Print

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

[Plutonic Panda]

This project is getting close to completion with substantial completion including opening of the park cap by November.

[The Ghostbuster]

I highly doubt anyone will miss the old elevated viaduct. Even a highway lover like me should probably bid it a "good riddance".

[andy3175]

Today, I changed the thread title to " I-70 Central Project in Northeast Denver" since the below grade section was built and nearly compete.  Thanks for the suggestions to make this change.

[rte66man]

from the AASHTO Journal:
https://aashtojournal.org/2022/12/16/colorado-officially-opens-new-highway-cover-park/

Colorado Officially Opens New ‘Highway Cover’ Park
editor@aashto.org December 16, 2022

Governor Jared Polis (D) and the Colorado Department of Transportation recently celebrated the completion of a four-acre “highway cover” community park located over a newly lowered section of I-70; part of the state’s $1.2 billion Central 70 Project.

The Central 70 Project encompasses an area that is home to 1,200 businesses, provides the regional connection to Denver International Airport, and carries upwards of 200,000 vehicles each day.

Since its August 2018 groundbreaking, the Central 70 Project has reconstructed 10-miles of I-70, added one new Express Lane in each direction, removed an aging 57-year-old viaduct, lowered the interstate, and built the aforementioned four-acre park for the surrounding community.

“We are making Colorado roads safer, reducing traffic, and making sure that Coloradans and visitors can get where they are going quickly and easily, including to visit the many thriving businesses along this stretch of road,” noted Gov. Polis in a statement.

“The Federal Highway Administration congratulates our partners in Colorado for this beautiful cover park,” noted Acting FHWA Administrator Stephanie Pollack.

“The project is a prime example of how transportation projects can reconnect communities rather than just going through them, bringing people-focused infrastructure improvements that will last for generations to come,” she said.

Colorado DOT began planning a revamp of the Central 70 corridor in 2003 and completed its environmental study 15 years later after significant changes to both the project and stakeholder engagement processes resulting from neighborhood concerns about the environmental and health impacts of the project.

As a result, the agency made over $30 million worth of specific commitments to communities affected by the project, in addition to changing the design to one that lowers the highway and connects the neighborhood via both the cover park and a network of at-grade bridges with pedestrian access.

Those commitments included:

• Constructing 38,700 linear square feet of Americans with Disabilities Act-compliant sidewalks making it possible to safely walk the full length of the Central 70 Project area;
• Improving community connectivity by adding new traffic signals and lights, crosswalks and pedestrian crossing signals, and extending 46th North and South avenues;
• Providing a $2 million grant to the local affordable housing collaborative to support affordable housing construction;
• Providing $18.5 million worth of improvements to Swansea Elementary School that included two new early childhood education classrooms, a new playground, a new main entrance and parking lot and new heating and air conditioning;
• Planting 100 trees and additional landscaping along 46th North Avenue and the new cover park;
• Providing interior storm windows and air conditioning units, plus financial assistance for utility costs, to over 260 homes to help mitigate dust and noise during construction.
• Ensuring job opportunities for residents through a 20-percent geographic-based hiring requirement from local communities while also requiring on-the-job training to provide opportunities for workers to advance to high-skill positions during the construction period.

“This project is an example of how hard conversations can be productive and help us be better neighbors,” said Colorado DOT Executive Director Shoshana Lew.

“The advocacy of community members throughout this project helped Colorado DOT learn to take community feedback seriously and develop state-of-the-art processes for mitigating the impacts of large projects,” she added. “We thank them for their input and hope they see its results in the finished product.”

I was skimming the article when I came across this:

...the agency made over $30 million worth of specific commitments to communities affected by the project
Providing $18.5 million worth of improvements to Swansea Elementary School that included two new early childhood education classrooms, a new playground, a new main entrance and parking lot and new heating and air conditioning;

Since when is it CDOT's job to spend funds to improve a school?  New classrooms and a playground? 

