AARoads Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length

Author Topic: Colorado  (Read 62731 times)

Plutonic Panda

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 2868
  • Location: Los Angeles/OKC
  • Last Login: Today at 12:47:07 AM
Re: Colorado
« Reply #275 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; 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"). 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:
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 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.

(In tangential historical trivial, interchanges at Jay Road and Hwy 52 were once local priorities, 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
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.
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, came up on AARoads here] 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.
Logged

zzcarp

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 389
  • Age: 44
  • Location: Westminster, CO
  • Last Login: July 01, 2022, 04:13:06 PM
Re: Colorado
« Reply #276 on: March 20, 2022, 03:03:57 PM »

A new striping project in southern Colorado:

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?



Logged
So many miles and so many roads

andy3175

  • *
  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1468
  • Location: San Diego, California, USA
  • Last Login: July 02, 2022, 03:56:24 PM
    • AARoads
Re: Colorado
« Reply #277 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.
« Last Edit: April 26, 2022, 10:36:40 PM by andy3175 »
Logged
Regards,
Andy

www.aaroads.com

Plutonic Panda

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 2868
  • Location: Los Angeles/OKC
  • Last Login: Today at 12:47:07 AM
Re: Colorado
« Reply #278 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

Logged

Elm

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 86
  • Last Login: June 15, 2022, 10:06:41 PM
Re: Colorado
« Reply #279 on: May 18, 2022, 07:34:44 PM »

Some Denver area highway planning things:

In the Transportation Commission's April meeting, an I-270 Critical Bridges Project was introduced, to get some bridge replacements going sooner since the broader I-270 study was extended to account for the greenhouse gas rule. A virtual meeting is scheduled for May 25 (memo).

This month's Transportation Commission meeting featured an update on the I-70 Floyd Hill project, including some new renderings. See these slides for those and some more information, like the state of funding and scheduling ($240M funding gap, anticipating three construction packages). The same renderings are also in this article.

For another quiet project (or maybe just one I'm bad at searching), while the Santa Fe Dr PEL hasn't had any high-visibility updates in a while, I read a few kind of incidental pieces of information about the road:
  • In Denver, according to the "Driving You Crazy" report How long will Santa Fe Drive near Mississippi Avenue be under construction, they're planning on a fifth SB lane on Santa Fe (South Platte River Dr?) in the vicinity of I-25 and Mississippi. New signal coming at the new Kentucky Ave intersection north of Mississippi once the Broadway Station development is further along.
  • In Littleton, design is progressing on the Santa Fe & Mineral quadrant road. See this FAQ for more. They've generally referred to an interchange as the too-expensive ultimate configuration for that intersection, but it sounds like they're hoping the quadrant road will be the last of it.
Logged

Plutonic Panda

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 2868
  • Location: Los Angeles/OKC
  • Last Login: Today at 12:47:07 AM
Re: Colorado
« Reply #280 on: May 19, 2022, 12:01:35 AM »

I am way more excited for the Floyd Hill project than I should be. This can’t come soon enough.

I must say I’m surprised we haven’t seen some NY Times article bitching about the project.
Logged

ski-man

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 57
  • Location: Wyoming
  • Last Login: July 02, 2022, 09:43:10 PM
Re: Colorado
« Reply #281 on: May 19, 2022, 08:06:10 PM »

Doesn't sound like any expansion of I-270 is planned for this project. Hopefully the new bridges account for new lanes for a future expansion to at least 6 total lanes. I avoid 270 most times as there is always a traffic jam.
Logged

Plutonic Panda

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 2868
  • Location: Los Angeles/OKC
  • Last Login: Today at 12:47:07 AM
Re: Colorado
« Reply #282 on: June 07, 2022, 10:03:51 PM »

Should it be built this is a project that deserves its own thread but given it seems like this project too will fall victim to the latest trend of cities/states canceling(“putting on hold”) freeway expansions due to various reasons.

Quote
Another Canceled Project

The Los Angeles project cancellation came after Colorado officials put on hold their plan to widen Interstate 25 through central Denver, saying they could no longer afford the project. State and regional authorities wanted to expand the highway to address the chronic traffic jams that clog existing lanes, and to improve safety from traffic crashes and low-clearance bridges.

Matt Inzeo, a spokesperson for the Colorado Department of Transportation, said the agency was shifting priorities. It recently purchased a freight rail yard near the highway.

“We are exploring a significant relocation of the rail lines through the is area just south of the central business district,” he wrote in an email message. “Because the rail work will be such a big job in and of itself, and because we don’t have funds in hand to tack on a major interstate project as well, we are focusing on the rail work for the next several years.”

