Get this:
http://www.denverpost.com/news/ci_23791631/tolling-likely-part-any-revamp-i-70-colorados
The Denver Post reports that a panel suggests toll lanes built in the median of I-70 between C-470 and Silverthorne are likely part of any future improvement project. From the article: "The initial phase of the "Parsons Plan" calls for building a reversible express tollway, two or three lanes wide, stretching about 53 miles between C-470 and Silverthorne. General purpose lanes on I-70 also would be reconstructed." And also... "Parsons also says it will add bores at the Eisenhower-Johnson Memorial Tunnel and at the Twin Tunnels at Idaho Springs." All this would come at a price tag of $3.5 billion. CDOT will assess the plan in the near future for economic feasibility.
Sure sounds like one helluva project, especially considering the terrain.
Quote from: SpudMuffin on August 06, 2013, 02:20:23 PM
Get this:
http://www.denverpost.com/news/ci_23791631/tolling-likely-part-any-revamp-i-70-colorados
The Denver Post reports that a panel suggests toll lanes built in the median of I-70 between C-470 and Silverthorne are likely part of any future improvement project. From the article: "The initial phase of the "Parsons Plan" calls for building a reversible express tollway, two or three lanes wide, stretching about 53 miles between C-470 and Silverthorne. General purpose lanes on I-70 also would be reconstructed." And also... "Parsons also says it will add bores at the Eisenhower-Johnson Memorial Tunnel and at the Twin Tunnels at Idaho Springs." All this would come at a price tag of $3.5 billion. CDOT will assess the plan in the near future for economic feasibility.
Sure sounds like one helluva project, especially considering the terrain.
It says quite a bit about how desperate for work the Parsons Brinckerhoffs of this economy are that they would present, on their own volition, a plan that would likely financially bankrupt them if implemented. I feel quite confident that there is no economic way that toll lanes on I-70 through the divide are feasible on their own. Especially when one considers that the biggest peak hours on that Interstate are:
1. Friday afternoons from Dec-Mar, and June-Labor Day weekend.
2. Sunday afternoons during those same months.
No, the mainline lanes of I-70 from C-470 to at least the Vail Valley have to be tolled for such a project to even come close to making its capital costs.
As this is a state that's notorious for its mountainous terrain, I wouldn't be surprised if it took a decade or more to complete! Still, it's an interesting project to undertake.
A $3.5 billion pricetag for this project seems extremely optimistic.
If Parsons can construct the additional lanes with minimal governmental subsidy, it would be fully worth it.
Additionally, a coach transit solution should be evaluated. Right now, many RTD intercity coaches are used during the weekday peak, but otherwise idle. Perhaps after the Friday evening rush, RTD coaches could depart the various metro-area park-n-rides to the mountains, and return on Sunday, in time for the Monday morning rush. RTD already has experience with a similar service to the airport, SkyRide, and should be able to use their knowledge to operate a service to the mountains.
QuoteA $3.5 billion pricetag for this project seems extremely optimistic.
My thought as well, especially considering the distance, the terrain, and the need for additional tunnel bores.
I think Brad's right as well...only way this becomes even remotely financially viable is if you toll the mainline as well. Unfortunately, I think the only place CDOT could legally do that (under current Federal law) would be at the Eisenhower Tunnel itself....while Federal law limits proposals to toll existing free Interstates to 3 pilot projects (all currently taken), there's more flexibility when it comes to potentially tolling bridges and tunnels.
Quote from: froggie on August 11, 2013, 12:43:19 PM
QuoteA $3.5 billion pricetag for this project seems extremely optimistic.
My thought as well, especially considering the distance, the terrain, and the need for additional tunnel bores.
I think Brad's right as well...only way this becomes even remotely financially viable is if you toll the mainline as well. Unfortunately, I think the only place CDOT could legally do that (under current Federal law) would be at the Eisenhower Tunnel itself....while Federal law limits proposals to toll existing free Interstates to 3 pilot projects (all currently taken), there's more flexibility when it comes to potentially tolling bridges and tunnels.
To be clear, states are allowed to toll existing bridges and tunnels? Hypothetically speaking, could CDOT toll a "bridge" over some insignificant creek and dedicate the revenue to the corridor, or would revenue generated be limited to just the "bridge" segment in question?
Quote from: Zmapper on August 11, 2013, 12:43:11 AM
If Parsons can construct the additional lanes with minimal governmental subsidy, it would be fully worth it.
Additionally, a coach transit solution should be evaluated. Right now, many RTD intercity coaches are used during the weekday peak, but otherwise idle. Perhaps after the Friday evening rush, RTD coaches could depart the various metro-area park-n-rides to the mountains, and return on Sunday, in time for the Monday morning rush. RTD already has experience with a similar service to the airport, SkyRide, and should be able to use their knowledge to operate a service to the mountains.
While this idea is one that definitely should be explored, bear in mind that it would likely be ECO Transit (Eagle County) and/or SummitStage (Summit County) that would run this shuttle. Too many issues with RTD (a standalone political subdivision of the state of CO) going out of its service area for them to run this service.
Again, let's all bear in mind that outside those winter and summer weekends, I-70 is very much a free-flowing interstate.
http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/ipd/fact_sheets/tolling_programs.htm
QuoteThe ISRRPP allows the conversion of free Interstate highways into toll facilities in conjunction with needed reconstruction or rehabilitation that is only possible with the collection of tolls. Congress has authorized up to three slots in the program, which must be used for projects in different states. At the present time, all three slots are conditionally reserved for States that are currently developing applications to the program.
It seems that they can put tolls anywhere, not just on bridges or tunnels.
That's the three pilot project bit I mentioned earlier, but there's another subset of Federal law that allow it on bridges and tunnels....I don't have the details offhand.
How long before one of the three opens up though? I don't see Missouri going through with tolling I-70.
Not entirely on-topic but worthwhile since the Idaho Springs Tunnels were mentioned upstream: An expansion project is underway to widen I-70 through Floyd Hill to Idaho Springs, including the twin tunnels. Construction was underway when I passed through earlier this month.
http://www.coloradodot.info/projects/i70twintunnels
Regards,
Andy
Couldn't CDOT potentially toll the Idaho Springs tunnels, the Ike/Johnson tunnels, and the Glenwood Springs tunnel (as well as the elevated portions of I-70 through Glenwood Canyon)?
If it's tolling to alleviate the major weekend traffic jams between Vail and Denver, then there is no need or reason to toll Glenwood Canyon. The only jams that the canyon has is when there are accidents, rockslides or construction that close up one direction and two-way traffic is shared in the other.
If you are going to toll, I'd put the Eisenhower Tunnel toll barrier just east of the tunnels and the US-6/Loveland Pass exit. Haz-Mat vehicles who must take US-6 over the divide as well as those wanting to skirt the "tunnel toll" should pitch in as well.
That being said, a single toll point is all that is really needed as that is where the majority of the traffic volumes come together on I-70 before they spread out on either side to off-highway designations.
Quote from: andy3175 on August 18, 2013, 10:54:35 PM
Not entirely on-topic but worthwhile since the Idaho Springs Tunnels were mentioned upstream: An expansion project is underway to widen I-70 through Floyd Hill to Idaho Springs, including the twin tunnels. Construction was underway when I passed through earlier this month.
http://www.coloradodot.info/projects/i70twintunnels
Regards,
Andy
On December 13, the expanded eastbound tunnel at Idaho Springs opened to traffic:
http://denver.cbslocal.com/2013/12/12/twin-tunnels-expansion-hopes-to-ease-traffic-congestion-i-70/
http://denver.cbslocal.com/2013/12/13/twin-tunnels-eastbound-now-open-with-3-lanes/
Quote"Many years in the making to get to this point [opening on December 13, 2013]," said CDOT Region One Transportation Director Tony DeVito. The project [widened] the tunnel's eastbound bore to accommodate an additional lane of I-70 just a couple of miles downhill from Idaho Springs. After months of blasting out tons of rock, three lanes of eastbound traffic will be allowed through starting on Friday. "This is an exciting day. It's hard to believe we started this detour on April 1," said DeVito. The eastbound tunnel was singled out as the major pinch point for the drive back to Denver from the mountains. New LED lights will also help. "This tunnel is much higher, much wider and you're not going to get that black hole effect that was slowing people with a psychological event for many years," said DeVito.