[zzcarp]

Since when is it CDOT's job to spend funds to improve a school?  New classrooms and a playground? 

This was a bribe, pure and simple, to attempt to appease the community activists to get the replacement approved. Their Denver city councilor, Candi CdeBaca (who calls herself a communist), lobbied hard to get I-70 removed and rerouted due to the normal reasons of community impact/anti-highway sentiment: emissions, community connectivity, etc. And it is true that this Elyria/Swansea area is the most industrial area left in Denver proper, so the actual residents have a lower quality of life than the majority of the gentrified city does-for example the Purina plant on the other side of the tracks does tend to smell like dog food. The school improvements and the park cover were built mainly to improve the community, and it was probably cheaper to add those improvements than to have the EIS sit in limbo due to lawsuits while the old viaduct was crumbling.

[Bobby5280]

Since when is it CDOT's job to spend funds to improve a school?  New classrooms and a playground?

I think I was asking similar questions when Oklahoma's state government raised gasoline taxes 3¢ per gallon (the first gas tax hike in many years) to fund pay raises for public school teachers. Our state's teachers should be paid better, more competitive wages. But it shouldn't be coming out of highway funding.

[MattHanson939]

I've seen views of the new freeway on Google Maps Street View, and there are "work zone speed limit 55" signs installed.  Once completed, are the speed limits going to be raised to 60 or 65?

[zzcarp]

I've seen views of the new freeway on Google Maps Street View, and there are "work zone speed limit 55" signs installed.  Once completed, are the speed limits going to be raised to 60 or 65?

I-70's speed limit was 55 prior to construction from Sheridan Blvd to Pena Blvd. and will remain so at the time of completion.

It's not out of the realm of possibility to raise the limit to 60 or 65 in the future after a traffic study, etc. After the US 36 freeway reconstruction in the mid 2010s, they raised the limit between Federal Blvd and I-25 to 65 to match the remainder of the road.

Traffic tends to already go 65 through the corridor when it is not congested. That said, I'd be pleasantly surprised if they upped the limit and not optimistic.

[DenverBrian]

I've seen views of the new freeway on Google Maps Street View, and there are "work zone speed limit 55" signs installed.  Once completed, are the speed limits going to be raised to 60 or 65?

I-70's speed limit was 55 prior to construction from Sheridan Blvd to Pena Blvd. and will remain so at the time of completion.

It's not out of the realm of possibility to raise the limit to 60 or 65 in the future after a traffic study, etc. After the US 36 freeway reconstruction in the mid 2010s, they raised the limit between Federal Blvd and I-25 to 65 to match the remainder of the road.

Traffic tends to already go 65 through the corridor when it is not congested. That said, I'd be pleasantly surprised if they upped the limit and not optimistic.

If they do raise to 65, I think it would only be the section from the Mousetrap east. The Federal/Sheridan portion of the road has those "parkway" curves still.

[The Ghostbuster]

I came across this rant about Interstate 70 in Colorado: https://www.msn.com/en-us/travel/article/letter-to-the-editor-interstate-70-is-a-disgrace-to-the-state-of-colorado/ar-AA17xa1h?ocid=msedgntp&cvid=2d57973307c0430690ab317b5c73b1fd. That's gratitude for you!

[Plutonic Panda]

I’m in complete agreement with that take. I was worried it was gonna be some environmentalist going on a rant that the road is destroying the environment or whatever.

Yes, the tolls need to be removed. Colorado lawmakers should implement a law that bans tolling in the state. Or at the least ban CDOT from installing toll lanes. I wouldn’t have much of an issue with them if they did it in more appropriate situations. The rural interstates having 2 lanes each way with an added toll lane is just ridiculous. Colorado is a VERY wealthy state.

I-70 should be 4 lanes each way to Silverthorne and then 3 lanes each way all the way to Grand Junction. HSR needs to be built with MagLev tech used. That would completely solve traffic issues for the next 100 years. But I can already guess some the excuses that will be made at why that can not be.