- https://www.route-fifty.com/infrastructure/2022/06/two-states-cancel-highway-expansions-after-years-planning/367771/

It will be interesting to see if CDOT comes back and revives the project. If they do then that signals they intent on continually expanding freeways. I’m really starting to dislike CDOTs trend of adding a single tolled lane each way though.
Logged

zzcarp

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 389
  • Age: 44
  • Location: Westminster, CO
  • Last Login: July 01, 2022, 04:13:06 PM
Re: Colorado
« Reply #283 on: June 09, 2022, 07:08:29 PM »

Should it be built this is a project that deserves its own thread but given it seems like this project too will fall victim to the latest trend of cities/states canceling(“putting on hold”) freeway expansions due to various reasons.

Quote
Another Canceled Project

The Los Angeles project cancellation came after Colorado officials put on hold their plan to widen Interstate 25 through central Denver, saying they could no longer afford the project. State and regional authorities wanted to expand the highway to address the chronic traffic jams that clog existing lanes, and to improve safety from traffic crashes and low-clearance bridges.

Matt Inzeo, a spokesperson for the Colorado Department of Transportation, said the agency was shifting priorities. It recently purchased a freight rail yard near the highway.

“We are exploring a significant relocation of the rail lines through the is area just south of the central business district,” he wrote in an email message. “Because the rail work will be such a big job in and of itself, and because we don’t have funds in hand to tack on a major interstate project as well, we are focusing on the rail work for the next several years.”

- https://www.route-fifty.com/infrastructure/2022/06/two-states-cancel-highway-expansions-after-years-planning/367771/

It will be interesting to see if CDOT comes back and revives the project. If they do then that signals they intent on continually expanding freeways. I’m really starting to dislike CDOTs trend of adding a single tolled lane each way though.

I have my qualms about CDOT, but this project was nowhere near shovel ready, and to call it cancelled is simply to push an agenda, nothing  more. The rail line relocation between Santa Fe (US 85) and US 6 will be a major project that will allow them to untangle that problem area.
Logged
So many miles and so many roads

Plutonic Panda

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 2868
  • Location: Los Angeles/OKC
  • Last Login: Today at 12:47:07 AM
Re: Colorado
« Reply #284 on: June 09, 2022, 07:24:13 PM »

Should it be built this is a project that deserves its own thread but given it seems like this project too will fall victim to the latest trend of cities/states canceling(“putting on hold”) freeway expansions due to various reasons.

Quote
Another Canceled Project

The Los Angeles project cancellation came after Colorado officials put on hold their plan to widen Interstate 25 through central Denver, saying they could no longer afford the project. State and regional authorities wanted to expand the highway to address the chronic traffic jams that clog existing lanes, and to improve safety from traffic crashes and low-clearance bridges.

Matt Inzeo, a spokesperson for the Colorado Department of Transportation, said the agency was shifting priorities. It recently purchased a freight rail yard near the highway.

“We are exploring a significant relocation of the rail lines through the is area just south of the central business district,” he wrote in an email message. “Because the rail work will be such a big job in and of itself, and because we don’t have funds in hand to tack on a major interstate project as well, we are focusing on the rail work for the next several years.”

- https://www.route-fifty.com/infrastructure/2022/06/two-states-cancel-highway-expansions-after-years-planning/367771/

It will be interesting to see if CDOT comes back and revives the project. If they do then that signals they intent on continually expanding freeways. I’m really starting to dislike CDOTs trend of adding a single tolled lane each way though.

I have my qualms about CDOT, but this project was nowhere near shovel ready, and to call it cancelled is simply to push an agenda, nothing  more. The rail line relocation between Santa Fe (US 85) and US 6 will be a major project that will allow them to untangle that problem area.
Calling it canceled maybe a misinformed statement as I don’t know too much about Colorados projects but to say it’s an agenda is a bit of a stretch. I did include CDOTs statement that they claim it’s due to a lack of funds. There’s no denying CDOT is more or less hesitant to add GP lanes on urban freeways and no a couple projects doesn’t disprove that statement. I-270 needs five lanes each way and hey it’s currently two with just a single lane each way added.

Hopefully this project is revived.
Logged

thenetwork

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 2888
  • Age: 2018
  • Location: Grand Junction, Colorado
  • Last Login: July 02, 2022, 09:09:32 PM
Re: Colorado
« Reply #285 on: June 09, 2022, 08:41:10 PM »

It could be a blessing...The Denver Broncos was officially sold to a group including an heir to the Walmart stores and the person who owns the teams at Ball Arena for a whopping $4.65 *B*illion!

Talk is the new owners are thinking of replacing the current Empower Field at Mile High within 10 years for a better stadium (domed?) and likely built WITHOUT taxpayer funds.

If they build the new stadium closer to Ball Arena to make it a major downtown entertainment complex, with all the land the partners own around there, it *could* affect any rebuild/relocation of I-25 in that area, as I-25 currently runs right up against Empower Field.

