WYDOT proposing an approx 100 mile, 6 billion dollar route of I-80 along US-30 from Walcott to Laramie.
https://cowboystatedaily.com/2022/01/30/wydot-proposes-reroute-of-i-80-to-avoid-winter-closures/
How likely is this to happen?
I'm a truck driver and I-80 by Elk Mountain is always super windy. US 30 is slightly better because it's farther away from the mountain range, but they often close 30 to trucks due to the wind as well.
No joke I was stuck in Rawlins for 3 days in late December due to the wind and snow. Wyoming weather is just terrible. I ended up driving up to Casper and taking 20 across Nebraska as that route finally was clear and didn't have 60+ mph wind gusts. 30 and 80 were both closed.
On the way out there to Utah I had to take 230 and 130 (which barely goes into CO) to get from Laramie to Rawlins due to the wind.
Can someone explain the weather situation to me? The elevation seems to be less than I-70 between Grand Junction and Denver, so how come it needs a reroute when I-70 probably deals with bad weather/road closures even more?
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on January 31, 2022, 05:48:26 PM
WYDOT proposing an approx 100 mile, 6 billion dollar route of I-80 along US-30 from Walcott to Laramie.
https://cowboystatedaily.com/2022/01/30/wydot-proposes-reroute-of-i-80-to-avoid-winter-closures/
How likely is this to happen?
According to the quoted WYDOT Director, the odds are " very, very, very, very small." But it's an interesting idea. Locals who were aware of the wind conditions believe Uncle Sam made the wrong decision when they didn't follow US-30 originally, instead opting for a more scenic route.
Here's an idea. What if instead of rerouting I-80, they twinned US-30 for that stretch? That would be a lot cheaper, but it would also make it a very viable alternate route when I-80 has to be closed. Since I'm not sure that I-80 across Wyoming really ever needed to be a freeway either, it would provide a fine, high-speed alternate route more than capable of carrying the traffic.
Needless to say, that ship has sailed. Of all the places to build on top of an existing US highway, this should've been one, and since the townspeople along US 30 protested against the current mountain route and lost, talk about a golden opportunity sorely missed. This routing would be perfect for an alternate-reality Interstate system where most, if not all, of the unbuilt routes were completed as planned.
Quote from: SkyPesos on January 31, 2022, 07:21:26 PM
Can someone explain the weather situation to me? The elevation seems to be less than I-70 between Grand Junction and Denver, so how come it needs a reroute when I-70 probably deals with bad weather/road closures even more?
I-80 is probably a less reliable route over the Rockies in winter than I-70. The problem isn't snow or elevation. It's wind.
Southern Wyoming is a relatively flat place which makes it especially prone to strong winds. It might snow more on 70 than it does on 80, but the snow on 80 is often accompanied by stiff winds that blow and drift it around and make it almost impossible to clear. This can be a problem anytime there is snow on the ground even if it's not falling from the sky. There are multiple sets of snow gates on mainline I-80 across the state for this reason.
Quote from: Ketchup99 on January 31, 2022, 07:46:58 PM
Here's an idea. What if instead of rerouting I-80, they twinned US-30 for that stretch? That would be a lot cheaper, but it would also make it a very viable alternate route when I-80 has to be closed. Since I'm not sure that I-80 across Wyoming really ever needed to be a freeway either, it would provide a fine, high-speed alternate route more than capable of carrying the traffic.
I-80 across Wyoming definitely deserves its freeway status. There may not be a lot of population along the route but there are a metric shitton of trucks and traffic counts are pretty decent by rural western standards.
Quote from: Ketchup99 on January 31, 2022, 07:46:58 PM
Here's an idea. What if instead of rerouting I-80, they twinned US-30 for that stretch?
Is that a pressing need? From the standpoint of traffic management, is US-30 in any danger whatsoever of becoming overloaded, even during a closure of I-80?
More to the point - what are the conditions that would make the existing US-30 NOT viable as an alternative route? Its posted speed limit (70 mph) is well higher than what reasonable people would be traveling at in inclement weather. The lanes are standard 12 foot lanes with wide shoulders, and periodic passing lane sections. There is also a fairly long 4-lane divided stretch between Rock River and Bosier.
Honestly, the only problems with US-30 is that it is 16 additional miles, and services are more limited on the stretch compared to I-80. WYDOT doesn't need to drop a bunch of cash on a twinning that's not going to get used more than a handful of times per year. As US 41 mentioned, weather conditions that shut down I-80 frequently will also shut down US-30.
Quote from: Ketchup99 on January 31, 2022, 07:46:58 PM
Here's an idea. What if instead of rerouting I-80, they twinned US-30 for that stretch? That would be a lot cheaper, but it would also make it a very viable alternate route when I-80 has to be closed. Since I'm not sure that I-80 across Wyoming really ever needed to be a freeway either, it would provide a fine, high-speed alternate route more than capable of carrying the traffic.
What about twinning it and using one side as a pedestrian/bike path until I-80 is shut down and then is switched to car traffic only? That would be reasonable.
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on February 01, 2022, 09:57:29 AM
Quote from: Ketchup99 on January 31, 2022, 07:46:58 PM
Here's an idea. What if instead of rerouting I-80, they twinned US-30 for that stretch? That would be a lot cheaper, but it would also make it a very viable alternate route when I-80 has to be closed. Since I'm not sure that I-80 across Wyoming really ever needed to be a freeway either, it would provide a fine, high-speed alternate route more than capable of carrying the traffic.
What about twinning it and using one side as a pedestrian/bike path until I-80 is shut down and then is switched to car traffic only? That would be reasonable.
Yeah, for the 18 people that would use that bike path over the course of a year...
Quote from: US 89 on January 31, 2022, 09:55:35 PM
Quote from: SkyPesos on January 31, 2022, 07:21:26 PM
Can someone explain the weather situation to me? The elevation seems to be less than I-70 between Grand Junction and Denver, so how come it needs a reroute when I-70 probably deals with bad weather/road closures even more?
I-80 is probably a less reliable route over the Rockies in winter than I-70. The problem isn't snow or elevation. It's wind.
Southern Wyoming is a relatively flat place which makes it especially prone to strong winds. It might snow more on 70 than it does on 80, but the snow on 80 is often accompanied by stiff winds that blow and drift it around and make it almost impossible to clear. This can be a problem anytime there is snow on the ground even if it's not falling from the sky. There are multiple sets of snow gates on mainline I-80 across the state for this reason.
Quote from: Ketchup99 on January 31, 2022, 07:46:58 PM
Here's an idea. What if instead of rerouting I-80, they twinned US-30 for that stretch? That would be a lot cheaper, but it would also make it a very viable alternate route when I-80 has to be closed. Since I'm not sure that I-80 across Wyoming really ever needed to be a freeway either, it would provide a fine, high-speed alternate route more than capable of carrying the traffic.
I-80 across Wyoming definitely deserves its freeway status. There may not be a lot of population along the route but there are a metric shitton of trucks and traffic counts are pretty decent by rural western standards.
The weather is also worse because the elevation relative to the Gulf of Mexico gently lifts, rather than sharply as in the Colorado Rockies. This allows snowy weather driven by Gulf moisture to spread over a much broader area than the Rockies, where it will slam against the Front Range then exhaust itself.
The I-80 route close to a sharper uplift enhances this precipitative effect.
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on January 31, 2022, 05:48:26 PM
WYDOT proposing an approx 100 mile, 6 billion dollar route of I-80 along US-30 from Walcott to Laramie.
https://cowboystatedaily.com/2022/01/30/wydot-proposes-reroute-of-i-80-to-avoid-winter-closures/
How likely is this to happen?
Good lord what a potential waste of resources. They better drug test this dude proposing this.
All for what? One or two fewer days I-80 is closed per winter? DUMB!
Look I get that southern Wyoming is a physical and cultural moonscape and I'd hate for people to have to spend any more time there than they have to as much as the next person, but come on.
I'll try and remember this story the next time something comes up about a goofy infrastructure idea in California or New York as proof no region has a monopoly on batshit.
Quote from: triplemultiplex on February 01, 2022, 11:07:14 AM
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on January 31, 2022, 05:48:26 PM
WYDOT proposing an approx 100 mile, 6 billion dollar route of I-80 along US-30 from Walcott to Laramie.
https://cowboystatedaily.com/2022/01/30/wydot-proposes-reroute-of-i-80-to-avoid-winter-closures/
How likely is this to happen?
Good lord what a potential waste of resources. They better drug test this dude proposing this.
All for what? One or two fewer days I-80 is closed per winter? DUMB!
Look I get that southern Wyoming is a physical and cultural moonscape and I'd hate for people to have to spend any more time there than they have to as much as the next person, but come on.
I'll try and remember this story the next time something comes up about a goofy infrastructure idea in California or New York as proof no region has a monopoly on batshit.
It's more than a couple of days out of the winter that it gets closed down and even then, high wind advisories are even more common.
Just drove it a couple of weeks ago. Wyoming needs to do a better job with VMS messaging, where drivers could get confused if the closures pertain to them or not. I saw VMSes that said the entire interstate was closed and then others that said just closed to high profile vehicles...not sure what constituted a high profile vehicle (did my BIL's U-Haul?).
Anyway, if the US 30 route greatly (<--keyword) reduced the wind issue. I'd be all for its development.
Living in Laramie, and from my conversations, many times when I-80 is closed to all vehicles, not just high profile / light weight trucks, US-30 is also closed as to not overload a road that is only two lanes for about 3/4 of the distance from Laramie to Wolcott Jct. There are A LOT of trucks on this stretch as it is a better route to the west coast than 70, and if I-80 is closed due to wind or winter conditions, US 30 will get some, just not as bad. Combine the conditions on a two lane road with a lot of cross-country semis, and that road can be a parking lot as well with icy spots to boot.
Quote from: ski-man on February 01, 2022, 03:14:17 PM
Living in Laramie, and from my conversations, many times when I-80 is closed to all vehicles, not just high profile / light weight trucks, US-30 is also closed as to not overload a road that is only two lanes for about 3/4 of the distance from Laramie to Wolcott Jct. There are A LOT of trucks on this stretch as it is a better route to the west coast than 70, and if I-80 is closed due to wind or winter conditions, US 30 will get some, just not as bad. Combine the conditions on a two lane road with a lot of cross-country semis, and that road can be a parking lot as well with icy spots to boot.
It seems that there would be a middle ground here that doesn't cost as much as 100 miles of new interstate, but could function as a better truck bypass as needed. My wife and I have had several adventures in Wyoming during the winter storms, and appreciate that sometimes there is no way around, and sometimes there is a single route available that takes you 200 miles out of your way with no guarantee it too will stay open.
Quote from: ski-man on February 01, 2022, 03:14:17 PM
Living in Laramie, and from my conversations, many times when I-80 is closed to all vehicles, not just high profile / light weight trucks, US-30 is also closed as to not overload a road that is only two lanes for about 3/4 of the distance from Laramie to Wolcott Jct. There are A LOT of trucks on this stretch as it is a better route to the west coast than 70, and if I-80 is closed due to wind or winter conditions, US 30 will get some, just not as bad. Combine the conditions on a two lane road with a lot of cross-country semis, and that road can be a parking lot as well with icy spots to boot.
Good to hear from a local on this. This pass seems to have the Union Pacific mainline that then splits and heads to both LA and Portland. Any idea if this generally get shut down during times the roadways are? Obviously not due to jackknifed obstructions due to ice, but more due to blowing snow...
How much would four-laning US 30 (perhaps with "essential traffic only" advisories when I-80 is closed) help? That would seem to be a way to reduce the cost over moving I-80.
Quote from: US 89 on February 01, 2022, 10:00:42 AM
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on February 01, 2022, 09:57:29 AM
Quote from: Ketchup99 on January 31, 2022, 07:46:58 PM
Here's an idea. What if instead of rerouting I-80, they twinned US-30 for that stretch? That would be a lot cheaper, but it would also make it a very viable alternate route when I-80 has to be closed. Since I'm not sure that I-80 across Wyoming really ever needed to be a freeway either, it would provide a fine, high-speed alternate route more than capable of carrying the traffic.
What about twinning it and using one side as a pedestrian/bike path until I-80 is shut down and then is switched to car traffic only? That would be reasonable.
Yeah, for the 18 people that would use that bike path over the course of a year...
Hey wasn't a whole movie predicated on a guy hearing a voice telling him "If you build it, they will come..."
Quote from: ski-man on February 01, 2022, 03:14:17 PM
Living in Laramie, and from my conversations, many times when I-80 is closed to all vehicles, not just high profile / light weight trucks, US-30 is also closed as to not overload a road that is only two lanes for about 3/4 of the distance from Laramie to Wolcott Jct.
If that's truly the case - that they close US-30 between Laramie and Wolcott Jct. because of excessive traffic concerns when I-80 is closed, then I might understand the impulse to twin US-30. It's still wild overkill the vast majority of the time, but it might be worth it if that kept traffic flowing when I-80 has to shut down. But it doesn't need to be Interstate - rural 4-lane with controlled access is plenty good enough. Effectively, it's 80 miles of new 2-lane roadway in wide-open countryside, plus periodic crossovers (there's about 15-20 miles of highway already 4-laned). It shouldn't cost anywhere near $6 Billion to build. I'd be surprised if it required $1 Billion
Of course, the state of Wyoming isn't going to do this on their own, and shouldn't. It's a route of national importance - they need to lobby the feds to fund it. Obviously, nobody at WYDOT is serious about relocating I-80, but maybe they can make the case to the feds to twin US-30 to cut the number of times they have to shut down traffic in the region.
Quote from: JREwing78 on February 01, 2022, 08:52:27 PM
Quote from: ski-man on February 01, 2022, 03:14:17 PM
Living in Laramie, and from my conversations, many times when I-80 is closed to all vehicles, not just high profile / light weight trucks, US-30 is also closed as to not overload a road that is only two lanes for about 3/4 of the distance from Laramie to Wolcott Jct.
If that's truly the case - that they close US-30 between Laramie and Wolcott Jct. because of excessive traffic concerns when I-80 is closed, then I might understand the impulse to twin US-30. It's still wild overkill the vast majority of the time, but it might be worth it if that kept traffic flowing when I-80 has to shut down. But it doesn't need to be Interstate - rural 4-lane with controlled access is plenty good enough. Effectively, it's 80 miles of new 2-lane roadway in wide-open countryside, plus periodic crossovers (there's about 15-20 miles of highway already 4-laned). It shouldn't cost anywhere near $6 Billion to build. I'd be surprised if it required $1 Billion
Of course, the state of Wyoming isn't going to do this on their own, and shouldn't. It's a route of national importance - they need to lobby the feds to fund it. Obviously, nobody at WYDOT is serious about relocating I-80, but maybe they can make the case to the feds to twin US-30 to cut the number of times they have to shut down traffic in the region.
The subsequent issue would be how Wyoming would afford to maintain the new highway. All I know is that it seems they chip seal I-80 and everyone's vehicles get chipped from others throwing gravel their way. Whatever they're doing, I actually wonder if FHWA should allow them to do it with federal funds.
Quote from: JREwing78 on February 01, 2022, 08:52:27 PM
But it doesn't need to be Interstate - rural 4-lane with controlled access is plenty good enough.
It's questionable if such alternative route needs to be controlled access.
A simple rural four lane divided highway with no or partial control of access would be more than adequate for when I-80 is shut down.
How much traffic does I-80 through Wyoming get in the winter when it's most likely to be closed? I only drove it once, it was January, and there were a fair number of trucks but not so crowded that it was annoying to drive.
There are several small towns via US 30, and handing them might be a sticking point. Bypass the town and kill whatever tourism there is, vs. loads of trucks along a 2-lane main street.
Quote from: US 89 on February 01, 2022, 10:00:42 AM
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on February 01, 2022, 09:57:29 AM
Quote from: Ketchup99 on January 31, 2022, 07:46:58 PM
Here's an idea. What if instead of rerouting I-80, they twinned US-30 for that stretch? That would be a lot cheaper, but it would also make it a very viable alternate route when I-80 has to be closed. Since I'm not sure that I-80 across Wyoming really ever needed to be a freeway either, it would provide a fine, high-speed alternate route more than capable of carrying the traffic.
What about twinning it and using one side as a pedestrian/bike path until I-80 is shut down and then is switched to car traffic only? That would be reasonable.
Yeah, for the 18 people that would use that bike path over the course of a year...
Is a four lane road really needed outside of an interstate closure? If not shut one side off to cars when the interstate is open. Less wear and tear on the road too. Idk this isn't my territory so I don't really care either way I come through here maybe once every other year. I've hit some bad weather but I managed it.
Quote from: SectorZ on February 01, 2022, 08:50:06 PM
Quote from: US 89 on February 01, 2022, 10:00:42 AM
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on February 01, 2022, 09:57:29 AM
Quote from: Ketchup99 on January 31, 2022, 07:46:58 PM
Here's an idea. What if instead of rerouting I-80, they twinned US-30 for that stretch? That would be a lot cheaper, but it would also make it a very viable alternate route when I-80 has to be closed. Since I'm not sure that I-80 across Wyoming really ever needed to be a freeway either, it would provide a fine, high-speed alternate route more than capable of carrying the traffic.
What about twinning it and using one side as a pedestrian/bike path until I-80 is shut down and then is switched to car traffic only? That would be reasonable.
Yeah, for the 18 people that would use that bike path over the course of a year...
Hey wasn't a whole movie predicated on a guy hearing a voice telling him "If you build it, they will come..."
So we're going to build a path for ghost bikers?
Quote from: GaryV on February 02, 2022, 08:28:09 AM
Quote from: SectorZ on February 01, 2022, 08:50:06 PM
Quote from: US 89 on February 01, 2022, 10:00:42 AM
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on February 01, 2022, 09:57:29 AM
Quote from: Ketchup99 on January 31, 2022, 07:46:58 PM
Here's an idea. What if instead of rerouting I-80, they twinned US-30 for that stretch? That would be a lot cheaper, but it would also make it a very viable alternate route when I-80 has to be closed. Since I'm not sure that I-80 across Wyoming really ever needed to be a freeway either, it would provide a fine, high-speed alternate route more than capable of carrying the traffic.