[Bobby5280]

America sucks at building high speed rail. That's the first excuse. And it's a legit excuse too. We can't build a true high speed rail line (a train line with top speeds of 300kph/186mph or more) without the effort just breaking the bank. The cost overrun problem is there even on flat land. The challenges just get even more ridiculous when uneven terrain is involved, like the rolling hills and valleys at the edge of the Front Range of the Colorado Rockies. Building a HSR line thru the Rockies? Holy cow.

There is no justification to build a high speed rail line from Denver to Grand Junction. The cost of the rail line would be absurdly extreme. A mag-lev based rail line would be much worse in terms of cost. What kind of ridership numbers could anyone expect for such a rail line? I'm scared to imagine what the train ticket prices would be.

I do agree about the toll lanes on the "expanded" portions of I-70 and I-25. I have no problem with tolled Lexus Lanes on a superhighway with good capacity on the free lanes. The LBJ Freeway in Dallas is a good example of express lanes done right. Part of I-820 in Fort Worth is an example of it done wrong. 2 free lanes in each direction and 2 toll lanes in each direction? That's stupid. The stuff they're doing in Colorado is even more stupid.

IMHO, a superhighway with tolled express lanes should have at least 3 free lanes in each direction, if not 4 or 5 lanes. I'm not a big fan of reversible express lanes. But I'll take those as a trade-off for allowing more free lanes to be built. Of course, I really don't like 11 foot wide skinny lanes. I think those are a cheat and they're dangerous.

[Plutonic Panda]

Regarding HSR, I’d imagine with the right alignment and amenities like park n ride stations it’d rival the NEC as one of the most used lines in the country. You are right about the expense and our complete incompetence when it comes to building them. My proposal for maglev would only extend into the mountains where most of the traffic is going, not to Grand Junction. The HSR pointing west would be to connect with a national HSR system hitting all cities and ridership goes up as more connections are added. Again that’s the least concern and I’m not worried if that never gets built. I’m more concerned about that areas all the commuters are to in the resort cities that are creating the real traffic issue.

Bring in Japan to help build the thing. The expense is worth it. We can’t only keep adding new car lanes and I don’t think even a 10 lane expansion would be sufficient. I’ve only been semi regularly using this road for the last 3 years and it’s unbelievable how bad it is. They’re going to spend all this money on projects like the Floyd Hill expansion and accomplish absolutely nothing because one more lane way won’t cut it and a toll lane won’t do anything for anyone that isn’t affluent. It’ll only boost the arguments the anti car nuts make about how widening freeways does nothing.

[Bobby5280]

Even IF the US could successfully build out a proper true high speed rail network the passengers on those trains would primarily be people who take short to medium distance air flights. High speed rail is just not a substitute for most of the kind of trips people take in their motor vehicles.

In a metro like Denver, the vast majority of vehicles on the freeways are owned by people who live in the metro or live in that general region. High speed rail serves a completely different purpose than mass transit rail (like NYC's subway network) and regional rail service (like the Long Island Railroad, Metro North, New Jersey Transit). Amtrak's Metroliner and Acela runs significantly longer distances between train stations. That longer distance between stations is mandatory for a train to achieve true high speed rail speeds.

It takes considerable time/distance for a train like the TGV in France to hit 300kph speeds and just as much time/distance to slow down before the next stop. It would be ridiculous for anyone to suggest a local subway or light rail line inside a big city could reach true high speeds. The laws of physics say NO to that.

