Colorado

[zzcarp]

If I do end up going, then I'll be headed to Estes Park, approaching Denver on I-70 at maybe around 4pm.  Not sure which is better at that time of day:  slog through I-270 at a crawl, or go north on I-25 to Longmont.  Ditto for the return trip, leaving first thing in the morning.

A third option is to take the I-70 express lanes from I-225 to I-25. Usually except for right at I-25, there's no congestion. Then take US 36 off of I-25 to go to Estes. US 36 is rarely truly congested heading WB at that time of day unlike I-25 which slams to a halt north of there.

[kphoger]

If I do end up going, then I'll be headed to Estes Park, approaching Denver on I-70 at maybe around 4pm.  Not sure which is better at that time of day:  slog through I-270 at a crawl, or go north on I-25 to Longmont.  Ditto for the return trip, leaving first thing in the morning.

A third option is to take the I-70 express lanes from I-225 to I-25. Usually except for right at I-25, there's no congestion. Then take US 36 off of I-25 to go to Estes. US 36 is rarely truly congested heading WB at that time of day unlike I-25 which slams to a halt north of there.

I know nothing about those express lanes.  Are they tolled?  Do they have their own exit to NB I-25, or would I need to slip back over ahead of time?

[JayhawkCO]

If I do end up going, then I'll be headed to Estes Park, approaching Denver on I-70 at maybe around 4pm.  Not sure which is better at that time of day:  slog through I-270 at a crawl, or go north on I-25 to Longmont.  Ditto for the return trip, leaving first thing in the morning.

A third option is to take the I-70 express lanes from I-225 to I-25. Usually except for right at I-25, there's no congestion. Then take US 36 off of I-25 to go to Estes. US 36 is rarely truly congested heading WB at that time of day unlike I-25 which slams to a halt north of there.

I know nothing about those express lanes.  Are they tolled?  Do they have their own exit to NB I-25, or would I need to slip back over ahead of time?

Yes, tolled, but considerably cheaper than E-470. And you do have to get back to the right for NB I-25.

[zzcarp]

The US 85/C-470 interchange in Douglas County is going to close for 5 days continuously starting this weekend for the demolition of the existing bridge.

"A lot of the bridges around town are made up of precast beams that you can systematically take one girder out at a time, and the rest of the structure could be completely stable," said Mike McNish, area manager with Kraemer North America, the contractor for this project.

But the structure that holds that section of Santa Fe Drive together, built in 1968, is made up of a continuous span of beams instead of individual, precast beams, he said.

"This type of structure, once you start demolishing it and taking pieces out of it, the rest of the structure is not as structurally stable anymore. Bottom line, it's 100% about public safety," McNish added.

Once demolition begins, it needs to continue as the structure will not be stable any longer. Hence the reason for the long closure, he told Luber this week.

The ultimate project is providing widening on US 85 as well as constructing a partial-continuous flow interchange at C-470.

It will be interesting to see where the traffic patterns spill over during the closure. I suspect the side streets around the intersection will be clobbered during the closure period. Since C-470 will be detoured on the ramps, I expect worse backups than normal but at least people will be moving.

[JayhawkCO]

I likely will never use it but ...

hehe.  I might be going to Colorado later this year, and, if so, then I'd say there's a 50/50 chance I'll be using that interchange at least once.

E-470 is expensive as hell, but my wife often has to take trips up north for her job, and coming back on E-470 vs. I-25/I-270/I-70/I-225 often saves up to 40 minutes.

I still end up taking it every once in a while myself, but I think I've only used the I-70/E-470 interchange maybe twice ever.

Interestingly enough, I used this interchange yesterday since I was coming from an appointment in Central Park and needed to be down in Lone Tree. It was 17 minutes faster to go east on I-70 and then E-470 all the way around.

[halork]

Recently saw this page for the new I-70/Picadilly Rd interchange project in Aurora:

https://www.auroragov.org/business_services/planning/projects__plans___studies/transportation_planning/i-70_picadilly_interchange

According to the map, the NB E470 to WB I-70 traffic is going to have to merge through the exiting WB I-70 to Picadilly traffic. Since they're removing the WB I-70 exit to WB Colfax as well, that's even more traffic that needs to exit at Picadilly. There's an awfully short distance to resolve all that traffic weaving, and it seems pretty dangerous.

CDOT seems to enjoy causing dangerous weaving movements throughout metro Denver, especially along I-25 (which is one reason for its constant gridlock) but also on I-70 between the west C-470/US 6 (6th Avenue) interchanges.

That said, I drive from NB E470 to WB I-70 fairly frequently now that the new express lanes have opened west of I-225. Currently there is no direct access to Colfax/US40/287 from the NB flyover ramp as it merges into I-70. And, there is usually very little traffic heading WB from mainline I-70, so hopefully the weaving will be much less of an issue than the other areas in town.