Also notable was this comment about the possibility of toll lanes at the end of the first article:
QuoteWith that expansion complete, other projects for the mountain corridor are moving forward. "The main thing CDOT is working on right now is the peak period shoulder lane project," said DeVito. "It will add an operational lane, a shoulder lane that will become operational during peak periods from Empire." The shoulder lane is expected to be completed in the summer of 2015 and it will cost drivers to use it.
The second article adds about the toll lanes:
QuoteThe tunnel widening is only one part of a larger project. In 2014 the Interstate 70 peak period shoulder lane project will get started. It will be adding a lane for eastbound travel from the empire junction where U.S. 40 splits off toward Winter Park and go all the way through Idaho Springs to the tunnels. When it's done the shoulder lanes can be taken at any time, but during peak travel times it will be a toll lane. It opens in 2015.
Regards,
Andy
A friend and I drove this route back in Sept. (Denver-Glenwood Springs) There was a lot of work going on on I-70 including the tunnel expansion mentioned here.
The "Mountain Corridor Express Lane" opens on December 12, 2015:
http://www.bizjournals.com/denver/blog/broadway_17th/2015/11/a-colorado-freeway-israted-among-the-5-worst-in.html
QuoteThe long-anticipated Mountain Corridor Express Lane, a 13-mile eastbound shoulder lane intended to speed traffic during high-volume periods, is set to open Dec. 12. Travelers will pay anywhere from $3 to $30 to use the lane, depending on traffic conditions.
And the U.S. House of Representatives on Thursday passed an amendment that would designate I-70 from Denver to Salt Lake City as a "Corridor of High Priority," authored by U.S. Rep. Jared Polis of Boulder. The amendment is part of a transportation bill that would fund the nation's roads, bridges and highways, and would make I-70 eligible for certain funding.
Also, the part of I-70 that runs through Denver is also facing a major construction overhaul after city officials proposed a $1.17 billion plan to widen the highway through north Denver and put a lid on it, as well as deal with its crumbling viaducts.
Official CDOT site: https://www.codot.gov/projects/I70mtnppsl
QuoteThe project, part of CDOT's comprehensive plan to improve travel in the I-70 Mountain Corridor, will upgrade 13-miles of Eastbound I-70 within CDOT's existing right of way. The upgrades will create the I-70 Mountain Express Lane; a wide shoulder that — only during peak travel periods — will operate as a third travel lane. The I-70 Mountain Express Lane will be dynamically priced to keep traffic moving. Prices will lower when CDOT wants to encourage drivers to use the lane and rise as the lane reaches capacity. Click here for more information on how express lanes operate. ...
The I-70 Mountain Express Lane is scheduled to open to traffic on Saturday, Dec. 12. In the days leading up to this there will be a significant amount of systems testing done. This work will require closing different lanes at different times and running messages on the overhead electronic boards.
Drivers should note that tolls will not be collected until Saturday, Dec. 12, at the earliest.
While the opening of this lane is a major milestone for the Peak Period Shoulder Lane Project, work on this project (and lane closures as needed) will continue into 2016.
http://www.denverpost.com/news/ci_28970386/i-70-toll-lane-could-cost-up-40
QuoteDrivers jumping onto the toll lane on the Interstate 70 mountain corridor could pay as much as $40, while those traveling to a University of Colorado football game will pay more if they use the U.S. 36 toll lane.
Those toll rates and others were set Wednesday by the state's High Performance Transportation Enterprise, which oversees tolling on Colorado's busiest roadways. ...
Drivers who use a state-approved electronic ExpressToll pass get a break on prices, officials said.
For instance, the price range a driver using a toll pass on I-70 will vary from $3 to $30. A driver without a toll pass could see a bill as high as $40, because of processing fees. The lane, which will not give credit for high-occupancy vehicles, will open by the end of the year.
The I-70 toll lane is opening this weekend and will be free of charge (I'm pretty sure it's for the whole weekend but may be wrong). With snow in the forecast, it will be interesting to see how much a free 3rd lane in the snow will impact drive times from Empire to Idaho Springs. I'm curious also to see if pricing will ever hit the ceiling level discussed - supply and demand will be at work here
When I went to Denver in May, I must not have noticed the toll lanes being built. Does anyone have any recent picture of the project? The tunnels at Idaho Springs were done by that time.
I have a feeling this is another Big Dig...or maybe TXDOT and Santiago Calatrava is reconstructing and designing this rather than CDOT.
Quote from: codyg1985 on December 17, 2015, 01:56:33 PM
When I went to Denver in May, I must not have noticed the toll lanes being built. Does anyone have any recent picture of the project? The tunnels at Idaho Springs were done by that time.
It's was pretty much camouflaged over the summer (at least thru mid-July), as there were no signs/gantries set up yet. They pretty much widened the eastbound lanes as much as they could -- some areas have shoulders &/or pulloff areas when the toll lane is in use, otherwise it is 3-lanes with little to no shoulder.
Are there any other roads in the Denver area you think should have toll lanes, where none currently exist?
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on December 18, 2015, 05:21:35 PM
Are there any other roads in the Denver area you think should have toll lanes, where none currently exist?
Boulder Turnpike (US-36) has dedicated toll lanes, finished this year. There has been talk about adding a 3rd lane in each direction along C-470 and making that a toll lane. And there has been talk of including a toll lane in each direction when the I-70 viaduct is replaced.
With I-225 and the southern half of I-25 recently rebuilt, there would definitely be an uproar if they suddenly turned a free lane into a Toll lane.
That leaves the other toll lane candidates as I-270, which has room for a 3rd lane, I-76 (ditto), and I-25 North of US-36/I-270.
What about I-25 north to Fort Collins or I-25 south to Colorado Springs? Or are there any plans to widen those with general purpose lanes?
Quote from: codyg1985 on December 21, 2015, 07:19:14 AM
What about I-25 north to Fort Collins or I-25 south to Colorado Springs? Or are there any plans to widen those with general purpose lanes?
Haven't been on I-25 North of Denver, so I cannot address that. But I know they are slowly adding a 3rd lane between south Denver Metro and the Springs, but I don't think that is enough of a chronic choke point for traffic to warrant a toll lane. Then again, I was only on that stretch once...around midnight...in the dark and there were no issues, obviously.
Quote from: codyg1985 on December 21, 2015, 07:19:14 AM
What about I-25 north to Fort Collins or I-25 south to Colorado Springs? Or are there any plans to widen those with general purpose lanes?
For north of Denver check out https://www.codot.gov/projects/NorthI-25 (https://www.codot.gov/projects/NorthI-25). It looks like CDOT is planning on tolled lanes from SH 66 (where 25 currently loses its third lane) north to at least Fort Collins. However, CDOT is planning a 2075(!) completion for all the projects, so I wouldn't hold my breath...
As for south of Denver, I-25 is only two lanes in each direction from Monument to Castle Rock. I jokingly call that stretch the 90 mile per hour free-for-all, but it doesn't take much to go from 90 to 0 in a matter of feet. Out of the last six or seven times I've taken that stretch, I've been in a complete stop all but once. It could definitely use a third lane, but as far as I can tell, no funding or EIS's have been done on that stretch yet.
Some of this is likely to get underway soon:
QuoteA 4 foot wide block of road surface broke away from the deck of a Interstate 70 overpass in the foothills Wednesday, creating a hole which damaged several vehicles and required more than a full day to repair.
It also created an opportunity for the state agency in charge of highways to stress the need to approve funding for replacing a stretch of roadway that includes the overpass.
https://denver.cbslocal.com/2022/03/05/cdot-interstate-70-i70-floyd-hill-overpass-hole-repair-project/
(https://denver.cbslocal.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/15909806/2022/03/Bridge-Repair-6-rendering-of-completed-project-CDOT.jpg?resize=1500,844)
As a reminder here is the project website: https://www.codot.gov/projects/i70floydhill
I hope these projects can be expedited with the infrastructure bill funds. This entire corridor expansion can't come soon enough.
I hope this project eliminates the left (WB) entrance and (EB) exit from I-70 to US 6...
I'll bet this is now closer to a $10B project than the original $3.5B estimate...
Quote from: Mark68 on March 14, 2022, 06:30:49 PM
I hope this project eliminates the left (WB) entrance and (EB) exit from I-70 to US 6...
me too. that exit is just downright sketchy.