Japan's Shinkansen network had to pass through a LOT of tunnels and along a LOT of elevated viaducts. Much of the original high speed network was built around 50 or so years ago when bridges and tunnels cost a lot less to build. That HSR "network" consists of one primary line running from Kagoshima in the South up to Hakodate a short distance onto the North island of Hokkaido. And then there are three shorter spur routes. Ridership is high on those trains because the Shinkansen's main route goes through a lot of densely populated areas. Japan has 145,000 square miles of land, home to 125 million people. Montana covers 147,000 square miles. Most of Japan's population is concentrated along its Southeast-facing coast. The Shinkansen system is also successful because much of Japan is covered by slower speed passenger rail service and local mass transit trains. In the US the region around NYC is the only place that offers somewhat comparable passenger rail coverage to that in Japan.

Despite all that, Japan has lots of highways, even freeways and toll roads.

Japan is a pretty mountainous country. But its mountains aren't as big as the Rockies. The Shinkansen goes through a lot of modest sized mountains and hillsides, but much of the main line's length doesn't go far from the coast. There aren't as many big elevation changes like you would see crossing Colorado.

If I wanted to sight-see the Rockies via a train I wouldn't want to do it via a high speed rail line. A bunch of the ride going thru the Rockies would be inside long tunnels. If someone wants to look at mountain vistas from a train I'd advise them to check out the Pikes Peak Cog Railway.

Denver would have to radically expand its local mass transit rail system to get more vehicles off the highways. And even then they're probably going to have to keep adding more lanes to its super highways.

[zzcarp]

Denver would have to radically expand its local mass transit rail system to get more vehicles off the highways. And even then they're probably going to have to keep adding more lanes to its super highways.

The Denver metro already spends twice as much as CDOT's budget each year on RTD which runs the light rail/commuter rail system (depending on which line to which you refer). They tried giving away RTD rides for free last August. While ridership increased, it's still not nearly to pre-COVID levels and RTD is cutting more and more lines. We're not dense enough with city centers to support the lines we have now.

 There is a ski train from Union Station in Denver to Winter Park, but it only runs January to March (I don't know ridership figures). To run a rail line, monorail, maglev, or any other scheme from Denver up to the I-70 mountain ski resorts, that's a $30 billion investment (basically one year of the entire state budget) to create a train system that would be basically empty except for weekends. Such a train wouldn't even be able to serve the heavy hiking interests - they wouldn't run early enough to climb a summer 14er (you need to start well before dawn so you can be down the mountain below treeline before noon due to lightning), nor would it get you even close to nearly any of the trailheads. A busline many allow more flexibility, but I-70 needs to be expanded to make that really work.

Plus, any mass transit option doesn't allow you to bring your dog along due to Federal regulations, so it's a non-starter for me for hiking. Colorado's one of the most dog-friendly states I know, and I suggest many other hikers would forgo the transit option in order to bring their Fido along.

[Bobby5280]

I didn't know there was a federal regulation banning dogs on mass transit trains. I'm sure they would have to allow exceptions; when I lived in NYC I remember seeing blind people with companion dogs riding the subway. Then there's all the various people with support animals.

It would take one hell of an engineering achievement to create a true high speed rail line that cut thru the Rockies from Denver to the Grand Junction area. I'm not sure if such a thing would even be possible. I know it would not be financially feasible.

There is only one slow speed rail line that manages to cross all of Colorado East-and-West. That's the line entering the Rockies to the West of Pueblo, using the path cut by the Arkansas River.

Denver has a "thru" rail line that has to cut a very crooked path thru the Front Range. The line passes through at least a dozen tunnels, including the 6 mile long Moffat Tunnel, whose West Portal is in Winter Park. The line goes up to Granby. Then it follows alongside the Colorado River down to Dotsero. There it merges with the rail line coming up from Pueblo. Silverthorne is cut off from any rail service at all due to all the big mountains surrounding it.

[zzcarp]

I didn't know there was a federal regulation banning dogs on mass transit trains. I'm sure they would have to allow exceptions; when I lived in NYC I remember seeing blind people with companion dogs riding the subway. Then there's all the various people with support animals

Yes, truly certified service animals are exempted. I discovered this when I was researching hiking the Chicago Basin in the San Juans which requires a trip on the Durango & Silverton Narrow Gauge:

United States Department of Agriculture regulations prohibit the D&SNGRR from transporting live animals. Except for service animals accompanying their master/trainer, we will not carry any live animals in any cars on our train.

