Colorado

[zachary_amaryllis]

Not a huge deal, but I really never get the chance to drive with strictly this intent.

Mother and I went to Black Hawk, and for something different, we drove up 119 from Boulder through Nederland and came down what I've always considered to be the 'back' way to Black Hawk.

If I can ever dope out an easy way to post pictures, I have them.

But, it filled in the last chunk of 119 I'd missed. Yay, us.

[Plutonic Panda]

I never had even heard of Blackhawk before I went camping in Nederland and when I first the towering buildings in the mountains driving west on CO 119 I was stunned. I had to take it in and believe what I was seeing at first lol. Awesome town!

[zachary_amaryllis]

I never had even heard of Blackhawk before I went camping in Nederland and when I first the towering buildings in the mountains driving west on CO 119 I was stunned. I had to take it in and believe what I was seeing at first lol. Awesome town!

It looks really weird to see all those buildings shoehorned into such a narrow spot in the canyon. Lost my shirt in the casino, but had a good time, and a fun drive.

[andy3175]

The Glenwood Springs Post-Independent reports that CDOT will hold two public meetings to present and discuss plans for the Cottonwood Pass upgrade:
https://www.postindependent.com/news/open-house-meetings-next-week-to-review-cottonwood-pass-concept-designs/

Two public meetings are slated next week, one in Glenwood Springs and another in Gypsum, to introduce conceptual plans for improving Cottonwood Pass as an alternative east-west route for local passenger-vehicle traffic during Interstate 70 closures through Glenwood Canyon.

The first open-house format meeting is set to take place from 5:30-7:30 p.m. Tuesday at the Glenwood Springs Community Center.

The second meeting is set for 5-7 p.m. Wednesday at the Gypsum Town Hall Council Chamber, 50 Lundgren Blvd.

... "CDOT is reviewing safety improvement options for 14 identified locations, six in Eagle County and eight in Garfield County,"  the release states. "These locations were selected by the counties based on known safety issues."

... Project planners are developing what's called a "context sensitive design"  for the route that invites the local entities, affected property owners and others to be a part of the process, planners have said in meetings with county officials.

... Those unable to attend the meeting in person can visit the project web page at http://www.codot.gov/projects/cottonwood-pass-concept-design. Comments can be submitted via an online comment form.

The design process is not expected to be completed until early 2023. It will be up to Garfield and Eagle county commissioners to determine next steps for implementing the proposed improvements, the release states.

Vehicles take turns navigating the narrows section of Cottonwood Pass at Blue Hill on the Eagle County side during the Interstate 70 closure in summer 2021 due to flooding in Glenwood Canyon.

I-70 Glenwood Canyon bypass plan moving forward on Cottonwood Pass

Two open house presentations by the Colorado Department of Transportation are scheduled next week to unveil concept designs to the public.

Author: Scott Weiser (Denver Gazette)

Published: 2:50 PM MDT March 17, 2023

https://denvergazette.com/news/transportation/i70-glenwood-canyon-bypass/article_acc43f00-c298-11ed-8576-77584b258f07.html?ana=9news

The narrow, winding, often impassable dirt road between Gypsum and Glenwood Springs used by drivers to get around emergency closures of I-70 through Glenwood Canyon looks like it might be getting safety improvements – eventually. Two open house presentations by the Colorado Department of Transportation are scheduled next week to unveil concept designs to the public.

CDOT is supporting Eagle and Garfield counties with initial concepts for safety improvements to the county roads. Drivers frustrated with rock and mudslide closures of I-70 through Glenwood Canyon discovered the route saved them hours of driving the CDOT-approved 220-mile detour through Silverthorne, Steamboat Springs, Craig, Meeker and Rifle – sometimes.

Traditionally, Cottonwood Pass has been a route for knowledgeable locals commuting between the Roaring Fork and the Eagle valleys, but only when road and weather conditions allow. The pass is closed in winter.

Parts of the road are one-lane and can be impassable when wet due to mud. Precipitous drops with no guard rails on the Gypsum side have taken lives. ...

The conceptual planning process got underway last year with CDOT taking the lead, even though the road is a county responsibility and not a state highway. While CDOT is assisting with the planning and engineering, Eagle and Garfield counties will be responsible for paying for the work and will have to find funding for it.