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on March 07, 2022, 10:30:43 AM[...]As a reminder here is the project website: https://www.codot.gov/projects/i70floydhill
I hope these projects can be expedited with the infrastructure bill funds. This entire corridor expansion can't come soon enough.
That may depend on what you have in mind by "these projects"; the $3.5 billion plan the original post referred to was an unsolicited proposal that CDOT didn't pick up, although there is some inspiration from it in I-70 Mountain Corridor (https://www.codot.gov/projects/i70mountaincorridor) plans. Corridor-wide, the hypothetical "maximum program of improvements" features "six-lane capacity" from the twin tunnels to the Eisenhower Tunnel (see Figure ES-6 (https://www.codot.gov/projects/i-70-old-mountaincorridor/final-peis/final-peis-documents/individual-files/04_Ex_Sum_Rev50.pdf#page=24)), but the 2020 reassessment (https://www.codot.gov/projects/i70mountaincorridor/assets/i-70-mtn-corridor-final-2020-reassessment-report-complete.pdf) notes that "capacity" there refers to carrying ability, not necessarily lanes.
For near-term Floyd Hill, it sounds federal funding might allow for doing the larger parts of the project at once rather than in phases, although CDOT doesn't expect to finish their funding plan until September (referring to this January memo (https://www.codot.gov/about/transportation-commission/documents/2022-supporting-documents/january-2022/02-floyd-hill.pdf)). Otherwise, they're thinking early projects (https://www.codot.gov/projects/i70floydhill/floyd-hill-early-projects) starting this year, eastbound project construction over 2023-2027, westbound TBD (groupings listed here (https://www.codot.gov/news/2021/june-2021/i70-floyd-hill-transparency)).
Federal funding is also expected to help with maintenance on the Eisenhower Tunnel (like this (https://www.codot.gov/projects/ejmtdrainageproject)).
Quote from: zachary_amaryllis on March 14, 2022, 08:29:02 PMQuote from: Mark68 on March 14, 2022, 06:30:49 PM
I hope this project eliminates the left (WB) entrance and (EB) exit from I-70 to US 6...
me too. that exit is just downright sketchy.
The Floyd Hill project would do this eventually–US 6 would be extended west from the current interchange as a frontage road to the Central City Pkwy interchange. Eastbound-to-eastbound access would be at the Central City Pkwy interchange, and westbound-to-westbound access would be a right-side entrance near the current location. Here's (https://static.theasys.io/media/1031212708/xUhMjgmbTOYUkms/action_pdf/2q8UpV7iTq0jRGxkjAKTnu9zc4VDxh.pdf) the visualization from the virtual public meeting (https://www.theasys.io/viewer/xUhMjgmbTOYUkmsrETacUf8xryiKfg/) site. [If that site goes down, there's a big PDF of all the exhibits on CDOT's site here (https://www.codot.gov/projects/i70floydhill/assets/21912-floyd-hill-appendix-a-engagement-summary.pdf#page=37).]
Quote from: Elm on March 14, 2022, 08:51:39 PM
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on March 07, 2022, 10:30:43 AM[...]As a reminder here is the project website: https://www.codot.gov/projects/i70floydhill
I hope these projects can be expedited with the infrastructure bill funds. This entire corridor expansion can't come soon enough.
That may depend on what you have in mind by "these projects"; the $3.5 billion plan the original post referred to was an unsolicited proposal that CDOT didn't pick up, although there is some inspiration from it in I-70 Mountain Corridor (https://www.codot.gov/projects/i70mountaincorridor) plans. Corridor-wide, the hypothetical "maximum program of improvements" features "six-lane capacity" from the twin tunnels to the Eisenhower Tunnel (see Figure ES-6 (https://www.codot.gov/projects/i-70-old-mountaincorridor/final-peis/final-peis-documents/individual-files/04_Ex_Sum_Rev50.pdf#page=24)), but the 2020 reassessment (https://www.codot.gov/projects/i70mountaincorridor/assets/i-70-mtn-corridor-final-2020-reassessment-report-complete.pdf) notes that "capacity" there refers to carrying ability, not necessarily lanes.
For near-term Floyd Hill, it sounds federal funding might allow for doing the larger parts of the project at once rather than in phases, although CDOT doesn't expect to finish their funding plan until September (referring to this January memo (https://www.codot.gov/about/transportation-commission/documents/2022-supporting-documents/january-2022/02-floyd-hill.pdf)). Otherwise, they're thinking early projects (https://www.codot.gov/projects/i70floydhill/floyd-hill-early-projects) starting this year, eastbound project construction over 2023-2027, westbound TBD (groupings listed here (https://www.codot.gov/news/2021/june-2021/i70-floyd-hill-transparency)).
Federal funding is also expected to help with maintenance on the Eisenhower Tunnel (like this (https://www.codot.gov/projects/ejmtdrainageproject)).
So what is the project shown in the video? I was under the assumption that was the 700 million dollar project but I guess I'm completely wrong if it's the 3.5 billion dollar one. What will the 700 million dollars be? Some wildlife underpasses and roundabouts!? Or that deals with the rehabilitation of the tunnels as well? CDOTs website confuses the heck out of me sometimes.
If so that's a real bummer because I use this stretch of freeway fairly often and I've been dreaming of improvements for a long time.
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on March 16, 2022, 11:51:55 AM
Quote from: Elm on March 14, 2022, 08:51:39 PM
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on March 07, 2022, 10:30:43 AM[...]As a reminder here is the project website: https://www.codot.gov/projects/i70floydhill
I hope these projects can be expedited with the infrastructure bill funds. This entire corridor expansion can’t come soon enough.
That may depend on what you have in mind by "these projects"; the $3.5 billion plan the original post referred to was an unsolicited proposal that CDOT didn't pick up, although there is some inspiration from it in I-70 Mountain Corridor (https://www.codot.gov/projects/i70mountaincorridor) plans. Corridor-wide, the hypothetical "maximum program of improvements" features "six-lane capacity" from the twin tunnels to the Eisenhower Tunnel (see Figure ES-6 (https://www.codot.gov/projects/i-70-old-mountaincorridor/final-peis/final-peis-documents/individual-files/04_Ex_Sum_Rev50.pdf#page=24)), but the 2020 reassessment (https://www.codot.gov/projects/i70mountaincorridor/assets/i-70-mtn-corridor-final-2020-reassessment-report-complete.pdf) notes that "capacity" there refers to carrying ability, not necessarily lanes.
For near-term Floyd Hill, it sounds federal funding might allow for doing the larger parts of the project at once rather than in phases, although CDOT doesn't expect to finish their funding plan until September (referring to this January memo (https://www.codot.gov/about/transportation-commission/documents/2022-supporting-documents/january-2022/02-floyd-hill.pdf)). Otherwise, they're thinking early projects (https://www.codot.gov/projects/i70floydhill/floyd-hill-early-projects) starting this year, eastbound project construction over 2023-2027, westbound TBD (groupings listed here (https://www.codot.gov/news/2021/june-2021/i70-floyd-hill-transparency)).
Federal funding is also expected to help with maintenance on the Eisenhower Tunnel (like this (https://www.codot.gov/projects/ejmtdrainageproject)).
So what is the project shown in the video? I was under the assumption that was the 700 million dollar project but I guess I’m completely wrong if it’s the 3.5 billion dollar one. What will the 700 million dollars be? Some wildlife underpasses and roundabouts!? Or that deals with the rehabilitation of the tunnels as well? CDOTs website confuses the heck out of me sometimes.
If so that’s a real bummer because I use this stretch of freeway fairly often and I’ve been dreaming of improvements for a long time.
They just rebuilt the tunnels by Idaho Springs, widening them to 3 lanes in each direction + shoulder space, so I don't what existing tunnels in/near the Floyd Hill project you are referring to regarding rehabs.
However, it looks like the idea of a new westbound I-70 tunnel at he bottom of the hill at US-6 (to make the curve toward Idaho Springs less sharp) is dead, no???
Quote from: thenetwork on March 16, 2022, 06:59:09 PM
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on March 16, 2022, 11:51:55 AM
So what is the project shown in the video? I was under the assumption that was the 700 million dollar project but I guess I'm completely wrong if it's the 3.5 billion dollar one. What will the 700 million dollars be? Some wildlife underpasses and roundabouts!? Or that deals with the rehabilitation of the tunnels as well? CDOTs website confuses the heck out of me sometimes.
