I-270 Denver metro projects

[Elm]

CDOT's been thinking about doing something with I-270 for a while across several studies and subprojects, and the process continues. The current main project website is here: I-270 Corridor Improvements Study, and that's supposed to finish by winter 2025.

Sooner, this year, work should start on Vasquez Blvd north of I-270, as Vasquez Boulevard Improvements: I-270 to 64th Avenue.

----

Looking back at studies and projects that have built up to this:

• 2019: I-270 Traffic Study conducted (according to I-270 draft EA)
  
• February 2020: Express Lane Master Plan gives I-270 highest tier priority for express lanes, placing it after three segments of I-25 Central
• August 2020: "I-270 Corridor Improvements" environmental assessment begins
• August 2021: study underway, CDOT commits to air quality tracking with project in response to SB21-260 (article)
• December 2021: CDOT adopts Greenhouse Gas Rule to require "regionally significant projects" to meet emissions targets (AARoads post with links)
• June 2022: I-270 Critical Bridge Replacements" project introduced, to more quickly replace eight degrading I-270 bridges while the main study continues
• December 2022: CDOT announces intention to partially restart the study process with additional engagement and modeling, also posting an unofficial EA draft
• Q3 FY2023: CDOT Bridge & Tunnel Enterprise approves funding for critical bridges project preliminary design
• September 2023: "I-270 Bridge Preventative Maintenance" project begins, distinct from the critical bridges project (which will be the overall I-270 project's first phase)
• October 2023: first public meeting for environment impact statement process, anticipated to finish 2025 (see bottom of public involvement page)
• March 2024: critical bridges project looking for funding, now covers twelve bridges
• April 2024: public meeting held (recording /  displays), preliminarily recommending these alternatives for detailed EIS study: 2 GPL + 1 express, 3 GPLs, no action.
• EIS expected to finish "winter 2025," and it'll probably pick 2 GPL + 1 express lane

Nearby, CDOT's also been preparing for work on Vasquez Blvd north of I-270:

• The Vasquez Planning and Environmental Linkages Study finished in 2018, proposing three potential alternatives: viaduct, one-way pair, and at-grade.
• Design for "Vasquez Boulevard Improvements: I-270 to 64th Avenue" began in 2019.
• The environment assessment was published in October 2023, and the FONSI was published in March 2024. Plans generally follow the at-grade alternative.
• Vasquez project website anticipates 2024-2026 construction across two packages

[Plutonic Panda]

Just widen it to four lanes each way jeeze

[Great Lakes Roads]

CDOT: Trying to figure out how many lanes should be on I-270
Also CDOT: Sees toll lanes and have cash signs on their eyes

[The Ghostbuster]

Interstate 270 probably should have been constructed with three lanes in each direction along its entire length from the get-go, instead of just the later-constructed Interstate 25-to-Interstate 76 segment.

[thenetwork]

CDOT: Trying to figure out how many lanes should be on I-270
Also CDOT: Sees toll lanes and have cash signs on their eyes

I STILL say CDOT should duplex I-270 along the westernmost section of I-76 between I-25 and I-70 on the west side of town, and add a 3rd lane through this section.  This would allow I-270 to return to it's parent route and to provide a true relief route when I-70 through central Denver gets gummed up.

Plus that near-western section of I-70 is (over)due for a modern upgrade between I-25 and I-76 anyway, so start planning for the alternate route in advance, unlike what CDOT did during the viaduct teardown -- nothing!!!

[JayhawkCO]

CDOT: Trying to figure out how many lanes should be on I-270
Also CDOT: Sees toll lanes and have cash signs on their eyes

I STILL say CDOT should duplex I-270 along the westernmost section of I-76 between I-25 and I-70 on the west side of town, and add a 3rd lane through this section.  This would allow I-270 to return to it's parent route and to provide a true relief route when I-70 through central Denver gets gummed up.