Perhaps they're loosening some of the regulations. For example, I was in Steamboat Springs last year and their buses only allowed companion animals. Today they're allowed in a TSA-style carrier. Breckenridge is now allowing dogs on their shuttle to Quandary Peak (though they still recommend dog owners drive and buy a $50 trailhead parking pass). And it appears RTD now allows non-service animals in a TSA carrier as well (true service animals don't have to be crated).

So perhaps it's no longer entirely prohibited, but just made inconvenient. I have a 35-lb cocker spaniel, and I could probably squeeze him in a carrier and carry it on the bus if necessary. But I can't imagine trying to fit a golden retriever or similar-sized dog in a carrier and carrying him through the bus or train and trying to fit the carrier out of the aisle.

[thenetwork]

I didn't know there was a federal regulation banning dogs on mass transit trains. I'm sure they would have to allow exceptions; when I lived in NYC I remember seeing blind people with companion dogs riding the subway. Then there's all the various people with support animals.

It would take one hell of an engineering achievement to create a true high speed rail line that cut thru the Rockies from Denver to the Grand Junction area. I'm not sure if such a thing would even be possible. I know it would not be financially feasible.

There is only one slow speed rail line that manages to cross all of Colorado East-and-West. That's the line entering the Rockies to the West of Pueblo, using the path cut by the Arkansas River.

Denver has a "thru" rail line that has to cut a very crooked path thru the Front Range. The line passes through at least a dozen tunnels, including the 6 mile long Moffat Tunnel, whose West Portal is in Winter Park. The line goes up to Granby. Then it follows alongside the Colorado River down to Dotsero. There it merges with the rail line coming up from Pueblo. Silverthorne is cut off from any rail service at all due to all the big mountains surrounding it.

^^ That Dotsero to Pueblo rail line you mention of has not been in use for decades.  However, there are people who want to reopen that line for transport of oil from Utah to the south and east.  Tree huggers and NIMBYS are trying to prevent it from happening.

Regardless, there would need to be considerable money needed to bring that rail line back to operational status.  If they could upgrade it to high speed at the same time, more power to them, but there would still be a lot of hurdles (an all purpose trail currently parallels much of the westernmost portion).

[brad2971]

I didn't know there was a federal regulation banning dogs on mass transit trains. I'm sure they would have to allow exceptions; when I lived in NYC I remember seeing blind people with companion dogs riding the subway. Then there's all the various people with support animals.

It would take one hell of an engineering achievement to create a true high speed rail line that cut thru the Rockies from Denver to the Grand Junction area. I'm not sure if such a thing would even be possible. I know it would not be financially feasible.

There is only one slow speed rail line that manages to cross all of Colorado East-and-West. That's the line entering the Rockies to the West of Pueblo, using the path cut by the Arkansas River.

Denver has a "thru" rail line that has to cut a very crooked path thru the Front Range. The line passes through at least a dozen tunnels, including the 6 mile long Moffat Tunnel, whose West Portal is in Winter Park. The line goes up to Granby. Then it follows alongside the Colorado River down to Dotsero. There it merges with the rail line coming up from Pueblo. Silverthorne is cut off from any rail service at all due to all the big mountains surrounding it.

^^ That Dotsero to Pueblo rail line you mention of has not been in use for decades.  However, there are people who want to reopen that line for transport of oil from Utah to the south and east.  Tree huggers and NIMBYS are trying to prevent it from happening.

Regardless, there would need to be considerable money needed to bring that rail line back to operational status.  If they could upgrade it to high speed at the same time, more power to them, but there would still be a lot of hurdles (an all purpose trail currently parallels much of the westernmost portion).

