Colorado

[triplemultiplex]

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.

[Elm]

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 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 (slides here) the day of that news update on infrastructure around the airport business park ("Peak Innovation Park"), which the local news picked up for where it brought up more Powers interchanges.

The news reports (KRDO, KOAA) 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.

[Bobby5280]

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.

[Elm]

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.

(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.)

[Bobby5280]

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.

[Elm]

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.) 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, though at this point there's more information in the slides here). 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.

[Elm]

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"

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, 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.

[...]

[Bobby5280]

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.

[Revive 755]

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"

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 (Page 20 or 24/76 has a map with the tunnel).

[andy3175]

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

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

[JayhawkCO]

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 from 2019 between Frisco and Copper Mountain.  The scar is still very much visible when driving in the summer.

Chris

[andy3175]

Article about the aging of the Eisenhower Johnson Tunnels on Interstate 70...

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

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:

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.

[Plutonic Panda]

It would be nice to add a third lane through the tunnels.

[mgk920]

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

[zzcarp]

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 (historically there were 6 but Tunnel 4 was bypassed when the US 6 - CO 119 intersection was realigned).

CO 119 has 1 tunnel 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.

US 160 near Wolf Creek Pass

I-70 Tunnels:

Veterans Memorial Tunnels

Eisenhower-Johnson Memorial Tunnels

No Name Tunnel (WB Only)

Hanging Lake Tunnels

Tunnels in De Beque Canyon

[kphoger]

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 (historically there were 6 but Tunnel 5 was bypassed when the US 6 - CO 119 intersection was realigned).

CO 119 has 1 tunnel 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.

US 160 near Wolf Creek Pass

I-70 Tunnels:

Veterans Memorial Tunnels

Eisenhower-Johnson Memorial Tunnels

No Name Tunnel (WB Only)

Hanging Lake Tunnels

Tunnels in De Beque Canyon

US-500 south of Ouray

[mgk920]

I-70 Tunnels:

Veterans Memorial Tunnels

Eisenhower-Johnson Memorial Tunnels

No Name Tunnel (WB Only)

Hanging Lake Tunnels

Tunnels in De Beque Canyon

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

Mike

[kphoger]

Eisenhower-Johnson Memorial Tunnels

Hanging Lake Tunnels

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.

[zzcarp]

US-550 south of Ouray

I thought US 550 had one. Thanks kphoger!

I-70 Tunnels:

Veterans Memorial Tunnels

Eisenhower-Johnson Memorial Tunnels

No Name Tunnel (WB Only)

Hanging Lake Tunnels

Tunnels in De Beque Canyon

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.

All right that's twenty. Any others?

[kphoger]

They might also be counting the Red Mountain Pass shed tunnel on US-550.

[JayhawkCO]

They might also be counting the Red Mountain Pass shed tunnel on US-550.

If that's 21, this is 22 on CO14.

Chris

[JayhawkCO]

They might also be counting the Red Mountain Pass shed tunnel on US-550.

If that's 21, this is 22 on CO14.

Chris

Although there is also another avalanche tunnel on US160 here.  So that would make 23.

Chris

[zachary_amaryllis]

If that's 21, this is 22 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.

[andy3175]

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

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

[Plutonic Panda]

I-25 expansion in northern Colorado update:

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