What about twinning it and using one side as a pedestrian/bike path until I-80 is shut down and then is switched to car traffic only? That would be reasonable.
Yeah, for the 18 people that would use that bike path over the course of a year...
Hey wasn't a whole movie predicated on a guy hearing a voice telling him "If you build it, they will come..."
So we're going to build a path for ghost bikers?
Yes but the most skilled of them are going to be banned from riding their bikes on anything else, hence the need.
If high winds are the problem, then a more reasonable solution might be variable speed limits. Make everyone slow the hell down if it's too windy rather than shut down the freeway.
Quote from: triplemultiplex on February 02, 2022, 11:45:01 AM
If high winds are the problem, then a more reasonable solution might be variable speed limits. Make everyone slow the hell down if it's too windy rather than shut down the freeway.
Is this not already a thing on that stretch of I-80?
Quote from: sprjus4 on February 02, 2022, 11:51:51 AM
Quote from: triplemultiplex on February 02, 2022, 11:45:01 AM
If high winds are the problem, then a more reasonable solution might be variable speed limits. Make everyone slow the hell down if it's too windy rather than shut down the freeway.
Is this not already a thing on that stretch of I-80?
They use variable speed limits from Laramie to Cheyenne, pretty sure it's the same by Elk Mountain as well.
Quote from: JREwing78 on February 01, 2022, 08:52:27 PM
Quote from: ski-man on February 01, 2022, 03:14:17 PM
Living in Laramie, and from my conversations, many times when I-80 is closed to all vehicles, not just high profile / light weight trucks, US-30 is also closed as to not overload a road that is only two lanes for about 3/4 of the distance from Laramie to Wolcott Jct.
If that's truly the case - that they close US-30 between Laramie and Wolcott Jct. because of excessive traffic concerns when I-80 is closed, then I might understand the impulse to twin US-30. It's still wild overkill the vast majority of the time, but it might be worth it if that kept traffic flowing when I-80 has to shut down. But it doesn't need to be Interstate - rural 4-lane with controlled access is plenty good enough. Effectively, it's 80 miles of new 2-lane roadway in wide-open countryside, plus periodic crossovers (there's about 15-20 miles of highway already 4-laned). It shouldn't cost anywhere near $6 Billion to build. I'd be surprised if it required $1 Billion
Of course, the state of Wyoming isn't going to do this on their own, and shouldn't. It's a route of national importance - they need to lobby the feds to fund it. Obviously, nobody at WYDOT is serious about relocating I-80, but maybe they can make the case to the feds to twin US-30 to cut the number of times they have to shut down traffic in the region.
This definitely would solve the issue (IMO); additionally they could ask to twin the rest of US 287 from Laramie to Tie Siding as well. It's not a major trucking route, but I swear there's a head-on collision at least every two years from the all the passing that goes on.
Quote from: kkt on February 01, 2022, 09:28:07 PM
There are several small towns via US 30, and handing them might be a sticking point. Bypass the town and kill whatever tourism there is, vs. loads of trucks along a 2-lane main street.
There is zero tourism on US30.
Quote from: SD Mapman on February 02, 2022, 12:08:00 PM
This definitely would solve the issue (IMO); additionally they could ask to twin the rest of US 287 from Laramie to Tie Siding as well. It's not a major trucking route, but I swear there's a head-on collision at least every two years from the all the passing that goes on.
287 should be four lanes between Laramie and Fort Collins regardless of anything going on with I-80. It is the fastest route from Denver to Salt Lake City and points west/northwest and as a result sees quite a bit of traffic, both truck and non-truck.
Quote from: triplemultiplex on February 02, 2022, 11:45:01 AM
If high winds are the problem, then a more reasonable solution might be variable speed limits. Make everyone slow the hell down if it's too windy rather than shut down the freeway.
You think people give two shits about a speed limit? Lol and having troopers pulling people over during those conditions is probably more dangerous than the violations.
Quote from: US 89 on February 02, 2022, 12:18:07 PM
Quote from: SD Mapman on February 02, 2022, 12:08:00 PM
This definitely would solve the issue (IMO); additionally they could ask to twin the rest of US 287 from Laramie to Tie Siding as well. It's not a major trucking route, but I swear there's a head-on collision at least every two years from the all the passing that goes on.
287 should be four lanes between Laramie and Fort Collins regardless of anything going on with I-80. It is the fastest route from Denver to Salt Lake City and points west/northwest and as a result sees quite a bit of traffic, both truck and non-truck.
Agreed 100%.
Quote from: JayhawkCO on February 02, 2022, 12:13:59 PM
Quote from: kkt on February 01, 2022, 09:28:07 PM
There are several small towns via US 30, and handing them might be a sticking point. Bypass the town and kill whatever tourism there is, vs. loads of trucks along a 2-lane main street.
There is zero tourism on US30.
Hey, I like stopping in Medicine Bow! I think I might be the only one though...
Seriously, there are only two towns that would be affected by this (Rock River and Medicine Bow); US 30 is already 4 lanes through Medicine Bow (non-divided) and the same could probably be done through Rock River without too much trouble.
Quote from: JayhawkCO on February 02, 2022, 12:59:55 PM
Quote from: US 89 on February 02, 2022, 12:18:07 PM
Quote from: SD Mapman on February 02, 2022, 12:08:00 PM
This definitely would solve the issue (IMO); additionally they could ask to twin the rest of US 287 from Laramie to Tie Siding as well. It's not a major trucking route, but I swear there's a head-on collision at least every two years from the all the passing that goes on.
287 should be four lanes between Laramie and Fort Collins regardless of anything going on with I-80. It is the fastest route from Denver to Salt Lake City and points west/northwest and as a result sees quite a bit of traffic, both truck and non-truck.
Agreed 100%.
I remember seeing something that WYDOT had committed to 4-laning their stretch of 287 (no timetable), but I have no idea if CDOT will ever do anything.
I don't think the I-80 reroute will ever happen for two reasons. It would likely take years of environmental studies before the route were selected, notwithstanding the inevitable environmentalist lawsuits, etc, designed to delay or derail the project. If those hurdles were cleared, where would the money come from? My opinion has been for a long time that it is a good thing that the vast majority of the Interstate system was constructed when it was, because I could never see it happening now.
If this reroute actually happened and was built what is the most likely outcome for the existing interstate? Will it be kept as is or downgraded to a surface road?
Quote from: JayhawkCO on February 02, 2022, 12:13:59 PM
There is zero tourism on US30.
Not true! Weirdos like me stop to take photos of the various abandoned buildings along the way!
Quote from: kwellada on February 03, 2022, 08:40:22 AM
Quote from: JayhawkCO on February 02, 2022, 12:13:59 PM
There is zero tourism on US30.
Not true! Weirdos like me stop to take photos of the various abandoned buildings along the way!
There is one tourist on US30.
Quote from: kkt on February 01, 2022, 09:28:07 PM
There are several small towns via US 30, and handing them might be a sticking point. Bypass the town and kill whatever tourism there is, vs. loads of trucks along a 2-lane main street.
A bit ironic that you mentioned this, when on the other side of the country on the same highway, you have Breezewood :-D
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on February 03, 2022, 06:24:13 AM
If this reroute actually happened and was built what is the most likely outcome for the existing interstate? Will it be kept as is or downgraded to a surface road?
My speculation is it would be kept as an interstate, maybe as a 3di loop of I-80. It's 80 miles between Laramie and Walcott via I-80 and 94 miles via US-30. Given its relatively short length, it'd be a stretch to give the existing I-80 a new 2di designation, but there are a couple of options.
Option 1: reroute I-80 along US-30 and designate the existing I-80 between Laramie and Walcott as I-78.
Option 2: keep I-80 where it is and designate the route following US-30 as I-x80 (could be I-82, but might be too close to I-82 in OR/WA).
Option 3: the one that AASHTO cringes at--have a split route between Laramie and Walcott with the new alignment following US-30 designated as I-80N and the existing interstate as I-80S.
Option 4: designate the new alignment along US-30 between Walcott and Laramie as I-84, and extend the I-84 designation eastward along I-80 from Echo, Utah to Walcott, resulting in a 266-mile I-80/I-84 overlap (still shorter than the I-80/I-90 overlap in Ohio and Indiana at 278 miles).
I personally like either options 2, 3, or 4 because with any of those, you don't have to renumber exits and reset mileposts on I-80 east of Walcott.
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on February 03, 2022, 06:24:13 AM
If this reroute actually happened and was built what is the most likely outcome for the existing interstate? Will it be kept as is or downgraded to a surface road?
No idea if Wyoming would do this, but I could see them not wanting to maintain two Interstate quality highways along this route. A possibility might be to downgrade to at least super-2, if not remove all interchanges, and swap the two routes (US 30 to current I-80 and I-80 to current US 30).
Quote from: ski-man on February 01, 2022, 03:14:17 PM
Living in Laramie, and from my conversations, many times when I-80 is closed to all vehicles, not just high profile / light weight trucks, US-30 is also closed as to not overload a road that is only two lanes for about 3/4 of the distance from Laramie to Wolcott Jct. There are A LOT of trucks on this stretch as it is a better route to the west coast than 70, and if I-80 is closed due to wind or winter conditions, US 30 will get some, just not as bad. Combine the conditions on a two lane road with a lot of cross-country semis, and that road can be a parking lot as well with icy spots to boot.
unrelated... but i absolutely love laramie. i'm a train fanatic, and you have that cool footbridge over the yard downtown. haven't been there for years, sad i'm since only 60 miles SE of you...
Quote from: zachary_amaryllis on February 03, 2022, 10:41:12 AM
Quote from: ski-man on February 01, 2022, 03:14:17 PM
Living in Laramie, and from my conversations, many times when I-80 is closed to all vehicles, not just high profile / light weight trucks, US-30 is also closed as to not overload a road that is only two lanes for about 3/4 of the distance from Laramie to Wolcott Jct. There are A LOT of trucks on this stretch as it is a better route to the west coast than 70, and if I-80 is closed due to wind or winter conditions, US 30 will get some, just not as bad. Combine the conditions on a two lane road with a lot of cross-country semis, and that road can be a parking lot as well with icy spots to boot.
unrelated... but i absolutely love laramie. i'm a train fanatic, and you have that cool footbridge over the yard downtown. haven't been there for years, sad i'm since only 60 miles SE of you...
I got to do some trainspotting on that bridge last year when I was in Wyoming and stayed the night in Laramie. I went back into Colorado on US 287 the next morning and was curious to wonder why only part of that highway was four lanes with two-lane segments both in Wyoming and Colorado.
How expensive would it be to build a wind shield along the problematic section? Like, a big wall, basically.
Quote from: MCRoads on February 03, 2022, 12:10:32 PM
How expensive would it be to build a wind shield along the problematic section? Like, a big wall, basically.
They're called snow fences, and a bunch of 80 across Wyoming has them already (example (https://goo.gl/maps/CkgWcZA66dYnt3cTA)). They help, but they can only do so much.
And a wall could exaggerate the issue by funneling wind and precipitation down a defined corridor where it could more rapidly freeze. Wind speeds could be greater. It's much like the skyscraper effect that occurs in cities.
What a wall would be more likely to do is create an eddy, especially when wind flow is perpendicular to the wall, which would dump even more in the immediate downwind vicinity.
Quote from: zachary_amaryllis on February 03, 2022, 10:41:12 AM
Quote from: ski-man on February 01, 2022, 03:14:17 PM
Living in Laramie, and from my conversations, many times when I-80 is closed to all vehicles, not just high profile / light weight trucks, US-30 is also closed as to not overload a road that is only two lanes for about 3/4 of the distance from Laramie to Wolcott Jct. There are A LOT of trucks on this stretch as it is a better route to the west coast than 70, and if I-80 is closed due to wind or winter conditions, US 30 will get some, just not as bad. Combine the conditions on a two lane road with a lot of cross-country semis, and that road can be a parking lot as well with icy spots to boot.
unrelated... but i absolutely love laramie. i'm a train fanatic, and you have that cool footbridge over the yard downtown. haven't been there for years, sad i'm since only 60 miles SE of you...
I think the train is personally the only thing to love. :D I was not particularly impressed the last time I was up there and actually got into town.
I'm a bit surprised at the attitudes about highway closures in different states. Kentucky tries to avoid it if all possible. I've heard from retired KYTC folks that after the governor ordered interstates and parkways closed in 1994 (but the surface routes stayed open), Toyota threatened to close its factory in Georgetown and move if that ever happened again. I don't know if this is true or not, as it seems a bit far-fetched for Toyota to abandon such an investment and build another factory somewhere else. Now, there's a "keep interstates open at all costs" mentality and they're only closed if they become physically blocked (as happened on I-65 between Shepherdsville and Elizabethtown a few years ago). There have actually been some pretty heated discussions between local officials (law enforcement, rescue squads, fire departments, etc.) and the state over who has the authority to order a road shut down. The state has taken the position that only the state can close a state road. Meanwhile, lots of other states seem to have no qualms about shutting down roads and they even put up permanent infrastructure such as signs and gates to enable it.
Quote from: kkt on February 01, 2022, 09:28:07 PM
How much traffic does I-80 through Wyoming get in the winter when it's most likely to be closed? I only drove it once, it was January, and there were a fair number of trucks but not so crowded that it was annoying to drive.
There are several small towns via US 30, and handing them might be a sticking point. Bypass the town and kill whatever tourism there is, vs. loads of trucks along a 2-lane main street.
I-80 is crowded with semi's all year round. If you have ever been in Cheyenne, Laramie or Rawlins when they shut down I-80, the towns are inundated with semi's all over the place from parking lots to the sides of the highway for miles. Good for local businesses but bad for the truckers.
^^ Kentucky doesn't have the acute and persistent drifting problems that those other states do.
Quote from: SD Mapman on February 03, 2022, 12:25:24 AM
Quote from: JayhawkCO on February 02, 2022, 12:59:55 PM
Quote from: US 89 on February 02, 2022, 12:18:07 PM
Quote from: SD Mapman on February 02, 2022, 12:08:00 PM
This definitely would solve the issue (IMO); additionally they could ask to twin the rest of US 287 from Laramie to Tie Siding as well. It's not a major trucking route, but I swear there's a head-on collision at least every two years from the all the passing that goes on.
287 should be four lanes between Laramie and Fort Collins regardless of anything going on with I-80. It is the fastest route from Denver to Salt Lake City and points west/northwest and as a result sees quite a bit of traffic, both truck and non-truck.
Agreed 100%.
I remember seeing something that WYDOT had committed to 4-laning their stretch of 287 (no timetable), but I have no idea if CDOT will ever do anything.
287 is 4-laned about half the way between Laramie and the state line. The other half has the right-of-way already just needs the construction. Colorado is a big problem with their road funding there I do not see this being a big priority for them. One thing Colorado did do is redo and pave Owl Canyon Road north of Ft. Collins, which allows traffic and many semi's to by-pass going through the town of Ft Collins on their way to I-25.
Quote from: ski-man on February 03, 2022, 03:16:13 PM
Quote from: SD Mapman on February 03, 2022, 12:25:24 AM
Quote from: JayhawkCO on February 02, 2022, 12:59:55 PM
Quote from: US 89 on February 02, 2022, 12:18:07 PM
Quote from: SD Mapman on February 02, 2022, 12:08:00 PM
This definitely would solve the issue (IMO); additionally they could ask to twin the rest of US 287 from Laramie to Tie Siding as well. It's not a major trucking route, but I swear there's a head-on collision at least every two years from the all the passing that goes on.
287 should be four lanes between Laramie and Fort Collins regardless of anything going on with I-80. It is the fastest route from Denver to Salt Lake City and points west/northwest and as a result sees quite a bit of traffic, both truck and non-truck.
Agreed 100%.
I remember seeing something that WYDOT had committed to 4-laning their stretch of 287 (no timetable), but I have no idea if CDOT will ever do anything.
287 is 4-laned about half the way between Laramie and the state line. The other half has the right-of-way already just needs the construction. Colorado is a big problem with their road funding there I do not see this being a big priority for them. One thing Colorado did do is redo and pave Owl Canyon Road north of Ft. Collins, which allows traffic and many semi's to by-pass going through the town of Ft Collins on their way to I-25.
I feel like they should now change the routing of US287 too. Maybe have it come across CO392 north of Loveland, multi-plex with I-25 until Owl Canyon Road and then head west again. Not that that many trucks are likely taking US287 up from Loveland now, but it'll at least have direct access from I-25 towards the Northwest.
Quote from: JayhawkCO on February 03, 2022, 03:50:43 PM
Quote from: ski-man on February 03, 2022, 03:16:13 PM
Quote from: SD Mapman on February 03, 2022, 12:25:24 AM
Quote from: JayhawkCO on February 02, 2022, 12:59:55 PM
Quote from: US 89 on February 02, 2022, 12:18:07 PM
Quote from: SD Mapman on February 02, 2022, 12:08:00 PM
This definitely would solve the issue (IMO); additionally they could ask to twin the rest of US 287 from Laramie to Tie Siding as well. It's not a major trucking route, but I swear there's a head-on collision at least every two years from the all the passing that goes on.
287 should be four lanes between Laramie and Fort Collins regardless of anything going on with I-80. It is the fastest route from Denver to Salt Lake City and points west/northwest and as a result sees quite a bit of traffic, both truck and non-truck.
Agreed 100%.
I remember seeing something that WYDOT had committed to 4-laning their stretch of 287 (no timetable), but I have no idea if CDOT will ever do anything.
287 is 4-laned about half the way between Laramie and the state line. The other half has the right-of-way already just needs the construction. Colorado is a big problem with their road funding there I do not see this being a big priority for them. One thing Colorado did do is redo and pave Owl Canyon Road north of Ft. Collins, which allows traffic and many semi's to by-pass going through the town of Ft Collins on their way to I-25.
I feel like they should now change the routing of US287 too. Maybe have it come across CO392 north of Loveland, multi-plex with I-25 until Owl Canyon Road and then head west again. Not that that many trucks are likely taking US287 up from Loveland now, but it'll at least have direct access from I-25 towards the Northwest.