Plus that near-western section of I-70 is (over)due for a modern upgrade between I-25 and I-76 anyway, so start planning for the alternate route in advance, unlike what CDOT did during the viaduct teardown -- nothing!!!

I don't think just adding signs to an already existing route does anything to help alleviate traffic.

[zzcarp]

CDOT: Trying to figure out how many lanes should be on I-270
Also CDOT: Sees toll lanes and have cash signs on their eyes

I STILL say CDOT should duplex I-270 along the westernmost section of I-76 between I-25 and I-70 on the west side of town, and add a 3rd lane through this section.  This would allow I-270 to return to it's parent route and to provide a true relief route when I-70 through central Denver gets gummed up.

Plus that near-western section of I-70 is (over)due for a modern upgrade between I-25 and I-76 anyway, so start planning for the alternate route in advance, unlike what CDOT did during the viaduct teardown -- nothing!!!

I don't think just adding signs to an already existing route does anything to help alleviate traffic.

I-76 west of I-25 is only two lanes in each direction, and it already jams during rush hour traffic. Without extra lanes, it won't be much of a relief route.

[JayhawkCO]

CDOT: Trying to figure out how many lanes should be on I-270
Also CDOT: Sees toll lanes and have cash signs on their eyes

I STILL say CDOT should duplex I-270 along the westernmost section of I-76 between I-25 and I-70 on the west side of town, and add a 3rd lane through this section.  This would allow I-270 to return to it's parent route and to provide a true relief route when I-70 through central Denver gets gummed up.

Plus that near-western section of I-70 is (over)due for a modern upgrade between I-25 and I-76 anyway, so start planning for the alternate route in advance, unlike what CDOT did during the viaduct teardown -- nothing!!!

I don't think just adding signs to an already existing route does anything to help alleviate traffic.

I-76 west of I-25 is only two lanes in each direction, and it already jams during rush hour traffic. Without extra lanes, it won't be much of a relief route.

Anecdotally, any time I've needed to go through the Mousetrap on I-70, GMaps has never said I-270->I-76 (or vv) was faster than just sticking it out on I-70. I think people like having detours that it's actually incredibly rarely advantageous to take.

[mrose]

Adding nothing but express lanes will not solve the congestion problems this route has.

[Elm]

Open houses for I-270 coming up, January 29 through February 4.

This follows an August 2024 announcement of a Notice of Intent To Prepare an EIS, and this supplementary information document (nothing particularly new or interesting). CDOT's had booths at some community events and office hours since then, apparently.

"Construction is anticipated to start late 2026."

Last month, they also started repairs on the York St bridge, one of the bridges in the second batch of "critical bridges" in need of repairs sooner than the overall I-270 study process would get to them.

[Plutonic Panda]

CDOT is an absolute joke. Worse than Caltrans.

[thenetwork]

CDOT is an absolute joke. Worse than Caltrans.

The CDOT-maintained roads in my part of the state are pretty decent in road surface quality, BUT...

As far as proper MUTCD-compliant signage on BGSs, proper signing of state & US routes at intersections, signing MULTIPLEXED routes, and encouraging using FYAs in my district instead of protected reds...They get a C-Minus.

EXAMPLE:  After 2 years the big Black & White signs on I-70 at the Port of Entry Weigh Stations in both directions STILL say ALL COMMERICAL VEHICLES MUST EXIT instead of COMMERCIAL.

"Welcome to Colorful Colorado...Where our DOT can't spell, read MUTCD manuals, nor use common sense".

[Bobby5280]

Colorado lawmakers appear to think anyone can get to any location in the state using mass transit, a bicycle or walking. So they don't want to encourage any motor vehicle use by doing anything such as making the state's highways safer and more efficient. If a rash of head-on collisions and T-bone collisions are happening along a busy 2-lane road their response is definitely not 4-laning the arterial. Maybe it's spending money on a public awareness campaign about the joys of bicycling. Yeah, riding a bike is something I want to do on a freezing, windy January day.