If so that's a real bummer because I use this stretch of freeway fairly often and I've been dreaming of improvements for a long time.
They just rebuilt the tunnels by Idaho Springs, widening them to 3 lanes in each direction + shoulder space, so I don't what existing tunnels in/near the Floyd Hill project you are referring to regarding rehabs.
Sorry, I probably confused things more (although I agree the CDOT website can be dodgy). The $700 million project in the news now is the whole set of Floyd Hill area things, including the early action projects and I-70 rebuild+expansion.
The early action projects alone were estimated at $31 million, and I meant to distinguish the Floyd Hill projects from other locations in the corridor, like the Eisenhower Tunnel, which are separate projects that may also receive federal funding.
Quote from: thenetwork on March 16, 2022, 06:59:09 PM[...]However, it looks like the idea of a new westbound I-70 tunnel at he bottom of the hill at US-6 (to make the curve toward Idaho Springs less sharp) is dead, no???
It looks that way. The way the EA reads (excerpt below), it sounds like they tweaked the tunnel alternative to limit excavation, and stakeholders didn't like the result, which put more south of the creek than before.
Quote3.7. How well do the action alternatives fit the Project context and support core values?
[...]The Canyon Viaduct Alternative is supported by the PLT [Project Leadership Team] as the Preferred Alternative. The Canyon Viaduct Alternative also has support among TT [Technical Team] members. Aspects of the Canyon Viaduct Alternative that are supported include its ability to fit into the canyon with less blasting and rock excavation, reduced roadway infrastructure next to the creek and Greenway, and less complicated operations compared to the Tunnel Alternative. The Tunnel Alternative North Frontage Road Option was initially considered as the Proposed Action for the Project and is also supported by the TT. Features of the Tunnel Alternative North Frontage Road Option that were supported by the TT included the north alignment of the frontage road that avoids impacts to Hidden Valley Open Space on the south side of Clear Creek Canyon, the reduced roadway footprint and visual impact of the highway through the canyon by putting westbound I-70 in a tunnel, the ability to construct the tunnel offline, and a general support and interest in tunnels. The Tunnel Alternative South Frontage Road Option was developed to reduce rock excavation and heights of rock cuts. While it has this advantage compared to the Tunnel Alternative North Frontage Road Option, it is not supported by the PLT, TT, Clear Creek County, Idaho Springs, or the Floyd Hill neighborhood because it introduces roadway infrastructure on the south side of Clear Creek, disrupts wildlife movement along the creek, and diminishes the recreational experience of the Greenway, an important community resource.
[...]
3.10. What happens to the Tunnel Alternative?
The Tunnel Alternative is feasible and could be implemented. While it is not preferred based on currently available information and level of design, it is not eliminated. The CMGC may come up with innovations that reduce impacts or increase benefits for the Tunnel Alternative and, if this happens, CDOT would consider the new information, reevaluate the revised design or design concepts, and seek public input for the new design. The PLT and TT would also be involved in evaluating any revised design concepts.
Quote from: Elm on March 16, 2022, 07:18:43 PM
Quote from: thenetwork on March 16, 2022, 06:59:09 PM
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on March 16, 2022, 11:51:55 AM
So what is the project shown in the video? I was under the assumption that was the 700 million dollar project but I guess I'm completely wrong if it's the 3.5 billion dollar one. What will the 700 million dollars be? Some wildlife underpasses and roundabouts!? Or that deals with the rehabilitation of the tunnels as well? CDOTs website confuses the heck out of me sometimes.
If so that's a real bummer because I use this stretch of freeway fairly often and I've been dreaming of improvements for a long time.
They just rebuilt the tunnels by Idaho Springs, widening them to 3 lanes in each direction + shoulder space, so I don't what existing tunnels in/near the Floyd Hill project you are referring to regarding rehabs.
Sorry, I probably confused things more (although I agree the CDOT website can be dodgy). The $700 million project in the news now is the whole set of Floyd Hill area things, including the early action projects and I-70 rebuild+expansion.
The early action projects alone were estimated at $31 million, and I meant to distinguish the Floyd Hill projects from other locations in the corridor, like the Eisenhower Tunnel, which are separate projects that may also receive federal funding.
Quote from: thenetwork on March 16, 2022, 06:59:09 PM[...]However, it looks like the idea of a new westbound I-70 tunnel at he bottom of the hill at US-6 (to make the curve toward Idaho Springs less sharp) is dead, no???
It looks that way. The way the EA reads (excerpt below), it sounds like they tweaked the tunnel alternative to limit excavation, and stakeholders didn't like the result, which put more south of the creek than before.
Quote3.7. How well do the action alternatives fit the Project context and support core values?
[...]The Canyon Viaduct Alternative is supported by the PLT [Project Leadership Team] as the Preferred Alternative. The Canyon Viaduct Alternative also has support among TT [Technical Team] members. Aspects of the Canyon Viaduct Alternative that are supported include its ability to fit into the canyon with less blasting and rock excavation, reduced roadway infrastructure next to the creek and Greenway, and less complicated operations compared to the Tunnel Alternative. The Tunnel Alternative North Frontage Road Option was initially considered as the Proposed Action for the Project and is also supported by the TT. Features of the Tunnel Alternative North Frontage Road Option that were supported by the TT included the north alignment of the frontage road that avoids impacts to Hidden Valley Open Space on the south side of Clear Creek Canyon, the reduced roadway footprint and visual impact of the highway through the canyon by putting westbound I-70 in a tunnel, the ability to construct the tunnel offline, and a general support and interest in tunnels. The Tunnel Alternative South Frontage Road Option was developed to reduce rock excavation and heights of rock cuts. While it has this advantage compared to the Tunnel Alternative North Frontage Road Option, it is not supported by the PLT, TT, Clear Creek County, Idaho Springs, or the Floyd Hill neighborhood because it introduces roadway infrastructure on the south side of Clear Creek, disrupts wildlife movement along the creek, and diminishes the recreational experience of the Greenway, an important community resource.
[...]
3.10. What happens to the Tunnel Alternative?
The Tunnel Alternative is feasible and could be implemented. While it is not preferred based on currently available information and level of design, it is not eliminated. The CMGC may come up with innovations that reduce impacts or increase benefits for the Tunnel Alternative and, if this happens, CDOT would consider the new information, reevaluate the revised design or design concepts, and seek public input for the new design. The PLT and TT would also be involved in evaluating any revised design concepts.
Okay thanks for the information. So in its current proposal the entire I-70 mountain corridor projects include this project, the Eisenhower tunnels, and the early action projects. All that combined currently estimated at 3.5 billion. Do I have that correct?
Now is the the Eisenhower third bore tunnel included with the I-70 mountain corridor? And are the projects around Vail included as well or are those completely separate? Sorry for the 21 questions I'm just curious and excited as I travel this area fairly regularly and will probably do much more of that in the future.
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on March 16, 2022, 08:53:12 PM
Quote from: Elm on March 16, 2022, 07:18:43 PM
Quote from: thenetwork on March 16, 2022, 06:59:09 PM
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on March 16, 2022, 11:51:55 AM
So what is the project shown in the video? I was under the assumption that was the 700 million dollar project but I guess I'm completely wrong if it's the 3.5 billion dollar one. What will the 700 million dollars be? Some wildlife underpasses and roundabouts!? Or that deals with the rehabilitation of the tunnels as well? CDOTs website confuses the heck out of me sometimes.
If so that's a real bummer because I use this stretch of freeway fairly often and I've been dreaming of improvements for a long time.
They just rebuilt the tunnels by Idaho Springs, widening them to 3 lanes in each direction + shoulder space, so I don't what existing tunnels in/near the Floyd Hill project you are referring to regarding rehabs.
Sorry, I probably confused things more (although I agree the CDOT website can be dodgy). The $700 million project in the news now is the whole set of Floyd Hill area things, including the early action projects and I-70 rebuild+expansion.
The early action projects alone were estimated at $31 million, and I meant to distinguish the Floyd Hill projects from other locations in the corridor, like the Eisenhower Tunnel, which are separate projects that may also receive federal funding.
[...]
Okay thanks for the information. So in its current proposal the entire I-70 mountain corridor projects include this project, the Eisenhower tunnels, and the early action projects. All that combined currently estimated at 3.5 billion. Do I have that correct?