"If improvements move forward, they would be designed and constructed by the counties as funding becomes available,"  according to a CDOT press release announcing the meetings. "Funding for next steps has not been secured at this time, although CDOT and the counties continue to explore grant and other funding opportunities."

The open house meetings to introduce the public to conceptual designs to improve safety are scheduled for Wednesday, March 22 from 5:30 — 7:30 p.m. in Glenwood Springs at the Glenwood Springs Community Center and Thursday, March 23 from 5:00 — 7:00 p.m. at the Gypsum Town Hall Council Chamber, 50 Lundgren Boulevard.

SM-S908U

[zzcarp]

It's good to see them working on this. In the world of unlimited funding and "shoulds", this road would be ripe for an upgrade to a state highway under CDOT maintenance. I'd say that's basically impossible due to state politics and budget limitations.

[zzcarp]

Well, State Senator Faith Winter, who represents the Adams County side of Westminster, has introduced a new bill to expand use of speed revenue cameras throughout the state. 

SB 23-200 text is at the link.

[zachary_amaryllis]

When a state 'turns back' a highway, to a city or county, can the state 'reclaim' it?

The question's specific to my area. Harmony Road, in Fort Collins, was, up until [some recent time] CO 68. My understanding, is that it got turned back to Fort Collins, when its entire length was in city limits.

Yesterday, I drove out to Windsor, by taking Harmony (aka CR 38/CR 74) all the way to CO 257. It's 4-laned to within a mile or so of 257 now. It really seems to me like the state should take it back, since this thorofare now extends into two counties, and (as best as I can tell) is maintained by the City of Fort Collins, City of Timnath, and Weld County.

The artificial 45 mph speed limit... that's another thread.

How does that work, or does that even happen?

[SD Mapman]

When a state 'turns back' a highway, to a city or county, can the state 'reclaim' it?

The question's specific to my area. Harmony Road, in Fort Collins, was, up until [some recent time] CO 68. My understanding, is that it got turned back to Fort Collins, when its entire length was in city limits.

Yesterday, I drove out to Windsor, by taking Harmony (aka CR 38/CR 74) all the way to CO 257. It's 4-laned to within a mile or so of 257 now. It really seems to me like the state should take it back, since this thorofare now extends into two counties, and (as best as I can tell) is maintained by the City of Fort Collins, City of Timnath, and Weld County.

I mean the Weld County Parkway (CR 47/49) isn't a state highway but after having driven it I can say it probably should be. I feel like the cities and counties of the northern Front Range can do a better job of road expansion than CDOT, IMO.

[zzcarp]

When a state 'turns back' a highway, to a city or county, can the state 'reclaim' it?

The question's specific to my area. Harmony Road, in Fort Collins, was, up until [some recent time] CO 68. My understanding, is that it got turned back to Fort Collins, when its entire length was in city limits.

Yesterday, I drove out to Windsor, by taking Harmony (aka CR 38/CR 74) all the way to CO 257. It's 4-laned to within a mile or so of 257 now. It really seems to me like the state should take it back, since this thorofare now extends into two counties, and (as best as I can tell) is maintained by the City of Fort Collins, City of Timnath, and Weld County.

I mean the Weld County Parkway (CR 47/49) isn't a state highway but after having driven it I can say it probably should be. I feel like the cities and counties of the northern Front Range can do a better job of road expansion than CDOT, IMO.

The counties, especially Weld County, are interested in roadway expansion. CDOT as it is presently constituted does not have roads as a priority and in some ways is anti-expansion.

[ski-man]

Seems like CDOT is only interested in expanding into pay lanes like all the Express Lanes they build now. Just want that income, which must be a nice chunk of change as Denver Metro tolls are some the highest I have seen in the country.

[Plutonic Panda]

Seems like CDOT is only interested in expanding into pay lanes like all the Express Lanes they build now. Just want that income, which must be a nice chunk of change as Denver Metro tolls are some the highest I have seen in the country.

Why do people in Colorado put up with that shit? Are they just that hopeless like people in SoCal thinking traffic will ever be fixed?

[JayhawkCO]

Seems like CDOT is only interested in expanding into pay lanes like all the Express Lanes they build now. Just want that income, which must be a nice chunk of change as Denver Metro tolls are some the highest I have seen in the country.