Maybe CO 402 south of Loveland - you avoid the jog around a lake (which always sucked in the winter)...
Probably a better option.
Regarding "too expensive/waste of money": If the trucking industry is incurring more than $6B a year in delay costs because of this bottleneck, then there is a potential positive ROI out of upgrading US30.
No need to fully upgrade to Interstate standards, though. Make it four-lane or even substantially six-lane in that stretch, then mark it as "Alt-80" or some such and direct trucks to the alternate in bad weather.
Maybe even toll it for trucks (not for cars).
Quote from: DenverBrian on February 03, 2022, 05:53:04 PM
Regarding "too expensive/waste of money": If the trucking industry is incurring more than $6B a year in delay costs because of this bottleneck, then there is a potential positive ROI out of upgrading US30.
One thing for certain - the State of Wyoming is not coughing up this investment, unless the feds let them toll I-80. It's not like Wyoming is going to be able to pay for it jacking up fuel taxes. And, given the trends for coal and oil, the State of Wyoming's future tax revenues are not looking bright.
I mean, if Jeff Bezos wants to cough up $6 Billion to get Amazon packages across Wyoming more reliably, why the hell not?
Quote from: JREwing78 on February 03, 2022, 06:46:16 PM
Quote from: DenverBrian on February 03, 2022, 05:53:04 PM
Regarding "too expensive/waste of money": If the trucking industry is incurring more than $6B a year in delay costs because of this bottleneck, then there is a potential positive ROI out of upgrading US30.
One thing for certain - the State of Wyoming is not coughing up this investment, unless the feds let them toll I-80. It's not like Wyoming is going to be able to pay for it jacking up fuel taxes. And, given the trends for coal and oil, the State of Wyoming's future tax revenues are not looking bright.
Could do it up like Oklahoma: route US-30 onto I-80. Build a new toll road on the old US-30 route and call it WY-380. Redesign the interchange on both ends to default traffic onto WY-380. Put up ugly signs. Make out-of-state drivers pay to see the ugly signs.
Quote from: tdindy88 on February 03, 2022, 11:04:14 AM
Quote from: zachary_amaryllis on February 03, 2022, 10:41:12 AM
Quote from: ski-man on February 01, 2022, 03:14:17 PM
Living in Laramie, and from my conversations, many times when I-80 is closed to all vehicles, not just high profile / light weight trucks, US-30 is also closed as to not overload a road that is only two lanes for about 3/4 of the distance from Laramie to Wolcott Jct. There are A LOT of trucks on this stretch as it is a better route to the west coast than 70, and if I-80 is closed due to wind or winter conditions, US 30 will get some, just not as bad. Combine the conditions on a two lane road with a lot of cross-country semis, and that road can be a parking lot as well with icy spots to boot.
unrelated... but i absolutely love laramie. i'm a train fanatic, and you have that cool footbridge over the yard downtown. haven't been there for years, sad i'm since only 60 miles SE of you...
I got to do some trainspotting on that bridge last year when I was in Wyoming and stayed the night in Laramie. I went back into Colorado on US 287 the next morning and was curious to wonder why only part of that highway was four lanes with two-lane segments both in Wyoming and Colorado.
we in colorado who drive that road wonder the same thing :banghead:
Quote from: froggie on February 03, 2022, 03:15:01 PM
^^ Kentucky doesn't have the acute and persistent drifting problems that those other states do.
You mean Kentucky isn't geographically or meteorologically representative of the entire country, let alone Wyoming? Imagine that. :D
An interesting thing about closures. Years ago, when I was living in Cincinnati, we got dumped on with snow. The county declared it to be a "level 3" emergency a little later than expected, despite surrounding areas forgoing such a severe designation. Yeah, there was snow, but nothing that couldn't be handled with caution and a good vehicle with snow tires and/or AWD. (I should know, I was out in the weather photographing scenes.) It all came to a boil when a sheriff arrested a Metro bus driver for taking commuters home along I-71 - leaving the bus stranded on the side of the interstate with folks inside. Charges against the driver were soon dropped as the snow emergency bit wasn't really all that enforceable, and the PR was such a black eye for law enforcement that it's now merely a suggestion to not drive - and not something you could be arrested over.
Quote from: JayhawkCO on February 03, 2022, 09:29:52 AM
Quote from: kwellada on February 03, 2022, 08:40:22 AM
Quote from: JayhawkCO on February 02, 2022, 12:13:59 PM
There is zero tourism on US30.
Not true! Weirdos like me stop to take photos of the various abandoned buildings along the way!
There is one tourist on US30.
*Two! :-D
Quote from: JayhawkCO on February 03, 2022, 03:50:43 PM
Quote from: ski-man on February 03, 2022, 03:16:13 PM
Quote from: SD Mapman on February 03, 2022, 12:25:24 AM
Quote from: JayhawkCO on February 02, 2022, 12:59:55 PM
Quote from: US 89 on February 02, 2022, 12:18:07 PM
Quote from: SD Mapman on February 02, 2022, 12:08:00 PM
This definitely would solve the issue (IMO); additionally they could ask to twin the rest of US 287 from Laramie to Tie Siding as well. It's not a major trucking route, but I swear there's a head-on collision at least every two years from the all the passing that goes on.
287 should be four lanes between Laramie and Fort Collins regardless of anything going on with I-80. It is the fastest route from Denver to Salt Lake City and points west/northwest and as a result sees quite a bit of traffic, both truck and non-truck.
Agreed 100%.
I remember seeing something that WYDOT had committed to 4-laning their stretch of 287 (no timetable), but I have no idea if CDOT will ever do anything.
287 is 4-laned about half the way between Laramie and the state line. The other half has the right-of-way already just needs the construction. Colorado is a big problem with their road funding there I do not see this being a big priority for them. One thing Colorado did do is redo and pave Owl Canyon Road north of Ft. Collins, which allows traffic and many semi's to by-pass going through the town of Ft Collins on their way to I-25.
I feel like they should now change the routing of US287 too. Maybe have it come across CO392 north of Loveland, multi-plex with I-25 until Owl Canyon Road and then head west again. Not that that many trucks are likely taking US287 up from Loveland now, but it'll at least have direct access from I-25 towards the Northwest.
My idea would be to sign Owl Canyon Road (CR 72/CR 19/CR 70) as "US 287 Truck" or something like that and simultaneously restrict truck traffic through Fort Collins itself (Riverside and College is a horrible intersection anyway, even without trucks). That way anyone going to/from Denver to points northwest would take that instead of CO 14 to get over to 287.
Quote from: ski-man on February 03, 2022, 03:16:13 PM
Quote from: SD Mapman on February 03, 2022, 12:25:24 AM
Quote from: JayhawkCO on February 02, 2022, 12:59:55 PM
Quote from: US 89 on February 02, 2022, 12:18:07 PM
Quote from: SD Mapman on February 02, 2022, 12:08:00 PM
This definitely would solve the issue (IMO); additionally they could ask to twin the rest of US 287 from Laramie to Tie Siding as well. It's not a major trucking route, but I swear there's a head-on collision at least every two years from the all the passing that goes on.
287 should be four lanes between Laramie and Fort Collins regardless of anything going on with I-80. It is the fastest route from Denver to Salt Lake City and points west/northwest and as a result sees quite a bit of traffic, both truck and non-truck.
Agreed 100%.
I remember seeing something that WYDOT had committed to 4-laning their stretch of 287 (no timetable), but I have no idea if CDOT will ever do anything.
287 is 4-laned about half the way between Laramie and the state line. The other half has the right-of-way already just needs the construction. Colorado is a big problem with their road funding there I do not see this being a big priority for them. One thing Colorado did do is redo and pave Owl Canyon Road north of Ft. Collins, which allows traffic and many semi's to by-pass going through the town of Ft Collins on their way to I-25.
Yeah, and I feel like the Wyoming part isn't really the problem; it's the passing lanes in Colorado and the people not keeping right and going 90 that cause a lot of the trouble with 287.
Quote from: Rothman on February 03, 2022, 09:46:55 PM
Quote from: froggie on February 03, 2022, 03:15:01 PM
^^ Kentucky doesn't have the acute and persistent drifting problems that those other states do.
You mean Kentucky isn't geographically or meteorologically representative of the entire country, let alone Wyoming? Imagine that. :D
The point is, Kentucky's attitude is "throw the resources at it to keep the road open." In the past few years, we've even developed an "emergency route" plan that creates a "superpriority" system. Interstates and parkways are already Priority A routes, but the emergency system would basically move all resources to them (or to the emergency routes designated in each county.)
The plains and upper midwest states would rather just close the roads than do what it takes to keep them open. And the citizenry is OK with that. It's not the case here. We certainly haven't spoiled drivers with a "black pavement" policy but there's an expectation that main roads will remain open unless they're physically blocked.
Quote from: hbelkins on February 04, 2022, 02:04:36 PM
Quote from: Rothman on February 03, 2022, 09:46:55 PM
Quote from: froggie on February 03, 2022, 03:15:01 PM
^^ Kentucky doesn't have the acute and persistent drifting problems that those other states do.
You mean Kentucky isn't geographically or meteorologically representative of the entire country, let alone Wyoming? Imagine that. :D
The point is, Kentucky's attitude is "throw the resources at it to keep the road open." In the past few years, we've even developed an "emergency route" plan that creates a "superpriority" system. Interstates and parkways are already Priority A routes, but the emergency system would basically move all resources to them (or to the emergency routes designated in each county.)
The plains and upper midwest states would rather just close the roads than do what it takes to keep them open. And the citizenry is OK with that. It's not the case here. We certainly haven't spoiled drivers with a "black pavement" policy but there's an expectation that main roads will remain open unless they're physically blocked.
What I hear is ignorance of the much harsher conditions in Wyoming in that comparison.
When KY has to deal with nearly constant gale force winds blowing perpendicular to their interstates, then I will give your comparison more creedence.
Quote from: Rothman on February 04, 2022, 03:24:34 PM
Quote from: hbelkins on February 04, 2022, 02:04:36 PM
Quote from: Rothman on February 03, 2022, 09:46:55 PM
Quote from: froggie on February 03, 2022, 03:15:01 PM
^^ Kentucky doesn't have the acute and persistent drifting problems that those other states do.
You mean Kentucky isn't geographically or meteorologically representative of the entire country, let alone Wyoming? Imagine that. :D
The point is, Kentucky's attitude is "throw the resources at it to keep the road open." In the past few years, we've even developed an "emergency route" plan that creates a "superpriority" system. Interstates and parkways are already Priority A routes, but the emergency system would basically move all resources to them (or to the emergency routes designated in each county.)
The plains and upper midwest states would rather just close the roads than do what it takes to keep them open. And the citizenry is OK with that. It's not the case here. We certainly haven't spoiled drivers with a "black pavement" policy but there's an expectation that main roads will remain open unless they're physically blocked.
What I hear is ignorance of the much harsher conditions in Wyoming in that comparison.
When KY has to deal with nearly constant gale force winds blowing perpendicular to their interstates, then I will give your comparison more creedence.
Don't forget the finely powdered snow that is alien to most locales east of the Rockies that gets stirred up creating whiteout conditions even when it's not snowing.
Quote from: JayhawkCO on February 04, 2022, 03:31:59 PM
Quote from: Rothman on February 04, 2022, 03:24:34 PM
Quote from: hbelkins on February 04, 2022, 02:04:36 PM
Quote from: Rothman on February 03, 2022, 09:46:55 PM
Quote from: froggie on February 03, 2022, 03:15:01 PM
^^ Kentucky doesn't have the acute and persistent drifting problems that those other states do.
You mean Kentucky isn't geographically or meteorologically representative of the entire country, let alone Wyoming? Imagine that. :D
The point is, Kentucky's attitude is "throw the resources at it to keep the road open." In the past few years, we've even developed an "emergency route" plan that creates a "superpriority" system. Interstates and parkways are already Priority A routes, but the emergency system would basically move all resources to them (or to the emergency routes designated in each county.)
The plains and upper midwest states would rather just close the roads than do what it takes to keep them open. And the citizenry is OK with that. It's not the case here. We certainly haven't spoiled drivers with a "black pavement" policy but there's an expectation that main roads will remain open unless they're physically blocked.
What I hear is ignorance of the much harsher conditions in Wyoming in that comparison.
When KY has to deal with nearly constant gale force winds blowing perpendicular to their interstates, then I will give your comparison more creedence.
Don't forget the finely powdered snow that is alien to most locales east of the Rockies that gets stirred up creating whiteout conditions even when it's not snowing.
...or blown in front of vehicles and then compacted into glaze ice.
Having driven that stretch of I-80 during "good" conditions, I know from first-hand knowledge that it is pretty much never NOT windy. So any snow on the ground there (as well as loose soil) is particularly dangerous. Not sure it would be much different on US 30 though--similar topography from what I can tell.
Quote from: Mark68 on February 04, 2022, 04:27:09 PM
Having driven that stretch of I-80 during "good" conditions, I know from first-hand knowledge that it is pretty much never NOT windy. So any snow on the ground there (as well as loose soil) is particularly dangerous. Not sure it would be much different on US 30 though--similar topography from what I can tell.
It is less windy on US30 just because the wind isn't whipping right around the Medicine Bows.
flat, no trees or anything to block blowing snow. unsurprising that this happens a lot.
Quote from: JayhawkCO on February 04, 2022, 03:31:59 PM
Quote from: Rothman on February 04, 2022, 03:24:34 PM
Quote from: hbelkins on February 04, 2022, 02:04:36 PM
Quote from: Rothman on February 03, 2022, 09:46:55 PM
Quote from: froggie on February 03, 2022, 03:15:01 PM
^^ Kentucky doesn't have the acute and persistent drifting problems that those other states do.
You mean Kentucky isn't geographically or meteorologically representative of the entire country, let alone Wyoming? Imagine that. :D
The point is, Kentucky's attitude is "throw the resources at it to keep the road open." In the past few years, we've even developed an "emergency route" plan that creates a "superpriority" system. Interstates and parkways are already Priority A routes, but the emergency system would basically move all resources to them (or to the emergency routes designated in each county.)
The plains and upper midwest states would rather just close the roads than do what it takes to keep them open. And the citizenry is OK with that. It's not the case here. We certainly haven't spoiled drivers with a "black pavement" policy but there's an expectation that main roads will remain open unless they're physically blocked.
What I hear is ignorance of the much harsher conditions in Wyoming in that comparison.
When KY has to deal with nearly constant gale force winds blowing perpendicular to their interstates, then I will give your comparison more creedence.
Don't forget the finely powdered snow that is alien to most locales east of the Rockies that gets stirred up creating whiteout conditions even when it's not snowing.
I mean, there is a point there; South Dakota has similar winter conditions to Wyoming (definitely not as windy but still pretty bad) and the longest I've seen I-90 shut down is about 6 hours, whereas in Wyoming I-80 will just be closed for days no matter if it warms up. There is a definite difference in snow removal quality as well; I remember one time crossing into WY on SD 34 (WY 24) where the SD side was dry with no snow on the road at all and the WY side had about a half inch of packed snow with gravel covering everything (probably because the taxes are higher in SD). From what I've seen, a lot of WY cities don't plow the side streets when it snows, while in Spearfish if that happened the citizens would riot (we literally had an election to force the city to remove more snow).
Quote from: JayhawkCO on February 04, 2022, 04:35:21 PM
Quote from: Mark68 on February 04, 2022, 04:27:09 PM
Having driven that stretch of I-80 during "good" conditions, I know from first-hand knowledge that it is pretty much never NOT windy. So any snow on the ground there (as well as loose soil) is particularly dangerous. Not sure it would be much different on US 30 though--similar topography from what I can tell.
It is less windy on US30 just because the wind isn't whipping right around the Medicine Bows.
I'm not sure of that (you could be right), but I think it's more that US 30 and the Laramie Valley will get an inch of snow while I-80 and Arlington/Elk Mountain will get 6 inches of snow from the same storm. Heck, it's probably both more windy and snowier along the I-80 routing, which just makes it terrible from September to June.
Quote from: hbelkins on February 04, 2022, 02:04:36 PM
Quote from: Rothman on February 03, 2022, 09:46:55 PM
Quote from: froggie on February 03, 2022, 03:15:01 PM
^^ Kentucky doesn't have the acute and persistent drifting problems that those other states do.
You mean Kentucky isn't geographically or meteorologically representative of the entire country, let alone Wyoming? Imagine that. :D
The point is, Kentucky's attitude is "throw the resources at it to keep the road open." In the past few years, we've even developed an "emergency route" plan that creates a "superpriority" system. Interstates and parkways are already Priority A routes, but the emergency system would basically move all resources to them (or to the emergency routes designated in each county.)
The plains and upper midwest states would rather just close the roads than do what it takes to keep them open. And the citizenry is OK with that. It's not the case here. We certainly haven't spoiled drivers with a "black pavement" policy but there's an expectation that main roads will remain open unless they're physically blocked.
Having grown up out "on the prairie", there is only so much you can do before you have to just give up because it is not safe for the plow operators to keep going or emergency personnel to constantly respond to defiant motorists. Roads will fill up with blowing snow faster than the plows can take it off. So yes, it makes a lot of sense to close the road instead of "doing whatever it takes"...
New York used to do the "throw everything at it" to keep freeways through the lake effect snow belts open. They conceded within the past decade and started closing stuff during heavy snow/wind events. It just isn't worth putting plow drivers' lives at risk for something that will immediately drift over. Plus, closing the road significantly reduces the risk a bunch of people will get stuck in drifts, as has happened several times in these lake effect storms.
I-90 and I-81 in New York are two of the few freeways east of the Plains that get weather conditions similar to what you'll see in Wyoming in winter in terms of blowing snow. If I-80 is anything like those roads during/after a wind event, I don't blame WYODOT for closing the thing. Those roads can be downright terrifying during a winter wind event.
I was really appreciative of the state only plowing and not salting I-86 in the western reaches of the state until conditions warranted full-depth plowing and salting. It made for easy and reliable travel as plowed roads are fairly easy to drive on - even at higher speeds.
