24 was truncated to its current spot between Vail and Minturn. 

I guess it was easier to leave the mile markers be on what remains of US-24 than to renumber the highway all the way to Kansas. Likely when US-24 duplexed with US-6, it was following US-6's mile markers anyways.

Colorado DOT, frankly, is far from the only state DOT that does things like start highway mileage at a place other than zero. My native South Dakota, for example, has the entire length of SD Highway 262 and SD Highway 42 from 262 to Sioux Falls, in old US16's mileposts. Even though US16 hasn't been signed on those two roads since 1979.
Randomly off topic here since I saw this, but actually what SD does is for any route that doesn't start from either the WY/MT border or the NE border depending on direction they draw a straight line from the route start to the border and that's what the mileposts start out at. Sorry for the tangent...
Title: Re: Colorado
Post by: Plutonic Panda on March 16, 2022, 01:14:24 PM
Preliminary design is underway for the "CO 119 Safety & Mobility Project" on the Diagonal Highway.

A high-level overview map for the project is here (https://www.codot.gov/projects/co119-mobility-design/assets/co-119-safety-and-mobility-project-map.pdf); while the original concept had HOT 3+ lanes, it looks like they've been removed (at least from this project?) because modeling in last year's Traffic Alternatives Study showed they don't markedly improve transit performance and would encourage personal vehicles (see near the bottom of "Mobility in the Corridor" (https://www.codot.gov/projects/co119-mobility-design/mobility)). They're planning to reconfigure the Hwy 52 intersection so the northbound and southbound lanes are separate intersections like others on 119, allowing the bus station and bikeway to fit between them.

Information on this and related studies/projects is all over the place:
  • Current CDOT-RTD design project: CO 119 Safety & Mobility Project (https://www.codot.gov/projects/co119-mobility-design)
  • Hwy 119 corridor website: Colorado State Highway 119 (https://commutingsolutions.org/regional-planning/state-highway-119/) at Commuting Solutions
  • State Highway 119 BRT Study (https://www.rtd-denver.com/projects/state-highway-119-brt-study)
  • Highway 119 First and Final Mile Study (https://www.bouldercounty.org/transportation/plans-and-projects/highway-119-first-final-mile-study/)
So if this Colorados prerogative then why are they adding any new lanes at all that aren’t specifically only to be used for busses? This state is becoming a joke in regards to its freeways and keeping up with the demand the tax paying citizens require.
Title: Re: Colorado
Post by: Elm on March 16, 2022, 08:31:35 PM
Preliminary design is underway for the "CO 119 Safety & Mobility Project" on the Diagonal Highway.

A high-level overview map for the project is here (https://www.codot.gov/projects/co119-mobility-design/assets/co-119-safety-and-mobility-project-map.pdf); while the original concept had HOT 3+ lanes, it looks like they've been removed (at least from this project?) because modeling in last year's Traffic Alternatives Study showed they don't markedly improve transit performance and would encourage personal vehicles (see near the bottom of "Mobility in the Corridor" (https://www.codot.gov/projects/co119-mobility-design/mobility)). They're planning to reconfigure the Hwy 52 intersection so the northbound and southbound lanes are separate intersections like others on 119, allowing the bus station and bikeway to fit between them.

Information on this and related studies/projects is all over the place:
  • Current CDOT-RTD design project: CO 119 Safety & Mobility Project (https://www.codot.gov/projects/co119-mobility-design)
  • Hwy 119 corridor website: Colorado State Highway 119 (https://commutingsolutions.org/regional-planning/state-highway-119/) at Commuting Solutions
  • State Highway 119 BRT Study (https://www.rtd-denver.com/projects/state-highway-119-brt-study)
  • Highway 119 First and Final Mile Study (https://www.bouldercounty.org/transportation/plans-and-projects/highway-119-first-final-mile-study/)
So if this Colorados prerogative then why are they adding any new lanes at all that aren’t specifically only to be used for busses? This state is becoming a joke in regards to its freeways and keeping up with the demand the tax paying citizens require.
In this case, BRT on the Diagonal Highway was the primary goal, so you could argue that the HOT lanes came in as "while we're at it" thing, then dropped out when the extra cost didn't give enough marginal benefit to bus service (which doesn't seem to really qualify as "BRT" here?). Since this is a project in Boulder County with strong ties to the city of Boulder, accommodations for driving would also be viewed more negatively by stakeholder/steering groups.

