Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[brad2971]

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.

[The High Plains Traveler]

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.

[Occidental Tourist]

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

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.

[SkyPesos]

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.

[Elm]

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 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), Powers should reach 157 just east of Voyager, with a little under a mile left to I-25.

[will_e_777]

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

[tigerwings]

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).

[zzcarp]

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.


A new APL sign at North Gate with the old BGS and monotube behind it.


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.


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.


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.


This is the bridge passing over the opposite direction's exit to I-25 SB. The Spectrum Loop overpass is in the far background.


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.


Just beyond the overpass the lanes are striped to follow the exit to Voyager Parkway. The mainline alignment ends in dirt not far ahead.


This is the ramp terminus at Voyager Parkway. The houses in the background delineate somewhat the future CO 21 alignment.


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.


Heading west on the entrance ramp. The mainline pavement begins in the left background. Straight ahead the poles are for a Topgolf facility.


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.


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.


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.


A very sun-glared picture passing under the NB I-25 lanes.


Now on the ramp heading south on the west side of I-25.


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.

[roadfro]

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.

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.

[will_e_777]

is that north section going to be named Powers also?

[zzcarp]

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.

[zzcarp]

The new express toll lanes on the I-25 gap will open on Friday, Dec. 10.

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.

[zachary_amaryllis]

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/
(if you hit a paywall, delete your cookies from that site)

intersection this bypasses: 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.

[SD Mapman]

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).

[Elm]

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
(program webpage / fact sheet /  FAQ)

Bullet points from the fact sheet:

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):

• Fox31/Fox21News: Colorado to require greenhouse gas assessments on all transportation projects
• Colorado Public Radio: Less funding for road expansion, billions for greener transportation projects possible with CDOT rule change / As transportation climate vote nears, car-friendly communities worry it will reduce funding for sought-after road projects
  
• Colorado Sun: CDOT passes mission-changing greenhouse gas rules
• Denver Post: Colorado enacts new rules to reduce greenhouse gas emissions with fewer road expansions, more mass transit options (partly also on Denver7)
• Colorado Springs Gazette: Transportation funds in Colorado to be linked to reduction of greenhouse emissions / Colorado Springs area leaders concerned about new state transportation rule tied to emissions reduction
• Denver Business Journal: Colorado becomes first state to tie transportation planning to improved air quality
  

[zzcarp]

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.

[Plutonic Panda]

Of course. Colorado is becoming a joke with its freeway infrastructure.

[zachary_amaryllis]

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.

[Elm]

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:

• Current CDOT-RTD design project: CO 119 Safety & Mobility Project
• Hwy 119 corridor website: Colorado State Highway 119 at Commuting Solutions
• State Highway 119 BRT Study
• Highway 119 First and Final Mile Study

[SD Mapman]

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...

[Plutonic Panda]

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:

• Current CDOT-RTD design project: CO 119 Safety & Mobility Project
• Hwy 119 corridor website: Colorado State Highway 119 at Commuting Solutions
• State Highway 119 BRT Study
• Highway 119 First and 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.

[Elm]

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:

• Current CDOT-RTD design project: CO 119 Safety & Mobility Project
• Hwy 119 corridor website: Colorado State Highway 119 at Commuting Solutions
• State Highway 119 BRT Study
• Highway 119 First and 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 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

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.

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.

[thenetwork]

^^ 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.

[brad2971]

^^ 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.

[Plutonic Panda]

^^ 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.