Colorado

[thenetwork]

And can we talk about that unholy relationship between 6 and 70? On again, off again. No commitment. 70 just tosses 6 aside like a used tissue in some places. Kinda sad, really.

As far as I could tell, it exists all the way from Grand Junction to Silverthorne, but sometimes it's multiplexed with I-70, and sometimes there's an adjacent road that is still important enough to number it, so why not keep its old US-6 designation? I-70 only gets that designation in order to maintain a continous routing of US-6.

It's impossible to drive continuously at Rifle.

Huh??? Technically, US-6 is on its own surface road between Mack and Palisade (Exit 45), Debeque (Exit 62) and Canyon Creek (Exit 109), West Glenwood (Exit 114) and CO-82 (Exit 116) and Dotsero (Exit 133) and Minturn/US-24 (Exit 171). 

Whether it's officially MARKED on said road or on I-70 exit signs is a way different story.

[JayhawkCO]

And can we talk about that unholy relationship between 6 and 70? On again, off again. No commitment. 70 just tosses 6 aside like a used tissue in some places. Kinda sad, really.

As far as I could tell, it exists all the way from Grand Junction to Silverthorne, but sometimes it's multiplexed with I-70, and sometimes there's an adjacent road that is still important enough to number it, so why not keep its old US-6 designation? I-70 only gets that designation in order to maintain a continous routing of US-6.

It's impossible to drive continuously at Rifle.

Huh??? Technically, US-6 is on its own surface road between Mack and Palisade (Exit 45), Debeque (Exit 62) and Canyon Creek (Exit 109), West Glenwood (Exit 114) and CO-82 (Exit 116) and Dotsero (Exit 133) and Minturn/US-24 (Exit 171). 

Whether it's officially MARKED on said road or on I-70 exit signs is a way different story.

This is the official designation of US6 near Rifle.



You'll see 006D to the east and 006L to the west. There is a gap.

[thenetwork]

And can we talk about that unholy relationship between 6 and 70? On again, off again. No commitment. 70 just tosses 6 aside like a used tissue in some places. Kinda sad, really.

As far as I could tell, it exists all the way from Grand Junction to Silverthorne, but sometimes it's multiplexed with I-70, and sometimes there's an adjacent road that is still important enough to number it, so why not keep its old US-6 designation? I-70 only gets that designation in order to maintain a continous routing of US-6.

It's impossible to drive continuously at Rifle.

Huh??? Technically, US-6 is on its own surface road between Mack and Palisade (Exit 45), Debeque (Exit 62) and Canyon Creek (Exit 109), West Glenwood (Exit 114) and CO-82 (Exit 116) and Dotsero (Exit 133) and Minturn/US-24 (Exit 171). 

Whether it's officially MARKED on said road or on I-70 exit signs is a way different story.

This is the official designation of US6 near Rifle.



You'll see 006D to the east and 006L to the west. There is a gap.

That's only because CO-13 was routed (but sparsely signed) along that US-6 "gap" and around the Rifle Bypass as CDOT considers most multiplexes as the evil Satan. But for all intents and purposes to the naked eye and average driver, US-6 is still  there, just a more bastardized red-headed stepchild of the stepchild siblings.

[US 89]

And can we talk about that unholy relationship between 6 and 70? On again, off again. No commitment. 70 just tosses 6 aside like a used tissue in some places. Kinda sad, really.

As far as I could tell, it exists all the way from Grand Junction to Silverthorne, but sometimes it's multiplexed with I-70, and sometimes there's an adjacent road that is still important enough to number it, so why not keep its old US-6 designation? I-70 only gets that designation in order to maintain a continous routing of US-6.

It's impossible to drive continuously at Rifle.

Huh??? Technically, US-6 is on its own surface road between Mack and Palisade (Exit 45), Debeque (Exit 62) and Canyon Creek (Exit 109), West Glenwood (Exit 114) and CO-82 (Exit 116) and Dotsero (Exit 133) and Minturn/US-24 (Exit 171). 

Whether it's officially MARKED on said road or on I-70 exit signs is a way different story.

This is the official designation of US6 near Rifle.



You'll see 006D to the east and 006L to the west. There is a gap.

That's only because CO-13 was routed (but sparsely signed) along that US-6 "gap" and around the Rifle Bypass as CDOT considers most multiplexes as the evil Satan. But for all intents and purposes to the naked eye and average driver, US-6 is still  there, just a more bastardized red-headed stepchild of the stepchild siblings.

That segment is also still signed as US 6 in numerous locations, so removing the number from that segment obviously wasn't a priority...