Why do people in Colorado put up with that shit? Are they just that hopeless like people in SoCal thinking traffic will ever be fixed?

IMHO, the traffic in Denver is a bit overrated if you ask me. Sure. I-25 sucks. Sucks hard. I-270 isn't great either. But nothing else is too bad by other big city standards. I-70, I-76, C-470, I-225 get a little slower, but they're normally not a death crawl. Either way, glad I don't commute.

[Plutonic Panda]

The worst IMO is 270 which I'm furiously intending on writing on a strongly worded letter to CDOT about adding only a toll lane for mainlines. Fucking bullshit.

[zachary_amaryllis]

When a state 'turns back' a highway, to a city or county, can the state 'reclaim' it?

The question's specific to my area. Harmony Road, in Fort Collins, was, up until [some recent time] CO 68. My understanding, is that it got turned back to Fort Collins, when its entire length was in city limits.

Yesterday, I drove out to Windsor, by taking Harmony (aka CR 38/CR 74) all the way to CO 257. It's 4-laned to within a mile or so of 257 now. It really seems to me like the state should take it back, since this thorofare now extends into two counties, and (as best as I can tell) is maintained by the City of Fort Collins, City of Timnath, and Weld County.

I mean the Weld County Parkway (CR 47/49) isn't a state highway but after having driven it I can say it probably should be. I feel like the cities and counties of the northern Front Range can do a better job of road expansion than CDOT, IMO.

The counties, especially Weld County, are interested in roadway expansion. CDOT as it is presently constituted does not have roads as a priority and in some ways is anti-expansion.

The road I speak of is nice, downright silky smooth, right till that last mile till 257, where it reverts back to it's original 2-lane form. The speed limit feels artificial at 45, but there could be a reason beyond what I know.

If I read you right - 'whoever' is maintaining it now, is doing a decent job - don't fix what's working? I guess it just surprises me that such a road has no consistent number, even at the county level (Larimer CR 38, Weld CR 74).

I can also see, since CDOT is sorta anti-expansion, maybe them wanting to take care of what they already have? The highway near my house is beat to all hell, for example.

[US 89]

Seems like CDOT is only interested in expanding into pay lanes like all the Express Lanes they build now. Just want that income, which must be a nice chunk of change as Denver Metro tolls are some the highest I have seen in the country.

Why do people in Colorado put up with that shit? Are they just that hopeless like people in SoCal thinking traffic will ever be fixed?

IMHO, the traffic in Denver is a bit overrated if you ask me. Sure. I-25 sucks. Sucks hard. I-270 isn't great either. But nothing else is too bad by other big city standards. I-70, I-76, C-470, I-225 get a little slower, but they're normally not a death 

I agree with this. I’ve found myself in Denver rush hour traffic on I-25 several times, in both directions. It certainly isn’t good, but I’ve been to several other cities with much worse. Atlanta has four interstates that congest as much as I-25 and a lame arterial road network that is full of two-lane winding roads (or 4-lane roads with no center turn lane, so have fun if someone’s turning left). Denver, on the other hand, has an awesome grid of good surface arterials to take some load off the freeways.

[zzcarp]

CDOT is asking for feedback on proposed "improvements" on US 287 in Broomfield. The study area is as shown below:


The first is between CO 121 and CO 128 where the highway 128 extension has removed much of the traffic from the diagonal stretch. They want to reduce it from four lanes to 3 with a left turn lane which makes some sense. What doesn't make sense to me is that they want to put mid-block crosswalks in when there is only residential properties that back up to the highway frontage on the northeast side. It would make much more sense to add crosswalks at the residential street crossings instead.



The second improvement is at the intersection of Sheridan and US 287/120th Avenue. This intersection has had consistent backups for the 17 years I've lived in Colorado. Concept 1 makes the most sense to me-adding the needed through lanes on 120th Avenue. They really should add a slip turn lane from WB to NB, but in this option they're not doing much "taking" from that gas station on the northeast corner.



Concept 2 is apparently the result of psilocybin mushroom legalization. It's a continuous flow intersection, but it gets rid of dedicated turn lanes on 120th (the much busier road), instead having shared through and turn lanes. Not to mention this one has a slip lane taking and access restrictions to the gas station in the NE quadrant. CDOT claims it will save 20s in the AM peak and 104s in the PM peak versus 13s AM and 75s PM in Concept 1. But I sure don't see how such a complex system is really going to save time-maybe the fewer phases will allow longer green times for through movements? To me it's just going to increase drive confusion and make traffic slower in my view.