Now is the the Eisenhower third bore tunnel included with the I-70 mountain corridor? And are the projects around Vail included as well or are those completely separate? Sorry for the 21 questions I'm just curious and excited as I travel this area fairly regularly and will probably do much more of that in the future.
For study purposes, "I-70 Mountain Corridor" covers a lot, C-470 to Glenwood Springs; if you start from this CDOT webpage (https://www.codot.gov/projects/i70mountaincorridor), you can see some of the relatively recent/active things at the top, and there are more links to the labyrinth of related studies and projects. I believe all the projects you mentioned fall under that umbrella, however, CDOT isn't necessarily trying to advance any particular corridor project. The 10-Year Vision Plan (https://www.codot.gov/programs/your-transportation-priorities/your-transportation-plan) lists what they're actively trying to work on; it groups by region and highway corridor, so you could look up I-70 in there.
I don't know if CDOT has a go-to estimate for the whole corridor now, but in 2010/2011, they had a rough, low-end estimate of $11.2 billion for the full "maximum program of improvements" ($20.2 billion in then-estimated 2025 dollars), referring to "I-70 Mountain Corridor PEIS Cost Estimating Technical Report" (https://www.codot.gov/projects/i-70-old-mountaincorridor/final-peis/final-peis-documents/technical-reports/Vol1_I-70_Mntn_Corridor_Final_PEIS_Cost_Estimates_TR.pdf). The "minimum program" was estimated at $9.2ish billion ($16.5 estimated 2025), but the estimates were all subject to change and escalation over time and further study, so you can't really connect them directly to the projects happening now.
You can see the overview of the preferred alternatives and what the programs of improvement include here (Figure ES-6) (https://www.codot.gov/projects/i-70-old-mountaincorridor/final-peis/final-peis-documents/individual-files/04_Ex_Sum_Rev50.pdf#page=24); they do include a third Eisenhower Tunnel (EJMT) bore, as well as an "advanced guideway system." The $3.5 billion in this topic, I think, refers to an unsolicited proposal for a different plan that a particular company came up with. It wasn't a CDOT project or number.
Speaking more concretely, there aren't active plans to construct a third EJMT bore; the maintenance backlog on the existing tunnels is the main concern. The 2020 ROD reevaluation (https://www.codot.gov/projects/i70mountaincorridor/assets/i-70-mtn-corridor-final-2020-reassessment-report-complete.pdf) mentions this:
QuoteThe CE wanted to clarify whether the EJMT third bore is part of the Minimum or Maximum Program of Improvements because the PEIS does not specifically classify the EJMT third bore in either program or as a separate improvement project. After discussion, the CE concluded that the EJMT expansion should be classified in the Minimum Program. This conclusion was based on the relationship of the EJMT improvements to other parts of the Preferred Alternative that are clearly outlined in the Minimum Program, such as the Vail Pass auxiliary lanes and the AGS bore through the Continental Divide. Further, expanding the EJMT would not trigger the Maximum Program and classifying the EJMT expansion in the Minimum Program provides more flexibility to advance this discrete but complex action, such as if tolling could fund its expansion.
Maybe as a counterpoint, though, this 2021 article (https://www.cpr.org/2021/05/19/colorado-is-sure-it-can-expand-highways-while-also-meeting-climate-goals-history-suggests-thatll-be-a-tough-climb/) briefly mentions that CDOT isn't going to pursue the third bore.
---
To try to recap what I think to be the numbers:
$3.5 billion: private estimate for a privately-conceived project in ~2011-13; today's corridor plan doesn't include the envisioned project, which featured a "reversible express tollway"
$11.2 billion: CDOT rough estimate for I-70 Mountain Corridor preferred alternative minimum program of improvements in 2010 dollars (high-cost components include EJMT third bore and advanced guideway transit)
$0.7 billion: total estimated 2020s Floyd Hill area project cost (including $0.031 billion early projects and "canyon viaduct" overall alternative)
^^^^ Good deal. I appreciate the information. Are or have you worked for CDOT? You have an awful lot of knowledge about this I spent an hour scouring their website and found some of this info but not all of it.
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on March 17, 2022, 09:00:29 AM
^^^^ Good deal. I appreciate the information. Are or have you worked for CDOT? You have an awful lot of knowledge about this I spent an hour scouring their website and found some of this info but not all of it.
I don't have any CDOT affiliation; it could be that after looking at their website a while, a good amount of the time I've seen some piece of information before or have an idea of where it might be. It doesn't always work, though; for example, with the I-70 mountain corridor, I know there's a spreadsheet that CDOT updates occasionally listing the status of work toward the EA plan. There's a version of it (https://www.codot.gov/projects/i70mountaincorridor/assets/i-70-mtn-corridor-preferred-alternative-tracking-sheet_current-091119.pdf) linked on the I-70 Mountain Corridor section of the site, but it's not very recently updated. I thought I'd seen a newer one, but I couldn't find it .
--
Separately, starting in August, CDOT will issue fines based on the license plate readers to people that use the part-time shoulder lanes on I-70 when they're closed:
- Denver7: Drivers will be fined for driving in the I-70 mountain express toll lanes when they are closed (https://www.thedenverchannel.com/news/local-news/drivers-will-be-fined-for-driving-in-the-i-70-mountain-express-toll-lanes-when-they-are-closed)
- CPR: CDOT to ticket drivers using I-70 mountain express lanes outside of peak hours (https://www.cpr.org/2022/03/16/cdot-to-ticket-drivers-using-i-70-mountain-express-lanes-outside-of-peak-hours/)
- Colorado Sun: It's official: Colorado will begin ticketing drivers who illegally use the I-70 mountain express toll lanes (https://coloradosun.com/2022/03/15/colorado-i-70-mountain-express-lanes-tickets/)
On the "why do they close anyway," the shoulder lanes are considered an interim solution and have a bunch of rules about when and how long they can be open (for example, limits on days and hours per year, which are different for each direction). Also to the "interim" point, they're supposed to be closed or superseded by 2035: "The Toll Facility shall cease operation by the year 2035 unless modified by a different project, which may or may not be a part of the Corridor's long term solution." (One copy of the MOU is here (https://www.codot.gov/about/transportation-commission/documents/2018-agendas-and-supporting-documents/november-2018-1/2-mexl-mou.pdf)--not sure if it's the latest.)
CPR article on the project expected to begin Spring 23'
https://www.cpr.org/2022/05/18/new-cdot-renderings-show-what-an-i-70-expansion-at-floyd-hill-might-look-like/
Projected cost to be 800 million instead of 700.
https://www.denverpost.com/2022/05/30/i-70-floyd-hill-project-cost-inflation-shortages/
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on May 31, 2022, 09:13:57 PM
Projected cost to be 800 million instead of 700.
https://www.denverpost.com/2022/05/30/i-70-floyd-hill-project-cost-inflation-shortages/
Looks like they'll try for infrastructure bill money and look at other aspects to stay on budget.
Looks like the first components of this project will break ground in October:
https://www.thedenverchannel.com/news/local-news/as-winter-approaches-cdot-prepares-to-break-ground-on-floyd-hill-project
Too bed this wont include a twin tube six lane base tunnel to bypass the Johnson-Eisenhower tunnels and a resurrected twin tube six lane Red-Buffalo tunnel to bypass the substandard grades on Vail Pass.
:no:
Oh well.... ( :-D )
Mike
Quote from: mgk920 on September 06, 2022, 01:19:05 PM
Too bed this wont include a twin tube six lane base tunnel to bypass the Johnson-Eisenhower tunnels and a resurrected twin tube six lane Red-Buffalo tunnel to bypass the substandard grades on Vail Pass.
:no:
Oh well.... ( :-D )
Mike
If they really wanted to fix traffic this is what would be done but alas mega projects like that just don't seem very doable in the states anymore.
Quote from: mgk920 on September 06, 2022, 01:19:05 PM
Too bed this wont include a twin tube six lane base tunnel to bypass the Johnson-Eisenhower tunnels and a resurrected twin tube six lane Red-Buffalo tunnel to bypass the substandard grades on Vail Pass.
:no:
Oh well.... ( :-D )
Mike
You've got four lanes of tunnel existing at Eisenhower/Johnson right now. A single additional four-lane bore would take care of everything - and at far less cost than TWO three-lane tunnels.