[JayhawkCO]

And can we talk about that unholy relationship between 6 and 70? On again, off again. No commitment. 70 just tosses 6 aside like a used tissue in some places. Kinda sad, really.

As far as I could tell, it exists all the way from Grand Junction to Silverthorne, but sometimes it's multiplexed with I-70, and sometimes there's an adjacent road that is still important enough to number it, so why not keep its old US-6 designation? I-70 only gets that designation in order to maintain a continous routing of US-6.

It's impossible to drive continuously at Rifle.

Huh??? Technically, US-6 is on its own surface road between Mack and Palisade (Exit 45), Debeque (Exit 62) and Canyon Creek (Exit 109), West Glenwood (Exit 114) and CO-82 (Exit 116) and Dotsero (Exit 133) and Minturn/US-24 (Exit 171). 

Whether it's officially MARKED on said road or on I-70 exit signs is a way different story.

This is the official designation of US6 near Rifle.



You'll see 006D to the east and 006L to the west. There is a gap.

That's only because CO-13 was routed (but sparsely signed) along that US-6 "gap" and around the Rifle Bypass as CDOT considers most multiplexes as the evil Satan. But for all intents and purposes to the naked eye and average driver, US-6 is still  there, just a more bastardized red-headed stepchild of the stepchild siblings.

Agreed you can still follow it, unlike US85 in the Springs, but CO13 isn't even officially on that Rifle Bypass. So unless US6 is an electron and CO13 is a positron, one is not precluding the other from being signed there as every other multi-plex has at least one "dominant" route signed.

There's also the weird 006N in Gypsum and 006K in Glenwood Springs that don't connect to anything.

[Elm]

The Denver Post reports that the FAA won't contribute to a potential expansion of Peña Blvd west of E-470, because it carries non-airport traffic: FAA "will not fund any portion" of widening to reduce jams on DIA's overloaded Peña Boulevard)
The expectation before was that Peña would be eligible for reduced funding based on ~73% of its traffic being airport-related.

The Peña Master Plan had advanced these roadway options for NEPA study: bus lanes, HOT lanes, CD lanes, or continuous frontage roads.

The main non-roadway option for the corridor is to increase capacity/frequency of the A Line (RTD commuter rail). There's mixed messages in reporting onwhether the federal government could fund any of that, but RTD, at least, has no plans for enhancements, as of fall 2023 Denverite article.

[brad2971]

The Denver Post reports that the FAA won't contribute to a potential expansion of Peña Blvd west of E-470, because it carries non-airport traffic: FAA "will not fund any portion" of widening to reduce jams on DIA's overloaded Peña Boulevard)
The expectation before was that Peña would be eligible for reduced funding based on ~73% of its traffic being airport-related.

The Peña Master Plan had advanced these roadway options for NEPA study: bus lanes, HOT lanes, CD lanes, or continuous frontage roads.

The main non-roadway option for the corridor is to increase capacity/frequency of the A Line (RTD commuter rail). There's mixed messages in reporting onwhether the federal government could fund any of that, but RTD, at least, has no plans for enhancements, as of fall 2023 Denverite article.

Presuming the part of Pena Blvd that has congestion issues is the part from I-70 to E-470, methinks this would be a good time for CDOT and the City and County of Denver to discuss a road swap. Namely, a road swap where CDOT gets that part of Pena from I-70 to E-470 in exchange for Colfax Ave, the part of Alameda Ave CDOT owns, and Federal Blvd from US 6 to the south city/county limits. Then, after doing that, CDOT applies to get its new part of Pena Blvd signed as an extension of I-225.

This way, CDOT can get the requisite amount of USDOT funding that interstates get, in order to add 1-2 lanes in each direction from I-70 to E-470.

[vdeane]

The Denver Post reports that the FAA won't contribute to a potential expansion of Peña Blvd west of E-470, because it carries non-airport traffic: FAA "will not fund any portion" of widening to reduce jams on DIA's overloaded Peña Boulevard)
The expectation before was that Peña would be eligible for reduced funding based on ~73% of its traffic being airport-related.

The Peña Master Plan had advanced these roadway options for NEPA study: bus lanes, HOT lanes, CD lanes, or continuous frontage roads.

The main non-roadway option for the corridor is to increase capacity/frequency of the A Line (RTD commuter rail). There's mixed messages in reporting onwhether the federal government could fund any of that, but RTD, at least, has no plans for enhancements, as of fall 2023 Denverite article.