Yeah, I agree with your last statement. The quickest way home if I'm driving from out east on I-70 is to take the Colfax exit. I never see anyone that's recently exited before me over there.

Unfortunately, I think this interchange is being built to funnel traffic that currently takes the E470 exit from I-70 up to Smith Rd and the Amazon Distribution Center (and all the other new businesses there). I don't know what that traffic count is, but it's likely a lot more than the closed Colfax exit. I expect there will be a lot of weaving.

[LilianaUwU]

Looks like the state highway shield got a redesign. I personally don't like it much standalone, but I've seen it on BGS plans and I really like it there.

[JayhawkCO]

Looks like the state highway shield got a redesign. I personally don't like it much standalone, but I've seen it on BGS plans and I really like it there.

I have not seen this in the wild at all.

[LilianaUwU]

Looks like the state highway shield got a redesign. I personally don't like it much standalone, but I've seen it on BGS plans and I really like it there.

I have not seen this in the wild at all.

According to J N Winkler, they've been on trial in CDOT Region 2 (Colorado Springs) since 2019.

[JayhawkCO]

I was just down on CO83 and CO21 two weeks ago and definitely didn't see anything. I also intersected CO105 on I-25, and that looked "normal" too.

[jlam]

Looks like the state highway shield got a redesign. I personally don't like it much standalone, but I've seen it on BGS plans and I really like it there.

I have not seen this in the wild at all.

I've only seen it at the new stoplight at WCR 23 and SH 392. At first, I thought it was put up by the town or county government or something, as it seemed hideously off-standard. I'll see if I can get a pic up here soon.

[J N Winkler]

I was just down on CO83 and CO21 two weeks ago and definitely didn't see anything. I also intersected CO105 on I-25, and that looked "normal" too.

I'm not surprised--it sounds like CDOT hasn't been using the new design for everything it does even in Region 2.

I have found the new design in pattern-accurate sign panel detail sheets from the following projects, listed by CDOT subaccount number (print date for the signing sheets in parentheses):

*  21839 (2019-10-03)--involves work on US 50 near SH 69

*  22997 (2019-12-03)

*  23396 (2020-01-10)

*  22839 (2020-11-12)--includes a mast arm sign for SH 96

*  25317 (2023-05-31)--involves SH 231

These plans include details for guide-sign or independent-mount shields, to the new design, for the following Colorado state highways:  10, 69, 71, 89, 96, 116, and 231.

In the parallel discussion in the Freewayjim Facebook group (source of the screenshot LilianaUwU posted), there are reports of field installations to the new design in Region 2, including one for SH 115 that I am not sure has appeared in a plans set.

[JayhawkCO]

I haven't been down in the Pueblo area or headed down to Salida via the Springs in about a year or so, which seems like why I'd have missed them all.

[J N Winkler]

In any event, the email is presumptive confirmation that CDOT plans to roll out this new design statewide.  When I first started seeing it in plan set PDFs in 2019, I initially thought it was a quirk specific to a particular designer and that the actual signs would more likely employ the existing design.  The five projects add up to a total of 14 sign panel detail sheets, and with the exception of the three for 22997, they all have the same person identified as "designer" and "detailer" in the chopblock.

The plan sheets are unusual in other ways--they are fully pattern-accurate and plotted (not copy-pasted as rasters) in full color with RGB assignments for the standard traffic sign colors that remain consistent from one project to another.  These attributes put them heads and shoulders above CDOT's usual signing plans, which are pretty dismal, with little uniformity in presentation (a mix of keylines, black-filled letters, and full-color pasted as bitmaps) and frequent use of CAD placeholder fonts for sign legend.

[formulanone]

Looks like the state highway shield got a redesign. I personally don't like it much standalone, but I've seen it on BGS plans and I really like it there.

I have not seen this in the wild at all.

I've only seen it at the new stoplight at WCR 23 and SH 392. At first, I thought it was put up by the town or county government or something, as it seemed hideously off-standard. I'll see if I can get a pic up here soon.

That was my thought as well; these are from last July...enhanced readability but I like the old 50/50 split better, since it matches the proportions of your state flag in a much more aesthetically-pleasing way.

Penrose, near US 50:


For comparison, up the road:


Pueblo (new and old):

[JayhawkCO]

2 digits are fine. 3 digits are ugly as sin.

[thenetwork]

As I've said before, some things that one CDOT district may do may not be done in others.

For example, there are no FYA installations anywhere in the Northwest District (Grand Junction,Glenwood, Steamboat, Montrose, Vail, Aspen), but are easily found elsewhere in the state.