Quote from: hbelkins on February 04, 2022, 02:04:36 PM
Quote from: Rothman on February 03, 2022, 09:46:55 PM
Quote from: froggie on February 03, 2022, 03:15:01 PM
^^ Kentucky doesn't have the acute and persistent drifting problems that those other states do.
You mean Kentucky isn't geographically or meteorologically representative of the entire country, let alone Wyoming? Imagine that. :D
The point is, Kentucky's attitude is "throw the resources at it to keep the road open." In the past few years, we've even developed an "emergency route" plan that creates a "superpriority" system. Interstates and parkways are already Priority A routes, but the emergency system would basically move all resources to them (or to the emergency routes designated in each county.)
The plains and upper midwest states would rather just close the roads than do what it takes to keep them open. And the citizenry is OK with that. It's not the case here. We certainly haven't spoiled drivers with a "black pavement" policy but there's an expectation that main roads will remain open unless they're physically blocked.
The bigger problem is wind, not snow, and that's what causes the shutdowns. Even with perfectly clear roads, 75 MPH wind gusts will tip over many tractor trailers. Most everywhere in the nation has higher winds in the winter so the winds coincide with the snow.
Indeed. This was a truck driver that ignored a closure on this stretch of I-80 (near Elk Mountain).
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r_wnG_iW9So
Quote from: Zonie on February 05, 2022, 04:57:28 PM
Indeed. This was a truck driver that ignored a closure on this stretch of I-80 (near Elk Mountain).
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r_wnG_iW9So
Was the road closed only to trucks? Because there are a whole lot of other vehicles on the road.
Quote from: Zonie on February 05, 2022, 04:57:28 PM
Indeed. This was a truck driver that ignored a closure on this stretch of I-80 (near Elk Mountain).
Well, that one is going to be hard to 'splain away to the insurance company and police.
In January 2006 I moved from Denver to Seattle and took the Uhaul on I-80 in Wyoming rather than deal with I-70's mountains. While the weather was "fine", the normal winds resulted in at least an hour of white knuckle driving at slow speeds. I do not want to experience it in an actual storm.
Quote from: froggie on February 05, 2022, 12:18:04 AM
Quote from: hbelkins on February 04, 2022, 02:04:36 PM
Quote from: Rothman on February 03, 2022, 09:46:55 PM
Quote from: froggie on February 03, 2022, 03:15:01 PM
^^ Kentucky doesn't have the acute and persistent drifting problems that those other states do.
You mean Kentucky isn't geographically or meteorologically representative of the entire country, let alone Wyoming? Imagine that. :D
The point is, Kentucky's attitude is "throw the resources at it to keep the road open." In the past few years, we've even developed an "emergency route" plan that creates a "superpriority" system. Interstates and parkways are already Priority A routes, but the emergency system would basically move all resources to them (or to the emergency routes designated in each county.)
The plains and upper midwest states would rather just close the roads than do what it takes to keep them open. And the citizenry is OK with that. It's not the case here. We certainly haven't spoiled drivers with a "black pavement" policy but there's an expectation that main roads will remain open unless they're physically blocked.
Having grown up out "on the prairie", there is only so much you can do before you have to just give up because it is not safe for the plow operators to keep going or emergency personnel to constantly respond to defiant motorists. Roads will fill up with blowing snow faster than the plows can take it off. So yes, it makes a lot of sense to close the road instead of "doing whatever it takes"...
Here in Colorado, CDOT's crews do everything they can 24/7 to keep I-70 and I-25, even US40 and SH82 west of Aspen open.
On the eastern plains, not so much: https://www.google.com/maps/@39.2713562,-103.6774484,3a,37.5y,26.44h,86.22t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s9-gCOg1cKlnc_S0ow0l65w!2e0!7i16384!8i8192 And usually, I-70 east from E-470 to the Kansas line is closed before one even reaches that place I linked.
These might be even more impractical than rerouting the interstate, but...
Ok, so if wind is the problem, the Netherlands has a sol!
(https://www.marineinsight.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/Rozenburg-Wind-Wall.jpg)
Or, you could build a snow shed over the problematic areas. It works for railroads, so why can't it work for regular roads?
I was thinking that as well. Would building a permanent structure over the road be cheaper than moving it?
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on February 07, 2022, 11:17:11 AM
I was thinking that as well. Would building a permanent structure over the road be cheaper than moving it?
That would be an incredibly long permanent structure...
Quote from: hbelkins on February 05, 2022, 08:31:40 PM
Quote from: Zonie on February 05, 2022, 04:57:28 PM
Indeed. This was a truck driver that ignored a closure on this stretch of I-80 (near Elk Mountain).
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r_wnG_iW9So
Was the road closed only to trucks? Because there are a whole lot of other vehicles on the road.
They do have "Closed to light and high-profile vehicles" on I-80 a good bit of the winter, even when it's open to regular traffic. As to how well that's enforced... I went from Cheyenne to Laramie when one of those was on and only about 20% of the trucks turned back.
Quote from: SD Mapman on February 07, 2022, 12:26:22 PM
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on February 07, 2022, 11:17:11 AM
I was thinking that as well. Would building a permanent structure over the road be cheaper than moving it?
That would be an incredibly long permanent structure...
Would it be needed the entire length?
Quote from: MCRoads on February 07, 2022, 11:14:50 AM
These might be even more impractical than rerouting the interstate, but...
Ok, so if wind is the problem, the Netherlands has a sol!
(https://www.marineinsight.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/Rozenburg-Wind-Wall.jpg)
Or, you could build a snow shed over the problematic areas. It works for railroads, so why can't it work for regular roads?
potentially a good idea. since planting trees would take too long, the trees would need to grow large and that takes time.
Quote from: silverback1065 on February 07, 2022, 12:47:17 PM
Quote from: MCRoads on February 07, 2022, 11:14:50 AM
These might be even more impractical than rerouting the interstate, but...
Ok, so if wind is the problem, the Netherlands has a sol!
(https://www.marineinsight.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/Rozenburg-Wind-Wall.jpg)
Or, you could build a snow shed over the problematic areas. It works for railroads, so why can't it work for regular roads?
potentially a good idea. since planting trees would take too long, the trees would need to grow large and that takes time.
If trees could grow there with all that wind, there would already be trees in the area. It's desolate out there.
Quote from: JayhawkCO on February 07, 2022, 12:49:26 PM
Quote from: silverback1065 on February 07, 2022, 12:47:17 PM
Quote from: MCRoads on February 07, 2022, 11:14:50 AM
These might be even more impractical than rerouting the interstate, but...
Ok, so if wind is the problem, the Netherlands has a sol!
(https://www.marineinsight.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/Rozenburg-Wind-Wall.jpg)
Or, you could build a snow shed over the problematic areas. It works for railroads, so why can't it work for regular roads?
potentially a good idea. since planting trees would take too long, the trees would need to grow large and that takes time.
If trees could grow there with all that wind, there would already be trees in the area. It's desolate out there.
good point, they'd just blow away :-D
So we are now proposing to construct snowsheds used in avalanche areas all across Wyoming?
Quote from: seicer on February 07, 2022, 01:05:44 PM
So we are now proposing to construct snowsheds used in avalanche areas all across Wyoming?
I didn't realize I-80 in "all of Wyoming" was only 100 miles across.
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on February 07, 2022, 01:10:52 PM
Quote from: seicer on February 07, 2022, 01:05:44 PM
So we are now proposing to construct snowsheds used in avalanche areas all across Wyoming?
I didn't realize I-80 in "all of Wyoming" was only 100 miles across.
The point still stands...
Quote from: US 89 on February 07, 2022, 01:37:29 PM
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on February 07, 2022, 01:10:52 PM
Quote from: seicer on February 07, 2022, 01:05:44 PM
So we are now proposing to construct snowsheds used in avalanche areas all across Wyoming?
I didn't realize I-80 in "all of Wyoming" was only 100 miles across.
The point still stands...
It would be expensive but would it be more than building a new interstate for 100 miles? If the cover option went forward would it be needed for the entire 100 miles of the road?
Trees can grow just fine in wind. There's not enough precipitation in the area in question to sustain them. That's the limiting factor. It's an arid environment. So one would need to irrigate a living windbreak of trees.
Quote from: triplemultiplex on February 07, 2022, 03:04:25 PM
Trees can grow just fine in wind. There's not enough precipitation in the area in question to sustain them. That's the limiting factor. It's an arid environment. So one would need to irrigate a living windbreak of trees.
From the University of Wyoming (https://www.wyoextension.org/publications/html/B1090R/), "In many places, winds blow from the west, southwest, or northwest most of the time. A tree planted in an open area on the west or northwest side of a lot or a structure will be exposed to harsh, drying, and potentially damaging winds." Not saying water isn't also a big culprit, but again, there is a reason that there are no native trees around there.
Quote from: MCRoads on February 07, 2022, 11:14:50 AM
Or, you could build a snow shed over the problematic areas. It works for railroads, so why can't it work for regular roads?
Railroads are about 20 feet wide for single track, 40 feet for double track. Probably no more than 20 feet high. Usually used for spot situations where the snow shed is perhaps 1,000 feet long.
I-80 is probably 150 feet wide in that area. 75 feet wide if you "shed" the travel lanes individually. In many areas, the travel lanes are separated by hundreds of feet, so you'd definitely have to build two sheds.
All this, not for a few 1,000 foot chunks, but perhaps 100 miles continuous. The ENTIRE LENGTH is a "problematic area." It might be cheaper to actually just dig down 25 feet and roof the result. So, $20B instead of $50B.
Short answer: Not practical.
I remember lots of double-stacked containers on trains in Wyoming. Maybe allow 21' high.
Quote from: kkt on February 08, 2022, 04:37:49 AM
I remember lots of double-stacked containers on trains in Wyoming. Maybe allow 21' high.
Good catch. Post edited. Doesn't change the gist of it.
If you've got 11 minutes, here's a WYDOT video from about 5 years ago that'll tell you everything you ever wanted to know about Wyoming's high winds and their effect on highways.
Around the 2:00 mark, it mentions the wind criteria WYDOT uses to prompt advisories and closures. At about 3:30-4:00, there's a map that shows all the major locations of high winds and a slide covering the most common blow-over locations, most of which being in the area discussed about a reroute. Later on, it mentions some of the winter maintenance concerns related to winds.
Super cool video. And for our Eastern brethren, an explanation of Wyoming is quite a bit different than your states and winds.
Quote from: DenverBrian on February 07, 2022, 07:44:55 PM
Quote from: MCRoads on February 07, 2022, 11:14:50 AM
Or, you could build a snow shed over the problematic areas. It works for railroads, so why can't it work for regular roads?
Railroads are about 20 feet wide for single track, 40 feet for double track. Probably no more than 20 feet high. Usually used for spot situations where the snow shed is perhaps 1,000 feet long.
I-80 is probably 150 feet wide in that area. 75 feet wide if you "shed" the travel lanes individually. In many areas, the travel lanes are separated by hundreds of feet, so you'd definitely have to build two sheds.
All this, not for a few 1,000 foot chunks, but perhaps 100 miles continuous. The ENTIRE LENGTH is a "problematic area." It might be cheaper to actually just dig down 25 feet and roof the result. So, $20B instead of $50B.
Short answer: Not practical.
I think you didn't read this part:
Quote from: MCRoads on February 07, 2022, 11:14:50 AM
These might be even more impractical than rerouting the interstate, but...
Quote from: MCRoads on February 12, 2022, 08:07:54 PM
Quote from: DenverBrian on February 07, 2022, 07:44:55 PM
Quote from: MCRoads on February 07, 2022, 11:14:50 AM
Or, you could build a snow shed over the problematic areas. It works for railroads, so why can't it work for regular roads?
Railroads are about 20 feet wide for single track, 40 feet for double track. Probably no more than 20 feet high. Usually used for spot situations where the snow shed is perhaps 1,000 feet long.
I-80 is probably 150 feet wide in that area. 75 feet wide if you "shed" the travel lanes individually. In many areas, the travel lanes are separated by hundreds of feet, so you'd definitely have to build two sheds.
All this, not for a few 1,000 foot chunks, but perhaps 100 miles continuous. The ENTIRE LENGTH is a "problematic area." It might be cheaper to actually just dig down 25 feet and roof the result. So, $20B instead of $50B.
Short answer: Not practical.
I think you didn't read this part:
Quote from: MCRoads on February 07, 2022, 11:14:50 AM
These might be even more impractical than rerouting the interstate, but...
Oh, I read it. "
Might be even more impractical?" Honestly?
Quote from: roadfro on February 09, 2022, 10:49:21 AM
If you've got 11 minutes, here's a WYDOT video from about 5 years ago that'll tell you everything you ever wanted to know about Wyoming's high winds and their effect on highways.
Around the 2:00 mark, it mentions the wind criteria WYDOT uses to prompt advisories and closures. At about 3:30-4:00, there's a map that shows all the major locations of high winds and a slide covering the most common blow-over locations, most of which being in the area discussed about a reroute. Later on, it mentions some of the winter maintenance concerns related to winds.
Thanks for the video. This helped me understand the issue much better especially the types of wind being discussed.
I also looked at the terrain in Google Earth and there are a few other things that affect the weather. I-80 tends to run about 200 meters (~650 ft) higher than US 30 the entire length of the corridor. The air will tend to be a 2-3°F warmer along US 30, especially if you're dealing with the adiabatic heating associated with the downhill side of Chinook winds. I noticed around Arlington (one of the main blow-over locations on I-80) there's a pass to the southwest which funnels the wind down the mile-wide valley through Arlington; the valley widens considerably to the northeast and by the time it hits US 30 and Rock River the valley is several miles wide which will significantly reduce the wind tunnel effect. The other I-80 location mentioned in the video has a similar, though less extreme, valley widening.
I hope this helps why posters have stated there is a perceptible difference in wind between the two highways.
https://cowboystatedaily.com/2022/02/17/bill-sniffin-an-alternate-i-80-could-save-national-economy-1-million-a-day-if-road-stays-open/
QuoteDid you know that when Interstate 80 is closed for weather, that US 30 next door is automatically closed, too?
This is to prevent the 8,000 semi-trailer trucks a day from storming that more narrow, more local highway as an alternate route. The resulting crush of giant rigs would be a disaster.
Those frequent closures create a national financial disaster when goods are no longer moving to their destinations.
Del McOmie Jr. pointed out this fact out when he was asked about the creation of an alternate Interstate 80 highway that would follow the current US 30 road through Hanna, Medicine Bow, Rock River, and Bosler, enroute to Laramie.
McOmie knows all about Interstate 80 or as it is nicknamed Snow Chi Mihn Trail. He worked for Wyoming Department of Transportation (WYDOT) for almost 36 years. He also was chief engineer for 15 years. He knows these roads.
So why not build an Interstate 80 alternate route on the current route of US30? It would be good news for national economy.
In an excellent article in Cowboy State Daily by Wendy Corr, the current director of WYDOT, Luke Reiner, thoughtfully suggested the federal government consider spending $6 billion by re-routing Interstate to the US 30 route.
Reiner said the agency has made a unique proposal to the federal government — rerouting I-80 to avoid the part of the interstate that closes most often.
"If you look at a map, you'll see that the old highway, Highway 30, goes further to the north, and then sort of comes down from the north into I-80," Reiner said. "Rumor has it that when they went to build I-80, that the initial route followed the route of Highway 30. And somebody made the decision, "˜No, we're going to move closer to these very beautiful mountains,' to which the locals said, "˜Bad idea,' based on weather. And it has proved to be true."
Reiner said if the interstate could be shifted to the north, many weather-related closures could be avoided.
"Our suggestion to the federal government is to say, "˜If you want to do something for the nation's commerce along I-80, reroute it. Follow Highway 30 – it's about 100 miles of new interstate, the estimated cost would be about $6 billion,'" he said. "So, it's not cheap, but our estimate is that it would dramatically reduce the number of days the interstate's closed, because that's the section that kills us."
When it came to the topic for this article, my idea to McOmie was not to move the designated road, but rather build an alternate route with a different number like Interstate 280 or Interstate 680?
McOmie agrees with Reiner as far as using US 30 in concerned. He said he thought building an alternate route would cost less than $6 billion, maybe as little as $3 billion, if you followed the old US30 roadway.
But the exciting part of this proposal, McOmie said, is that if there was a viable alternative route for all those trucks, the effect on the national economy would be very positive. He thinks based on all the lost revenue caused by closed Interstate 80, it could more than justify building a second Interstate Highway north of the current route.
McOmie said to get a different designation requires national action. AASHTO, the American Association of State Transportation Officials, has to make that designation. "You have to have the right designation to get it approved," McOmie said. This is to maintain continuity with the rest of the highways across the country.
McOmie says Interstate 80 is a heavy truck route. It is often very busy. It is one of the busiest truck routes in the USA, he said. It moves a lot of goods from the three biggest ports on the west coast.
From a purely capacity standpoint, the number of vehicles is not extremely high compared to metro areas. However, it feels congested, due in a large part, to the number of trucks. "When we talk about highway capacity, there is a term called "˜side friction,' where one truck equals nine cars," he says. So those 8,000 trucks equates to what 72,000 vehicles would feel like.
It always feels worse on Interstate 80 because of the up and down grades, the constant unpredictable weather, the high winds, the large volumes of trucks versus cars, and the constant starting and stopping, McOmie said. "And then you have some trucks going 65 mph and others going 80."
Reiner said that essentially, I-80 all the way across Wyoming is a mountain pass.
"I mean, it's 6,200 feet," he said. "And so that brings its own trouble, and then of course the drastic wind events, the high wind events and blowing snow that we have in Arlington, around Elk Mountain, really caused a lot of trouble."
According to staff at WYDOT, in February of 2021, I-80 was closed to commercial truck traffic almost 12 percent of the daytime hours that month; in December of 2021, the highway was closed to commercial traffic almost 16 percent of the month due to inclement weather.
"(I-80) is closed more to high profile light vehicles then it is closed to all traffic," Reiner said. "And that's an important distinction, because we cannot control the wind events."
Beyond the impact on Wyoming traffic, Reiner pointed out that closures on this particular stretch of interstate affect the whole country.
"That wind event negatively affects the economy of our nation, because it stops the trucks," he said. "I-80 is a route of national commerce. And when we shut it down, we're all just very aware that it's a big deal."