I'm not sure how well-known this project or this new phase of it are, so it's not out of the question that people will ask what happened to the HOT lanes if it gets attention (they're still in the reader-friendly graphic (https://commutingsolutions.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/01/sh-119-corridor.png) on the Commuting Solutions site), but I wouldn't count on that, either. It's not all that likely that CDOT would pick it up on their own, since the Diagonal Highway isn't in the Express Lanes master Plan (https://www.codot.gov/programs/expresslanes/express-lanes-master-plan).

(In tangential historical trivial, interchanges at Jay Road and Hwy 52 were once local priorities (https://bizwest.com/2001/11/02/cdot-puts-interchange-along-diagonal-highway-on-hold/), and the Hwy 52 one was in the Denver region's project list until relatively recently. Missed the boat there.)

More generally, there are probably going to be more cases like this going forward as new CDOT studies and projects come up under the Greenhouse Gas rule. The I-70 Floyd Hill project is being watched closely through that lens, since it's the biggest thing happening and is starting in earnest just after the rule was made:

CPR: Buttigieg says I-70 expansion at Floyd Hill will help Colorado and nation (https://www.cpr.org/2022/02/24/buttigieg-says-i-70-expansion-at-floyd-hill-will-help-colorado-and-nation/)
Quote
Clear Creek County Commissioner Randall Wheelock, who’s been outspoken about public transit and climate change, says he supports the project because it helps alleviate inefficiencies like the Floyd Hill pinch point.

“But it's still a highway-based solution. And those are solutions that we need. We need to improve the efficiency of highways. But we also need to develop as much as we can those other systems.”

Colorado Sun: Colorado wants to fix the Floyd Hill I-70 nightmare. Here’s how. (https://coloradosun.com/2022/02/27/floyd-hill-rebuild-i-70-construction-traffic-jams/)
Quote
CDOT is quick to respond that leaders were consistent when they helped push for the greenhouse gas rules: Attacking pollution was an add-on, not a replacement for, CDOT’s basic mission of making safe roads and moving people around the state. CDOT executive director Shoshana Lew told everyone who would listen before the greenhouse rules passed that big, overdue capacity projects like Floyd Hill would still get done.

“Our view is that having an interstate system that functions at critical points is a priority,” Lew said. Starting Pegasus [microtransit (https://www.codot.gov/about/transportation-commission/documents/2022-supporting-documents/january-2022/05-bustang-pegasus-update.pdf), came up on AARoads here (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=514.msg2591335#msg2591335)] service long before the project is finished is part of that process of changing peoples’ movement habits, Lew said.
Title: Re: Colorado
Post by: thenetwork on March 17, 2022, 12:21:48 AM
^^ I don't know how many more non-passenger vehicle alternatives they can add to the I-70 Mountain Corridor. 

They have statewide Bustang/Skistang bus service, in addition to Greyhound, with regular service along the route...Amtrak has (almost) daily service via their California Zephyr trains *AND* a seasonal Ski Train service on the weekends to help alleviate I-70 backups...They added the HOT express lanes between Idaho Springs and the US-40 split...And you pretty much have a bike route paralleling the Interstate between Golden and Glenwood Springs on a combination of bike trails, former US alignments and county roads. 

