Colorado

[thenetwork]

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.

[Plutonic Panda]

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.

[zzcarp]

In other Colorado news, CDOT's study of the I-270 corridor continues. The second virtual meeting is here, 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:

[Plutonic Panda]

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.

[thenetwork]

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.

[Plutonic Panda]

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.

[zzcarp]

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.

[Plutonic Panda]

Which is so strange to me given an overwhelmingly majority of Denver commuters drive.

[halork]

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.

[zzcarp]

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.

[zzcarp]

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.

[Elm]

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" 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):

• The Valley Highway: [Preliminary Report on] a North-South Limited-Access Highway Through Denver (1944)
  illustrated proposal for Valley Highway route and style
• Paths of Progress (1954)
  road/highway history and stories/case studies
• Columbine Freeway Route Location and Feasibility Study (1969)
  study on the Columbine Freeway between I-25 and Hwy 75 (where the present-day C-470/Santa Fe interchange is), essentially a freeway upgrade or bypass of Santa Fe Dr. Also features a map of the proposed freeway system for the Denver metro at the time (pg 5 / pdf page 11)
• A Design Concept for Interstate 70, Glenwood Canyon, Colorado (1974)
  not the design that happened, but one with separate car/truck roadways; also has a concept image of the disfavored "rim alternative"  high viaduct (pg 43/PDF page 45)
• The High Road (1976)
  a Colorado road history prepared for the bicentennial, goes as recent as I-470

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.

[zzcarp]

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 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.

[US 89]

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.

[JayhawkCO]

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

[Elm]

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) 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 for the project listed these as stakeholder trends, for what it's worth:

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.

[Mark68]

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) 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 for the project listed these as stakeholder trends, for what it's worth:

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.

[thenetwork]

I wonder that if/when this Santa Fe conversion happens would they change the Rush Hour HOV lanes into 24/7 HOT lanes?

[Elm]

I'm not sure how a freeway would play out at the north end, though; for example, redevelopment ("site vision" here) 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 (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 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.)

[Mark68]

I'm not sure how a freeway would play out at the north end, though; for example, redevelopment ("site vision" here) 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 (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 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.

[zzcarp]

Here is a news update 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.


SB I-25 detour pavement into the median. Straight ahead is the construction of I-25's overpass over the SB Powers exit ramp.


Looking east at the I-25 NB lanes running on the completed bridge over the SB Powers exit ramp.


This is looking west at the under construction SB I-25 bridge over the future ramp from NB Powers to SB I-25.


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.

[andy3175]

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/

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.

[keithvh]

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/

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.

[usends]

...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.

[Bobby5280]

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.