I mean that would solve the issue; making an I-280 (or whatever) from Walcott to Laramie would be pretty easy. There would only be 2 town bypasses in Medicine Bow and Rock River (I guess the east end would be a bit complicated because Laramie actually has built-up infrastructure and buildings), and there's already a ~20 mile stretch of at least almost interstate standard 4-lane.
Given that US-30 would only be the preferred route during inclement weather, is a full upgrade to Interstate standards even needed? It sounds like freeway bypasses around the towns, spot interchange improvements at high-volume junctions, and four-lane expressway between them would be sufficient. No need to screw around buying out access rights.
^ Agreed.
A four lane divided is all that's needed at most - no need to have full control of access in the rural areas.
Interstate 80 would still be the main through route 99% of the time.
Quote from: From the ArticleFrom a purely capacity standpoint, the number of vehicles is not extremely high compared to metro areas. However, it feels congested, due in a large part, to the number of trucks. "When we talk about highway capacity, there is a term called "˜side friction,' where one truck equals nine cars," he says. So those 8,000 trucks equates to what 72,000 vehicles would feel like.
I believe this comment is in error. I recently came across a study regarding I-80 truck traffic across Nebraska...next door and fundamentally similar to the traffic on I-80 in Wyoming. In that study, they concluded that the passenger-car-equivalent of trucks along I-80 was around 3, not 9 as this article comment alleges. Even if you take into account that I-80 is hillier across Wyoming than across western Nebraska, you'd be talking about a total factor of 5 or 6, not 9.
And it would be too logistically difficult to set up a 'ferry' service like there is in a couple of Swiss mountain passes and tunnels on the nearby paralleling Union Pacific transcontinental mainline.
Yes, I can envision several difficult parts of the I-system being rerouted besides that part of I-80. OTOH, I don't see myself living long enough to see many of them being built.
Mike
Quote from: froggie on February 22, 2022, 10:21:36 AM
Quote from: From the ArticleFrom a purely capacity standpoint, the number of vehicles is not extremely high compared to metro areas. However, it feels congested, due in a large part, to the number of trucks. "When we talk about highway capacity, there is a term called "˜side friction,' where one truck equals nine cars," he says. So those 8,000 trucks equates to what 72,000 vehicles would feel like.
I believe this comment is in error. I recently came across a study regarding I-80 truck traffic across Nebraska...next door and fundamentally similar to the traffic on I-80 in Wyoming. In that study, they concluded that the passenger-car-equivalent of trucks along I-80 was around 3, not 9 as this article comment alleges. Even if you take into account that I-80 is hillier across Wyoming than across western Nebraska, you'd be talking about a total factor of 5 or 6, not 9.
Definitely in error! The standard conversion rate for trucks used in traffic analysis per the Highway Capacity Manual is at most 4.5, and that's for *mountainous* terrain, meaning continuous grades of 5-6%. And even then I believe most of the terrain on I-80 in Wyoming would be closer to "hilly" which has a conversion rate of only 2.5. Now, given that the speed limit in Wyoming is 80 mph, you could potentially argue that those numbers should be a little higher, but certainly not double.
Quote from: mgk920 on February 22, 2022, 11:24:16 AM
And it would be too logistically difficult to set up a 'ferry' service like there is in a couple of Swiss mountain passes and tunnels on the nearby paralleling Union Pacific transcontinental mainline.
Yes, I can envision several difficult parts of the I-system being rerouted besides that part of I-80. OTOH, I don't see myself living long enough to see many of them being built.
Mike
I remember the UP's tracks being very busy through Wyoming. I don't think they'd like setting up a bottleneck on the railroad in order to make life easier for their trucking competitors.
Quote from: Scott5114 on February 21, 2022, 01:35:41 AM
Given that US-30 would only be the preferred route during inclement weather, is a full upgrade to Interstate standards even needed? It sounds like freeway bypasses around the towns, spot interchange improvements at high-volume junctions, and four-lane expressway between them would be sufficient. No need to screw around buying out access rights.
This. Upgrade US-30 to expressway standard, add a few third lanes for trucks for certain hills, and you're done. Given the climate conditions, you'd probably WANT traffic to flow into the towns so that people could be diverted to schools or buildings to ride out storms.
I don't know about forcing traffic through towns–in marginal situations where I-80 is bad but US-30 is decent enough to continue, that sort of makes life rough for anyone trying to go about their usual business in town.
^ Based on personal experience...in the type of scenario where 80 would be bad or shut down, the locals probably wouldn't be doing much of their "usual business" anyway.
The problem comes down to convincing the eastern half of United States why this project is important. Wyoming is the least populated state in the United states, having fewer people than the states of Vermont and Alaska. (Alaska, because of it's size, is less population dense). There is less people living in Wyoming than in that dinky little Texas city of El Paso. Until a major closure that lasts for a week or so that affects the eastern half of the United States occurs, we won't see any changes.
Quote from: ZLoth on February 25, 2022, 09:36:06 AM
The problem comes down to convincing the eastern half of United States why this project is important. Wyoming is the least populated state in the United states, having fewer people than the states of Vermont and Alaska. (Alaska, because of it's size, is less population dense). There is less people living in Wyoming than in that dinky little Texas city of El Paso. Until a major closure that lasts for a week or so that affects the eastern half of the United States occurs, we won't see any changes.
Despite its lack of population, I do think the East respects Wyoming's natural resources.
^ It does, but most of those natural resources come out of Wyoming via train and pipeline, not by truck.
Quote from: Scott5114 on February 25, 2022, 03:21:49 AM
I don't know about forcing traffic through towns–in marginal situations where I-80 is bad but US-30 is decent enough to continue, that sort of makes life rough for anyone trying to go about their usual business in town.
Laramie is already used to large amounts of trucks being in town, the only difference would be Curtis and N. 3rd would be extra busy, but then there aren't really any important stores up there and there's other routes to avoid them. Rock River might have an issue since you have to cross 30/287 to get to the school. Medicine Bow and Hanna don't really need 30/287 for daily business, so they'd be alright.
Quote from: froggie on February 25, 2022, 08:57:33 AM
^ Based on personal experience...in the type of scenario where 80 would be bad or shut down, the locals probably wouldn't be doing much of their "usual business" anyway.
They have snowmobiles!
^ I wouldn't respect the project on terms of building it as a whole new interstate highway, because that much capacity and access control is not needed for a temporary route that's served 95% of the time by an adequate existing fully controlled access interstate highway.
All that's needed is at most a four lane divided highway in rural areas with no access control, which can be accomplished by twinning the existing road.
Quote from: Rothman on February 25, 2022, 09:47:10 AM
Quote from: ZLoth on February 25, 2022, 09:36:06 AM
The problem comes down to convincing the eastern half of United States why this project is important. Wyoming is the least populated state in the United states, having fewer people than the states of Vermont and Alaska. (Alaska, because of it's size, is less population dense). There is less people living in Wyoming than in that dinky little Texas city of El Paso. Until a major closure that lasts for a week or so that affects the eastern half of the United States occurs, we won't see any changes.
Despite its lack of population, I do think the East respects Wyoming's natural resources.
Wyoming produces about 40% of the US total (https://www.uwyo.edu/cbea/wyoming-economy/natural-resources/), which is lower in sulfur than Eastern coal. It only produces 3% of the country's oil (https://www.uwyo.edu/cbea/wyoming-economy/natural-resources/). I don't know how much natural gas Wyoming produces, but it didn't fall within the top 15 states for production (https://www.statista.com/statistics/1184356/us-leading-natural-gas-energy-producing-states/). Wyoming did produce the most uranium in the US (https://www.wyomingmining.org/minerals/uranium/), but that was still minimal as the US is not among the top 10 countries (https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/uranium-production-by-country) in uranium production and I don't know the last time a new reactor was commissioned in the US.
The only natural resource of significance is coal, a natural resource that is going out of use around the world especially in the US. The only Wyoming natural resources the East does care about are Yellowstone, Jackson Hole, and Devil's Tower.
Quote from: skluth on February 25, 2022, 12:47:19 PM
I don't know the last time a new reactor was commissioned in the US.
Ask The Navy. ;)
Fun fact about Wyoming: it's the only state where the President of the United States cannot set aside public lands under the Antiquities Act to create new national preserves. It was part of a compromise in order to protect the Grand Tetons as a national park, which the locals vehemently (and short-sightedly) opposed. Today, Wyoming is the only state where the state legislature must be on board to form any new national park from existing federal lands.
Quote from: triplemultiplex on February 25, 2022, 03:33:58 PM
Fun fact about Wyoming: it's the only state where the President of the United States cannot set aside public lands under the Antiquities Act to create new national preserves. It was part of a compromise in order to protect the Grand Tetons as a national park, which the locals vehemently (and short-sightedly) opposed. Today, Wyoming is the only state where the state legislature must be on board to form any new national park from existing federal lands.
Technically, a President can create a national monument, then it takes an act of Congress to promote to National Park status. But I presume that the state legislature in WY has to get on board with either scenario?
The only spot I can think of that could use some preservation is Hell's Half Acre. But then again, maybe they'd want a full acre of Hell first?
Quote from: kwellada on February 25, 2022, 03:51:52 PM
Quote from: triplemultiplex on February 25, 2022, 03:33:58 PM
Fun fact about Wyoming: it's the only state where the President of the United States cannot set aside public lands under the Antiquities Act to create new national preserves. It was part of a compromise in order to protect the Grand Tetons as a national park, which the locals vehemently (and short-sightedly) opposed. Today, Wyoming is the only state where the state legislature must be on board to form any new national park from existing federal lands.
Technically, a President can create a national monument, then it takes an act of Congress to promote to National Park status. But I presume that the state legislature in WY has to get on board with either scenario?
The only spot I can think of that could use some preservation is Hell's Half Acre. But then again, maybe they'd want a full acre of Hell first?
Yeah the Antiquities Act is for National Monuments; Hell's Half Acre is fine being a county park, no one really visits and it's in the middle of nowhere.
Quote from: SD Mapman on February 25, 2022, 04:05:54 PM
Quote from: kwellada on February 25, 2022, 03:51:52 PM
Quote from: triplemultiplex on February 25, 2022, 03:33:58 PM
Fun fact about Wyoming: it's the only state where the President of the United States cannot set aside public lands under the Antiquities Act to create new national preserves. It was part of a compromise in order to protect the Grand Tetons as a national park, which the locals vehemently (and short-sightedly) opposed. Today, Wyoming is the only state where the state legislature must be on board to form any new national park from existing federal lands.
Technically, a President can create a national monument, then it takes an act of Congress to promote to National Park status. But I presume that the state legislature in WY has to get on board with either scenario?
The only spot I can think of that could use some preservation is Hell's Half Acre. But then again, maybe they'd want a full acre of Hell first?
Yeah the Antiquities Act is for National Monuments; Hell's Half Acre is fine being a county park, no one really visits and it's in the middle of nowhere.
To be honest, after Yellowstone and Grand Teton, Wyoming dropped the mic. There isn't an acre of other land in Wyoming worth the effort to elevate to NP status whether the state legislature's involved or not.
Quote from: DenverBrian on February 26, 2022, 12:58:23 AM
Quote from: SD Mapman on February 25, 2022, 04:05:54 PM
Quote from: kwellada on February 25, 2022, 03:51:52 PM
Quote from: triplemultiplex on February 25, 2022, 03:33:58 PM
Fun fact about Wyoming: it's the only state where the President of the United States cannot set aside public lands under the Antiquities Act to create new national preserves. It was part of a compromise in order to protect the Grand Tetons as a national park, which the locals vehemently (and short-sightedly) opposed. Today, Wyoming is the only state where the state legislature must be on board to form any new national park from existing federal lands.
Technically, a President can create a national monument, then it takes an act of Congress to promote to National Park status. But I presume that the state legislature in WY has to get on board with either scenario?
The only spot I can think of that could use some preservation is Hell's Half Acre. But then again, maybe they'd want a full acre of Hell first?
Yeah the Antiquities Act is for National Monuments; Hell's Half Acre is fine being a county park, no one really visits and it's in the middle of nowhere.
To be honest, after Yellowstone and Grand Teton, Wyoming dropped the mic. There isn't an acre of other land in Wyoming worth the effort to elevate to NP status whether the state legislature's involved or not.
Ah, but if you get enough environmental lobbyists involved in Washington DC, all of a sudden some reasons appear to elevate a vast swath of land that just so happens to include the site of a proposed coal mine to national monument status...
If the Bighorns were in Cali, they'd be a national monument by now, on the path to becoming a national park.
Not because of any natural resources (they're mostly boring sandstones and limestones with no oil or gas) but because of the intrinsic beauty and wildlife habitat.
Quote from: US 89 on February 26, 2022, 01:48:37 AM
Quote from: DenverBrian on February 26, 2022, 12:58:23 AM
Quote from: SD Mapman on February 25, 2022, 04:05:54 PM
Quote from: kwellada on February 25, 2022, 03:51:52 PM
Quote from: triplemultiplex on February 25, 2022, 03:33:58 PM
Fun fact about Wyoming: it's the only state where the President of the United States cannot set aside public lands under the Antiquities Act to create new national preserves. It was part of a compromise in order to protect the Grand Tetons as a national park, which the locals vehemently (and short-sightedly) opposed. Today, Wyoming is the only state where the state legislature must be on board to form any new national park from existing federal lands.
Technically, a President can create a national monument, then it takes an act of Congress to promote to National Park status. But I presume that the state legislature in WY has to get on board with either scenario?
The only spot I can think of that could use some preservation is Hell's Half Acre. But then again, maybe they'd want a full acre of Hell first?
Yeah the Antiquities Act is for National Monuments; Hell's Half Acre is fine being a county park, no one really visits and it's in the middle of nowhere.
To be honest, after Yellowstone and Grand Teton, Wyoming dropped the mic. There isn't an acre of other land in Wyoming worth the effort to elevate to NP status whether the state legislature's involved or not.
Ah, but if you get enough environmental lobbyists involved in Washington DC, all of a sudden some reasons appear to elevate a vast swath of land that just so happens to include the site of a proposed coal mine to national monument status...
Sounds like a very similar situation that happened in southern Utah in September 1996...
Quote from: Rover_0 on February 27, 2022, 01:28:35 AM
Sounds like a very similar situation that happened in southern Utah in September 1996...
Bears Ears and Grand Staircase-Escalante are amazing places that absolutely need preservation status. Not everything needs to be destroyed for short term profit.
Quote from: kwellada on February 28, 2022, 12:12:55 PM
Quote from: Rover_0 on February 27, 2022, 01:28:35 AM
Sounds like a very similar situation that happened in southern Utah in September 1996...
Bears Ears and Grand Staircase-Escalante are amazing places that absolutely need preservation status. Not everything needs to be destroyed for short term profit.
It wouldn't hurt to actually work with those whose livelihoods are going to be affected the most. Last time I checked, most locals agree that Bears Ears and Grand Staircase-Escalante need some level of preserving–just not not on the scale of 1M+ acres or having the decisions on land use be made from thousands of miles away.
Quote from: Rover_0 on February 28, 2022, 02:02:05 PM
Quote from: kwellada on February 28, 2022, 12:12:55 PM
Quote from: Rover_0 on February 27, 2022, 01:28:35 AM
Sounds like a very similar situation that happened in southern Utah in September 1996…
Bears Ears and Grand Staircase-Escalante are amazing places that absolutely need preservation status. Not everything needs to be destroyed for short term profit.
It wouldn’t hurt to actually work with those whose livelihoods are going to be affected the most. Last time I checked, most locals agree that Bears Ears and Grand Staircase-Escalante need some level of preserving—just not not on the scale of 1M+ acres or having the decisions on land use be made from thousands of miles away.
"Destroyed for short-term profit" is a tremendous oversimplification of what's going on in these places anyway. There are some awesome places within both monuments, but it should go without saying that huge proclamations like Bears Ears and Grand Staircase are not really what the Antiquities Act was designed to do. The law was originally passed mostly to protect archaeological sites, the raiding and vandalism of which was apparently a huge problem around the turn of the century. It also says that designated monuments are supposed to be confined to the smallest area possible that allows for proper care and preservation of whatever is being protected.
I'm not opposed to national monuments like this in the slightest, nor am I opposed to an expansion of what sorts of protections should be allowed. I've been to some fascinating petroglyph sites and ancient ruins in Bears Ears, for example, and there's no question those need to be protected. Same with other nearby monuments like Cedar Breaks and Natural Bridges. But it's pretty clear that "smallest area possible" wasn't really a thing with Grand Staircase and Bears Ears, the scale of which is far beyond the things they are supposed to be protecting. Basically as far as I'm concerned, if your national monument is so big it has to be managed by the BLM instead of the NPS, it's probably too big. And it's not a huge jump to see that these were politically motivated decisions influenced by certain lobbyists and special interest groups, many of whom probably haven't even been to the regions in question.
In an area where most people are already wary of "big government", any far-reaching decisions made by "out-of-touch" bureaucrats in offices 2000 miles away aren't going to go over well. Grand Staircase particularly pissed off a lot of people in Utah on both sides of the political aisle as its designation was a complete surprise and was proclaimed by Bill Clinton during a 1996 campaign speech... in Arizona. Unsurprisingly, Utah rewarded Clinton with his second-lowest share of the popular vote in any state (behind only Alaska). And since then, the negative economic impacts that monument has had on an already struggling part of Utah have not been small. Garfield County, in which only 5% of land is privately held, has been losing population for years now and was the only Utah county to lose population in 2021. This op-ed written a few years back when the former president first downsized the monuments (https://www.deseret.com/2018/5/20/20645361/op-ed-why-southern-utah-went-to-court-over-grand-staircase-escalante) was pretty eye-opening personally.
I had no idea Wyoming had a carved-out exemption to the Antiquities Act. I'm curious how many Utah politicians are aware of this or whether or not that's something they might want to pursue for their own state.
Quote from: US 89 on February 28, 2022, 02:50:11 PM
I had no idea Wyoming had a carved-out exemption to the Antiquities Act. I'm curious how many Utah politicians are aware of this or whether or not that's something they might want to pursue for their own state.