The only other way to "go greener" in the corridor is to widen much of I-70 between Golden and Glenwood, eliminate the usual choke points and add a 3rd "reversible" tunnel next to the Eisenhower/Johnson.
Title: Re: Colorado
Post by: brad2971 on March 17, 2022, 07:51:31 AM
^^ I don't know how many more non-passenger vehicle alternatives they can add to the I-70 Mountain Corridor. 

They have statewide Bustang/Skistang bus service, in addition to Greyhound, with regular service along the route...Amtrak has (almost) daily service via their California Zephyr trains *AND* a seasonal Ski Train service on the weekends to help alleviate I-70 backups...They added the HOT express lanes between Idaho Springs and the US-40 split...And you pretty much have a bike route paralleling the Interstate between Golden and Glenwood Springs on a combination of bike trails, former US alignments and county roads. 

The only other way to "go greener" in the corridor is to widen much of I-70 between Golden and Glenwood, eliminate the usual choke points and add a 3rd "reversible" tunnel next to the Eisenhower/Johnson.

The 3rd bore at the Eisenhower/Johnson tunnel is a non-starter, for reasons that should be obvious. There are other things that can be done. For example, ban thru trucks between C-470 and SH 13 (Exit 87-Rifle), and limit semi trucks to local delivery between Tue-Thu. If Pete Buttigieg is interested in outside-the-box solutions, he should consider this. I-80 and I-40 both exist for reasons.

Another one: significantly increase regional jet service at both Aspen and Eagle County airports during ski season.
Title: Re: Colorado
Post by: Plutonic Panda on March 17, 2022, 08:47:54 AM
^^ I don't know how many more non-passenger vehicle alternatives they can add to the I-70 Mountain Corridor. 

They have statewide Bustang/Skistang bus service, in addition to Greyhound, with regular service along the route...Amtrak has (almost) daily service via their California Zephyr trains *AND* a seasonal Ski Train service on the weekends to help alleviate I-70 backups...They added the HOT express lanes between Idaho Springs and the US-40 split...And you pretty much have a bike route paralleling the Interstate between Golden and Glenwood Springs on a combination of bike trails, former US alignments and county roads. 

The only other way to "go greener" in the corridor is to widen much of I-70 between Golden and Glenwood, eliminate the usual choke points and add a 3rd "reversible" tunnel next to the Eisenhower/Johnson.
It’s going to be VERY expensive but at some point we’re going to need to build HSR the Rockies. If Europe can do it through the Alps we can do it here. 400 MPH maglev. Although it would take several decades once it can even be started.
Title: Re: Colorado
Post by: Plutonic Panda on March 17, 2022, 08:58:03 AM
Preliminary design is underway for the "CO 119 Safety & Mobility Project" on the Diagonal Highway.

A high-level overview map for the project is here (https://www.codot.gov/projects/co119-mobility-design/assets/co-119-safety-and-mobility-project-map.pdf); while the original concept had HOT 3+ lanes, it looks like they've been removed (at least from this project?) because modeling in last year's Traffic Alternatives Study showed they don't markedly improve transit performance and would encourage personal vehicles (see near the bottom of "Mobility in the Corridor" (https://www.codot.gov/projects/co119-mobility-design/mobility)). They're planning to reconfigure the Hwy 52 intersection so the northbound and southbound lanes are separate intersections like others on 119, allowing the bus station and bikeway to fit between them.

Information on this and related studies/projects is all over the place:
  • Current CDOT-RTD design project: CO 119 Safety & Mobility Project (https://www.codot.gov/projects/co119-mobility-design)
  • Hwy 119 corridor website: Colorado State Highway 119 (https://commutingsolutions.org/regional-planning/state-highway-119/) at Commuting Solutions
  • State Highway 119 BRT Study (https://www.rtd-denver.com/projects/state-highway-119-brt-study)
  • Highway 119 First and Final Mile Study (https://www.bouldercounty.org/transportation/plans-and-projects/highway-119-first-final-mile-study/)
So if this Colorados prerogative then why are they adding any new lanes at all that aren’t specifically only to be used for busses? This state is becoming a joke in regards to its freeways and keeping up with the demand the tax paying citizens require.
In this case, BRT on the Diagonal Highway was the primary goal, so you could argue that the HOT lanes came in as "while we're at it" thing, then dropped out when the extra cost didn't give enough marginal benefit to bus service (which doesn't seem to really qualify as "BRT" here?). Since this is a project in Boulder County with strong ties to the city of Boulder, accommodations for driving would also be viewed more negatively by stakeholder/steering groups.