This project will get 100 million in federal grant money.
https://www.coloradopolitics.com/quick-hits/colorado-s-i-70-floyd-hill-project-awarded-100-million-in-federal-grant/article_48929688-32b7-11ed-a641-bfed404233a6.html
PS, anyway we can the thread title to change now? :bigass:
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on September 13, 2022, 12:23:03 PM
This project will get 100 million in federal grant money.
https://www.coloradopolitics.com/quick-hits/colorado-s-i-70-floyd-hill-project-awarded-100-million-in-federal-grant/article_48929688-32b7-11ed-a641-bfed404233a6.html
PS, anyway we can the thread title to change now? :bigass:
The thread "Denver's I-70 may be rebuilt below surface" hasn't been renamed and that project is almost done. :sombrero:
Quote from: skluth on October 15, 2022, 03:34:54 PM
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on September 13, 2022, 12:23:03 PM
This project will get 100 million in federal grant money.
https://www.coloradopolitics.com/quick-hits/colorado-s-i-70-floyd-hill-project-awarded-100-million-in-federal-grant/article_48929688-32b7-11ed-a641-bfed404233a6.html
PS, anyway we can the thread title to change now? :bigass:
The thread "Denver's I-70 may be rebuilt below surface" hasn't been renamed and that project is almost done. :sombrero:
Lol yeah a new name would be appropriate for this one as well :p
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on September 13, 2022, 12:23:03 PM
This project will get 100 million in federal grant money.
https://www.coloradopolitics.com/quick-hits/colorado-s-i-70-floyd-hill-project-awarded-100-million-in-federal-grant/article_48929688-32b7-11ed-a641-bfed404233a6.html
PS, anyway we can the thread title to change now? :bigass:
Sure. I just changed the title to this: I-70 in Colorado: Mountain Corridor Upgrades.
Quote from: andy3175 on October 17, 2022, 11:38:55 AM
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on September 13, 2022, 12:23:03 PM
This project will get 100 million in federal grant money.
https://www.coloradopolitics.com/quick-hits/colorado-s-i-70-floyd-hill-project-awarded-100-million-in-federal-grant/article_48929688-32b7-11ed-a641-bfed404233a6.html
PS, anyway we can the thread title to change now? :bigass:
Sure. I just changed the title to this: I-70 in Colorado: Mountain Corridor Upgrades.
Many thanks. 🙏
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5S53mKYaHOo
The ground has been broken on the I-70's Floyd Hill project!
Here's another article on it:
https://www.constructionequipmentguide.com/colorado-officials-break-ground-on-700m-i-70-project/58557
Oh man this will be so nice when finished.
https://www.9news.com/amp/article/travel/cdot-fines-closed-i-70-mountain-toll-lanes/73-696d2e1a-b0b0-4f8f-8eef-b0e6714541a0
QuoteCDOT has issued zero fines for driving in closed I-70 mountain toll lanes – turns out it can't: CDOT said its current system cannot issue citations, but warns driving in closed lanes is illegal, dangerous and unfair. ...
Despite the Colorado legislature giving the agency the authority starting in summer 2022 to fine drivers up to $250 for using the lanes while they're closed, CDOT said it hasn't fined a single driver.
The legislature said there were 47,828 instances of vehicles using the lanes while closed in 2020.
CDOT spokesperson Tim Hoover said red tape has slowed down the agency's efforts to develop new technology that can issue citations. The current camera system can detect drivers using the lanes while they're closed -- and even capture their license plates -- but it's only set up to issue tolls, not citations, Hoover said. ...
State patrol troopers can still issue tickets for illegal use of the lanes.
CDOT has explained before: it can only open the Mountain Express Lanes for a certain number of days per year, because they're technically not highway lanes.
Instead, Hoover said, they are "peak period shoulder lanes." The federal government said the eastbound lane can only be open 100 days a year, and the westbound lane can only be open 125 days a year.
When the new citation system is ready to come online, Hoover said, "the hammer is going to come down."
CDOT plans to wait a month once it turns on its new system -- which is currently being piloted on the westbound lane -- before issuing citations to drivers who use the lanes while closed, he said.
Quote from: andy3175 on March 07, 2023, 11:47:20 AM
QuoteCDOT has explained before: it can only open the Mountain Express Lanes for a certain number of days per year, because they're technically not highway lanes.
Instead, Hoover said, they are "peak period shoulder lanes." The federal government said the eastbound lane can only be open 100 days a year, and the westbound lane can only be open 125 days a year.
That is the worst part of these "lanes". They really are never open. They "could" be open 100 to 125 days per year, but I suggest it is less in reality. Many, many times traffic has been backed up in the GP lanes just to have the so-called peak period lanes closed. What a waste of taxpayer dollars-two construction seasons of work for basically zero benefit.
Lol I'll take the heat here I always drive in these lanes regardless. Come at me haha
Well, this project has since gotten a little bit crazier than I thought!
WB I-70 will be on a long bridge structure as you go down on Floyd Hill (and switch sides so EB I-70 will be to your right for about a half-mile)...
https://connect-lumenrt360projecttours.bentley.com/?UserId=2b3a199678e8c96249351c99ebc4d3e0&DataId=1b9a494a-f361-40b4-ada3-5a2a1453503e
Link to the public meeting: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yhpFlHrxydA
Eisenhower Turns 50
https://coloradosun.com/2023/03/09/eisenhower-tunnel-turns-50-cdot-celebrates/
Quote
As Eisenhower Tunnel turns 50, Colorado celebrates with talk of a facelift for the crucial I-70 link
The highest point anywhere on I-70, the westbound tunnel and its eastbound twin have provided safe passage through the mountain for millions of vehicles.
Joshua Perry
3:40 AM MST on Mar 9, 2023
Thousands of vehicles travel through Eisenhower Tunnel on Interstate 70 each day. But on Wednesday, for a brief moment, the traffic stopped to let just three pass: a 1970 Plymouth Fury police cruiser, an antique fire truck, and a MG sports car of a similar vintage.
The procession was part of the Colorado Department of Transportation's celebration of the Eisenhower Tunnel's 50th anniversary.
Since the tunnel opened on March 8, 1973, millions of cars have crossed under the Continental Divide through the passage. When the ribbon was cut on the tunnel, 44.3 feet high and 47.5 feet wide, the $110 million price tag was the most expensive highway project ever embarked on by the U.S. government. Three men died during the five years of construction.
CDOT Executive Director Shoshana Lew said the Eisenhower Tunnel provided a safe, accessible alternative to driving on riskier mountain passes and changed the character of the state forever.
"For the last five decades, 50 years, the Eisenhower Tunnel has served as a great connector, tying east and west together in Colorado," she said, speaking to a small crowd at the tunnel's eastern opening. "It has provided a critical life saving link, moving goods and services, and helped to mark Colorado as a world class mountain destination."
Many travelers through the tunnel might not realize that it's more than just a simple passageway through the mountains. Managing the 1.7-mile passage requires a control room, where operators monitor the flow of traffic on walls of screens, a generator room, a sprinkler system, a water treatment system and even a fire truck.
Jessica Myklebust, CDOT's Denver metro region director, said the look of the tunnel, through which 524,151 vehicles passed last month, can be deceiving.
"It is an around-the-clock operation with men and women with special technical expertise who keep the tunnel open and safe," she said. "Since the tunnel opened in 1973, we have not had one fatality in either of the tunnels."
At 50, there's a certain historical charm to the look and feel of Eisenhower Tunnel, but it's also in need of regular maintenance, and maybe a makeover. Much of the equipment inside the tunnel system – like its 600-horsepower industrial fans (all 28 of them) capable of producing hurricane-force winds to clear noxious fumes – is original, or at least old.
As part of CDOT's 10 Year Plan for infrastructure investment, the Eisenhower Tunnel, and its eastbound partner, the slightly younger Johnson Tunnel, will have a $150 million update completed by 2024. Some minor work already has been done, but more robust renovation projects, like an automatic de-icing system, are slated to begin soon, CDOT spokesperson Presley Fowler said. However, it'll still be the tunnel Colorado's loved for 50 years, she said.
"We don't want to change the look and the feel of the tunnel," she said. "That's really been an important aspect while planning these infrastructure upgrades and repairs – making sure to honor the history."