It only came to be in Wyoming because of the fight over the national interest in preserving the Tetons. If Utah wants the same arrangement, they're going to have to be in a situation where they need to compromise on some area to be preserved by the Feds that is not currently set aside. Otherwise, there is no incentive for the Feds to cede that authority to a state.
The public involvement process with Bears Ears took three years and was a massive coordination effort. It wasn't established out of the blue. My source is the consultant who facilitated it.
Republicans totally undermined the process, wrote their own story about what happened and then got Trump to reduce the monument in size.
And that was the real travesty.
Quote from: US 89 on February 28, 2022, 02:50:11 PM
Quote from: Rover_0 on February 28, 2022, 02:02:05 PM
Quote from: kwellada on February 28, 2022, 12:12:55 PM
Quote from: Rover_0 on February 27, 2022, 01:28:35 AM
Sounds like a very similar situation that happened in southern Utah in September 1996...
Bears Ears and Grand Staircase-Escalante are amazing places that absolutely need preservation status. Not everything needs to be destroyed for short term profit.
It wouldn't hurt to actually work with those whose livelihoods are going to be affected the most. Last time I checked, most locals agree that Bears Ears and Grand Staircase-Escalante need some level of preserving–just not not on the scale of 1M+ acres or having the decisions on land use be made from thousands of miles away.
"Destroyed for short-term profit" is a tremendous oversimplification of what's going on in these places anyway. There are some awesome places within both monuments, but it should go without saying that huge proclamations like Bears Ears and Grand Staircase are not really what the Antiquities Act was designed to do. The law was originally passed mostly to protect archaeological sites, the raiding and vandalism of which was apparently a huge problem around the turn of the century. It also says that designated monuments are supposed to be confined to the smallest area possible that allows for proper care and preservation of whatever is being protected.
I'm not opposed to national monuments like this in the slightest, nor am I opposed to an expansion of what sorts of protections should be allowed. I've been to some fascinating petroglyph sites and ancient ruins in Bears Ears, for example, and there's no question those need to be protected. Same with other nearby monuments like Cedar Breaks and Natural Bridges. But it's pretty clear that "smallest area possible" wasn't really a thing with Grand Staircase and Bears Ears, the scale of which is far beyond the things they are supposed to be protecting. Basically as far as I'm concerned, if your national monument is so big it has to be managed by the BLM instead of the NPS, it's probably too big. And it's not a huge jump to see that these were politically motivated decisions influenced by certain lobbyists and special interest groups, many of whom probably haven't even been to the regions in question.
In an area where most people are already wary of "big government", any far-reaching decisions made by "out-of-touch" bureaucrats in offices 2000 miles away aren't going to go over well. Grand Staircase particularly pissed off a lot of people in Utah on both sides of the political aisle as its designation was a complete surprise and was proclaimed by Bill Clinton during a 1996 campaign speech... in Arizona. Unsurprisingly, Utah rewarded Clinton with his second-lowest share of the popular vote in any state (behind only Alaska). And since then, the negative economic impacts that monument has had on an already struggling part of Utah have not been small. Garfield County, in which only 5% of land is privately held, has been losing population for years now and was the only Utah county to lose population in 2021. This op-ed written a few years back when the former president first downsized the monuments (https://www.deseret.com/2018/5/20/20645361/op-ed-why-southern-utah-went-to-court-over-grand-staircase-escalante) was pretty eye-opening personally.
I had no idea Wyoming had a carved-out exemption to the Antiquities Act. I'm curious how many Utah politicians are aware of this or whether or not that's something they might want to pursue for their own state.
Clinton (or any Democrat) was never going to win Utah anyway, so he didn't lose anything that he would have otherwise had.
Quote from: kkt on March 01, 2022, 12:59:01 AM
Clinton (or any Democrat) was never going to win Utah anyway, so he didn't lose anything that he would have otherwise had.
He lost his party a House seat. At the time, much of southern and eastern Utah including Grand Staircase was represented in Congress by Democrat Bill Orton, a two-term incumbent who had comfortably won both of his prior elections with around 60% of the popular vote. Orton was a vocal critic of the new monument, but it wasn't enough to save him from a narrow loss to Republican challenger Chris Cannon that year. No Democrat has represented the 3rd district since (though this is largely due to district boundary adjustments after the 2000 census).
Quote from: US 89 on March 01, 2022, 01:30:18 AM
Quote from: kkt on March 01, 2022, 12:59:01 AM
Clinton (or any Democrat) was never going to win Utah anyway, so he didn't lose anything that he would have otherwise had.
He lost his party a House seat. At the time, much of southern and eastern Utah including Grand Staircase was represented in Congress by Democrat Bill Orton, a two-term incumbent who had comfortably won both of his prior elections with around 60% of the popular vote. Orton was a vocal critic of the new monument, but it wasn't enough to save him from a narrow loss to Republican challenger Chris Cannon that year. No Democrat has represented the 3rd district since (though this is largely due to district boundary adjustments after the 2000 census).
Parentheses are the loud part...not that either party has a monopoly on gerrymandering.
SM-S908U
Update on this effort
Quote
The Move To Re-Route Interstate 80 Has Hit A Roadblock Because Of The $12.6 Billion Price Tag
Published on November 8, 2022November 8, 2022 in Interstate 80/News
By Wendy Corr, Cowboy State Daily
Interstate 80 between Cheyenne and Rawlins, particularly around the areas of Walcott Junction and Elk Mountain between Laramie and Rawlins, is beyond treacherous in the winter. Strong winds and snow accumulation force that section of busy interstate into frequent closures during the winter.
That's why Wyoming Department of Transportation (WYDOT) Director Luke Reiner has suggested moving the interstate to a path parallel to U.S. Highway 30 north of its current route.
With an anticipated price tag between $6.1 and $12.6 billion, however, the idea has hit a roadblock.
Funding Is Key
Reiner told Cowboy State Daily that with large projects, even though federal money will account for the bulk of the funding, there is generally a requirement that matching funds be provided from the private sector or state.
"With most of the big grants that we get, the federal government typically kicks in 90%, and we kick in 10%," he said.
So even 10% of what the project would cost could run anywhere from about $600 million to more than $1.2 billion, which is not feasible considering the state's current budget, Reiner said.
Also, those estimates were made in 2020 before supply chain and inflation issues have spiked construction costs.
"And obviously the price has gone up since then, because prices aren't going down," he said. "We just don't have the capability to match that large of a project."
The notion of re-routing I-80 isn't dead, however.
"I've been to a couple conferences, and when I bring it up people have listened," said Reiner. "But the right person with the deep checkbook has not come up and said, "˜Hey, we love that, how about we just fund it?'"
Rest of article here (https://cowboystatedaily.com/2022/11/08/the-move-to-re-route-interstate-80-has-hit-a-roadblock-because-of-the-12-6-billion-price-tag/)
Still think the cheapest option is to build a truck bypass of Laramie and then leave the road as-is for a closure alternate route.
Quote from: SD Mapman on November 09, 2022, 10:18:04 PM
Still think the cheapest option is to build a truck bypass of Laramie and then leave the road as-is for a closure alternate route.
I don't think it needs to be a full freeway, but four-laning US 30 from Walcott to Laramie would be good when the interstate does close due to weather.
Quote from: skluth on November 09, 2022, 10:32:14 PM
Quote from: SD Mapman on November 09, 2022, 10:18:04 PM
Still think the cheapest option is to build a truck bypass of Laramie and then leave the road as-is for a closure alternate route.
I don't think it needs to be a full freeway, but four-laning US 30 from Walcott to Laramie would be good when the interstate does close due to weather.
Rock River to Bosler is actually already 4-lane divided (it's surreal to drive, an interstate-quality road with no traffic whatsoever if you hit it right).
Another issue with this plan that I just thought of is Telephone Canyon east of Laramie, which is an under-reported closure area. In my experience, if I-80 west from Laramie was closed, usually I-80 east was as well. Upgrading US 30 so that the Snow Chi Minh Trail can be avoided only means the trucks get stuck in Laramie instead of Rawlins.
Quote from: SD Mapman on November 09, 2022, 10:18:04 PM
Still think the cheapest option is to build a truck bypass of Laramie and then leave the road as-is for a closure alternate route.
It's already there: Get off I-80 at Curtis St (Exit 310), then go head out of Laramie on 3rd st (US 30-287). No need for construction AT ALL.
Quote from: MCRoads on February 07, 2022, 11:14:50 AM
These might be even more impractical than rerouting the interstate, but…
Ok, so if wind is the problem, the Netherlands has a sol!
(https://www.marineinsight.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/Rozenburg-Wind-Wall.jpg)
Or, you could build a snow shed over the problematic areas. It works for railroads, so why can’t it work for regular roads?
Snowsheds can be EXPENSIVE, too. The former Great Northern Railway (now part of BNSF) drilled their Cascade (base) tunnel in Washington (state) during the late 1920s in large part due to the fact that the snowsheds that kept their old route through Stevens Pass and the original Cascade Tunnel open in winter were fantastically expensive to maintain and that they were literally driving the company into insolvency. The Cascades can sop an incredible amount of moisture out of the air that comes in from the Pacific Ocean. East of the Cascades, the climate is semi-arid. Had that tunnel not been completed and placed in service in early 1929, the railroad company could well have run out of money and been taken over by someone else.
Mike
I thought the issue here was they were shutting down US-30 whenever they closed I-80 to prevent the excess traffic. Did I just imagine that?
Giving the price tag of this proposal, I doubt it will come to fruition. Surely the state of Wyoming can do something that improves the corridor, but does not cost billions of dollars.
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on November 10, 2022, 04:20:30 PM
I thought the issue here was they were shutting down US-30 whenever they closed I-80 to prevent the excess traffic. Did I just imagine that?
Yeah, that's why it closes. They don't want full I-80 traffic on two lanes through Rock River, driving through the Laramie street grid (N. 3rd is four lanes but Curtis is only two, plus during the winter Laramie's population jumps by 12,000 due to students).
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on November 10, 2022, 04:32:47 PM
Giving the price tag of this proposal, I doubt it will come to fruition. Surely the state of Wyoming can do something that improves the corridor, but does not cost billions of dollars.
I mean the issue here is that this is a long stretch, 100+ miles. Even a small improvement is going to be expensive just due to the amount of road they'd have to upgrade.
^ Bypass the towns and widen rural areas were needed to 4 lanes. A full controlled access upgrade is most certainly not needed.
Quote from: SD Mapman on November 09, 2022, 10:47:05 PM
Quote from: skluth on November 09, 2022, 10:32:14 PM
Quote from: SD Mapman on November 09, 2022, 10:18:04 PM
Still think the cheapest option is to build a truck bypass of Laramie and then leave the road as-is for a closure alternate route.
I don't think it needs to be a full freeway, but four-laning US 30 from Walcott to Laramie would be good when the interstate does close due to weather.
Rock River to Bosler is actually already 4-lane divided (it's surreal to drive, an interstate-quality road with no traffic whatsoever if you hit it right).
Another issue with this plan that I just thought of is Telephone Canyon east of Laramie, which is an under-reported closure area. In my experience, if I-80 west from Laramie was closed, usually I-80 east was as well. Upgrading US 30 so that the Snow Chi Minh Trail can be avoided only means the trucks get stuck in Laramie instead of Rawlins.
Just curious. When all that happens, does US 287 between Laramie and Fort Collins also typically close. I'm guessing it does, but if it's open it does give long distance traffic an alternative as drivers can then head east on I-70 instead of I-80.
Quote from: skluth on November 16, 2022, 06:08:15 PM
Quote from: SD Mapman on November 09, 2022, 10:47:05 PM
Quote from: skluth on November 09, 2022, 10:32:14 PM
Quote from: SD Mapman on November 09, 2022, 10:18:04 PM
Still think the cheapest option is to build a truck bypass of Laramie and then leave the road as-is for a closure alternate route.
I don't think it needs to be a full freeway, but four-laning US 30 from Walcott to Laramie would be good when the interstate does close due to weather.
Rock River to Bosler is actually already 4-lane divided (it's surreal to drive, an interstate-quality road with no traffic whatsoever if you hit it right).
Another issue with this plan that I just thought of is Telephone Canyon east of Laramie, which is an under-reported closure area. In my experience, if I-80 west from Laramie was closed, usually I-80 east was as well. Upgrading US 30 so that the Snow Chi Minh Trail can be avoided only means the trucks get stuck in Laramie instead of Rawlins.
Just curious. When all that happens, does US 287 between Laramie and Fort Collins also typically close. I'm guessing it does, but if it's open it does give long distance traffic an alternative as drivers can then head east on I-70 instead of I-80.
Many times they will both close, but not always. Only I-80 will close many times and I will have to take the long way around to get from Cheyenne to Laramie via Owl Canyon near Ft. Collins
Quote from: ski-man on November 16, 2022, 07:15:54 PM
Quote from: skluth on November 16, 2022, 06:08:15 PM
Quote from: SD Mapman on November 09, 2022, 10:47:05 PM
Quote from: skluth on November 09, 2022, 10:32:14 PM
Quote from: SD Mapman on November 09, 2022, 10:18:04 PM
Still think the cheapest option is to build a truck bypass of Laramie and then leave the road as-is for a closure alternate route.
I don't think it needs to be a full freeway, but four-laning US 30 from Walcott to Laramie would be good when the interstate does close due to weather.
Rock River to Bosler is actually already 4-lane divided (it's surreal to drive, an interstate-quality road with no traffic whatsoever if you hit it right).
Another issue with this plan that I just thought of is Telephone Canyon east of Laramie, which is an under-reported closure area. In my experience, if I-80 west from Laramie was closed, usually I-80 east was as well. Upgrading US 30 so that the Snow Chi Minh Trail can be avoided only means the trucks get stuck in Laramie instead of Rawlins.
Just curious. When all that happens, does US 287 between Laramie and Fort Collins also typically close. I'm guessing it does, but if it's open it does give long distance traffic an alternative as drivers can then head east on I-70 instead of I-80.
Many times they will both close, but not always. Only I-80 will close many times and I will have to take the long way around to get from Cheyenne to Laramie via Owl Canyon near Ft. Collins
Yeah, it depends on how bad the snow is; Telephone Canyon (80) is at ~8600 feet and Pumpkin Vine (287) is at ~8000 feet with less terrain. Usually the only way out of Laramie that's consistently open is 230 west toward Walden, CO, which is ultimately useless (though I did have a friend of mine go to Fort Collins via Walden and Poudre Canyon so as to not miss his flight at DIA one time and it worked perfectly).
Quote from: zachary_amaryllis on February 03, 2022, 10:41:12 AM
unrelated... but i absolutely love laramie. i'm a train fanatic, and you have that cool footbridge over the yard downtown. haven't been there for years, sad i'm since only 60 miles SE of you...
There are two similar (but shorter) tiny truss bridges over the BN-SF railroad tracks in Minot, North Dakota:
http://bridgehunter.com/nd/ward/anne-pedestrian/
http://bridgehunter.com/nd/ward/bh43077/
Quote from: ski-man on November 16, 2022, 07:15:54 PM
Quote from: skluth on November 16, 2022, 06:08:15 PM
Quote from: SD Mapman on November 09, 2022, 10:47:05 PM
Quote from: skluth on November 09, 2022, 10:32:14 PM
Quote from: SD Mapman on November 09, 2022, 10:18:04 PM
Still think the cheapest option is to build a truck bypass of Laramie and then leave the road as-is for a closure alternate route.
I don't think it needs to be a full freeway, but four-laning US 30 from Walcott to Laramie would be good when the interstate does close due to weather.
Rock River to Bosler is actually already 4-lane divided (it's surreal to drive, an interstate-quality road with no traffic whatsoever if you hit it right).
Another issue with this plan that I just thought of is Telephone Canyon east of Laramie, which is an under-reported closure area. In my experience, if I-80 west from Laramie was closed, usually I-80 east was as well. Upgrading US 30 so that the Snow Chi Minh Trail can be avoided only means the trucks get stuck in Laramie instead of Rawlins.
Just curious. When all that happens, does US 287 between Laramie and Fort Collins also typically close. I'm guessing it does, but if it's open it does give long distance traffic an alternative as drivers can then head east on I-70 instead of I-80.
Many times they will both close, but not always. Only I-80 will close many times and I will have to take the long way around to get from Cheyenne to Laramie via Owl Canyon near Ft. Collins
Seems like CO and WY don't always communcate about this. There have been times when 287 is closed in colorado (I live west on 14, and make my turn right at the closure point in CO), but open in WY, and vice versa.
Quote from: zachary_amaryllis on November 28, 2022, 06:01:37 AM
Quote from: ski-man on November 16, 2022, 07:15:54 PM
Quote from: skluth on November 16, 2022, 06:08:15 PM
Quote from: SD Mapman on November 09, 2022, 10:47:05 PM
Quote from: skluth on November 09, 2022, 10:32:14 PM
Quote from: SD Mapman on November 09, 2022, 10:18:04 PM
Still think the cheapest option is to build a truck bypass of Laramie and then leave the road as-is for a closure alternate route.
I don't think it needs to be a full freeway, but four-laning US 30 from Walcott to Laramie would be good when the interstate does close due to weather.
Rock River to Bosler is actually already 4-lane divided (it's surreal to drive, an interstate-quality road with no traffic whatsoever if you hit it right).
Another issue with this plan that I just thought of is Telephone Canyon east of Laramie, which is an under-reported closure area. In my experience, if I-80 west from Laramie was closed, usually I-80 east was as well. Upgrading US 30 so that the Snow Chi Minh Trail can be avoided only means the trucks get stuck in Laramie instead of Rawlins.
Just curious. When all that happens, does US 287 between Laramie and Fort Collins also typically close. I'm guessing it does, but if it's open it does give long distance traffic an alternative as drivers can then head east on I-70 instead of I-80.
Many times they will both close, but not always. Only I-80 will close many times and I will have to take the long way around to get from Cheyenne to Laramie via Owl Canyon near Ft. Collins
Seems like CO and WY don't always communcate about this. There have been times when 287 is closed in colorado (I live west on 14, and make my turn right at the closure point in CO), but open in WY, and vice versa.