I'm not sure how well-known this project or this new phase of it are, so it's not out of the question that people will ask what happened to the HOT lanes if it gets attention (they're still in the reader-friendly graphic (https://commutingsolutions.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/01/sh-119-corridor.png) on the Commuting Solutions site), but I wouldn't count on that, either. It's not all that likely that CDOT would pick it up on their own, since the Diagonal Highway isn't in the Express Lanes master Plan (https://www.codot.gov/programs/expresslanes/express-lanes-master-plan).

(In tangential historical trivial, interchanges at Jay Road and Hwy 52 were once local priorities (https://bizwest.com/2001/11/02/cdot-puts-interchange-along-diagonal-highway-on-hold/), and the Hwy 52 one was in the Denver region's project list until relatively recently. Missed the boat there.)

More generally, there are probably going to be more cases like this going forward as new CDOT studies and projects come up under the Greenhouse Gas rule. The I-70 Floyd Hill project is being watched closely through that lens, since it's the biggest thing happening and is starting in earnest just after the rule was made:

CPR: Buttigieg says I-70 expansion at Floyd Hill will help Colorado and nation (https://www.cpr.org/2022/02/24/buttigieg-says-i-70-expansion-at-floyd-hill-will-help-colorado-and-nation/)
Quote
Clear Creek County Commissioner Randall Wheelock, who’s been outspoken about public transit and climate change, says he supports the project because it helps alleviate inefficiencies like the Floyd Hill pinch point.

“But it's still a highway-based solution. And those are solutions that we need. We need to improve the efficiency of highways. But we also need to develop as much as we can those other systems.”

Colorado Sun: Colorado wants to fix the Floyd Hill I-70 nightmare. Here’s how. (https://coloradosun.com/2022/02/27/floyd-hill-rebuild-i-70-construction-traffic-jams/)
Quote
CDOT is quick to respond that leaders were consistent when they helped push for the greenhouse gas rules: Attacking pollution was an add-on, not a replacement for, CDOT’s basic mission of making safe roads and moving people around the state. CDOT executive director Shoshana Lew told everyone who would listen before the greenhouse rules passed that big, overdue capacity projects like Floyd Hill would still get done.

“Our view is that having an interstate system that functions at critical points is a priority,” Lew said. Starting Pegasus [microtransit (https://www.codot.gov/about/transportation-commission/documents/2022-supporting-documents/january-2022/05-bustang-pegasus-update.pdf), came up on AARoads here (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=514.msg2591335#msg2591335)] service long before the project is finished is part of that process of changing peoples’ movement habits, Lew said.
Thanks again for the information. That shows how much I know. I am more understanding if it was initially only a BRT project but still I'm surprised they didn’t even consider adding intersection grade separations given they already have a few and a full on BRT highway since the median is so large. Grade separating interchanges would allow for improving the cycle and pedestrian ways to flyover certain roads as well.

CDOT should be spending more on this road. I think at some point it’s inevitable they will have to do much more. I always experience inpatient and aggressive drivers on this stretch. I see people pass on the shoulder at least once every time I drive this thing.
Title: Re: Colorado
Post by: zzcarp on March 20, 2022, 03:03:57 PM
A new striping project in southern Colorado (https://www.codot.gov/news/2022/march/striping-southeastern-colorado-begins-march-21):

Quote
The following highways will be worked upon: I-25, US 50, CO 115, and CO 285; these highways run through the following counties: Park, El Paso, Pueblo, Otero and Freemont.