In this blowup of Concept 2, Sheridan goes basically right (south) to left (north), while the much busier US 287/120th Avenue goes top (west) to bottom (east). At least I believe those are the directions based on the lack of a slip ramp in the NW quadrant due to the ancient Centurylink building there. But the lane assignments don't quite match the previous aerial so I cannot be sure.



Finally, they want to improve Lowell Blvd. at 120th. This intersection mostly works fine except for rush hour when apparently every kid has a parent dropping them off or picking them up.

The first concept makes sense as it improves the pedestrian refuges at the slip ramps.


The second concept makes less sense as it moves the bus stops into the intersection for "proposed future bus rapid transit". The 120E/W bus currently is not full and has hourly service most weekdays with half-hour service during rush hour. We'd be better off with a third through lane in each direction for all traffic than bus rapid transit with empty pavement sitting there unused for 58 minutes of every hour.



The study is open for comments through June 11.

[Plutonic Panda]

Article about why it's becoming harder and harder to build roads in Colorado mountain towns: https://www.vaildaily.com/news/why-its-harder-than-ever-for-colorado-mountain-towns-to-bid-its-construction-projects/

[Rothman]

Article about why it's becoming harder and harder to build roads in Colorado mountain towns: https://www.vaildaily.com/news/why-its-harder-than-ever-for-colorado-mountain-towns-to-bid-its-construction-projects/

No-bids?  Eesh.  I know that happens rarely in NY.  We usually at least get an outrageously priced single bidder for undesirable projects.

[will_e_777]

the I70 and Picadilly Road / Colfax interchange construction started yesterday:
https://www.9news.com/article/traffic/interstate-interchange-colorado/73-83d814bf-c4e8-4811-bb5b-f06e62ca6851

looks like it will also remove the left handed exit from westbound I70
project website:
https://www.auroragov.org/business_services/planning/projects__plans___studies/transportation_planning/i-70_picadilly_interchange

is it just me or is that diverging diamond too close to the intersection with East Colfax?

[JayhawkCO]

Bummer re: removing the exit to Colfax. I use that exit to get home when I drive back from KC. It's only a matter of time before it's all developed out that far I suppose.

[zzcarp]

This has been in the works for quite a while. At one point it was to be a parclo so WB 40-287-Bus I-70 would be free-flowing and the EB would keep its current straight-through merge. Now it's all going to be funneled through traffic lights and the DDI-art of CDOT's typical plans to make traffic worse. Of course when development makes it there (assuming there's enough water), Picadilly may be the heavier-traveled road than Colfax in that area.

[will_e_777]

yeah, it's only getting worse with the development out there.

Unless they keep that EB Colfax to EB 70 ramp in use, it will also end Colfax as the longest contiguous named street in the country; it would have that break in it east of Picadilly at the ramp location.

[will_e_777]

this happened today: https://www.koaa.com/news/covering-colorado/interstate-25-closed-in-both-directions-north-of-purcell-blvd-due-to-crash-involving-train

[edwaleni]

this happened today: https://www.koaa.com/news/covering-colorado/interstate-25-closed-in-both-directions-north-of-purcell-blvd-due-to-crash-involving-train

Coal train derailed. Took out bridge.

Killed a truck driver when bridge collapsed on him. Bridge was built in 1956 when CDOT built US-85 as a 4 lane from Pueblo to Denver.

[Bobby5280]

Holy shit. That just creeps me out; I've driven under that railroad bridge on I-25 a bunch of times. I feel really bad for the trucker that was killed in the bridge collapse. What a terrible way to go.

That portion of I-25 just North of Pueblo is one of the cheapest looking sections of that Interstate in all of Colorado. Hell, just South of the railroad bridge (at mile marker 107) there's a fake freeway exit to an access road. It's a freaking hard right turn. The only thing not making it an out an out at-grade intersection is there is no left turn access across the main lanes. Whatever that crap is, it's surely not Interstate quality.

Hopefully this tragic accident might bring some much needed attention to that part of I-25.