When I was in Laramie, they seemed like they were lined up pretty well. I would go to church in Fort Collins, so I'm familiar with the fun times of 287. I ran the inaugural Narrowleaf Lake Run 4 Mile in Loveland, and a blizzard forced me to go back to Laramie via Ault, Cheyenne, and Wheatland (that was an adventure!)
Quote from: SD Mapman on November 29, 2022, 10:05:01 PM
Quote from: zachary_amaryllis on November 28, 2022, 06:01:37 AM
Quote from: ski-man on November 16, 2022, 07:15:54 PM
Quote from: skluth on November 16, 2022, 06:08:15 PM
Quote from: SD Mapman on November 09, 2022, 10:47:05 PM
Quote from: skluth on November 09, 2022, 10:32:14 PM
Quote from: SD Mapman on November 09, 2022, 10:18:04 PM
Still think the cheapest option is to build a truck bypass of Laramie and then leave the road as-is for a closure alternate route.
I don't think it needs to be a full freeway, but four-laning US 30 from Walcott to Laramie would be good when the interstate does close due to weather.
Rock River to Bosler is actually already 4-lane divided (it's surreal to drive, an interstate-quality road with no traffic whatsoever if you hit it right).
Another issue with this plan that I just thought of is Telephone Canyon east of Laramie, which is an under-reported closure area. In my experience, if I-80 west from Laramie was closed, usually I-80 east was as well. Upgrading US 30 so that the Snow Chi Minh Trail can be avoided only means the trucks get stuck in Laramie instead of Rawlins.
Just curious. When all that happens, does US 287 between Laramie and Fort Collins also typically close. I'm guessing it does, but if it's open it does give long distance traffic an alternative as drivers can then head east on I-70 instead of I-80.
Many times they will both close, but not always. Only I-80 will close many times and I will have to take the long way around to get from Cheyenne to Laramie via Owl Canyon near Ft. Collins
Seems like CO and WY don't always communcate about this. There have been times when 287 is closed in colorado (I live west on 14, and make my turn right at the closure point in CO), but open in WY, and vice versa.
When I was in Laramie, they seemed like they were lined up pretty well. I would go to church in Fort Collins, so I'm familiar with the fun times of 287. I ran the inaugural Narrowleaf Lake Run 4 Mile in Loveland, and a blizzard forced me to go back to Laramie via Ault, Cheyenne, and Wheatland (that was an adventure!)
I made a semi-frenetic video of myself driving there. Sped up the video (if my math is right, scale speed is 160 or so mph), and set it to a face-melting soundtrack. If you're feeling adventurous: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lHMmNCXlsHk (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lHMmNCXlsHk)
It's a fun ride, tho the Camry is not the fastest thing on the hills. I think the weather on the Laramie side of the hill can be vastly different than the weather on my side of the hill, too.
Quote from: zachary_amaryllis on December 03, 2022, 08:30:04 PM
It's a fun ride, tho the Camry is not the fastest thing on the hills. I think the weather on the Laramie side of the hill can be vastly different than the weather on my side of the hill, too.
Mildly amused by the white minivan on your side of the double yellow at about 3:10...
Quote from: davewiecking on December 03, 2022, 09:49:03 PM
Quote from: zachary_amaryllis on December 03, 2022, 08:30:04 PM
It's a fun ride, tho the Camry is not the fastest thing on the hills. I think the weather on the Laramie side of the hill can be vastly different than the weather on my side of the hill, too.
Mildly amused by the white minivan on your side of the double yellow at about 3:10...
A lot of people have been. As far as I can tell (because I wondered about that when I drove that day), that's a legit legal move, at least in Colorado. My understanding is that it varies state-to-state whether you can pass in the face of oncoming liike that. Colorado does that 3-lane thing a lot, and that's legit here. It can be a little un-nerving if you're not expecting it, but that's a textbook case of "KREPT, and this is why".
Quote from: zachary_amaryllis on December 04, 2022, 06:30:13 AM
Quote from: davewiecking on December 03, 2022, 09:49:03 PM
Quote from: zachary_amaryllis on December 03, 2022, 08:30:04 PM
It's a fun ride, tho the Camry is not the fastest thing on the hills. I think the weather on the Laramie side of the hill can be vastly different than the weather on my side of the hill, too.
Mildly amused by the white minivan on your side of the double yellow at about 3:10...
A lot of people have been. As far as I can tell (because I wondered about that when I drove that day), that's a legit legal move, at least in Colorado. My understanding is that it varies state-to-state whether you can pass in the face of oncoming liike that. Colorado does that 3-lane thing a lot, and that's legit here. It can be a little un-nerving if you're not expecting it, but that's a textbook case of "KREPT, and this is why".
I wasn't aware this was legal anywhere. It definitely isn't in Utah, which is full of signs proclaiming "no passing when oncoming traffic is in either lane" and I've seen other variants of the sign in other places as well. Could swear I've seen something to that effect in Colorado, but maybe not...
Quote from: US 89 on December 04, 2022, 09:36:55 AM
Quote from: zachary_amaryllis on December 04, 2022, 06:30:13 AM
Quote from: davewiecking on December 03, 2022, 09:49:03 PM
Quote from: zachary_amaryllis on December 03, 2022, 08:30:04 PM
It's a fun ride, tho the Camry is not the fastest thing on the hills. I think the weather on the Laramie side of the hill can be vastly different than the weather on my side of the hill, too.
Mildly amused by the white minivan on your side of the double yellow at about 3:10...
A lot of people have been. As far as I can tell (because I wondered about that when I drove that day), that's a legit legal move, at least in Colorado. My understanding is that it varies state-to-state whether you can pass in the face of oncoming liike that. Colorado does that 3-lane thing a lot, and that's legit here. It can be a little un-nerving if you're not expecting it, but that's a textbook case of "KREPT, and this is why".
I wasn't aware this was legal anywhere. It definitely isn't in Utah, which is full of signs proclaiming "no passing when oncoming traffic is in either lane" and I've seen other variants of the sign in other places as well. Could swear I've seen something to that effect in Colorado, but maybe not...
This is a little intriguing. The Colo driver's manual makes no reference to that situation, other than 'if the dotted line is on your side, you can pass if safe to do so". Signage in those areas really just says 'KREPT' on the uphill (two lane) side, and nothing other than the dotted line on the downhill side. My read is that it's legit, unless unsafe to do so. I've personally done it a million times, and works well given the huge visibility in these areas.
Quote from: US 89 on December 04, 2022, 09:36:55 AM
Quote from: zachary_amaryllis on December 04, 2022, 06:30:13 AM
Quote from: davewiecking on December 03, 2022, 09:49:03 PM
Quote from: zachary_amaryllis on December 03, 2022, 08:30:04 PM
It's a fun ride, tho the Camry is not the fastest thing on the hills. I think the weather on the Laramie side of the hill can be vastly different than the weather on my side of the hill, too.
Mildly amused by the white minivan on your side of the double yellow at about 3:10...
A lot of people have been. As far as I can tell (because I wondered about that when I drove that day), that's a legit legal move, at least in Colorado. My understanding is that it varies state-to-state whether you can pass in the face of oncoming liike that. Colorado does that 3-lane thing a lot, and that's legit here. It can be a little un-nerving if you're not expecting it, but that's a textbook case of "KREPT, and this is why".
I wasn't aware this was legal anywhere. It definitely isn't in Utah, which is full of signs proclaiming "no passing when oncoming traffic is in either lane" and I've seen other variants of the sign in other places as well. Could swear I've seen something to that effect in Colorado, but maybe not...
Michigan has similar signs, but I think they may be disappearing as sign replacements are done (M-115 specifically comes to mind) so I wonder if the law has changed here.
The reason I think it's really dangerous to allow such a maneuver is that if I'm driving in the right lane on the 2-lane half and I'm behind a slow car, if I have a dashed white line on my left, I should not have to look for conflicting oncoming traffic ahead of me. I would think people who might want to cross a dotted white line should have priority over people who might want to cross a dotted yellow, especially because the passing lanes are often coordinated with terrain where there's more likely to be slower traffic.
If you allow that, you might as well stripe it as a true suicide passing lane where neither direction has the right of way, which I can't imagine is allowed in the US anymore...
Quote from: zachary_amaryllis on December 04, 2022, 10:29:49 AM
Quote from: US 89 on December 04, 2022, 09:36:55 AM
Quote from: zachary_amaryllis on December 04, 2022, 06:30:13 AM
Quote from: davewiecking on December 03, 2022, 09:49:03 PM
Quote from: zachary_amaryllis on December 03, 2022, 08:30:04 PM
It's a fun ride, tho the Camry is not the fastest thing on the hills. I think the weather on the Laramie side of the hill can be vastly different than the weather on my side of the hill, too.
Mildly amused by the white minivan on your side of the double yellow at about 3:10...
A lot of people have been. As far as I can tell (because I wondered about that when I drove that day), that's a legit legal move, at least in Colorado. My understanding is that it varies state-to-state whether you can pass in the face of oncoming liike that. Colorado does that 3-lane thing a lot, and that's legit here. It can be a little un-nerving if you're not expecting it, but that's a textbook case of "KREPT, and this is why".
I wasn't aware this was legal anywhere. It definitely isn't in Utah, which is full of signs proclaiming "no passing when oncoming traffic is in either lane" and I've seen other variants of the sign in other places as well. Could swear I've seen something to that effect in Colorado, but maybe not...
This is a little intriguing. The Colo driver's manual makes no reference to that situation, other than 'if the dotted line is on your side, you can pass if safe to do so". Signage in those areas really just says 'KREPT' on the uphill (two lane) side, and nothing other than the dotted line on the downhill side. My read is that it's legit, unless unsafe to do so. I've personally done it a million times, and works well given the huge visibility in these areas.
Was it a dashed line for the other side? I thought it was a double yellow, but looking at it closely, I suppose it could be either.
Quote from: CtrlAltDel on December 04, 2022, 11:01:43 AM
Quote from: zachary_amaryllis on December 04, 2022, 10:29:49 AM
Quote from: US 89 on December 04, 2022, 09:36:55 AM
Quote from: zachary_amaryllis on December 04, 2022, 06:30:13 AM
Quote from: davewiecking on December 03, 2022, 09:49:03 PM
Quote from: zachary_amaryllis on December 03, 2022, 08:30:04 PM
It's a fun ride, tho the Camry is not the fastest thing on the hills. I think the weather on the Laramie side of the hill can be vastly different than the weather on my side of the hill, too.
Mildly amused by the white minivan on your side of the double yellow at about 3:10…
A lot of people have been. As far as I can tell (because I wondered about that when I drove that day), that's a legit legal move, at least in Colorado. My understanding is that it varies state-to-state whether you can pass in the face of oncoming liike that. Colorado does that 3-lane thing a lot, and that's legit here. It can be a little un-nerving if you're not expecting it, but that's a textbook case of "KREPT, and this is why".
I wasn’t aware this was legal anywhere. It definitely isn’t in Utah, which is full of signs proclaiming “no passing when oncoming traffic is in either lane” and I’ve seen other variants of the sign in other places as well. Could swear I’ve seen something to that effect in Colorado, but maybe not…
This is a little intriguing. The Colo driver's manual makes no reference to that situation, other than 'if the dotted line is on your side, you can pass if safe to do so". Signage in those areas really just says 'KREPT' on the uphill (two lane) side, and nothing other than the dotted line on the downhill side. My read is that it's legit, unless unsafe to do so. I've personally done it a million times, and works well given the huge visibility in these areas.
Was it a dashed line for the other side? I thought it was a double yellow, but looking at it closely, I suppose it could be either.
It was. Usually in the 3-lane sections, unless there's a good reason for there NOT to allow a pass, it's dashed. This was nearing the top of a long grade.
Quick edit: Colorado driver's manual https://drive.google.com/file/d/1r9ZJQ8QWzRFe1gvdfA9fGNrssAO-sCmb/view (https://drive.google.com/file/d/1r9ZJQ8QWzRFe1gvdfA9fGNrssAO-sCmb/view)
Quote from: US 89 on December 04, 2022, 10:53:52 AM
The reason I think it's really dangerous to allow such a maneuver is that if I'm driving in the right lane on the 2-lane half and I'm behind a slow car, if I have a dashed white line on my left, I should not have to look for conflicting oncoming traffic ahead of me. I would think people who might want to cross a dotted white line should have priority over people who might want to cross a dotted yellow, especially because the passing lanes are often coordinated with terrain where there's more likely to be slower traffic.
If you allow that, you might as well stripe it as a true suicide passing lane where neither direction has the right of way, which I can't imagine is allowed in the US anymore...
And I can see this being why it's not universally allowed. On roads like this, at least out here, they're wide open, even going down the mountain passes, you have great sight distance, and not huge amounts of oncoming traffic. We all saw each other, and it was a non-event. I can see this being very different, say out east, or in more populated areas. People who have ridden with me, who aren't from around here have looked at me oddly when I've made this sort of pass.
One thing that almost seems undefined, is which side has priority? My read, is the uphill side (who has a white-dashed line) has priority, meaning it's incumbent on the downhill side to yield.
On the mountain passes, sometimes one gets behind a truck who in many cases has different speed constraints than I do. This specific area isn't the case, but Wolf Creek has a different speed limit for cars and trucks. I have a little more maneuverability etc. in a smaller car, so I can zip around him when safe to do so, and happens all the time without incident. The car coming uphill sees this, is hopefully KREPT-ing (and on the passes, pretty much everyone does), and it's really a non-event. If I look down, and see a pass taking place on the uphill side, then I just wait.
unrelated, but sort of related: To the truck drivers who manage to keep their s--t together on these passes, the utmost in respect.
Quote from: zachary_amaryllis on December 03, 2022, 08:30:04 PM
I made a semi-frenetic video of myself driving there. Sped up the video (if my math is right, scale speed is 160 or so mph), and set it to a face-melting soundtrack. If you're feeling adventurous: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lHMmNCXlsHk (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lHMmNCXlsHk)
It's a fun ride, tho the Camry is not the fastest thing on the hills. I think the weather on the Laramie side of the hill can be vastly different than the weather on my side of the hill, too.
Thanks for sharing this. I rather enjoyed it, and I'm not one who is a fan of the sped up and played in conjunction with music type of road videos that are rather prolific on YouTube. There was a few songs that I hadn't heard in a long time, including Ministry "Just One Fix" I had completely forgotten about that song, but was quickly reminded as it began. The scenery was enjoyable as well. :nod:
Quote from: wanderer2575 on December 04, 2022, 10:45:38 AM
Michigan has similar signs, but I think they may be disappearing as sign replacements are done (M-115 specifically comes to mind) so I wonder if the law has changed here.
No. Basically, nothing has changed. Doesn't matter which lane opposing traffic is in - it's still opposing traffic.
257.638 Overtaking and passing on left of another vehicle; violation as civil infraction.
Sec. 638.
(1) A vehicle shall not be driven to the left side of the center of a 2-lane highway or in the center lane of a 3-lane highway in overtaking and passing another vehicle proceeding in the same direction unless the left side or center lane is clearly visible and is free of oncoming traffic for a sufficient distance ahead to permit the overtaking and passing to be completely made without interfering with the safe operation of a vehicle approaching from the opposite direction or the vehicle overtaken.
(2) A person who violates this section is responsible for a civil infraction.https://www.legislature.mi.gov/(S(yk33jqbo4cxxzw0pidzsubag))/mileg.aspx?page=GetObject&objectname=mcl-257-638 (https://www.legislature.mi.gov/(S(yk33jqbo4cxxzw0pidzsubag))/mileg.aspx?page=GetObject&objectname=mcl-257-638)
Quote from: zachary_amaryllis on December 04, 2022, 06:30:13 AM
Quote from: davewiecking on December 03, 2022, 09:49:03 PM
Quote from: zachary_amaryllis on December 03, 2022, 08:30:04 PM
It's a fun ride, tho the Camry is not the fastest thing on the hills. I think the weather on the Laramie side of the hill can be vastly different than the weather on my side of the hill, too.
Mildly amused by the white minivan on your side of the double yellow at about 3:10...
A lot of people have been. As far as I can tell (because I wondered about that when I drove that day), that's a legit legal move, at least in Colorado. My understanding is that it varies state-to-state whether you can pass in the face of oncoming liike that. Colorado does that 3-lane thing a lot, and that's legit here. It can be a little un-nerving if you're not expecting it, but that's a textbook case of "KREPT, and this is why".
Relevant section from that Colorado driver handbook:
Do not pass:
- If you cannot safely return to the right-hand side
before coming within 200 feet of an oncoming vehicle,
including a bicyclist in the oncoming lane or shoulder.That Prius clearly is breaking the law here. You're the oncoming vehicle. Said Prius driver is blatantly within that 200 foot limit.
The explanation in the driver handbook is not clear that it applies to both oncoming lanes, but it doesn't clearly exclude it either.
Quote from: JREwing78 on December 04, 2022, 04:21:36 PM
Quote from: zachary_amaryllis on December 04, 2022, 06:30:13 AM
Quote from: davewiecking on December 03, 2022, 09:49:03 PM
Quote from: zachary_amaryllis on December 03, 2022, 08:30:04 PM
It's a fun ride, tho the Camry is not the fastest thing on the hills. I think the weather on the Laramie side of the hill can be vastly different than the weather on my side of the hill, too.
Mildly amused by the white minivan on your side of the double yellow at about 3:10...
A lot of people have been. As far as I can tell (because I wondered about that when I drove that day), that's a legit legal move, at least in Colorado. My understanding is that it varies state-to-state whether you can pass in the face of oncoming liike that. Colorado does that 3-lane thing a lot, and that's legit here. It can be a little un-nerving if you're not expecting it, but that's a textbook case of "KREPT, and this is why".
Relevant section from that Colorado driver handbook:
Do not pass:
- If you cannot safely return to the right-hand side
before coming within 200 feet of an oncoming vehicle,
including a bicyclist in the oncoming lane or shoulder.
That Prius clearly is breaking the law here. You're the oncoming vehicle. Said Prius driver is blatantly within that 200 foot limit.