Presuming the part of Pena Blvd that has congestion issues is the part from I-70 to E-470, methinks this would be a good time for CDOT and the City and County of Denver to discuss a road swap. Namely, a road swap where CDOT gets that part of Pena from I-70 to E-470 in exchange for Colfax Ave, the part of Alameda Ave CDOT owns, and Federal Blvd from US 6 to the south city/county limits. Then, after doing that, CDOT applies to get its new part of Pena Blvd signed as an extension of I-225.

This way, CDOT can get the requisite amount of USDOT funding that interstates get, in order to add 1-2 lanes in each direction from I-70 to E-470.

There's no additional funding to be had no matter how it's signed - it's already part of the NHS.  There hasn't been special funding for interstates in ages (hence why new interstates like I-69 take so long to get built; states are basically redirecting funding that they could be using on other projects).

[Plutonic Panda]

Does anyone really think Colorado is going to add any lanes to this freeway that isn't just a single hot lane in each direction? Let alone two additional free lanes each way. The 470 should have had 2-3 additional free lanes added which they are only adding a single toll lane. What will be different here?

[Plutonic Panda]

I was doing some Google mapping and something that had caught my eye before I never noticed near Gleneagle, are they planning on connecting CO-21 with a new freeway to close the gap?

[brad2971]

I was doing some Google mapping and something that had caught my eye before I never noticed near Gleneagle, are they planning on connecting CO-21 with a new freeway to close the gap?

Yes, the goal is for SH 21 to be connected between SH 83 and the current end at Voyager Pkwy. The I-25 interchange is finished. In fact, if you're looking at Google maps, you can see where the path SH 21 will take is.

[Plutonic Panda]

I was doing some Google mapping and something that had caught my eye before I never noticed near Gleneagle, are they planning on connecting CO-21 with a new freeway to close the gap?

Yes, the goal is for SH 21 to be connected between SH 83 and the current end at Voyager Pkwy. The I-25 interchange is finished. In fact, if you're looking at Google maps, you can see where the path SH 21 will take is.

Yep. That's the path I saw, which got me curious. Do you know of any timeline?

[Bobby5280]

It's interesting how the proposed freeway path weaves through the Flying Horse Golf Course. For now the ROW for the freeway is preserved. But if CDOT and Colorado lawmakers keep screwing around, delaying things, the project could still end up being cancelled and the ROW re-claimed for more McMansions.

I was in the Colorado Springs area a week ago for the Christmas holiday. I stayed away from Powers Blvd much of the time there. The area around Carefree Circle is a freaking mess anymore. I'll take back streets like Tutt Blvd to avoid the snarl on Powers.

The only positive thing I can say about Powers Blvd is it has very few, if any, drive ways or side streets connecting directly to it. Just about every intersection is a major arterial street. The problem is traffic is so heavy those major at-grade intersections really need to be converted into grade-separated freeway exits.

There is some room at a few intersections along Powers to add slip ramps. You can see the ROW flare out at bit at Dublin Blvd and Stetson Hills Blvd. Slip ramps would work okay there. The intersection with Barnes Rd looks like it has just enough room for slip ramps too. The situation is an ever-tighter squeeze at intersections farther South down to Platte Ave (US-24).

Colorado Springs has a number of other grade-separated intersections scattered around town. CDOT is going to be forced to upgrade more intersections along Powers into freeway exits. It's too bad there isn't a focused plan to convert all of Powers into a proper freeway. Once Powers connects directly into I-25 I think it will create more pressure to get Powers functioning like a freeway.

[zzcarp]

It's interesting how the proposed freeway path weaves through the Flying Horse Golf Course. For now the ROW for the freeway is preserved. But if CDOT and Colorado lawmakers keep screwing around, delaying things, the project could still end up being cancelled and the ROW re-claimed for more McMansions.

I think there is little risk of the Powers right-of-way becoming McMansions. Even though CDOT leadership is anti-highway and anti-car, this project is being let by Pikes Peak Rural Transportation Authority, and per the City of Colorado Springs website, the bridge at Voyager should be complete and construction of the rest should start in 2025.

The extension of Powers Boulevard from Voyager Pkwy to Hwy 83 is a regional transportation priority project. The extension will be funded through the Pikes Peak Rural Transportation Authority (PPRTA) as a voter-approved, A-list project. (More information available here: https://pprta.com/2022-pprta-ballot-language/).

The entity that undertakes construction (either developer or City of Colorado Springs) has not yet been finalized. Preliminary engineering is complete, with final engineering planned to start in 2024. Early construction activities are anticipated to begin in 2025, with construction in phases expected to occur through 2030. 