Night work is scheduled for I-25, between Mile Points 102.3 – 163.32, for April 17 – May 4 and for CO 285, between MPs 187-225.15 for May 8-22. Night work hours will be from 8 p.m. to 4 a.m.

Does anyone at CDOT know that 285 is a US Route like US 50 and not a state route like CO 115?



Title: Re: Colorado
Post by: andy3175 on April 26, 2022, 10:34:26 PM
https://www.thedenverchannel.com/traffic/driving-you-crazy/driving-you-crazy-did-cdot-screw-up-some-highway-signs-in-watkins-and-in-golden%3f_amp=true

Quote
Chris from Denver writes, “What’s driving you crazy? Did CDOT screw up on the sign to the I-70 Watkins exit? They used the "regular" Interstate 70 iconology (multi-color) vs. the business I-70 iconology (green and white) on one sign. I can just imagine more than one trucker has been confused by it. Also, in Golden on Washington Street at Highway 58, there is a U.S. Highway (black and white) sign designation for CO 93 (state highway). I don’t think 93 has ever been a federal highway.” ...

Starting in Golden with the State Highway 93 sign. Ben Kiene, CDOT’s Region 1 Traffic Operations Engineer, confirmed “This is supposed to show S.H. 93, not U.S. 93. We will fix it.” ...

Regarding the I-70 sign near Watkins, the problem Chris describes is with the sign just before exit 295 on the westbound side of I-70. Yes, that sign shows the red, white and blue shield rather than the green business route sign.

The other problem in that area is that where there are business route signs, they indicate that small section of road north of I-70 is a business loop rather than a spur.

“Similarly, there seems to have been a mix up in either the layout or fabrication of the Watkins signs, which should be green 'spur' markers,” Kiene said.

That I-70 business spur is a very short segment of roadway between I-70 and State Highway 36 (Colfax Avenue) just to the north of I-70. The route is only signed at the two exit ramps from eastbound or westbound I-70 at mile marker 295. Both of the signs refer to the business route as a loop instead of what they should be — a spur.

They had a nice call out to Matt Salek for a brief history of Colorado 93.
Title: Re: Colorado
Post by: Plutonic Panda on May 11, 2022, 03:19:26 AM
The Vail Pass Rest Area will be demolished and rebuilt open around October 2023:

Quote
The Vail Pass Rest Area closed earlier this week to allow CDOT to demolish and reconstruct the rest area building, as well as improve access roads and parking facilities. Motorists should anticipate the rest area will remain closed through October 2023.

This is an independent project from the I-70 West Vail Pass Auxiliary Lanes Project.

The Vail Pass Recreation Path will remain open and accessible this summer. View our earlier update for more information about the Recreation Path plans on West Vail Pass.
Drivers can still use Exit 190 (Vail Pass), but there will not be restroom facilities available. CDOT encourages motorists to use other rest areas nearby, including the Gateway Visitor Center in Georgetown and the Edwards Rest Area in Edwards.
During the rest area closure, there will continue to be recreation access to adjacent National Forest lands, including Shrine Pass Road, Black Lakes Road, Wilder Gulch Trail and the paved Vail Pass Recreation Path.
There will be limited parking.
Users should anticipate defined recreational path access through the rest area site.

About the Project
The purpose of the Vail Pass Rest Area replacement is to improve the existing rest area facilities to increase restroom capacity, update the existing drinking water treatment system, increase parking capacity for all users, and improve traffic circulation, accessibility, safety and connectivity at the site. Improvements will also enhance winter maintenance operations and increase capacity for maintenance equipment and snow storage on site.

Project Information 
For additional information about this project:

Project Information Phone: 720-237-6173
Email: hope.wright@state.co.us
Website: https://www.codot.gov/projects/vailpassrestareastudy