The explanation in the driver handbook is not clear that it applies to both oncoming lanes, but it doesn't clearly exclude it either.
I read that part too, and it seemed vague. Oh well. It occurs to me that I encounter a state trooper all the time at Teds when I get coffee -- next time I see him I'll ask where he's at. It's actually an interesting question because if you're right, I've been a bad man.
Quote from: zachary_amaryllis on December 04, 2022, 08:49:28 PM
Quote from: JREwing78 on December 04, 2022, 04:21:36 PM
Quote from: zachary_amaryllis on December 04, 2022, 06:30:13 AM
Quote from: davewiecking on December 03, 2022, 09:49:03 PM
Quote from: zachary_amaryllis on December 03, 2022, 08:30:04 PM
It's a fun ride, tho the Camry is not the fastest thing on the hills. I think the weather on the Laramie side of the hill can be vastly different than the weather on my side of the hill, too.
Mildly amused by the white minivan on your side of the double yellow at about 3:10...
A lot of people have been. As far as I can tell (because I wondered about that when I drove that day), that's a legit legal move, at least in Colorado. My understanding is that it varies state-to-state whether you can pass in the face of oncoming liike that. Colorado does that 3-lane thing a lot, and that's legit here. It can be a little un-nerving if you're not expecting it, but that's a textbook case of "KREPT, and this is why".
Relevant section from that Colorado driver handbook:
Do not pass:
- If you cannot safely return to the right-hand side
before coming within 200 feet of an oncoming vehicle,
including a bicyclist in the oncoming lane or shoulder.
That Prius clearly is breaking the law here. You're the oncoming vehicle. Said Prius driver is blatantly within that 200 foot limit.
The explanation in the driver handbook is not clear that it applies to both oncoming lanes, but it doesn't clearly exclude it either.
I read that part too, and it seemed vague. Oh well. It occurs to me that I encounter a state trooper all the time at Teds when I get coffee -- next time I see him I'll ask where he's at. It's actually an interesting question because if you're right, I've been a bad man.
Nearly everyone who's lived in that area has been bad then (including me once or twice).
Well, the simple solution would be simply to stripe the lane double yellow solid, indicating no passing from either direction. But they don't. So it seems to me that they're allowing passing into the faux chicken lane in that instance.
"Within 200 feet of an oncoming vehicle" seems quite vague. An oncoming vehicle in the adjacent lane? In any lane? I don't think troopers would ever ticket for it, and if they did, it'd be an interesting court session.
Quote from: DenverBrian on December 05, 2022, 10:19:47 PM
Well, the simple solution would be simply to stripe the lane double yellow solid, indicating no passing from either direction. But they don't. So it seems to me that they're allowing passing into the faux chicken lane in that instance.
The problem with that, and I've encountered this a lot in Texas particularly, is that when you stripe it double solid when there's two lanes in the other direction, you could be on the single lane side, on a straightaway for miles, no cars in the other directions, but not allowed to pass. Sometimes for 2-4 mile at a time, or it doesn't ever give your side a passing lane.
Quote from: sprjus4 on December 06, 2022, 02:47:02 AM
Quote from: DenverBrian on December 05, 2022, 10:19:47 PM
Well, the simple solution would be simply to stripe the lane double yellow solid, indicating no passing from either direction. But they don't. So it seems to me that they're allowing passing into the faux chicken lane in that instance.
The problem with that, and I've encountered this a lot in Texas particularly, is that when you stripe it double solid when there's two lanes in the other direction, you could be on the single lane side, on a straightaway for miles, no cars in the other directions, but not allowed to pass. Sometimes for 2-4 mile at a time, or it doesn't ever give your side a passing lane.
For 287 in particular, this wouldn't be a problem; I don't think there was a time I took it and there wasn't consistent traffic going the other direction (not super heavy, but consistent).
Quote from: SD Mapman on December 11, 2022, 09:59:44 AM
Quote from: sprjus4 on December 06, 2022, 02:47:02 AM
Quote from: DenverBrian on December 05, 2022, 10:19:47 PM
Well, the simple solution would be simply to stripe the lane double yellow solid, indicating no passing from either direction. But they don't. So it seems to me that they're allowing passing into the faux chicken lane in that instance.
The problem with that, and I’ve encountered this a lot in Texas particularly, is that when you stripe it double solid when there’s two lanes in the other direction, you could be on the single lane side, on a straightaway for miles, no cars in the other directions, but not allowed to pass. Sometimes for 2-4 mile at a time, or it doesn’t ever give your side a passing lane.
For 287 in particular, this wouldn't be a problem; I don't think there was a time I took it and there wasn't consistent traffic going the other direction (not super heavy, but consistent).
287 really should just be four lanes the whole way from Laramie to Fort Collins. Wyoming has made a decent start at that. Colorado has not.
Quote from: US 89 on December 11, 2022, 10:43:40 AM
Quote from: SD Mapman on December 11, 2022, 09:59:44 AM
Quote from: sprjus4 on December 06, 2022, 02:47:02 AM
Quote from: DenverBrian on December 05, 2022, 10:19:47 PM
Well, the simple solution would be simply to stripe the lane double yellow solid, indicating no passing from either direction. But they don't. So it seems to me that they're allowing passing into the faux chicken lane in that instance.
The problem with that, and I've encountered this a lot in Texas particularly, is that when you stripe it double solid when there's two lanes in the other direction, you could be on the single lane side, on a straightaway for miles, no cars in the other directions, but not allowed to pass. Sometimes for 2-4 mile at a time, or it doesn't ever give your side a passing lane.
For 287 in particular, this wouldn't be a problem; I don't think there was a time I took it and there wasn't consistent traffic going the other direction (not super heavy, but consistent).
287 really should just be four lanes the whole way from Laramie to Fort Collins. Wyoming has made a decent start at that. Colorado has not.
I've never understood that, but am willing to defer to someone who knows more than I.
Like, was CO so strapped for cash at the time, that they could only afford to add passing lanes in some areas? That road all the way through, is this weird mishmosh of passing lanes, and 2-lanes. I agree with 89 - consistent, but not necessarily always thick. The day I took that drive was the day of the Border War, so southbound was a little thicker than usual.
And they really seem to get that people get aggressive through here. There's all kinds of 'passing lane x-miles' signs, at the end of the passing lanes. Almost like CDOT's going 'ok, you'll get 'im on the next one ... patience..'
But yeah. 4-lane it. And fix the weird undulations on the NB side just S of Teds.
Quote from: zachary_amaryllis on December 11, 2022, 04:46:30 PM
Quote from: US 89 on December 11, 2022, 10:43:40 AM
Quote from: SD Mapman on December 11, 2022, 09:59:44 AM
Quote from: sprjus4 on December 06, 2022, 02:47:02 AM
Quote from: DenverBrian on December 05, 2022, 10:19:47 PM
Well, the simple solution would be simply to stripe the lane double yellow solid, indicating no passing from either direction. But they don't. So it seems to me that they're allowing passing into the faux chicken lane in that instance.
The problem with that, and I've encountered this a lot in Texas particularly, is that when you stripe it double solid when there's two lanes in the other direction, you could be on the single lane side, on a straightaway for miles, no cars in the other directions, but not allowed to pass. Sometimes for 2-4 mile at a time, or it doesn't ever give your side a passing lane.
For 287 in particular, this wouldn't be a problem; I don't think there was a time I took it and there wasn't consistent traffic going the other direction (not super heavy, but consistent).
287 really should just be four lanes the whole way from Laramie to Fort Collins. Wyoming has made a decent start at that. Colorado has not.
I've never understood that, but am willing to defer to someone who knows more than I.
Like, was CO so strapped for cash at the time, that they could only afford to add passing lanes in some areas? That road all the way through, is this weird mishmosh of passing lanes, and 2-lanes. I agree with 89 - consistent, but not necessarily always thick. The day I took that drive was the day of the Border War, so southbound was a little thicker than usual.
And they really seem to get that people get aggressive through here. There's all kinds of 'passing lane x-miles' signs, at the end of the passing lanes. Almost like CDOT's going 'ok, you'll get 'im on the next one ... patience..'
But yeah. 4-lane it. And fix the weird undulations on the NB side just S of Teds.
CDOT leadership is anti-road and anti-highway. 287 will likely never be four-laned, but there will be another municipal bike path that CDOT funds instead.
By way of an update: Talked to the state trooper I always see at Teds. He confirms, that the Prius in question was in fact, in violation (showed him the video), but unless such pass is being done in a blatantly unsafe way, he does not enforce it.
When I asked what 'blatantly unsafe' meant to him, he said that he would not have bothered the Prius, since no one had to dodge/brake/dive for the ditch/etc, and everyone was KREPT-ing. He also said, other troopers might see this differently.
Quote from: zachary_amaryllis on December 15, 2022, 07:43:00 AM
By way of an update: Talked to the state trooper I always see at Teds. He confirms, that the Prius in question was in fact, in violation (showed him the video), but unless such pass is being done in a blatantly unsafe way, he does not enforce it.
When I asked what 'blatantly unsafe' meant to him, he said that he would not have bothered the Prius, since no one had to dodge/brake/dive for the ditch/etc, and everyone was KREPT-ing. He also said, other troopers might see this differently.
I'm going to hazard a guess that his counterparts in Michigan and Wisconsin would also "see this differently". But clearly it's enough of a convention that people in Colorado expect it and drive accordingly. Ditto for driving on the paved shoulder to allow slower traffic to pass - very common in Texas, but nonexistent in my neck of the woods.
Quote from: zachary_amaryllis on December 11, 2022, 04:46:30 PM
And they really seem to get that people get aggressive through here. There's all kinds of 'passing lane x-miles' signs, at the end of the passing lanes. Almost like CDOT's going 'ok, you'll get 'im on the next one ... patience..'
MDOT (Michigan) is similarly aggressive with these signs and the frequency of passing lanes on US-2 between Escanaba and St. Ignace. I will say the aggressive 4-lane passing lane buildout has made this stretch far less road-rage inducing than it once was, and the reminder signs are helpful in planning your next passing attempt.
MDOT also at one point had to post signs reminding folks that US-2 is not a freeway. For most WBD US-2 travelers, US-2 is the first long stretch of non-Interstate highway they've driven in several hours. It's also wide (with fully paved shoulders) and fairly level, so drivers are prone to speed. At the time, it was posted for 55 (it's now 65), so driving at 70+mph there guaranteed you a speeding ticket from the State Police.
Quote from: JREwing78 on December 16, 2022, 04:10:03 AM
I'm going to hazard a guess that his counterparts in Michigan and Wisconsin would also "see this differently". But clearly it's enough of a convention that people in Colorado expect it and drive accordingly. Ditto for driving on the paved shoulder to allow slower traffic to pass - very common in Texas, but nonexistent in my neck of the woods.
When it comes to Wisconsin, they seem to encourage left lane camping and discourage anything associated with expedient driving. People up here literally get pissed off if passed in a passing zone, and you've politely signaled while doing it. The cops are no different. I once got pulled over on I-94 near Osseo for doing 77 in a 70! Talk about being a dick. And the trooper's effeminate cheesehead accent didn't help matters as far as creating a positive impression either. So, I have no doubt that you speak the truth. That said, Colorado drivers are also 10 times more skilled than Wisconsinites. And I've lived in both.
A column by editor Bill Sniffin ran in the Cowboy State Daily about the controversial section of I-80 between Walcott Junction and Laramie including a brief history of its nickname as well as challenges with keeping it open during the winter: https://cowboystatedaily.com/2022/12/08/bill-sniffin-worst-winter-road-in-america-who-named-our-snow-chi-minh-trail/
Here are some excerpts:
Quote"Dear God, please help us get through this awful mess of a highway. If you get us through safely, so help me, we will never do anything bad again."
Prayers like this and many more variants emanate from folks in a long line of cars stranded in blizzards on a horrible stretch of winter highway dubbed the "Snow Chi Minh Trail" — aka Interstate 80.
Like so many Wyomingites, our family has been there so many times.
This area is commonly referred to in the last four decades as the "Snow Chi Minh Trail." Where did that name come from? ...
John Waggener, an archivist and historian for the American Heritage Center at the University of Wyoming, is my go-to expert. He wrote the recent best-selling book "Snow Chi Minh Trail," and he now has tracked down the origin of the name. ...
With his latest research, he now cites famed Denver Post columnist Red Fenwick with referring to the road as follows. Fenwick wrote it is a "White Elephant," of course referring to the snow and to a road that Wyoming now had to deal with. He called it the Ho Chi Minh Trail.
Then, pointing to the Vietnam reference, he said folks in the Laramie-Rawlins area "call it that not because it is so frequently bombed, but because southern Wyomingites are convinced that the engineers who designed it were bombed. "˜Bombed' is a silly synonym for plastered, zonked, crocked.'"
Fenwick wrote this Feb. 21, 1971. ...
Wyoming people have complained for 51 years about the location of the road. Anybody with local knowledge knew that the current mountain route was a disaster, especially in the six months of winter. They all preferred the current route of U.S. Highway 30.
Waggener has done more research than anyone on that road and he recently sent me a few more nuggets that he thought would be interesting to our readers.
For example, Waggener writes:
"I had heard stories about an earlier survey for a route that was even closer to the mountain! I did find a reference to this, so I did make note in my book but nothing more than that. However, since my book came out in the fall of 2020, I have now confirmed there was such a survey. I even was given the actual survey roll by one of the survey crew members. I have made a scan of a portion of it and it is published here.
"This survey shows the Feds actually had a proposal to locate the road south of the town of Elk Mountain. The road literally would have passed at the foot of Elk Mountain via Halleck Pass. The road would have been several miles closer to Elk Mountain where the snow and blowing snow impact would have been even greater.
"You will see on the late 1950s survey a red line, which is the route that eventually was selected and a proposed "˜blue line' that passes south of the town of Elk Mountain."
It is hard to imagine the level of stubbornness that would cause national officials to make these stupid decisions about the site of the roadway. We all have paid the price for this ever since.
This column points back to earlier statements Mr. Sniffin made about Interstate 80 in a November 2022 article also referenced here: https://cowboystatedaily.com/2022/11/29/bill-sniffin-terrifying-tales-of-treacherous-driving-on-interstate-80-in-the-winter-time/. He spoke with historian John Waggener to learn more about the route of I-80 through this area:
QuoteAnd then there is John Waggener's great book about Interstate 80, which he calls the Snow Chi Minh Trail, explains why federal highway officials picked the mountainous site rather than the longer U.S. Highway 30 route.
He recalls there were some very stubborn federal officials, headed by a rockhead named Frank Turner, who were obsessed with the new road cutting off 19 "unnecessary miles," compared to the route used by U. S. 30 through Rock River and Medicine Bow.
He writes that Wyoming people fought valiantly in the 1960s to keep the new road out of the mountains. The federal people would not listen to them and threatened to not build it, unless it could be built on their route through the mountains.
Waggener says there are other places in Wyoming along Interstate 80 that offer problems, such as the summit between Laramie and Cheyenne, but nothing compares to that daunting 77-mile trip from Laramie to Walcott Junction.
Old-timers recall a famous CBS TV newsman named Charles Kuralt, whose specialty was traveling the country and reporting on out-of-the-way places.
He famously declared that the stretch from Laramie-Walcott Junction was "the worst stretch of interstate highway in America."
Waggener also discloses the Union Pacific Railroad chose not to build along this route because of the obvious wind and the snow issues.
He reveals studies, which explained why there are such vicious winds near the Elk Mountain area. Due to the gap next to the mountain being the lowest elevation of the Rocky Mountains, wind blows at abnormally high velocities as the air rushes through there, causing havoc in the roads and stirring up the large amounts of snow that pile up.
The stubbornness of Federal officials can be explained by the rationale that the fewer miles they had to build for a given interstate, the more mileage they had available to give to another route. Given the volume of requests they had for Interstate mileage even in the 1950s (let alone with the 1968 addition), this seems reasonable. Of course, we now see the results of that.
Quote from: froggie on March 10, 2023, 12:16:22 PM
The stubbornness of Federal officials can be explained by the rationale that the fewer miles they had to build for a given interstate, the more mileage they had available to give to another route. Given the volume of requests they had for Interstate mileage even in the 1950s (let alone with the 1968 addition), this seems reasonable. Of course, we now see the results of that.
And it was a flyover state requesting the additional miles. I could see some East Coast bureaucrat looking at the numbers and thinking "Why does the middle of nowhere need more Interstate miles? Just draw a straight line as best you can and get it over with."
Quote from: SD Mapman on March 10, 2023, 09:13:33 PM
Quote from: froggie on March 10, 2023, 12:16:22 PM
The stubbornness of Federal officials can be explained by the rationale that the fewer miles they had to build for a given interstate, the more mileage they had available to give to another route. Given the volume of requests they had for Interstate mileage even in the 1950s (let alone with the 1968 addition), this seems reasonable. Of course, we now see the results of that.
And it was a flyover state requesting the additional miles. I could see some East Coast bureaucrat looking at the numbers and thinking "Why does the middle of nowhere need more Interstate miles? Just draw a straight line as best you can and get it over with."
The Federal bureaucrats would be more likely than not to favor the small population states. Wyoming may not have enough people to make even one burrough of New York, but they've still got two senators.
Quote from: kkt on March 10, 2023, 09:31:40 PM
Quote from: SD Mapman on March 10, 2023, 09:13:33 PM
Quote from: froggie on March 10, 2023, 12:16:22 PM
The stubbornness of Federal officials can be explained by the rationale that the fewer miles they had to build for a given interstate, the more mileage they had available to give to another route. Given the volume of requests they had for Interstate mileage even in the 1950s (let alone with the 1968 addition), this seems reasonable. Of course, we now see the results of that.
And it was a flyover state requesting the additional miles. I could see some East Coast bureaucrat looking at the numbers and thinking "Why does the middle of nowhere need more Interstate miles? Just draw a straight line as best you can and get it over with."
The Federal bureaucrats would be more likely than not to favor the small population states. Wyoming may not have enough people to make even one burrough of New York, but they've still got two senators.
That only works if the senators notice and raise a stink about it. I'm surprised someone from the area didn't try to get Congress involved.