At some point and time, the people who want to develop the thick, waxy crude that comes from the Uintah Basin are going to realize that geographic areas like the Bakken formation and the Denver-Julesburg Basin exist. When they do, they will realize that the Return on Investment for rebuilding the line through Tennessee Pass and/or building a direct road from the Uintah Basin to I-70 is, to put it kindly, abysmal.

The tree-huggers and the NIMBYs are very much in the right on this one.

[Bobby5280]

Regardless, there would need to be considerable money needed to bring that rail line back to operational status.  If they could upgrade it to high speed at the same time, more power to them, but there would still be a lot of hurdles (an all purpose trail currently parallels much of the westernmost portion).

It's not physically possible upgrade that existing rail line to high speed operation. The curves are way way too tight and twisty. The grade climbs aren't great for any kinds of "fast" speeds either.

Any true high speed rail line (max speeds over 300kph/186mph) has to be built on all new terrain alignments with grade and curve geometry that allows for high speeds. That means very straight paths and curves that are very gradual. Building new track alongside a river isn't going to work. Building new track for high speeds in an existing freeway median won't work either.

True high speed rail lines are typically double-tracked. The two existing freight rail lines crossing Colorado's Front Range are single tracked. True high speed rail lines are built to be used exclusively by passenger trains. Such trains cannot operate at high speed on any tracks shared with freight trains.

California's high speed rail project is disappointing for the large amount of shared track it will have to use to enter the Bay Area and LA regions.

[zzcarp]

I didn't know there was a federal regulation banning dogs on mass transit trains. I'm sure they would have to allow exceptions; when I lived in NYC I remember seeing blind people with companion dogs riding the subway. Then there's all the various people with support animals.

It would take one hell of an engineering achievement to create a true high speed rail line that cut thru the Rockies from Denver to the Grand Junction area. I'm not sure if such a thing would even be possible. I know it would not be financially feasible.

There is only one slow speed rail line that manages to cross all of Colorado East-and-West. That's the line entering the Rockies to the West of Pueblo, using the path cut by the Arkansas River.

Denver has a "thru" rail line that has to cut a very crooked path thru the Front Range. The line passes through at least a dozen tunnels, including the 6 mile long Moffat Tunnel, whose West Portal is in Winter Park. The line goes up to Granby. Then it follows alongside the Colorado River down to Dotsero. There it merges with the rail line coming up from Pueblo. Silverthorne is cut off from any rail service at all due to all the big mountains surrounding it.

^^ That Dotsero to Pueblo rail line you mention of has not been in use for decades.  However, there are people who want to reopen that line for transport of oil from Utah to the south and east.  Tree huggers and NIMBYS are trying to prevent it from happening.

Regardless, there would need to be considerable money needed to bring that rail line back to operational status.  If they could upgrade it to high speed at the same time, more power to them, but there would still be a lot of hurdles (an all purpose trail currently parallels much of the westernmost portion).

At some point and time, the people who want to develop the thick, waxy crude that comes from the Uintah Basin are going to realize that geographic areas like the Bakken formation and the Denver-Julesburg Basin exist. When they do, they will realize that the Return on Investment for rebuilding the line through Tennessee Pass and/or building a direct road from the Uintah Basin to I-70 is, to put it kindly, abysmal.

The tree-huggers and the NIMBYs are very much in the right on this one.

There are other reasons to reopen the Pueblo to Dotsero line. It's an easier grade in general and less curvy than the Moffat tunnel. Also the Moffat tunnel has a major capacity/frequency limitation-it has to cool down between each train that passes through, so they can only put through 2 trains an hour, freight or passenger.. This idea for using Pueblo route for increasing freight trains through the Rockies has been talked about long before the Uintah shale existed in the public consciousness. That it hasn't been opened shows either a lack of demand, and/or that the railroad is waiting for government grants to assist in the rebuild.