Ultimately, the extension's configuration will include a new interchange at Hwy 83, with Powers extending over Black Squirrel Creek, under Ridgeline Road and Flying Horse Drive, and over Old Northgate Road. Access to Powers will be accessible at Voyager and HWY 83 only.

The configuration will look similar to the stretch of Powers between Research Pkwy and Old Ranch Road. The concept design and alignment for the extension was approved in 1997 prior to the Flying Horse or Northgate developments.

[Elm]

For the central Powers Blvd area (Woodmen to Mesa Ridge), here's the 2010 FONSI for the plan: freeway Woodmen-Proby, upgradeable expressway south of that.
Hard to pin down the URL for that as CDOT's website changes, but it pops up sometimes in other Powers-related project or bid pages.

The next interchange is planned for Proby Pkwy (the airport access road). Nothing else for Powers on CDOT's 10 year plan, and I don't know what CDOT and the city are expecting out of the Woodmen-to-Platte mess.

The 10 year plan is a 'living document' that changes regularly, so theoretically new interchanges could be added, but it's dicey with CDOT's anti-highway stance. On the other hand, CDOT and Greeley are currently working on an interchange + bus station project on US 34 where 'no new highway capacity' is a project benefit, so maybe a Powers interchange could take that route.

---

There's an aged but probably mostly accurate visualization of the Powers extension through Flying Horse here, in the PPT "Classic Offices @ FH_Staff-Presentation (1)":
CPC ZC 18-00022

The Flying Horse developer did drop the interchange at Flying Horse Club Dr from the plan, which CDOT had left up to them to fund. (Otherwise, as is the case now, Powers would go through with no access.)

[Plutonic Panda]

They really should preserve ROW for a future freeway branching off Powers between Bradley and Fontaine connecting up to US-24 near Garret RD. for future growth.

[Elm]

They really should preserve ROW for a future freeway branching off Powers between Bradley and Fontaine connecting up to US-24 near Garret RD. for future growth.

Occasionally in a plan/project public comment, someone will ask why nobody's taking any action toward eastern bypass or beltway for Colorado Springs, and the question never really goes anywhere. The answer tends to be "that's out of this project's scope," or at least one time the city said "that's the county's problem" since the line on a map would be outside the city limits. Nobody's taking the initiative or responsibility, and there are no signs that anyone will.

At this point, virtually all of the land within the city limits and nearby has a development plan associated with it, even if development hasn't started, and there's no room for anything freeway-sized other than potentially the South Powers extension (which is a way long-term proposal). The way things work with the city and county, those plans are the major drivers of most ROW dedications and access points, and if nothing has forced a major road into them by the time they're approved, that's very unlikely to change.

Historically, a major east-west route around Bradley Road was in the plans (like this one), but that went out the window with the Banning Lewis Ranch Master Plan reevaluation (along with stuff like the freeway Banning Lewis Parkway). In the city's transportation plan update a few years ago, they downgraded Bradley Rd from an expressway to a major arterial (throroughfare map here). The city still categorizes Hwy 94 as an expressway, but the county doesn't.

Also to be concerned about from a regional mobility standpoint is that the city and CDOT plan to do a routing study for US 24 from I-25 to Falcon, with the main idea being to put US 24 on Woodmen Road and devolve Fountain Blvd and the east-side "diagonal" to the city.

Between the city being bad at access control, and the Banning Lewis Ranch developer (Norwood) being very keen on having more US 24 accesses, the "diagonal" would probably become just another arterial, so there'd be no higher-speed belt route in the area at all. You can see the sort of thing Norwood wants in this map (from this webpage). Note that's not an official/legal map; technically, the very old Banning Lewis Ranch Master Plan still exists, so it gets adjusted piecemeal over time for small sections of the overall plan area, and that hasn't happened yet for Norwood's section. They're doing Percheron first.

[DenverBrian]

Regarding the reduced signing of concurrencies: I'm gonna posit that this is due to the proliferation of navigation apps, both in-car and via Apple Car Play/Android Auto.

1) These apps usually show one route that you're on - the "highest" or most prominent route. They don't have room on the bottom to show "I-25/US-87/US-85/CO-121" or some such.

2) Most people these days simply listen to their app for directions and need brevity in the directions. "In one thousand feet, enter the ramp for I-70" is a lot shorter than "In one thousand feet, enter the ramp for I-70/US-40/US-24." By the time the nav voice spits out the longer prompt, it's already time to deliver the close-in prompt.