For decades, the tunnel has made traveling through the mountains much safer and efficient, CDOT spokeswoman Tamara Rollison said. In her view, Colorado wouldn't be the state it is today without this critical link through its alpine reaches.
"It's hard for me to say what it's going to be like 50 years from now for the tunnel, but it will be here continuing to serve the state, I'm sure of that," Rollison said. "And it will continue to be a vital connection for years to come."
Update on the Floyd Hill project on track to be finished in 2028. Major construction will begin this month on the mainline:
https://www.denver7.com/news/local-news/i-70-floyd-hill-project-cdot-releases-a-detailed-look-at-the-massive-construction-project
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on June 09, 2023, 01:34:42 PM
Update on the Floyd Hill project on track to be finished in 2028. Major construction will begin this month on the mainline:
https://www.denver7.com/news/local-news/i-70-floyd-hill-project-cdot-releases-a-detailed-look-at-the-massive-construction-project
QuoteKent Slaymaker, who also lives in Idaho Springs, said as a local, he has learned the patterns of traffic to avoid it.
"Unfortunately, building another lane isn't how you fix it," he said. "That causes induced demand, which creates more traffic. It's like buying more beer to quit drinking."
He said the third lane may help for a time, but it may also draw more people out to the mountains who believe traffic is lessened. He said he believes it will only result in three lanes of bumper-to-bumper traffic instead of two.
"A lot of the time, construction takes so long that by the time you finish construction and it opens, induced demand has already filled up," he said. "And it's just as bad as it ever was. The real solution is public transportation, buses and a train, I guess, but buses would be more economical."
Of course we needed an ignorant anti-highway rant. The problems are the roadway geometry, the grades, lack of lanes to segregate slow traffic from fast traffic, and the weather. That said, the express lanes may fill up along with the GP lanes (if they are open-the so-called "express lanes" through Idaho Springs rarely are open even during congested times and and are priced at $7 the few moments when they are). And unless they're going to provide a dog-friendly shuttle bus to each trailhead along the corridor during the summer and increase the service to ski areas in the winter, public transit isn't going to divert a statistically significant number of trips.
Yeah I just skipped through that part. I wonder what their solution is? Lemme guess, a train. . .
Quote from: zzcarp on June 09, 2023, 01:58:18 PM
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on June 09, 2023, 01:34:42 PM
Update on the Floyd Hill project on track to be finished in 2028. Major construction will begin this month on the mainline:
https://www.denver7.com/news/local-news/i-70-floyd-hill-project-cdot-releases-a-detailed-look-at-the-massive-construction-project
QuoteKent Slaymaker, who also lives in Idaho Springs, said as a local, he has learned the patterns of traffic to avoid it.
"Unfortunately, building another lane isn't how you fix it," he said. "That causes induced demand, which creates more traffic. It's like buying more beer to quit drinking."
He said the third lane may help for a time, but it may also draw more people out to the mountains who believe traffic is lessened. He said he believes it will only result in three lanes of bumper-to-bumper traffic instead of two.
"A lot of the time, construction takes so long that by the time you finish construction and it opens, induced demand has already filled up," he said. "And it's just as bad as it ever was. The real solution is public transportation, buses and a train, I guess, but buses would be more economical."
Of course we needed an ignorant anti-highway rant. The problems are the roadway geometry, the grades, lack of lanes to segregate slow traffic from fast traffic, and the weather. That said, the express lanes may fill up along with the GP lanes (if they are open-the so-called "express lanes" through Idaho Springs rarely are open even during congested times and and are priced at $7 the few moments when they are). And unless they're going to provide a dog-friendly shuttle bus to each trailhead along the corridor during the summer and increase the service to ski areas in the winter, public transit isn't going to divert a statistically significant number of trips.
The grades are frustrating, and I'm not sure what the fix is. In my 4-banger, I'm slow, but not 'truck-climbing-the-hill' slow. So I stick to the center lane, since all the trucks are in the far right and are struggling up the hill more than I am. I can hold 55 or so, and people seem pretty indignant at me. I'm passing trucks, but people are flying by me on the left. Those speed differences are what seem to be problematic.
Quote from: zzcarp on June 09, 2023, 01:58:18 PM
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on June 09, 2023, 01:34:42 PM
Update on the Floyd Hill project on track to be finished in 2028. Major construction will begin this month on the mainline:
https://www.denver7.com/news/local-news/i-70-floyd-hill-project-cdot-releases-a-detailed-look-at-the-massive-construction-project
QuoteKent Slaymaker, who also lives in Idaho Springs, said as a local, he has learned the patterns of traffic to avoid it.
"Unfortunately, building another lane isn't how you fix it," he said. "That causes induced demand, which creates more traffic. It's like buying more beer to quit drinking."
He said the third lane may help for a time, but it may also draw more people out to the mountains who believe traffic is lessened. He said he believes it will only result in three lanes of bumper-to-bumper traffic instead of two.
"A lot of the time, construction takes so long that by the time you finish construction and it opens, induced demand has already filled up," he said. "And it's just as bad as it ever was. The real solution is public transportation, buses and a train, I guess, but buses would be more economical."
Of course we needed an ignorant anti-highway rant. The problems are the roadway geometry, the grades, lack of lanes to segregate slow traffic from fast traffic, and the weather. That said, the express lanes may fill up along with the GP lanes (if they are open-the so-called "express lanes" through Idaho Springs rarely are open even during congested times and and are priced at $7 the few moments when they are). And unless they're going to provide a dog-friendly shuttle bus to each trailhead along the corridor during the summer and increase the service to ski areas in the winter, public transit isn't going to divert a statistically significant number of trips.
Gotta be honest, I agree with Kent there. Although this new alignment will help for a bit, I do think that a better solution is building more public transit to the mountains. And, as someone who can't drive, but may want to go up into the mountains at some point, I really don't have that many options at the moment. Its great that they are improving the highway, but it isn't a final solution. Induced demand is a real issue, that is demonstrably proven.
How much traffic accounts for induced demand again? Why have any road wider than 2 lanes each way if that's the case. Kent has no valid point to make. Transit up the mountains won't do any good unless it's light rail or HSR which would cost billions.
As someone who says they are from LA, I find it hilarious that you are trying so hard to argue induced demand doesn’t exist. I-405 is an excellent examples of this. Did the Sepulveda Pass project reduce congestion? Or did it simply add another lane of traffic? How about the previous project? Or the one before that?
The actual solution is to get people out of their cars, and into busses that actually work, and are cheaper than driving. Yes, a train would be great, but it’s not practical. Busses are economical, and they will get folks off the road, provided the buses are faster. Making the hard shoulder a “bus lane” would do that just fine, and with minimal cost to the existing project.
Quote from: MCRoads on June 16, 2023, 10:23:07 AM
As someone who says they are from LA, I find it hilarious that you are trying so hard to argue induced demand doesn't exist. I-405 is an excellent examples of this. Did the Sepulveda Pass project reduce congestion? Or did it simply add another lane of traffic?
It's more about demand already existing beyond capacity than it is about actual induced demand.
Quote from: MCRoads on June 16, 2023, 10:23:07 AM
The actual solution is to get people out of their cars, and into busses that actually work, and are cheaper than driving. Yes, a train would be great, but it's not practical. Busses are economical, and they will get folks off the road, provided the buses are faster. Making the hard shoulder a "bus lane" would do that just fine, and with minimal cost to the existing project.
The problem isn't the cost; it's the time and convenience. I care about the environment. That said, when I worked downtown, I could drive and be there in 20 minutes. Taking the bus, lightrail, and then walking, was a 70 minute trip. I couldn't possibly justify taking public transportation.
Same thing going up to the mountains. You think people want to schlep all of their skis, winter clothes, boots, etc. onto a bus just to save $5 when their lift tickets cost them $200? Then they somehow have to transfer from wherever the bus let off to get to the hotel/slopes and schlep that same amount of stuff? Not happening.
Quote from: MCRoads on June 16, 2023, 10:23:07 AM
As someone who says they are from LA, I find it hilarious that you are trying so hard to argue induced demand doesn't exist. I-405 is an excellent examples of this. Did the Sepulveda Pass project reduce congestion? Or did it simply add another lane of traffic? How about the previous project? Or the one before that?
The actual solution is to get people out of their cars, and into busses that actually work, and are cheaper than driving. Yes, a train would be great, but it's not practical. Busses are economical, and they will get folks off the road, provided the buses are faster. Making the hard shoulder a "bus lane" would do that just fine, and with minimal cost to the existing project.