This reimaging of the sports and entertainment area of downtown Denver between Coors Field, Ball Arena and a new Broncos stadium could result in a better alignment and ramping system of the oldest stretch of the interstate....IF everyone will play nice!
Logged

Rothman

  • *
  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 10295
  • Last Login: July 02, 2022, 06:08:58 PM
Re: Colorado
« Reply #286 on: June 09, 2022, 08:42:18 PM »

Homer Simpson owns the Broncos
Logged
Please note: All comments here represent my own personal opinion and do not reflect the official position(s) of NYSDOT.

zzcarp

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 389
  • Age: 44
  • Location: Westminster, CO
  • Last Login: July 01, 2022, 04:13:06 PM
Re: Colorado
« Reply #287 on: June 10, 2022, 12:20:24 AM »

Calling it canceled maybe a misinformed statement as I don’t know too much about Colorados projects but to say it’s an agenda is a bit of a stretch. I did include CDOTs statement that they claim it’s due to a lack of funds. There’s no denying CDOT is more or less hesitant to add GP lanes on urban freeways and no a couple projects doesn’t disprove that statement. I-270 needs five lanes each way and hey it’s currently two with just a single lane each way added.

Hopefully this project is revived.

It's hard to "revive" something that hasn't really started. But you are on point about CDOT. They have no appetite for increasing capacity without managed lanes. And, their budget doesn't allow for major projects without them.

To the I-25 central corridor, CDOT did complete a PEL in early 2020 with some alternatives to move forward. The price tag was just under a billion dollars to bring the central corridor up to modern standards, which just about matches CDOT's budget for capital improvements. Adding CD/Roads with braided exit lanes was about $1.5 - $1.7 billion; managed lanes were also about $1.5 billion. And that's before the rampant inflation in construction costs that is happening now. Without another influx of federal dollars, CDOT will use the projected revenue from the managed lanes and likely a PPP as part of any eventual financing .

Also, this 2019 Denver Post article discusses moving the rail lines as part of the future improvements to I-25.

Quote
But efforts underway now, including CDOT’s attempt to purchase most of Union Pacific Railroad’s now-closed Burnham Yard several blocks east of I-25, are aimed at making the projects about more than improving the freeway.

CDOT officials also hope to expand off-highway transit capacity by adding tracks for RTD’s converging light rail lines through the area. South of Sixth Avenue, they want to relocate heavy rail tracks that are adjacent to I-25, freeing up space that would allow a shift of I-25 away from the South Platte River. Such a move also would improve travel on nearby streets by removing at-grade railroad crossings.

A rail yard purchase also would make room, officials say, for a Front Range passenger rail line that’s now under preliminary study.

Bottom line: the rail relocation is a key part of the eventual reconstruction of the I-25 corridor, and focusing on that is step one. Far from being cancelled, it's being delayed until this preliminary large project is complete.
Logged
So many miles and so many roads

kwellada

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 117
  • Location: Tucson, AZ
  • Last Login: July 02, 2022, 11:56:23 AM
    • Robot Impurity Photography
Re: Colorado
« Reply #288 on: June 10, 2022, 10:20:49 AM »

Homer Simpson owns the Broncos

One of my favorite Simpsons moments  :)
Logged

Stephane Dumas

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 2485
  • Last Login: July 02, 2022, 10:04:30 PM
Re: Colorado
« Reply #289 on: June 14, 2022, 07:16:28 AM »

Seems then CODOT suggested some improvements for US-34 between I-25 and Greeley.
https://www.codot.gov/projects/studies/us-34-planning-and-environmental-linkages-pel-study
Logged

Elm

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 86
  • Last Login: June 15, 2022, 10:06:41 PM
Re: Colorado
« Reply #290 on: June 15, 2022, 10:05:34 PM »

Logged

Plutonic Panda

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 2868
  • Location: Los Angeles/OKC
  • Last Login: Today at 12:47:07 AM
Re: Colorado
« Reply #291 on: June 15, 2022, 11:29:35 PM »

Here it says this:

Quote
"It was welcome news to see CDOT take I-25 expansion off the table for the next five years. We really thank them for that. Now, it's time to go the next step and remove it from the 10-year plan," said transit commuter Chris Applegate.

Which in that article says we are now 3 years into the 10 year plan. So that leads me to believe Colorado simply moved it off the near term projects list but still intends to build it within the next 2-7 years? Given that in 7 years the 10 year plan will be complete. Otherwise I’m not sure how to interpret that.
Logged

triplemultiplex

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 3147
  • "You read it; you can't unread it!"

  • Location: inside the beltline
  • Last Login: June 30, 2022, 12:08:48 PM
Re: Colorado
« Reply #292 on: June 16, 2022, 03:17:09 PM »

Homer Simpson owns the Broncos

One of my favorite Simpsons moments  :)

"I think owning the Denver Broncos is pretty good!"
"You just don't understand football, Marge."
Logged
"That's just like... your opinion, man."

 


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