3) And, of course and always...cost. DOTs probably prefer to put up one sign and maintain that rather then two or three or four and maintain all of them.

[thenetwork]

Regarding the reduced signing of concurrencies: I'm gonna posit that this is due to the proliferation of navigation apps, both in-car and via Apple Car Play/Android Auto.

1) These apps usually show one route that you're on - the "highest" or most prominent route. They don't have room on the bottom to show "I-25/US-87/US-85/CO-121" or some such.

However, most of those same apps will show all of the multiplexed routes as you are driving along the map line on the screen -- randomly alternating the route shields you "pass" on the screen (i.e: I-70...US-6...I-70...US-50...etc), even if CDOT, or whichever DOT, does not formally acknowledge it in the wild on actual signs. 

The voice instructions and the "simulated" BGSs on the apps pretty much follow verbatim what the signs actually say, not what they "should" say.

[DenverBrian]

Regarding the reduced signing of concurrencies: I'm gonna posit that this is due to the proliferation of navigation apps, both in-car and via Apple Car Play/Android Auto.

1) These apps usually show one route that you're on - the "highest" or most prominent route. They don't have room on the bottom to show "I-25/US-87/US-85/CO-121" or some such.

However, most of those same apps will show all of the multiplexed routes as you are driving along the map line on the screen -- randomly alternating the route shields you "pass" on the screen (i.e: I-70...US-6...I-70...US-50...etc), even if CDOT, or whichever DOT, does not formally acknowledge it in the wild on actual signs. 

The voice instructions and the "simulated" BGSs on the apps pretty much follow verbatim what the signs actually say, not what they "should" say.

My experience is that the legend below the car icon as you're proceeding along is short and only notes the "highest" route, even if the shield icons alternate from time to time.

(Sure wish this board would join the 20th century and make posting of pics easier.)

[Bobby5280]

Also to be concerned about from a regional mobility standpoint is that the city and CDOT plan to do a routing study for US 24 from I-25 to Falcon, with the main idea being to put US 24 on Woodmen Road and devolve Fountain Blvd and the east-side "diagonal" to the city.

Making such a change sounds like a very stupid idea. US-24 in its current configuration is about the nearest thing Colorado Springs has to an Eastern outlet/bypass. Routing the designation farther North up Powers to Woodmen Road and designating the existing diagonal highway to Falcon as an ordinary street would ruin that function, especially if the city starts zoning that diagonal highway to where more traffic lights, driveways and other shit can be connected into it.

Whenever I drive up to Colorado Springs to visit family I always take US-24 up to Falcon along that faster diagonal route (and a bit farther to Elbert Road). If anything the existing diagonal highway needs to be dramatically improved thru and past Peyton. If I had my way US-24 would be an Interstate between I-25 and I-70. But we're talking about Colorado where any such thing is politically impossible. Hell, I think it's going to take something like a 10 person fatality collision along 2-lane US-24 just to get the idiot "lawmakers" to even consider making US-24 a regular 4-lane divided highway past Falcon and thru Peyton. For all I know they would probably react to such a tragedy by saying, "people need to ride bicycles and use mass transit more" -as if doing that is practical at all in such a widely spread out area.

[US 89]

Regarding the reduced signing of concurrencies: I'm gonna posit that this is due to the proliferation of navigation apps, both in-car and via Apple Car Play/Android Auto.

1) These apps usually show one route that you're on - the "highest" or most prominent route. They don't have room on the bottom to show "I-25/US-87/US-85/CO-121" or some such.

However, most of those same apps will show all of the multiplexed routes as you are driving along the map line on the screen -- randomly alternating the route shields you "pass" on the screen (i.e: I-70...US-6...I-70...US-50...etc), even if CDOT, or whichever DOT, does not formally acknowledge it in the wild on actual signs. 

The voice instructions and the "simulated" BGSs on the apps pretty much follow verbatim what the signs actually say, not what they "should" say.

My experience is that the legend below the car icon as you're proceeding along is short and only notes the "highest" route, even if the shield icons alternate from time to time.

(Sure wish this board would join the 20th century and make posting of pics easier.)

I find that what the apps have as the "main" route often does not match the reality on the ground.

For example, take the highway between Silver Creek Junction and Heber City, Utah, which is US 40/189. It is pretty much universally known as US 40. 189 wasn't even signed at all along it until a few years ago, and still isn't fully. But Google labels it as 189. At least on the computer, you have to zoom way in before any 40 shields start popping up.

US 40/191 is similar - everyone calls it 40, the signs have just 40 or both, but Google uses 191 as the "main" number.