I've already addressed this before and I'm not going to derail this thread about the Sepulveda pass in LA. I don't want to get into a bus to go to the mountains. I want to drive. I'm pretty sure bud services already exists. This is just another NIMBY not happy about growth requiring larger infrastructure that comes with it.
Quote from: Rothman on June 16, 2023, 10:24:57 AM
Quote from: MCRoads on June 16, 2023, 10:23:07 AM
As someone who says they are from LA, I find it hilarious that you are trying so hard to argue induced demand doesn't exist. I-405 is an excellent examples of this. Did the Sepulveda Pass project reduce congestion? Or did it simply add another lane of traffic?
It's more about demand already existing beyond capacity than it is about actual induced demand.
And again how much demand is really going to be induced? If we're inducing demand which is getting more people out and exploring our great outdoors is that a bad thing? Are we aiming to either let these freeways rot so people are discouraged from using them thus not traveling up to the mountains or alternatively tolling it making only affordable for the affluent? How are those good things?
Arguably I could justify 8-10 lanes as bad as traffic gets but no I'm going to suggest LA sizing freeways here. But a modernization and expansion to six lanes is certainly going to help on some level and a long term strategy of building HSR and more localized transit infrastructure should be a goal. Neglecting this road in the name of induced demand which that person can't even give a number for isn't the answer.
Quote from: JayhawkCO on June 16, 2023, 10:33:55 AM
Quote from: MCRoads on June 16, 2023, 10:23:07 AM
The actual solution is to get people out of their cars, and into busses that actually work, and are cheaper than driving. Yes, a train would be great, but it's not practical. Busses are economical, and they will get folks off the road, provided the buses are faster. Making the hard shoulder a "bus lane" would do that just fine, and with minimal cost to the existing project.
The problem isn't the cost; it's the time and convenience. I care about the environment. That said, when I worked downtown, I could drive and be there in 20 minutes. Taking the bus, lightrail, and then walking, was a 70 minute trip. I couldn't possibly justify taking public transportation.
Same thing going up to the mountains. You think people want to schlep all of their skis, winter clothes, boots, etc. onto a bus just to save $5 when their lift tickets cost them $200? Then they somehow have to transfer from wherever the bus let off to get to the hotel/slopes and schlep that same amount of stuff? Not happening.
Exactly. I live in Westminster and work in Inverness. While I drive the suck of I-25 daily where my commute varies from 40 minutes to an hour, it's 2 hours on RTD public transit from my office door to the bus stop 2 miles from my house which is another half hour or so. It's just not worth it.
There already is a weekend and holiday (except Christmas) public bus service through CDOT in the winter from December to early May on the "Snowstang (https://ridebustang.com/snowstang-mountain-service/)". It's a $25 round trip from Denver to A-Basin, Copper Mountain, Breckenridge, and Loveland; and a $40 round trip to Steamboat Springs. It looks like there's only one bus per day to the resorts and one ride back. There's also other transit options (https://goi70.com/transit) listed for those who want that. But the demand for that doesn't seem to be high due to the reasons above and the last mile problem.
FWIW, CDOT runs a pretty decent statewide bus network called Bustang. A few of its routes (like Denver to Grand Junction) pretty much follows an identical Greyhound route on a more-regional limit. It runs several times a day, depending on the route.
I know some people think rail is the green answer to all I-70 mountain problems -- especially if it's am electric rail system. The problem with rail is that by the time you plan and build it, the initial demographics and routing may be outdated by the time the first train rolls.
At least with buses, the route can begin a fraction of the time.sooner and can change entire routes based on demand and popularity.
Quote from: MCRoads on June 16, 2023, 10:23:07 AM
As someone who says they are from LA, I find it hilarious that you are trying so hard to argue induced demand doesn't exist. I-405 is an excellent examples of this. Did the Sepulveda Pass project reduce congestion? Or did it simply add another lane of traffic? How about the previous project? Or the one before that?
I diunno. 405 between Long Beach and Irvine has significantly better traffic flow in my experience with the additional lanes there. <shrugs>
Quote from: thenetwork on June 16, 2023, 07:48:14 PM
FWIW, CDOT runs a pretty decent statewide bus network called Bustang. A few of its routes (like Denver to Grand Junction) pretty much follows an identical Greyhound route on a more-regional limit. It runs several times a day, depending on the route.
I know some people think rail is the green answer to all I-70 mountain problems -- especially if it's am electric rail system. The problem with rail is that by the time you plan and build it, the initial demographics and routing may be outdated by the time the first train rolls.
At least with buses, the route can begin a fraction of the time.sooner and can change entire routes based on demand and popularity.
+1 for the Bustang. If I have to go to Denver during the week, it's a no-brainer, and a 5-block walk down 16th street to my work. Ten bucks one-way.
Quote from: DenverBrian on June 17, 2023, 09:21:36 AM
Quote from: MCRoads on June 16, 2023, 10:23:07 AM
As someone who says they are from LA, I find it hilarious that you are trying so hard to argue induced demand doesn't exist. I-405 is an excellent examples of this. Did the Sepulveda Pass project reduce congestion? Or did it simply add another lane of traffic? How about the previous project? Or the one before that?
I diunno. 405 between Long Beach and Irvine has significantly better traffic flow in my experience with the additional lanes there. <shrugs>
It really does. Outside of rush hour(and sometimes even then) traffic starts to flow much better in Orange County with wider roads
CDOT will start issuing fines for misusing the express lanes:
https://www.summitdaily.com/news/i-70-travelers-will-soon-be-warned-fined-for-improperly-using-express-lanes/
The Floyd Hill project is officially underway: https://www.constructionequipmentguide.com/kraemer-north-america-starts-massive-colorado-project/61556
Floyd Hill Project update: https://www.summitdaily.com/news/700m-floyd-hill-project-seeks-to-relieve-traffic-pain-points-on-one-of-interstate-70s-most-notorious-areas/
Our next installment in the "Virtual Tour" series is scheduled to take place on Sunday (12/10) at 3 PM ET. Come join me and members of the AARoads community as we profile Interstate 70 across western Colorado and the Denver metro area and discuss the history and features of this highway all while enjoying a real-time video trip along the length of one of America's most scenic stretches of the Interstate Highway System.
A link to the event location can be found below and we look forward to seeing you in attendance:
The Frisco to Silverthorne aux. lane project has wrapped up with the next project being dubbed the Exit 203 Project in Frisco.
https://www.summitdaily.com/news/colorado-department-of-transportation-wraps-up-major-i-70-project-between-frisco-and-silverthorne/
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on December 06, 2023, 01:22:21 PM
The Frisco to Silverthorne aux. lane project has wrapped up with the next project being dubbed the Exit 203 Project in Frisco.
https://www.summitdaily.com/news/colorado-department-of-transportation-wraps-up-major-i-70-project-between-frisco-and-silverthorne/
QuoteIf split into two phases, the first phase would focus on replacing the existing roundabout with a traffic signal
Outstanding - the actual elimination of a roundabout!
I think as we mature more we're going to find roundabouts are good in some places and others not so much. Personally I prefer traffic signals but I can see benefits of roundabouts.
I was just up there yesterday. The Silverthorne/Frisco I-70 stretch is great.
Even on a Tuesday, there was a bit of a backup from WB I-70 to SB CO9.
I've mostly used that roundabout in very early morning when I would head to hike south of Breckenridge. It works great at 4am, but I could see it being inadequate for peak hours.
Quote from: zzcarp on December 07, 2023, 12:05:28 PM
I've mostly used that roundabout in very early morning when I would head to hike south of Breckenridge. It works great at 4am, but I could see it being inadequate for peak hours.
One of the last times I used that roundabout I almost got creamed by someone coming off the WB 70 ramp who refused to yield!
BTW, I always thought that "Frisco Breckenridge" would be a great character name in a western:
"I hear Frisco Breckenridge is on the next train into town".
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on December 06, 2023, 05:49:35 PM
I think as we mature more we're going to find roundabouts are good in some places and others not so much. Personally I prefer traffic signals but I can see benefits of roundabouts.
The ones on Moorland Rd in New Berlin WI are a nightmare and it's only going to get worse. While they do work in some places that aren't suitable everywhere.